Here is, exactly quoted, what you said: "When a court cites a case without qualifying it, it means they agree with it wholly, adopt it, and incoporate it into their own text, without taking up all the physical text that would clutter a document and make it near impossible to read. " There is absolutely nothing in the Hernandez decision that supports your … interesting … proposition that a legal cite is a complete incorporation of another case. I’m so very proud of you to find a case that found that same sex marriage isn’t a fundamental right, but that has nothing to do with the misinformation about the effects of citing a prior decision.
As has been noted repeatedly, this is yet another sidetrack from the purpose of the thread, so I’ll be leaving you to whatever diversions you take this thread onto from here. I will note, though, that you also need to be aware of the difference between the majority opinion in a case, and a concurrence. Citing to a concurrence and intimating that it is the majority opinion doesn’t help your credibility.
What’s odd about it is that I quoted the Massachusetts opinion which legalized same-sex marriage and that opinion included Skinner. So apparently either Boston gays can reproduce or else his opinion about cites is wrong.
What distinguishes this “intellectual cyberbulling” from “disagreeing with you”?
It’s a cyber-lynching, to paraphrase one of the ostensible subjects of the thread’s topic.
First of all, I want an answer to my marriage proposal. I’m not getting any younger
And second, I find it oddly titillating that a guy who claims to have two casual girlfriends is standing up for protection of traditional marriage.
Third of all, we don’t really have to get married. We can just live together.
And lastly, all of what you say could be correct, gays could be ushering in the apocalypse as we speak, but all of that takes a backseat (heh heh) to the love between two people, especially men, because that will remove two more guys in my way as I go trolling for chicks in my douchebagmobile
I was going to quote that post and comment something about the probative value of making shit up, but thought better of it at the time…