The purpurse of the historical comment was to show that "historical reality", your term, is not a standard for continuing the violation of human rights.
You lost that point and as in other points you refuse to acknowledge the defeat. So I'm out again. Isn't that where we left off before?
You might want to ask yourself how an American could put themselves in such an untenable positions as to be so adamant in the restriction of the rights of other taxpaying Americans.
I'm quite responsive, I just don't agree that liberty & the pursuit of happiness encompass state recognition of same-sex "marriage". You act as if it's generally understood that it does. Not only did the authors of that "pursuit of happiness" phrase universally reject your assertion, but so have all the great philosophers of liberty throughout history, and the majority even of the electorate today.
Also, you equate recognizing freedom with approving abortion. Serious logic flaw, as I said before.
You can't have misread my post that badly. I was comparing the illegitimate and unconstitutional judicial aggression involved in both Roe and the MA & CA same-sex "marriage" rulings.
The purpurse of the historical comment was to show that "historical reality", your term, is not a standard for continuing the violation of human rights.
It's certainly a constitutional standard, which is why it took a constitutional amendment to end slavery, another one to give blacks the vote, etc. Someone like you didn't just pop up and announce that her position on human rights was the one we should all follow (regardless of the law), and then proceed to use force to impose her position on the rest of the country. Even after the Civil War, it was understood that the only way to legally end slavery was with a constitutional amendment. Not a judicial fiat (as in Roe and the MA & CA same-sex "marriage" rulings) but a real, legitimately ratified amendment.
You lost that point and as in other points you refuse to acknowledge the defeat.
You quite simply don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.
You might want to ask yourself how an American could put themselves in such an untenable positions as to be so adamant in the restriction of the rights of other taxpaying Americans.
Are you serious? You act as if same-sex "marriage" was the norm throughout history and that America then came along and placed themselves in the "untenable" position of not recognizing such relationships. Such "marriages" have not been historically recognized because they are not real and legitimate marriages and no healthy society would ever dream that they are.