9th Circuit Craps On Arizona Voters...AGAIN!

[bodecea]

Congratulations to Arizona for joining the long list of states who recognize gay marriages

Yep....having recently visited the Flagstaff area and with this decision, Arizona has made our list of possible places to retire to.

 

[rightwinger]

..All your bluster and strutting isn't worth anything.

Gay people will start getting married in Arizona very soon and there's not one thing you or anyone can do about it.

You can keep talking about leaving the union but it's not going to happen.

Meanwhile gay people will be getting married in Arizona soon....

Just as polygamists and others may do now that there is a dead law there as in so many other states. Thanks for lawless marriages Conservative Justices and AGs! You could've challenged this. You could've paid attention to the poll here and noted the 82% number opposed to gay marriage: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 174 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum You could've noticed the million likes on "Boycott A&E" Facebook page in less than 24 hours in support of Phil Robertson. You could've noticed the lines wrapping around the block at Chic Fil-A...

This silent majority is going to keep upsetting predictions until you ignore gay-sponsored polliing with leading questions [as the cult of LGBT rabidly promotes squelching of the popular vote...wonder why?...] and start paying attention to MANIFEST numbers opposed to gay marriage IN THE REAL WORLD.

You're not the majority anymore. The majority of the people in America support marriage equality.

Just because 1 million people out of over 300 million clicked on a poll on line doesn't equate to the majority of Americans not supporting marriage equality.

The issue isn't duck dynasty, chick fill A, or marriage in a church. The issue is marriage equality.

Not many people get married in a church these days. The last time I went to a wedding in a church was in the early 1990s.

Gay people aren't going to go where they're denied the marriage ceremony. They're going to go where someone will legally marry them. Whether they're married in a church or not, they're still just as married as any heterosexual couple.

You can bring up things that don't matter all you want but it's not going to make any difference.

Gay people will soon get legally married in Arizona and there's not one single thing you can do about it.

laws are repealed all the time.

Remember DOMA and DADT?

Remember the 18th amendment?

Good luck with that
Your ship has sailed

 

[Rotagilla]

Just as polygamists and others may do now that there is a dead law there as in so many other states. Thanks for lawless marriages Conservative Justices and AGs! You could've challenged this. You could've paid attention to the poll here and noted the 82% number opposed to gay marriage: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 174 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum You could've noticed the million likes on "Boycott A&E" Facebook page in less than 24 hours in support of Phil Robertson. You could've noticed the lines wrapping around the block at Chic Fil-A...

This silent majority is going to keep upsetting predictions until you ignore gay-sponsored polliing with leading questions [as the cult of LGBT rabidly promotes squelching of the popular vote...wonder why?...] and start paying attention to MANIFEST numbers opposed to gay marriage IN THE REAL WORLD.

You're not the majority anymore. The majority of the people in America support marriage equality.

Just because 1 million people out of over 300 million clicked on a poll on line doesn't equate to the majority of Americans not supporting marriage equality.

The issue isn't duck dynasty, chick fill A, or marriage in a church. The issue is marriage equality.

Not many people get married in a church these days. The last time I went to a wedding in a church was in the early 1990s.

Gay people aren't going to go where they're denied the marriage ceremony. They're going to go where someone will legally marry them. Whether they're married in a church or not, they're still just as married as any heterosexual couple.

You can bring up things that don't matter all you want but it's not going to make any difference.

Gay people will soon get legally married in Arizona and there's not one single thing you can do about it.

laws are repealed all the time.

Remember DOMA and DADT?

Remember the 18th amendment?

Good luck with that
Your ship has sailed

That's exactly what the prohibitionists said...before the law was repealed....

 

[Pop23]

You're not the majority anymore. The majority of the people in America support marriage equality.

Just because 1 million people out of over 300 million clicked on a poll on line doesn't equate to the majority of Americans not supporting marriage equality.

The issue isn't duck dynasty, chick fill A, or marriage in a church. The issue is marriage equality.

Not many people get married in a church these days. The last time I went to a wedding in a church was in the early 1990s.

Gay people aren't going to go where they're denied the marriage ceremony. They're going to go where someone will legally marry them. Whether they're married in a church or not, they're still just as married as any heterosexual couple.

You can bring up things that don't matter all you want but it's not going to make any difference.

Gay people will soon get legally married in Arizona and there's not one single thing you can do about it.

laws are repealed all the time.

Remember DOMA and DADT?

Remember the 18th amendment?

Good luck with that
Your ship has sailed

That's exactly what the prohibitionists said...before the law was repealed....

Correct

 

[Dana7360]

let 'em freeze in the dark when winter comes.

We'll become energy independent overnight and sell our oil to people who appreciate it.

And let em pound sand when they need our oranges and grapefruit to ward off their winter colds...heh heh

California grows oranges and grapefruit.

I buy them all the time.

Keep your oranges and grapefruits.

I would like to know how you're going to survive without imports from other nations. Those ships dock here in Washington, and in California.

Arizona doesn't have a port. You're not on an ocean.

Louisiana does..and we don't mind helping our brothers and sisters in arizona...

Louisiana isn't on an ocean. That's the Gulf of Mexico.

Like I said, good luck getting those ships to go all the way around Mexico to Central America and the Panama Canal.

If you can get some ships to do that, have fun paying the higher cost of shipping.

 

[Dana7360]

..All your bluster and strutting isn't worth anything.

Gay people will start getting married in Arizona very soon and there's not one thing you or anyone can do about it.

You can keep talking about leaving the union but it's not going to happen.

Meanwhile gay people will be getting married in Arizona soon....

Just as polygamists and others may do now that there is a dead law there as in so many other states. Thanks for lawless marriages Conservative Justices and AGs! You could've challenged this. You could've paid attention to the poll here and noted the 82% number opposed to gay marriage: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 174 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum You could've noticed the million likes on "Boycott A&E" Facebook page in less than 24 hours in support of Phil Robertson. You could've noticed the lines wrapping around the block at Chic Fil-A...

This silent majority is going to keep upsetting predictions until you ignore gay-sponsored polliing with leading questions [as the cult of LGBT rabidly promotes squelching of the popular vote...wonder why?...] and start paying attention to MANIFEST numbers opposed to gay marriage IN THE REAL WORLD.

You're not the majority anymore. The majority of the people in America support marriage equality.

Just because 1 million people out of over 300 million clicked on a poll on line doesn't equate to the majority of Americans not supporting marriage equality.

The issue isn't duck dynasty, chick fill A, or marriage in a church. The issue is marriage equality.

Not many people get married in a church these days. The last time I went to a wedding in a church was in the early 1990s.

Gay people aren't going to go where they're denied the marriage ceremony. They're going to go where someone will legally marry them. Whether they're married in a church or not, they're still just as married as any heterosexual couple.

You can bring up things that don't matter all you want but it's not going to make any difference.

Gay people will soon get legally married in Arizona and there's not one single thing you can do about it.

laws are repealed all the time.

Yes your law was repealed by the courts.

Which means that you can't repeal what the court has done.

You would have to amend the US constitution to include bigotry.

Good luck with that.

 

[Dana7360]

..All your bluster and strutting isn't worth anything.

Gay people will start getting married in Arizona very soon and there's not one thing you or anyone can do about it.

You can keep talking about leaving the union but it's not going to happen.

Meanwhile gay people will be getting married in Arizona soon....

Just as polygamists and others may do now that there is a dead law there as in so many other states. Thanks for lawless marriages Conservative Justices and AGs! You could've challenged this. You could've paid attention to the poll here and noted the 82% number opposed to gay marriage: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 174 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum You could've noticed the million likes on "Boycott A&E" Facebook page in less than 24 hours in support of Phil Robertson. You could've noticed the lines wrapping around the block at Chic Fil-A...

This silent majority is going to keep upsetting predictions until you ignore gay-sponsored polliing with leading questions [as the cult of LGBT rabidly promotes squelching of the popular vote...wonder why?...] and start paying attention to MANIFEST numbers opposed to gay marriage IN THE REAL WORLD.

You're not the majority anymore. The majority of the people in America support marriage equality.

Just because 1 million people out of over 300 million clicked on a poll on line doesn't equate to the majority of Americans not supporting marriage equality.

The issue isn't duck dynasty, chick fill A, or marriage in a church. The issue is marriage equality.

Not many people get married in a church these days. The last time I went to a wedding in a church was in the early 1990s.

Gay people aren't going to go where they're denied the marriage ceremony. They're going to go where someone will legally marry them. Whether they're married in a church or not, they're still just as married as any heterosexual couple.

You can bring up things that don't matter all you want but it's not going to make any difference.

Gay people will soon get legally married in Arizona and there's not one single thing you can do about it.

laws are repealed all the time.

Remember DOMA and DADT?

Remember the 18th amendment?

You're problem is that you need the majority of the nation on your side.

You're in the minority here on this issue. The majority of the people in America support marriage equality.

Have fun trying to get an amendment to the constitution passed that allows for bigotry.

 

[rightwinger]

You're not the majority anymore. The majority of the people in America support marriage equality.

Just because 1 million people out of over 300 million clicked on a poll on line doesn't equate to the majority of Americans not supporting marriage equality.

The issue isn't duck dynasty, chick fill A, or marriage in a church. The issue is marriage equality.

Not many people get married in a church these days. The last time I went to a wedding in a church was in the early 1990s.

Gay people aren't going to go where they're denied the marriage ceremony. They're going to go where someone will legally marry them. Whether they're married in a church or not, they're still just as married as any heterosexual couple.

You can bring up things that don't matter all you want but it's not going to make any difference.

Gay people will soon get legally married in Arizona and there's not one single thing you can do about it.

laws are repealed all the time.

Remember DOMA and DADT?

Remember the 18th amendment?

Good luck with that
Your ship has sailed

That's exactly what the prohibitionists said...before the law was repealed....

Actually, you have it backwards
The ones who tried to prohibit drinking had their efforts repealed
Just like your efforts to ban gay rights

 

[Dana7360]

You're not the majority anymore. The majority of the people in America support marriage equality.

Just because 1 million people out of over 300 million clicked on a poll on line doesn't equate to the majority of Americans not supporting marriage equality.

The issue isn't duck dynasty, chick fill A, or marriage in a church. The issue is marriage equality.

Not many people get married in a church these days. The last time I went to a wedding in a church was in the early 1990s.

Gay people aren't going to go where they're denied the marriage ceremony. They're going to go where someone will legally marry them. Whether they're married in a church or not, they're still just as married as any heterosexual couple.

You can bring up things that don't matter all you want but it's not going to make any difference.

Gay people will soon get legally married in Arizona and there's not one single thing you can do about it.

laws are repealed all the time.

Remember DOMA and DADT?

Remember the 18th amendment?

Good luck with that
Your ship has sailed

That's exactly what the prohibitionists said...before the law was repealed....

It was an amendment to the constitution.

You will need two thirds of the House of Reps and two thirds of the Senate. Then you're going to need three fourths of the states to ratify an amendment that allows bigotry in America.

Good luck with that.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I wouldn't discount how soon "it" could happen....the USA is BROKE....we have a foreign national pretending to be president

That's as far as I needed to read right there. Birthers have no credibility.

I take it that you're not a Hillary backer.

Why would anyone be?

 

[mdk]

laws are repealed all the time.

Remember DOMA and DADT?

Remember the 18th amendment?

Good luck with that
Your ship has sailed

That's exactly what the prohibitionists said...before the law was repealed....

It was an amendment to the constitution.

You will need two thirds of the House of Reps and two thirds of the Senate. Then you're going to need three fourths of the states to ratify an amendment that allows bigotry in America.

Good luck with that.

Indeed. Quite a few Republican Governors and Attorney Generals have decided not to appeal the decisions of the courts.They see the writing on the wall and have chosen to save taxpayers money instead. Wise move.

 

[bodecea]

You're not the majority anymore. The majority of the people in America support marriage equality.

Just because 1 million people out of over 300 million clicked on a poll on line doesn't equate to the majority of Americans not supporting marriage equality.

The issue isn't duck dynasty, chick fill A, or marriage in a church. The issue is marriage equality.

Not many people get married in a church these days. The last time I went to a wedding in a church was in the early 1990s.

Gay people aren't going to go where they're denied the marriage ceremony. They're going to go where someone will legally marry them. Whether they're married in a church or not, they're still just as married as any heterosexual couple.

You can bring up things that don't matter all you want but it's not going to make any difference.

Gay people will soon get legally married in Arizona and there's not one single thing you can do about it.

laws are repealed all the time.

Remember DOMA and DADT?

Remember the 18th amendment?

Good luck with that
Your ship has sailed

That's exactly what the prohibitionists said...before the law was repealed....

You expect a Constitutional Amendment?

 

[Czernobog]

You're not the majority anymore. The majority of the people in America support marriage equality.

Just because 1 million people out of over 300 million clicked on a poll on line doesn't equate to the majority of Americans not supporting marriage equality.

The issue isn't duck dynasty, chick fill A, or marriage in a church. The issue is marriage equality.

Not many people get married in a church these days. The last time I went to a wedding in a church was in the early 1990s.

Gay people aren't going to go where they're denied the marriage ceremony. They're going to go where someone will legally marry them. Whether they're married in a church or not, they're still just as married as any heterosexual couple.

You can bring up things that don't matter all you want but it's not going to make any difference.

Gay people will soon get legally married in Arizona and there's not one single thing you can do about it.

laws are repealed all the time.

Remember DOMA and DADT?

Remember the 18th amendment?

Good luck with that
Your ship has sailed

That's exactly what the prohibitionists said...before the law was repealed....

You do see the similarities between DADT, DOMA, and the 18th, right?

18th Amendment: violated a person's right to choose what to do with their body, time, and money.
DADT: violated a person's right to kepp their private life private.
DOMA: Violated a person's right to marry the person they love.

In all three cases we moved from restrictive laws violating individual freedom toward protection of individual liberty, and freedom of choice.

If you would like me to believe that, because you, and some other moralists, feel you have the right to dictate people's behavior for them, that we are going to, in fact, move toward, more restrictive behavior in a matter of personal choice, you're gonna have to show me some historical precedence to support that belief. At least, if you expect to be taken seriously, you do.

 

[Silhouette]

laws are repealed all the time.

Remember DOMA and DADT?

Remember the 18th amendment?

Good luck with that
Your ship has sailed

That's exactly what the prohibitionists said...before the law was repealed....

You do see the similarities between DADT, DOMA, and the 18th, right?

18th Amendment: violated a person's right to choose what to do with their body, time, and money.
DADT: violated a person's right to kepp their private life private.
DOMA: Violated a person's right to marry the person they love.

In all three cases we movd rom restrictive laws violated individual freedom toward protection of individual liberty, and freedom of choice.

If you would like me to believe that, because you, and some other moralists feel you have the right to dictate people's behavior for them, that we are going to, in fact, move toward, more restrictive behavior in a matter of personal choice, you're gonna have to show me some historical precedence to support that belief. At least, if you expect to be taken seriously, you do.

Behaviors don't get federal protection. And when you destroy democratic hopeful's chances at the polls by association with the LGBT agenda, you will find the new Congress defining that key point for you a bit more clearly.

My prediction is that all these silent, pissing on themselves "conservatives" will suddenly grow a spine about the LGBT agenda. But maybe Cheney's daughter has more of a say than that. She is one powerful lesbian with a daddy like that.

 

[Czernobog]

Remember DOMA and DADT?

Remember the 18th amendment?

Good luck with that
Your ship has sailed

That's exactly what the prohibitionists said...before the law was repealed....

You do see the similarities between DADT, DOMA, and the 18th, right?

18th Amendment: violated a person's right to choose what to do with their body, time, and money.
DADT: violated a person's right to kepp their private life private.
DOMA: Violated a person's right to marry the person they love.

In all three cases we movd rom restrictive laws violated individual freedom toward protection of individual liberty, and freedom of choice.

If you would like me to believe that, because you, and some other moralists feel you have the right to dictate people's behavior for them, that we are going to, in fact, move toward, more restrictive behavior in a matter of personal choice, you're gonna have to show me some historical precedence to support that belief. At least, if you expect to be taken seriously, you do.

Behaviors don't get federal protection.

Personal liberty, however, is protected by the Constitution.

And when you destroy democratic hopeful's chances at the polls by association with the LGBT agenda, you will find the new Congress defining that key point for you a bit more clearly.

Really? Have you been looking at the polls lately? You know, I remember when this election cycle began. Everyone was talking about a 2010-style Republican sweeping of Congress. All anyone on the Right could talk about was Obamacare, and how easy it was going to make destroying the Democrats when everyone hated it. Then, the worst possible thing happened - no body hated it. All of a sudden, everyone on the right shifted gears, and it became all about Benghazi. Right-Wing hopes were a little diminished, but, hey! They were still going to take a healthy chuck of the Senate, and crush the Democrats. Unfortunately, the voters just didn't get all that worked up about Benghazi. Now, Republicans were a little less sure of themselves. They shifted gears again. This time was a call for impeachment. After about a day-and-a-half, that had the exact opposite effect that Republicans were hoping for, and money started flooding into the Democrat War Chests. So, of course, Republicans quickly shut the fuck up about even a hint of impeachment, and instead Republicans explained that what they really meant was that they were gonna file a lawsuit, with John Boehner leading the fight. Not only did that not get the voters all worked up, but everyone just kinda laughed at the idea. Now, there isn't even a Republican campaigning on what he or she intends to do in Congress. All of the ads are, "Don't you hate Obama? Look! My opponent is tied to Obama. Vote for me, because I hate Obama, too" That kind of campaigning doesn't actually work, unless it is accompanied by actual ideas. you know, like the "Contract for America" that got everyone all excited in 2010. Now, you are barely eking out a lead in most races, and in many that you expected to win easily, you're actually losing. Most of the predictive polls agree. At best, for you, we're looking at a 52/48 Republican majority (hardly a "commanding majority" that you guys on the Right were expecting). At worst, we're looking at an even 50/50 split, with Joe casting the deciding vote when tied. So, guess who that leaves in control?

So, yeah...you might wanna dial back your confidence that "Conservatives" are gonna clean house, and show America what she "really" should be doing...

My prediction is that all these silent, pissing on themselves "conservatives" will suddenly grow a spine about the LGBT agenda. But maybe Cheney's daughter has more of a say than that. She is one powerful lesbian with a daddy like that.

Oh, I suspect they will too, and when they do they're, once, and for all, gonna tell the rabid faction that keeps making them lose, "Sit down, and shut the fuck up, so we can win an election occasionally!"

 

[Katzndogz]

The mistake is in thinking that because this was imposed by the courts it is supported by the people. That's going to be a nasty lesson that needs to be learned.

 

[Rotagilla]

laws are repealed all the time.

Remember DOMA and DADT?

Remember the 18th amendment?

Good luck with that
Your ship has sailed

That's exactly what the prohibitionists said...before the law was repealed....

You do see the similarities between DADT, DOMA, and the 18th, right?

18th Amendment: violated a person's right to choose what to do with their body, time, and money.
DADT: violated a person's right to kepp their private life private.
DOMA: Violated a person's right to marry the person they love.

In all three cases we moved from restrictive laws violating individual freedom toward protection of individual liberty, and freedom of choice.

If you would like me to believe that, because you, and some other moralists, feel you have the right to dictate people's behavior for them, that we are going to, in fact, move toward, more restrictive behavior in a matter of personal choice, you're gonna have to show me some historical precedence to support that belief. At least, if you expect to be taken seriously, you do.

I'm not wandering down and endless rabbit hole with you.
My comment was in relation to laws being repealed and I cited the 18th amendment as an excellent example that we all know about...
You try to conflate all these other issues.
Not interested. Carry on.

 

[Czernobog]

Remember DOMA and DADT?

Remember the 18th amendment?

Good luck with that
Your ship has sailed

That's exactly what the prohibitionists said...before the law was repealed....

You do see the similarities between DADT, DOMA, and the 18th, right?

18th Amendment: violated a person's right to choose what to do with their body, time, and money.
DADT: violated a person's right to kepp their private life private.
DOMA: Violated a person's right to marry the person they love.

In all three cases we moved from restrictive laws violating individual freedom toward protection of individual liberty, and freedom of choice.

If you would like me to believe that, because you, and some other moralists, feel you have the right to dictate people's behavior for them, that we are going to, in fact, move toward, more restrictive behavior in a matter of personal choice, you're gonna have to show me some historical precedence to support that belief. At least, if you expect to be taken seriously, you do.

I'm not wandering down and endless rabbit hole with you.
My comment was in relation to laws being repealed and I cited the 18th amendment as an excellent example that we all know about...
You try to conflate all these other issues.
Not interested. Carry on.

Of course not, because that would force you to confront the untenable position you have staked out Constitutionally.

 

[Rotagilla]

Remember the 18th amendment?

Good luck with that
Your ship has sailed

That's exactly what the prohibitionists said...before the law was repealed....

You do see the similarities between DADT, DOMA, and the 18th, right?

18th Amendment: violated a person's right to choose what to do with their body, time, and money.
DADT: violated a person's right to kepp their private life private.
DOMA: Violated a person's right to marry the person they love.

In all three cases we moved from restrictive laws violating individual freedom toward protection of individual liberty, and freedom of choice.

If you would like me to believe that, because you, and some other moralists, feel you have the right to dictate people's behavior for them, that we are going to, in fact, move toward, more restrictive behavior in a matter of personal choice, you're gonna have to show me some historical precedence to support that belief. At least, if you expect to be taken seriously, you do.

I'm not wandering down and endless rabbit hole with you.
My comment was in relation to laws being repealed and I cited the 18th amendment as an excellent example that we all know about...
You try to conflate all these other issues.
Not interested. Carry on.

Of course not, because that would force you to confront the untenable position you have staked out Constitutionally.

The "position" I "staked out" "constitutionally" was that bad laws can be repealed and I cited the 18th amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The mistake is in thinking that because this was imposed by the courts it is supported by the people. That's going to be a nasty lesson that needs to be learned.

Nothing was 'imposed' by the courts, that's a ridiculous and ignorant perception.

The states in question never had the authority to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights from the outset, the courts are reaffirming that fact.

Indeed, state officers should have never allowed the measures to take effect to begin with, knowing they were likely un-Constitutional.

Again, the states have only themselves to blame.