A Shortcut to Nixing The Gay Marriage Decision: Subtract Two Votes

[mdk]

Dude, congress can't vote to SUBTRACT THE VOTES JUST CASTED!!!!!!!!! The OP said the 2 votes can be "subtracted" that it is mandatory for them to step DOWN. NO THERE IS NOT!

'Congress'? You're moving your goal posts. Lets review what you actually said.

There is no law or authority that can reverse a vote that was casted by a supreme court justice. Period. This thread is a joke and I'm sorry, but wishful thinking. Watch the massive repercussions of this dicission yesterday and watch many states calling for a constitutional amendment. Watch North Carolina in particular.

There's no mention of 'congress'. You're backpedalling. Admit it....you were wrong. There is an authority that reverse a vote of the supreme court: an amendment.

So no, you weren't correct. You were demonstrably wrong.

BTW I'M THE ONE WHO TOLD YOU EARIER ABOUT THE CONSTUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROCEDURE.

You.....you do realize that the amendment process predates you, right? That you didn't 'discover' it. Nor was it a grand secret. Or do you really think that no one had even heard of an amendment until you mentioned it....

.....today

There is no rule or current authority in place RIGHT now that can be implimented to SUBTRACT 2 SC Justices votes. period. No direct way. However, ther eis a way AROUND it and that is with a constitutional amendment.

You need to read the OP yet AGAIN. I'm AGREEING WITH YOU I NEVER DIDN"T NOT AGREE WITH YOU. There is a difference between DIRECT and going AROUND. Remember the SC has to INTERPRET the CONSTITUTION. So and indirect way of getting this entire thing null and void is by CHANGING the CONSTITUTION not the SC.

1 last chance and it's ignore for you for TROLLLING.

I am sorry your homophobia has led you to believe that your God given right is to discriminate against a minority...

You can't force a religion to go against it's teaching of not rewarding what there religion calls SIN. Period. This right was so much more important than marriage it was part of the original 1st amendment 1st bill of rights. Tough shit moonass.

JR, you should have picked a better thread if this is the hill you want to die on.

 

[Moonglow]

Dude, congress can't vote to SUBTRACT THE VOTES JUST CASTED!!!!!!!!! The OP said the 2 votes can be "subtracted" that it is mandatory for them to step DOWN. NO THERE IS NOT!

'Congress'? You're moving your goal posts. Lets review what you actually said.

There is no law or authority that can reverse a vote that was casted by a supreme court justice. Period. This thread is a joke and I'm sorry, but wishful thinking. Watch the massive repercussions of this dicission yesterday and watch many states calling for a constitutional amendment. Watch North Carolina in particular.

There's no mention of 'congress'. You're backpedalling. Admit it....you were wrong. There is an authority that reverse a vote of the supreme court: an amendment.

So no, you weren't correct. You were demonstrably wrong.

BTW I'M THE ONE WHO TOLD YOU EARIER ABOUT THE CONSTUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROCEDURE.

You.....you do realize that the amendment process predates you, right? That you didn't 'discover' it. Nor was it a grand secret. Or do you really think that no one had even heard of an amendment until you mentioned it....

.....today

There is no rule or current authority in place RIGHT now that can be implimented to SUBTRACT 2 SC Justices votes. period. No direct way. However, ther eis a way AROUND it and that is with a constitutional amendment.

You need to read the OP yet AGAIN. I'm AGREEING WITH YOU I NEVER DIDN"T NOT AGREE WITH YOU. There is a difference between DIRECT and going AROUND. Remember the SC has to INTERPRET the CONSTITUTION. So and indirect way of getting this entire thing null and void is by CHANGING the CONSTITUTION not the SC.

1 last chance and it's ignore for you for TROLLLING.

I am sorry your homophobia has led you to believe that your God given right is to discriminate against a minority...

You can't force a religion to go against it's teaching of not rewarding what there religion calls SIN. Period. This right was so much more important than marriage it was part of the original 1st amendment 1st bill of rights. Tough shit moonass.

No body is forcing a religion to deny it tenets........But a drunk like you has no master but the bottle...I bet you have not attended church since you were dry...

 

[Moonglow]

Dude, congress can't vote to SUBTRACT THE VOTES JUST CASTED!!!!!!!!! The OP said the 2 votes can be "subtracted" that it is mandatory for them to step DOWN. NO THERE IS NOT!

'Congress'? You're moving your goal posts. Lets review what you actually said.

There is no law or authority that can reverse a vote that was casted by a supreme court justice. Period. This thread is a joke and I'm sorry, but wishful thinking. Watch the massive repercussions of this dicission yesterday and watch many states calling for a constitutional amendment. Watch North Carolina in particular.

There's no mention of 'congress'. You're backpedalling. Admit it....you were wrong. There is an authority that reverse a vote of the supreme court: an amendment.

So no, you weren't correct. You were demonstrably wrong.

BTW I'M THE ONE WHO TOLD YOU EARIER ABOUT THE CONSTUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROCEDURE.

You.....you do realize that the amendment process predates you, right? That you didn't 'discover' it. Nor was it a grand secret. Or do you really think that no one had even heard of an amendment until you mentioned it....

.....today

There is no rule or current authority in place RIGHT now that can be implimented to SUBTRACT 2 SC Justices votes. period. No direct way. However, ther eis a way AROUND it and that is with a constitutional amendment.

You need to read the OP yet AGAIN. I'm AGREEING WITH YOU I NEVER DIDN"T NOT AGREE WITH YOU. There is a difference between DIRECT and going AROUND. Remember the SC has to INTERPRET the CONSTITUTION. So and indirect way of getting this entire thing null and void is by CHANGING the CONSTITUTION not the SC.

1 last chance and it's ignore for you for TROLLLING.

I am sorry your homophobia has led you to believe that your God given right is to discriminate against a minority...

You can't force a religion to go against it's teaching of not rewarding what there religion calls SIN. Period. This right was so much more important than marriage it was part of the original 1st amendment 1st bill of rights. Tough shit moonass.

JR, you should have picked a better thread if this is the hill you want to die on.

His sins he is blind to, but your sin is always in sight.....

 

[Judicial review]

Dude, congress can't vote to SUBTRACT THE VOTES JUST CASTED!!!!!!!!! The OP said the 2 votes can be "subtracted" that it is mandatory for them to step DOWN. NO THERE IS NOT!

'Congress'? You're moving your goal posts. Lets review what you actually said.

There is no law or authority that can reverse a vote that was casted by a supreme court justice. Period. This thread is a joke and I'm sorry, but wishful thinking. Watch the massive repercussions of this dicission yesterday and watch many states calling for a constitutional amendment. Watch North Carolina in particular.

There's no mention of 'congress'. You're backpedalling. Admit it....you were wrong. There is an authority that reverse a vote of the supreme court: an amendment.

So no, you weren't correct. You were demonstrably wrong.

BTW I'M THE ONE WHO TOLD YOU EARIER ABOUT THE CONSTUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROCEDURE.

You.....you do realize that the amendment process predates you, right? That you didn't 'discover' it. Nor was it a grand secret. Or do you really think that no one had even heard of an amendment until you mentioned it....

.....today

There is no rule or current authority in place RIGHT now that can be implimented to SUBTRACT 2 SC Justices votes. period. No direct way. However, ther eis a way AROUND it and that is with a constitutional amendment.

You need to read the OP yet AGAIN. I'm AGREEING WITH YOU I NEVER DIDN"T NOT AGREE WITH YOU. There is a difference between DIRECT and going AROUND. Remember the SC has to INTERPRET the CONSTITUTION. So and indirect way of getting this entire thing null and void is by CHANGING the CONSTITUTION not the SC.

1 last chance and it's ignore for you for TROLLLING.

I am sorry your homophobia has led you to believe that your God given right is to discriminate against a minority...

You can't force a religion to go against it's teaching of not rewarding what there religion calls SIN. Period. This right was so much more important than marriage it was part of the original 1st amendment 1st bill of rights. Tough shit moonass.

JR, you should have picked a better thread if this is the hill you want to die.

Oh I'm just getting warmed up. MDK I know you are gay. I'm a supporter of a state that wants to allow same sex marriage, but I'm also a supporter of a state that doesn't want to allow it. I believe in individual rights OVR our governments. Our INDIVIDUAL rights to VOTE in a STATE WIDE election to approve it or not. I'm NOT in favor or the SUPREME COURT DECIDING what is a RIGHT. That is up for the states and congress to ratify that in the constitution. That is not something for the Supreme court. Period. This is why I believe the SC should have listened to Cheif Justice Roberts when he said they shouldn't have even heard it.

 

[Judicial review]

Dude, congress can't vote to SUBTRACT THE VOTES JUST CASTED!!!!!!!!! The OP said the 2 votes can be "subtracted" that it is mandatory for them to step DOWN. NO THERE IS NOT!

'Congress'? You're moving your goal posts. Lets review what you actually said.

There is no law or authority that can reverse a vote that was casted by a supreme court justice. Period. This thread is a joke and I'm sorry, but wishful thinking. Watch the massive repercussions of this dicission yesterday and watch many states calling for a constitutional amendment. Watch North Carolina in particular.

There's no mention of 'congress'. You're backpedalling. Admit it....you were wrong. There is an authority that reverse a vote of the supreme court: an amendment.

So no, you weren't correct. You were demonstrably wrong.

BTW I'M THE ONE WHO TOLD YOU EARIER ABOUT THE CONSTUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROCEDURE.

You.....you do realize that the amendment process predates you, right? That you didn't 'discover' it. Nor was it a grand secret. Or do you really think that no one had even heard of an amendment until you mentioned it....

.....today

There is no rule or current authority in place RIGHT now that can be implimented to SUBTRACT 2 SC Justices votes. period. No direct way. However, ther eis a way AROUND it and that is with a constitutional amendment.

You need to read the OP yet AGAIN. I'm AGREEING WITH YOU I NEVER DIDN"T NOT AGREE WITH YOU. There is a difference between DIRECT and going AROUND. Remember the SC has to INTERPRET the CONSTITUTION. So and indirect way of getting this entire thing null and void is by CHANGING the CONSTITUTION not the SC.

1 last chance and it's ignore for you for TROLLLING.

I am sorry your homophobia has led you to believe that your God given right is to discriminate against a minority...

You can't force a religion to go against it's teaching of not rewarding what there religion calls SIN. Period. This right was so much more important than marriage it was part of the original 1st amendment 1st bill of rights. Tough shit moonass.

a religion to deny No body is forcingit tenets........But a drunk like you has no master but the bottle...I bet you have not attended church since you were dry...

I'm book marking this post. Within days the bold you wrote would have been proven wrong.

 

[Skylar]

Dude, congress can't vote to SUBTRACT THE VOTES JUST CASTED!!!!!!!!! The OP said the 2 votes can be "subtracted" that it is mandatory for them to step DOWN. NO THERE IS NOT!

'Congress'? You're moving your goal posts. Lets review what you actually said.

There is no law or authority that can reverse a vote that was casted by a supreme court justice. Period. This thread is a joke and I'm sorry, but wishful thinking. Watch the massive repercussions of this dicission yesterday and watch many states calling for a constitutional amendment. Watch North Carolina in particular.

There's no mention of 'congress'. You're backpedalling. Admit it....you were wrong. There is an authority that reverse a vote of the supreme court: an amendment.

So no, you weren't correct. You were demonstrably wrong.

BTW I'M THE ONE WHO TOLD YOU EARIER ABOUT THE CONSTUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROCEDURE.

You.....you do realize that the amendment process predates you, right? That you didn't 'discover' it. Nor was it a grand secret. Or do you really think that no one had even heard of an amendment until you mentioned it....

.....today

There is no rule or current authority in place RIGHT now that can be implimented to SUBTRACT 2 SC Justices votes. period. No direct way. However, ther eis a way AROUND it and that is with a constitutional amendment.

You need to read the OP yet AGAIN. I'm AGREEING WITH YOU I NEVER DIDN"T NOT AGREE WITH YOU. There is a difference between DIRECT and going AROUND. Remember the SC has to INTERPRET the CONSTITUTION. So and indirect way of getting this entire thing null and void is by CHANGING the CONSTITUTION not the SC.

1 last chance and it's ignore for you for TROLLLING.

I am sorry your homophobia has led you to believe that your God given right is to discriminate against a minority...

You can't force a religion to go against it's teaching of not rewarding what there religion calls SIN. Period. This right was so much more important than marriage it was part of the original 1st amendment 1st bill of rights. Tough shit moonass.

You...you know that the USSC has already refused cert on some of these 'christian photographer' cases, right?

 

[Moonglow]

'Congress'? You're moving your goal posts. Lets review what you actually said.

There's no mention of 'congress'. You're backpedalling. Admit it....you were wrong. There is an authority that reverse a vote of the supreme court: an amendment.

So no, you weren't correct. You were demonstrably wrong.

You.....you do realize that the amendment process predates you, right? That you didn't 'discover' it. Nor was it a grand secret. Or do you really think that no one had even heard of an amendment until you mentioned it....

.....today

There is no rule or current authority in place RIGHT now that can be implimented to SUBTRACT 2 SC Justices votes. period. No direct way. However, ther eis a way AROUND it and that is with a constitutional amendment.

You need to read the OP yet AGAIN. I'm AGREEING WITH YOU I NEVER DIDN"T NOT AGREE WITH YOU. There is a difference between DIRECT and going AROUND. Remember the SC has to INTERPRET the CONSTITUTION. So and indirect way of getting this entire thing null and void is by CHANGING the CONSTITUTION not the SC.

1 last chance and it's ignore for you for TROLLLING.

I am sorry your homophobia has led you to believe that your God given right is to discriminate against a minority...

You can't force a religion to go against it's teaching of not rewarding what there religion calls SIN. Period. This right was so much more important than marriage it was part of the original 1st amendment 1st bill of rights. Tough shit moonass.

a religion to deny No body is forcingit tenets........But a drunk like you has no master but the bottle...I bet you have not attended church since you were dry...

I'm book marking this post. Within days the bold you wrote would have been proven wrong.

Considering that you have violated TOS by rewriting a post.It is not mine......

 

[Skylar]

'Congress'? You're moving your goal posts. Lets review what you actually said.

There's no mention of 'congress'. You're backpedalling. Admit it....you were wrong. There is an authority that reverse a vote of the supreme court: an amendment.

So no, you weren't correct. You were demonstrably wrong.

You.....you do realize that the amendment process predates you, right? That you didn't 'discover' it. Nor was it a grand secret. Or do you really think that no one had even heard of an amendment until you mentioned it....

.....today

There is no rule or current authority in place RIGHT now that can be implimented to SUBTRACT 2 SC Justices votes. period. No direct way. However, ther eis a way AROUND it and that is with a constitutional amendment.

You need to read the OP yet AGAIN. I'm AGREEING WITH YOU I NEVER DIDN"T NOT AGREE WITH YOU. There is a difference between DIRECT and going AROUND. Remember the SC has to INTERPRET the CONSTITUTION. So and indirect way of getting this entire thing null and void is by CHANGING the CONSTITUTION not the SC.

1 last chance and it's ignore for you for TROLLLING.

I am sorry your homophobia has led you to believe that your God given right is to discriminate against a minority...

You can't force a religion to go against it's teaching of not rewarding what there religion calls SIN. Period. This right was so much more important than marriage it was part of the original 1st amendment 1st bill of rights. Tough shit moonass.

JR, you should have picked a better thread if this is the hill you want to die.

Oh I'm just getting warmed up. MDK I know you are gay. I'm a supporter of a state that wants to allow same sex marriage, but I'm also a supporter of a state that doesn't want to allow it. I believe in individual rights OVR our governments. Our INDIVIDUAL rights to VOTE in a STATE WIDE election to approve it or not. I'm NOT in favor or the SUPREME COURT DECIDING what is a RIGHT. That is up for the states and congress to ratify that in the constitution. That is not something for the Supreme court. Period. This is why I believe the SC should have listened to Cheif Justice Roberts when he said they shouldn't have even heard it.

There's no 'individual right' to deny someone else their rights. Nixing your entire argument.

And you don't have the numbers to get an amendment passed. Nixing that argument too.

You're working on pure emotion at this point.

 

[Judicial review]

There is no rule or current authority in place RIGHT now that can be implimented to SUBTRACT 2 SC Justices votes. period. No direct way. However, ther eis a way AROUND it and that is with a constitutional amendment.

You need to read the OP yet AGAIN. I'm AGREEING WITH YOU I NEVER DIDN"T NOT AGREE WITH YOU. There is a difference between DIRECT and going AROUND. Remember the SC has to INTERPRET the CONSTITUTION. So and indirect way of getting this entire thing null and void is by CHANGING the CONSTITUTION not the SC.

1 last chance and it's ignore for you for TROLLLING.

I am sorry your homophobia has led you to believe that your God given right is to discriminate against a minority...

You can't force a religion to go against it's teaching of not rewarding what there religion calls SIN. Period. This right was so much more important than marriage it was part of the original 1st amendment 1st bill of rights. Tough shit moonass.

JR, you should have picked a better thread if this is the hill you want to die.

Oh I'm just getting warmed up. MDK I know you are gay. I'm a supporter of a state that wants to allow same sex marriage, but I'm also a supporter of a state that doesn't want to allow it. I believe in individual rights OVR our governments. Our INDIVIDUAL rights to VOTE in a STATE WIDE election to approve it or not. I'm NOT in favor or the SUPREME COURT DECIDING what is a RIGHT. That is up for the states and congress to ratify that in the constitution. That is not something for the Supreme court. Period. This is why I believe the SC should have listened to Cheif Justice Roberts when he said they shouldn't have even heard it.

There's no 'individual right' to deny someone else their rights. Nixing your entire argument.

And you don't have the numbers to get an amendment passed. Nixing that argument too.

You're working on pure emotion at this point.

There is no individual right that trumps another. This is the next great SC battle and the battle for freedom and our country. Somebody will sue a church for not performing a wedding. Sit back and watch with horror.

 

[Moonglow]

I am sorry your homophobia has led you to believe that your God given right is to discriminate against a minority...

You can't force a religion to go against it's teaching of not rewarding what there religion calls SIN. Period. This right was so much more important than marriage it was part of the original 1st amendment 1st bill of rights. Tough shit moonass.

JR, you should have picked a better thread if this is the hill you want to die.

Oh I'm just getting warmed up. MDK I know you are gay. I'm a supporter of a state that wants to allow same sex marriage, but I'm also a supporter of a state that doesn't want to allow it. I believe in individual rights OVR our governments. Our INDIVIDUAL rights to VOTE in a STATE WIDE election to approve it or not. I'm NOT in favor or the SUPREME COURT DECIDING what is a RIGHT. That is up for the states and congress to ratify that in the constitution. That is not something for the Supreme court. Period. This is why I believe the SC should have listened to Cheif Justice Roberts when he said they shouldn't have even heard it.

There's no 'individual right' to deny someone else their rights. Nixing your entire argument.

And you don't have the numbers to get an amendment passed. Nixing that argument too.

You're working on pure emotion at this point.

There is no individual right that trumps another. This is the next great SC battle and the battle for freedom and our country. Somebody will sue a church for not performing a wedding. Sit back and watch with horror.

you are a great example of not being able to force someone to love or marry you...

 

[mdk]

'Congress'? You're moving your goal posts. Lets review what you actually said.

There's no mention of 'congress'. You're backpedalling. Admit it....you were wrong. There is an authority that reverse a vote of the supreme court: an amendment.

So no, you weren't correct. You were demonstrably wrong.

You.....you do realize that the amendment process predates you, right? That you didn't 'discover' it. Nor was it a grand secret. Or do you really think that no one had even heard of an amendment until you mentioned it....

.....today

There is no rule or current authority in place RIGHT now that can be implimented to SUBTRACT 2 SC Justices votes. period. No direct way. However, ther eis a way AROUND it and that is with a constitutional amendment.

You need to read the OP yet AGAIN. I'm AGREEING WITH YOU I NEVER DIDN"T NOT AGREE WITH YOU. There is a difference between DIRECT and going AROUND. Remember the SC has to INTERPRET the CONSTITUTION. So and indirect way of getting this entire thing null and void is by CHANGING the CONSTITUTION not the SC.

1 last chance and it's ignore for you for TROLLLING.

I am sorry your homophobia has led you to believe that your God given right is to discriminate against a minority...

You can't force a religion to go against it's teaching of not rewarding what there religion calls SIN. Period. This right was so much more important than marriage it was part of the original 1st amendment 1st bill of rights. Tough shit moonass.

JR, you should have picked a better thread if this is the hill you want to die.

Oh I'm just getting warmed up. MDK I know you are gay. I'm a supporter of a state that wants to allow same sex marriage, but I'm also a supporter of a state that doesn't want to allow it. I believe in individual rights OVR our governments. Our INDIVIDUAL rights to VOTE in a STATE WIDE election to approve it or not. I'm NOT in favor or the SUPREME COURT DECIDING what is a RIGHT. That is up for the states and congress to ratify that in the constitution. That is not something for the Supreme court. Period. This is why I believe the SC should have listened to Cheif Justice Roberts when he said they shouldn't have even heard it.

The states don't have the right to deny gays the right to marry. They didn't have it with Loving and they do not have it now.

 

[Skylar]

I am sorry your homophobia has led you to believe that your God given right is to discriminate against a minority...

You can't force a religion to go against it's teaching of not rewarding what there religion calls SIN. Period. This right was so much more important than marriage it was part of the original 1st amendment 1st bill of rights. Tough shit moonass.

JR, you should have picked a better thread if this is the hill you want to die.

Oh I'm just getting warmed up. MDK I know you are gay. I'm a supporter of a state that wants to allow same sex marriage, but I'm also a supporter of a state that doesn't want to allow it. I believe in individual rights OVR our governments. Our INDIVIDUAL rights to VOTE in a STATE WIDE election to approve it or not. I'm NOT in favor or the SUPREME COURT DECIDING what is a RIGHT. That is up for the states and congress to ratify that in the constitution. That is not something for the Supreme court. Period. This is why I believe the SC should have listened to Cheif Justice Roberts when he said they shouldn't have even heard it.

There's no 'individual right' to deny someone else their rights. Nixing your entire argument.

And you don't have the numbers to get an amendment passed. Nixing that argument too.

You're working on pure emotion at this point.

There is no individual right that trumps another. This is the next great SC battle and the battle for freedom and our country. Somebody will sue a church for not performing a wedding. Sit back and watch with horror.

Actual rights certainly trump imaginary ones. The right to marry is a fundamental civil right for example. The right to strip someone of their rights is imaginary nonsense. And doesn't exist.

 

[Judicial review]

There is no rule or current authority in place RIGHT now that can be implimented to SUBTRACT 2 SC Justices votes. period. No direct way. However, ther eis a way AROUND it and that is with a constitutional amendment.

You need to read the OP yet AGAIN. I'm AGREEING WITH YOU I NEVER DIDN"T NOT AGREE WITH YOU. There is a difference between DIRECT and going AROUND. Remember the SC has to INTERPRET the CONSTITUTION. So and indirect way of getting this entire thing null and void is by CHANGING the CONSTITUTION not the SC.

1 last chance and it's ignore for you for TROLLLING.

I am sorry your homophobia has led you to believe that your God given right is to discriminate against a minority...

You can't force a religion to go against it's teaching of not rewarding what there religion calls SIN. Period. This right was so much more important than marriage it was part of the original 1st amendment 1st bill of rights. Tough shit moonass.

JR, you should have picked a better thread if this is the hill you want to die.

Oh I'm just getting warmed up. MDK I know you are gay. I'm a supporter of a state that wants to allow same sex marriage, but I'm also a supporter of a state that doesn't want to allow it. I believe in individual rights OVR our governments. Our INDIVIDUAL rights to VOTE in a STATE WIDE election to approve it or not. I'm NOT in favor or the SUPREME COURT DECIDING what is a RIGHT. That is up for the states and congress to ratify that in the constitution. That is not something for the Supreme court. Period. This is why I believe the SC should have listened to Cheif Justice Roberts when he said they shouldn't have even heard it.

The states don't have the right to deny gays the right to marry. They didn't have it with Loving and they do not have it now.

I'm past that already. I'm focused on 2 things -

1.) Will they sue religious churches for choosing not to perform wedding just like the cake baker choose not to back a cake? Setting up a showdown of a no win situation for our country to chose 1 right over another when they are equally protected.

2.) What do you chose if the SC hears the case? Religious freedom OR Same sex marriage rights?

We are now WAY PAST the issue of same sex marriage and now in a territory that threatens all of our protected freedoms in the constitution. Even Gays should be worried. They are after all Americans.

 

[mdk]

I am sorry your homophobia has led you to believe that your God given right is to discriminate against a minority...

You can't force a religion to go against it's teaching of not rewarding what there religion calls SIN. Period. This right was so much more important than marriage it was part of the original 1st amendment 1st bill of rights. Tough shit moonass.

JR, you should have picked a better thread if this is the hill you want to die.

Oh I'm just getting warmed up. MDK I know you are gay. I'm a supporter of a state that wants to allow same sex marriage, but I'm also a supporter of a state that doesn't want to allow it. I believe in individual rights OVR our governments. Our INDIVIDUAL rights to VOTE in a STATE WIDE election to approve it or not. I'm NOT in favor or the SUPREME COURT DECIDING what is a RIGHT. That is up for the states and congress to ratify that in the constitution. That is not something for the Supreme court. Period. This is why I believe the SC should have listened to Cheif Justice Roberts when he said they shouldn't have even heard it.

There's no 'individual right' to deny someone else their rights. Nixing your entire argument.

And you don't have the numbers to get an amendment passed. Nixing that argument too.

You're working on pure emotion at this point.

There is no individual right that trumps another. This is the next great SC battle and the battle for freedom and our country. Somebody will sue a church for not performing a wedding. Sit back and watch with horror.

That is total bullshit. There has not been a single church forced to marry to any couple against their wishes. Not one. What makes you think this ruling changes that?

 

[Judicial review]

You can't force a religion to go against it's teaching of not rewarding what there religion calls SIN. Period. This right was so much more important than marriage it was part of the original 1st amendment 1st bill of rights. Tough shit moonass.

JR, you should have picked a better thread if this is the hill you want to die.

Oh I'm just getting warmed up. MDK I know you are gay. I'm a supporter of a state that wants to allow same sex marriage, but I'm also a supporter of a state that doesn't want to allow it. I believe in individual rights OVR our governments. Our INDIVIDUAL rights to VOTE in a STATE WIDE election to approve it or not. I'm NOT in favor or the SUPREME COURT DECIDING what is a RIGHT. That is up for the states and congress to ratify that in the constitution. That is not something for the Supreme court. Period. This is why I believe the SC should have listened to Cheif Justice Roberts when he said they shouldn't have even heard it.

There's no 'individual right' to deny someone else their rights. Nixing your entire argument.

And you don't have the numbers to get an amendment passed. Nixing that argument too.

You're working on pure emotion at this point.

There is no individual right that trumps another. This is the next great SC battle and the battle for freedom and our country. Somebody will sue a church for not performing a wedding. Sit back and watch with horror.

Actual rights certainly trump imaginary ones. The right to marry is a fundamental civil right for example. The right to strip someone of their rights is imaginary nonsense. And doesn't exist.

Ok you wnat to play this game. Religious freedom is over 200 years old. Same sex marriage is not even 24 hrs old. Next idiot.

 

[Judicial review]

You can't force a religion to go against it's teaching of not rewarding what there religion calls SIN. Period. This right was so much more important than marriage it was part of the original 1st amendment 1st bill of rights. Tough shit moonass.

JR, you should have picked a better thread if this is the hill you want to die.

Oh I'm just getting warmed up. MDK I know you are gay. I'm a supporter of a state that wants to allow same sex marriage, but I'm also a supporter of a state that doesn't want to allow it. I believe in individual rights OVR our governments. Our INDIVIDUAL rights to VOTE in a STATE WIDE election to approve it or not. I'm NOT in favor or the SUPREME COURT DECIDING what is a RIGHT. That is up for the states and congress to ratify that in the constitution. That is not something for the Supreme court. Period. This is why I believe the SC should have listened to Cheif Justice Roberts when he said they shouldn't have even heard it.

There's no 'individual right' to deny someone else their rights. Nixing your entire argument.

And you don't have the numbers to get an amendment passed. Nixing that argument too.

You're working on pure emotion at this point.

There is no individual right that trumps another. This is the next great SC battle and the battle for freedom and our country. Somebody will sue a church for not performing a wedding. Sit back and watch with horror.

That is total bullshit. There has not been a single church forced to marry to any couple against their wishes. Not one. What makes you think this ruling changes that?

Do you really think the libs will not sue a church now? Lol... Let's not be stupid here. Come on.. WOW..

 

[Socialist]

JR, you should have picked a better thread if this is the hill you want to die.

Oh I'm just getting warmed up. MDK I know you are gay. I'm a supporter of a state that wants to allow same sex marriage, but I'm also a supporter of a state that doesn't want to allow it. I believe in individual rights OVR our governments. Our INDIVIDUAL rights to VOTE in a STATE WIDE election to approve it or not. I'm NOT in favor or the SUPREME COURT DECIDING what is a RIGHT. That is up for the states and congress to ratify that in the constitution. That is not something for the Supreme court. Period. This is why I believe the SC should have listened to Cheif Justice Roberts when he said they shouldn't have even heard it.

There's no 'individual right' to deny someone else their rights. Nixing your entire argument.

And you don't have the numbers to get an amendment passed. Nixing that argument too.

You're working on pure emotion at this point.

There is no individual right that trumps another. This is the next great SC battle and the battle for freedom and our country. Somebody will sue a church for not performing a wedding. Sit back and watch with horror.

That is total bullshit. There has not been a single church forced to marry to any couple against their wishes. Not one. What makes you think this ruling changes that?

Do you really think the libs will not sue a church now? Lol... Let's not be stupid here. Come on.. WOW..

Even if someone decided to sue a church, idiots from both sides throw out stupid lawsuits..

 

[Skylar]

I am sorry your homophobia has led you to believe that your God given right is to discriminate against a minority...

You can't force a religion to go against it's teaching of not rewarding what there religion calls SIN. Period. This right was so much more important than marriage it was part of the original 1st amendment 1st bill of rights. Tough shit moonass.

JR, you should have picked a better thread if this is the hill you want to die.

Oh I'm just getting warmed up. MDK I know you are gay. I'm a supporter of a state that wants to allow same sex marriage, but I'm also a supporter of a state that doesn't want to allow it. I believe in individual rights OVR our governments. Our INDIVIDUAL rights to VOTE in a STATE WIDE election to approve it or not. I'm NOT in favor or the SUPREME COURT DECIDING what is a RIGHT. That is up for the states and congress to ratify that in the constitution. That is not something for the Supreme court. Period. This is why I believe the SC should have listened to Cheif Justice Roberts when he said they shouldn't have even heard it.

The states don't have the right to deny gays the right to marry. They didn't have it with Loving and they do not have it now.

I'm past that already. I'm focused on 2 things -

And by 'passed that', you mean you lost? Because the courts have explicitly contradicted you.

1.) Will they sue religious churches for choosing not to perform wedding just like the cake baker choose not to back a cake? Setting up a showdown of a no win situation for our country to chose 1 right over another when they are equally protected.

Of course someone is going to sue at some point. And the courts will shut them down. As PA laws don't apply to churches.

And done.

2.) What do you chose if the SC hears the case? Religious freedom OR Same sex marriage rights?

The USSC has never accepted cert on such a case. Nor do PA laws apply to churches. So your hypothetical is entirely notional. You're getting yourself worked up over your imagination.

We are now WAY PAST the issue of same sex marriage and now in a territory that threatens all of our protected freedoms in the constitution. Even Gays should be worried. They are after all Americans.

Yeah, because the ruling is almost 24 hours old. And why would anyone be worried over an imaginary hypothetical that has virtually no chance of ever happening?

I might as well worry about catching rabies from a unicorn.

 

[mdk]

I am sorry your homophobia has led you to believe that your God given right is to discriminate against a minority...

You can't force a religion to go against it's teaching of not rewarding what there religion calls SIN. Period. This right was so much more important than marriage it was part of the original 1st amendment 1st bill of rights. Tough shit moonass.

JR, you should have picked a better thread if this is the hill you want to die.

Oh I'm just getting warmed up. MDK I know you are gay. I'm a supporter of a state that wants to allow same sex marriage, but I'm also a supporter of a state that doesn't want to allow it. I believe in individual rights OVR our governments. Our INDIVIDUAL rights to VOTE in a STATE WIDE election to approve it or not. I'm NOT in favor or the SUPREME COURT DECIDING what is a RIGHT. That is up for the states and congress to ratify that in the constitution. That is not something for the Supreme court. Period. This is why I believe the SC should have listened to Cheif Justice Roberts when he said they shouldn't have even heard it.

The states don't have the right to deny gays the right to marry. They didn't have it with Loving and they do not have it now.

I'm past that already. I'm focused on 2 things -

1.) Will they sue religious churches for choosing not to perform wedding just like the cake baker choose not to back a cake? Setting up a showdown of a no win situation for our country to chose 1 right over another when they are equally protected.

2.) What do you chose if the SC hears the case? Religious freedom OR Same sex marriage rights?

We are now WAY PAST the issue of same sex marriage and now in a territory that threatens all of our protected freedoms in the constitution. Even Gays should be worried. They are after all Americans.

Save the drama. How many churches can you name that have been forced to marry any couple? None. Churches will still marry couples as they see ft. As it should be.

 

[Judicial review]

You can't force a religion to go against it's teaching of not rewarding what there religion calls SIN. Period. This right was so much more important than marriage it was part of the original 1st amendment 1st bill of rights. Tough shit moonass.

JR, you should have picked a better thread if this is the hill you want to die.

Oh I'm just getting warmed up. MDK I know you are gay. I'm a supporter of a state that wants to allow same sex marriage, but I'm also a supporter of a state that doesn't want to allow it. I believe in individual rights OVR our governments. Our INDIVIDUAL rights to VOTE in a STATE WIDE election to approve it or not. I'm NOT in favor or the SUPREME COURT DECIDING what is a RIGHT. That is up for the states and congress to ratify that in the constitution. That is not something for the Supreme court. Period. This is why I believe the SC should have listened to Cheif Justice Roberts when he said they shouldn't have even heard it.

The states don't have the right to deny gays the right to marry. They didn't have it with Loving and they do not have it now.

I'm past that already. I'm focused on 2 things -

1.) Will they sue religious churches for choosing not to perform wedding just like the cake baker choose not to back a cake? Setting up a showdown of a no win situation for our country to chose 1 right over another when they are equally protected.

2.) What do you chose if the SC hears the case? Religious freedom OR Same sex marriage rights?

We are now WAY PAST the issue of same sex marriage and now in a territory that threatens all of our protected freedoms in the constitution. Even Gays should be worried. They are after all Americans.

Save the drama. How many churches can you name that have been forced to marry any couple? None. Churches will still marry couples as they see ft. As it should be.

It's only been 16.5 hours. Give it time. Anybody against democracy will be emboldened now. We have man people citizens that want to overthrow this government and belive that a communist society is what we should have and this is a huge step in that direction.