Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases.

[Stephanie]

this thread shows a lot from the homosexuals in this country. They force themselves on the people then turn around and HATE on Christians and everyone else who doesn't agree with this.

you're more disgusting than the people you hate on

 

[bodecea]

Not once did I bash a faith. I bashed fanatics who want to force everyone else to behave in accordance with their faith as a matter of law. The only people who don't know the difference are the fanatics. Are you a fanatic R.D.?

Walk it back

Quote where I bashed a faith. In fact, I'll do you one better. I'll quote what I actually said:

Bad news for the religious fanatics.

Now, would you like explain how "religious fanatics" morphs into "faith bashing", or would you like to just admit to your lie.

I don't have to, you did, again. It's the faithful who are for traditional marriage, those who you called fanatics. Coupled with many who don't even practice any faith.

Those same faithful are not homophobic, against equality, racist or running scared because fools like yourself try to peg them as such.

No matter how you try to justify your bigotry, it's still bigotry. Religious bigotry still has "bigotry" in it.

You're posting again after the embarrassment a few months back. Good for you, ya big bigot tool.

Poor boy.

 

[bodecea]

this thread shows a lot from the homosexuals in this country. They force themselves on the people then turn around and HATE on Christians and everyone else who doesn't agree with this.

you're more disgusting than the people you hate on

Again, I wish to congratulate you on this glorious day, Stephanie!

 

[sameech]

I live in Virginia. Our local Clerk of Court office says that it won't issue any marriage licenses for same sex couples until it receives clarification of the law/direction from Richmond requiring them to do so since the current statutes do not authorize it. This Dillon Rule stuff will have to be sorted out.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Stephanie, the hate in your heart only hurts you, truly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I live in Virginia. Our local Clerk of Court office says that it won't issue any marriage licenses for same sex couples until it receives clarification of the law/direction from Richmond requiring them to do so since the current statutes do not authorize it. This Dillon Rule stuff will have to be sorted out.

The federal judge will issue a compliance summons, the Governor will honor it, and that will be the end of it. If the Clerk of Court defies that order, s/he will be immediately taken into custody.

 

[bodecea]

I live in Virginia. Our local Clerk of Court office says that it won't issue any marriage licenses for same sex couples until it receives clarification of the law/direction from Richmond requiring them to do so since the current statutes do not authorize it. This Dillon Rule stuff will have to be sorted out.

Won't take long for a lawsuit to open those doors. Now I'll be able to visit my relatives in Virginia without fear of the 3rd World nation type laws there.

 

[Dana7360]

Why should I pay the same rate, when I produce future tax payers, then those that don't or won't?

Your future tax payers use up current resources like school busses, classrooms, etc.... which many of us will never use yet still pay for.

Have you ever gone to see a doctor? If you have, you have used the public school system.

Do you like to drive on roads, use a bridge or fly on an airplane? If so you you've used the public school system.

Just about everything you experience in life is because someone else went to school to learn to do it.

The internet you use to spew your hate was 100% created by tax dollars. By people who went to public schools.

You benefit from and use the public school system every day of your life.

 

[sameech]

I live in Virginia. Our local Clerk of Court office says that it won't issue any marriage licenses for same sex couples until it receives clarification of the law/direction from Richmond requiring them to do so since the current statutes do not authorize it. This Dillon Rule stuff will have to be sorted out.

The federal judge will issue a compliance summons, the Governor will honor it, and that will be the end of it.

Not how it works. The Governor has no authority over the state courts (separation of powers and all that). The legislature will have to act or the state supreme court will have to import the decision into state case law for it to be the "law of the land" so to speak.

 

[sameech]

I live in Virginia. Our local Clerk of Court office says that it won't issue any marriage licenses for same sex couples until it receives clarification of the law/direction from Richmond requiring them to do so since the current statutes do not authorize it. This Dillon Rule stuff will have to be sorted out.

Won't take long for a lawsuit to open those doors. Now I'll be able to visit my relatives in Virginia without fear of the 3rd World nation type laws there.

There is nothing "third world" about Virginia law. It is a little too business friendly at the expense of consumers, but otherwise, we have the very best bond rating of any state in the country for a reason.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This has been explained to you how it will work. The Clerk of the Court will follow the Governor's order; if not, the judge will issue an order; if not, the Clerk does pass go and will pay a lot more than $200. The Clerk is not the decider of law.

 

[sameech]

This has been explained to you how it will work. The Clerk of the Court will follow the Governor's order; if not, the judge will issue an order; if not, the Clerk does pass go and will pay a lot more than $200. The Clerk is not the decider of law.

Neither is the governor. You really should learn up on stare decisis. Governors do not dictate law to the Courts. The state courts take direction from the state Supreme Court, legislature, or prior court decisions unless they each want to import the decision by circuit. At this point, it is obvious that my circuit is waiting for direction from Richmond as in the Virginia Supreme Court or the legislature. The Governor has nothing to do with it. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the only one that can issue orders to Courts. PERIOD.

 

[Qball]

This is just a gross misuse of the separation of powers doctrine and blatantly ignoring the people's will. Seriously ask yourself: how much acceptance will gays have if gay marriage is just going to be rammed through by shenanigans like this? Let the Circuit Courts strike down duly passed constitutional amendments and state laws, and then the SCOTUS just lets those lower court rulings stand because it's easier than doing it themselves. And why is it okay to pick-and-choose when we're going to acknowledge the majority? When a poll says a majority supports gay marriage, it's hailed as the gospel. But when the majority actually votes and doesn't approve of it, it's okay to just get that overturned on principle. Somebody name me one other supposed "civil right" that has been enacted through judges essentially legislating from the bench.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You truly do not understand and are simply being intransigent.

Watch your clerk crumple into compliance cravenly. Gotta love alliteration.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One, this is an issue about law, not culture.

Two, if we bring in culture, the millennials (who all can vote in 2016) overwhelmingly support this news.

Three, they outnumber the social con right.

Four, this is over.

 

[RKMBrown]

One, this is an issue about law, not culture.

Two, if we bring in culture, the millennials (who all can vote in 2016) overwhelmingly support this news.

Three, they outnumber the social con right.

Four, this is over.

Your are conflating the bigoted religious folk on the left and right with some sort of whimsical win by the left. In short... why don't you go play with yourself.

 

[Dana7360]

wonderful news for individual rights

No. It's a ruling against rights and freedom.
The gov mandating by fascist decree that all people must acknowledge and acquiesce to irrelevant kinky sex between non-procreative adults is an infringement upon rights and freedom. Not even a religious thing. Just basic logic. Something that eludes most democrats and lefties.

TOLERANCE

Not acceptance.

Is it so hard to tolerate someone else? Must we all conform to a narrow template of morality? Who arbitrates this morality? Used to be Queen Victoria, but that was under the aegis of the throne in Great Britain. But in America?

The government is mandating that two consenting adults without a blood relationship may avail themselves of the benefits and protections of the marriage contract.

Why do you have a problem with that? Will same sex marriage ruin your marriage?

You are just a bigot whose world is shrinking. Tough.

Looks like my post went over your head, too. Tolerance means not interfering. Forced acquiescence is interference. Homos want to force their irrelevant behavior onto others. That is the opposite of tolerance.

I cannot see any correlation between marriage equality and anyone force(ing) their irrelevant behavior onto others. Do heterosexual married couples 'force' their lives upon yours?

When they create children they have. On those children by their mere existence and others in the sense that new people exist to affect society. Homos cannot create children therefore no need to involve the government or others.

I know several homosexual women who became pregnant and gave birth to a child.

All they need is sperm. A sperm bank can provide that. Or a male friend can.

The reproductive organs in homosexual women work the exact same way as they do in heterosexual women.

 

[Seawytch]

No. It's a ruling against rights and freedom.
The gov mandating by fascist decree that all people must acknowledge and acquiesce to irrelevant kinky sex between non-procreative adults is an infringement upon rights and freedom. Not even a religious thing. Just basic logic. Something that eludes most democrats and lefties.

TOLERANCE

Not acceptance.

Is it so hard to tolerate someone else? Must we all conform to a narrow template of morality? Who arbitrates this morality? Used to be Queen Victoria, but that was under the aegis of the throne in Great Britain. But in America?

The government is mandating that two consenting adults without a blood relationship may avail themselves of the benefits and protections of the marriage contract.

Why do you have a problem with that? Will same sex marriage ruin your marriage?

You are just a bigot whose world is shrinking. Tough.

Looks like my post went over your head, too. Tolerance means not interfering. Forced acquiescence is interference. Homos want to force their irrelevant behavior onto others. That is the opposite of tolerance.

I cannot see any correlation between marriage equality and anyone force(ing) their irrelevant behavior onto others. Do heterosexual married couples 'force' their lives upon yours?

When they create children they have. On those children by their mere existence and others in the sense that new people exist to affect society. Homos cannot create children therefore no need to involve the government or others.

I know several homosexual women who became pregnant and gave birth to a child.

All they need is sperm. A sperm bank can provide that. Or a male friend can.

The reproductive organs in homosexual women work the exact same way as they do in heterosexual women.

As I can well attest. I've used donated sperm from a friend and IVF. Everything worked just fine. Five healthy babies.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One, this is an issue about law, not culture.

Two, if we bring in culture, the millennials (who all can vote in 2016) overwhelmingly support this news.

Three, they outnumber the social con right.

Four, this is over.

Your are conflating the bigoted religious folk on the left and right with some sort of whimsical win by the left. In short... why don't you go play with yourself.

You continue to prove you don't have a clue. The issue is over.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

wonderful news for individual rights

Unless you are a baker or a photographer.

If you are baker or photographer and have a business in a state that covers gays in Public Accommodation Laws then you have to follow the law. You can't offer a public service and then deny service for those covered under PA laws.

Several years ago Muslims cabbies refuses fares on the grounds that it violated their faith. They were violating PA law and ordered not to do so again. That was seen a slap against "creeping sharia" and radical Islam. Christian bakers were told they also can't use their faith as an excuse to deny a public service in states where gays are protected. Some of those same people that cheered the outcome against Muslims cabbies are now hypocritically crying about how their religious freedoms are stomped on. They can't have it both ways.

It shouldn't be both ways. I should be free to discriminate when it comes to doing business with people, and so should the Muslims.