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

[Czernobog]

So, just to clarify, it is your contention that the only people who should be allowed to marry are those who can, and will, procreate? A simple yes, or no will suffice.

That's a stupid question, but par for the course for the idiot left. Marriage has been for families since recorded history. It's what usually happens when men and women get together. The few that don't procreate don't really change what the male/female union, each with their special aspects of gender bring to the table. The big lie is that two fags mimic this somehow and we are all supposed to park our brains and go along with the fantasy.

Bullshit. Men and women have gotten together since time immemorial without ever producing children. There have been numerous cultures that have tolerated homosexual relations. The suggestion that the purpose of marriage is "only for procreation" is anything other than a new argument meant to impugn the idea of same sex marriage is as disingenuous as it is idiotic.

The bigger story for me is that the fact that the Supremes refused to hear the case proves that is is not a Constitutional issue, which I and many have said all along. It isn't a matter of "equality" but a matter of states rights to decide what the definition of marriage is. Homosexual marriages will NEVER be seen the same, people may pretend to go along with it but it will always be a joke.

Again, this is just plain stupid, and shows a complete lack of understanding of what has happened. lemme help you out with this. The Supreme court didn't leave the ruling of the State Courts in place; they left the previous ruling of the Federal Circuit Courts in place. In other words, this wasn't a State Issue; it was a Federal Issue, and the Supreme Court decided that it had already been decided. Furthermore, this action not only makes the marriage ban in these seven states invalid, it also makes the marriage bans in the other eleven states in their jusrisdiction illegal. "Homosexual marriage" is being seen as "the same"; 30 states out of 50. Sorry pal, your archaic, bigoted view is simply going the way of all bigotry - it is losing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sigh. The Constitution says you can't discriminate even if you have a majority that wants to discriminate. So step off, haters. Welcome to Utah's new state flag.

 

[Czernobog]

I never thought the Supreme Court would rule on any of these cases. They learned their lesson with Roe v Wade. They won't repeat it with same sex marriage.
It looks like the activists that wanted a ruling legalizing same sex marriage in the whole of the US are just out of luck.

Well...not really. It's just going to be a slower process. The courts are letting it be done circuit by circuit. Guess what? That's working, too. It's just taking longer. That's fine with me. The activists who want to keep gays from enjoying the same rights, and privileges as everyone else are clearly losing this fight. Marriage equality will now clearly be the law of the land in well over half of the country. The rest is bound to follow.

I've read that the phrase "the law of the land" was prominently used by the kings court of England...which was part of the tyranny the founders fought to get out from under. I think the S Court today recognized the danger in gay-marriage as a "right" ....so they weaseled their way out. Pathetic really...but somewhat better than calling it a "right". Marshall justified judicial review in part by saying all cases should be heard.....not this bull shit, where even tho they have more clerks and bigger budgets than ever, they routinely turn down cases......It shows a need for judicial reform.

You get that the Supreme Court's move today not only has the effect of striking down the gay marriage ban in each of these cases, but also made the bans in the other eleven states in their jurisdiction invalid, as well. It sounds a whole lot like the Supreme Court just recognized the federal circuit courts' decision that gay marriage is a right. This just increased the number of states that recognize marriage equality from a paltry 19 minority to an impressive 30 majority of the nation.

 

[jillian]

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.

when did muslim cabbies refuse fares?

it's easy to say that you should be free to discriminate in public accommodation when you're white male and christian.

 

[jillian]

wonderful news for individual rights

The founders of this country did not make sure we could have rights that protected perversions and immorality

the founders made sure that your religious judgments cannot be imposed on others.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

wonderful news for individual rights

The founders of this country did not make sure we could have rights that protected perversions and immorality

Actually, the founders of this country pointedly remained silent on the issue of morality, while framing The Constitution. This would be because they did not feel it was the job of government to mandate morality.

Want to bet they didn't?
Who said this?
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

 

[dilloduck]

wonderful news for individual rights

The founders of this country did not make sure we could have rights that protected perversions and immorality

the founders made sure that your religious judgments cannot be imposed on others.

Would that be the same thing as a moral judgement ?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

wonderful news for individual rights

The founders of this country did not make sure we could have rights that protected perversions and immorality

the founders made sure that your religious judgments cannot be imposed on others.

Sure they did but they did not make sure we had rights to protect perversions.

 

[AceRothstein]

wonderful news for individual rights

The founders of this country did not make sure we could have rights that protected perversions and immorality

the founders made sure that your religious judgments cannot be imposed on others.

Sure they did but they did not make sure we had rights to protect perversions.

Just because you say something is a perversion doesn't mean it is a perversion.

 

[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.

when did muslim cabbies refuse fares?

it's easy to say that you should be free to discriminate in public accommodation when you're white male and christian.

Some Muslim Cabbies Refuse Fares Carrying Alcohol

well within their rights, says I

Now, why do you assume I'm white, Christian, and male?

 

[JakeStarkey]

wonderful news for individual rights

The founders of this country did not make sure we could have rights that protected perversions and immorality

Actually, the founders of this country pointedly remained silent on the issue of morality, while framing The Constitution. This would be because they did not feel it was the job of government to mandate morality.

Want to bet they didn't?
Who said this?
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Probably John Adams. Since you are neither moral nor righteous, you don't need to worry about it.

 

[Plasmaball]

Remember the hobby lobby case and how the right decided to rub it in everyones faces that they won something. So we got thread after thread about it.

So in response to that: hahahaahhahahhahaha fuck you

 

[jillian]

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.

when did muslim cabbies refuse fares?

it's easy to say that you should be free to discriminate in public accommodation when you're white male and christian.

Some Muslim Cabbies Refuse Fares Carrying Alcohol

well within their rights, says I

Now, why do you assume I'm white, Christian, and male?

so they didn't refuse to take people. they refused to take liquor? and what happened when they did that?

my assumption is that if you aren't defending minority rights, you are white, male and christian. of course, you might not be all three at once. but it's a good bet you're at least one of those.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

wonderful news for individual rights

The founders of this country did not make sure we could have rights that protected perversions and immorality

the founders made sure that your religious judgments cannot be imposed on others.

Sure they did but they did not make sure we had rights to protect perversions.

Just because you say something is a perversion doesn't mean it is a perversion.

It is it's also abnormal

per·ver·sion
pərˈvərZHən/
noun

1. 1.
   the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.

ab·nor·mal
abˈnôrməl/
adjective

1. deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying.

 

[ShackledNation]

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.

You are conflating going to school in general with going to public school in particular. So technically that is not true in all cases.

 

[Stephanie]

ran across this from another site:


Gay marriage is unconstitutional for the following simple reason imo. The states have never amended the Constitution to specifically protect so-called gay “rights,” such as gay marriage. This means two things under the Constitution.

• The Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution’s silence about things like marriage means that such issues are uniquely state power issues.
• Since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage, gay marriage is not a constitutionally protected right.

Also, regardless what the corrupt media wants everybody to think about the Supreme Court's decision concerning DOMA, Section 2 of DOMA is still in effect. Section 2 is reasonably based on Congress's Article IV, Section 1 power, the Full Faith and Credit clause, to regulate the effect of one state's records in the other states, and gives the states the power to ignore gay marriages recognized in other states. But Section 2 is wrongly being ignored by both judges and justices imo. DOMA Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
So the states are free to make 10th Amendment-protected laws which discriminate against constitutionally unprotected gay “rights,” such as gay marriage imo, as long as such laws don’t unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
Again, the troubling question is why are legal professionals who are supposed to be protecting state laws prohibiting gay marriage evidently not arguing the above points in defense of such laws?
Sen. Cruz releases statement about Supreme Court actions today Homosexual Marriage

 

[JoeB131]

I've got mixed feelings abou this. The Court again punted the football, but they are running out of places to punt it to.

clearly, the court's majority (the four liberals plus Kennedy) want to declare gay marriage for the whole country, but they want to get more coverage from the lower courts without having to pull the trigger themselves.

Lawrence and Roemer have already set the precedent. You can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. But the court doesn't want to pull that trigger on marriage - yet.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one really cares about Teddie since he lost his power last fall in the debt and budgt debacles.

 

[RKMBrown]

ran across this from another site:


Gay marriage is unconstitutional for the following simple reason imo. The states have never amended the Constitution to specifically protect so-called gay “rights,” such as gay marriage. This means two things under the Constitution.

• The Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution’s silence about things like marriage means that such issues are uniquely state power issues.
• Since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage, gay marriage is not a constitutionally protected right.

Also, regardless what the corrupt media wants everybody to think about the Supreme Court's decision concerning DOMA, Section 2 of DOMA is still in effect. Section 2 is reasonably based on Congress's Article IV, Section 1 power, the Full Faith and Credit clause, to regulate the effect of one state's records in the other states, and gives the states the power to ignore gay marriages recognized in other states. But Section 2 is wrongly being ignored by both judges and justices imo. DOMA Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
So the states are free to make 10th Amendment-protected laws which discriminate against constitutionally unprotected gay “rights,” such as gay marriage imo, as long as such laws don’t unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
Again, the troubling question is why are legal professionals who are supposed to be protecting state laws prohibiting gay marriage evidently not arguing the above points in defense of such laws?
Sen. Cruz releases statement about Supreme Court actions today Homosexual Marriage

Cruz is a fucking idiot and a liar. He lost my vote ... forever.

 

[jillian]

ran across this from another site:


Gay marriage is unconstitutional for the following simple reason imo. The states have never amended the Constitution to specifically protect so-called gay “rights,” such as gay marriage. This means two things under the Constitution.

• The Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution’s silence about things like marriage means that such issues are uniquely state power issues.
• Since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage, gay marriage is not a constitutionally protected right.

Also, regardless what the corrupt media wants everybody to think about the Supreme Court's decision concerning DOMA, Section 2 of DOMA is still in effect. Section 2 is reasonably based on Congress's Article IV, Section 1 power, the Full Faith and Credit clause, to regulate the effect of one state's records in the other states, and gives the states the power to ignore gay marriages recognized in other states. But Section 2 is wrongly being ignored by both judges and justices imo. DOMA Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
So the states are free to make 10th Amendment-protected laws which discriminate against constitutionally unprotected gay “rights,” such as gay marriage imo, as long as such laws don’t unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
Again, the troubling question is why are legal professionals who are supposed to be protecting state laws prohibiting gay marriage evidently not arguing the above points in defense of such laws?
Sen. Cruz releases statement about Supreme Court actions today Homosexual Marriage

thanks for sharing some of cruz's idiocy. he sure knows how to play you wackadoodles