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

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

cruz didn't say it. it was from someone on the SITE with the article on Senator Cruz for crying out loud

 

[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

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

you nut jobs can't understand what is fucking said. CRUZ isn't the one who said that. you hypercritical witch

 

[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.

cruz didn't say it. it was from someone on the SITE with the article on Senator Cruz for crying out loud

Allowing Lower Court Rulings on Same-Sex Marriage to Stand is 145 Tragic and Indefensible 146 and 145 Judicial Activism at its Worst 146 Ted Cruz U.S. Senator for Texas
I'll repeat... he's lost my vote. I'll vote for anyone before him... well anyone but a democrat but I'll write in screw you both before voting for cruz.

Cruz is just making shit up. Not doing something is defacto law making.. what a POS.

 

[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

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

cruz didn't say it. it was from someone on the SITE with the article on Senator Cruz for crying out loud

Allowing Lower Court Rulings on Same-Sex Marriage to Stand is 145 Tragic and Indefensible 146 and 145 Judicial Activism at its Worst 146 Ted Cruz U.S. Senator for Texas
I'll repeat... he's lost my vote. I'll vote for anyone before him... well anyone but a democrat but I'll write in screw you both before voting for cruz.

so are we suppose to care who you vote for? really

 

[Stephanie]

again, this is something to think about without all you hysterical loons jumping in with your dramatics

---------------
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?

 

[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.

cruz didn't say it. it was from someone on the SITE with the article on Senator Cruz for crying out loud

Allowing Lower Court Rulings on Same-Sex Marriage to Stand is 145 Tragic and Indefensible 146 and 145 Judicial Activism at its Worst 146 Ted Cruz U.S. Senator for Texas
I'll repeat... he's lost my vote. I'll vote for anyone before him... well anyone but a democrat but I'll write in screw you both before voting for cruz.

Cruz is just making shit up. Not doing something is defacto law making.. what a POS.

I'm going to do EVERYTHING in my power to make sure Cruz is never re-elected in this state.

 

[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

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

cruz didn't say it. it was from someone on the SITE with the article on Senator Cruz for crying out loud

Allowing Lower Court Rulings on Same-Sex Marriage to Stand is 145 Tragic and Indefensible 146 and 145 Judicial Activism at its Worst 146 Ted Cruz U.S. Senator for Texas
I'll repeat... he's lost my vote. I'll vote for anyone before him... well anyone but a democrat but I'll write in screw you both before voting for cruz.

Cruz is just making shit up. Not doing something is defacto law making.. what a POS.

I'm going to do EVERYTHING in my power to make sure Cruz is never re-elected in this state.

go ahead break your neck doing it. the dramatics you believe yourself so powerful

 

[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.

cruz didn't say it. it was from someone on the SITE with the article on Senator Cruz for crying out loud

Allowing Lower Court Rulings on Same-Sex Marriage to Stand is 145 Tragic and Indefensible 146 and 145 Judicial Activism at its Worst 146 Ted Cruz U.S. Senator for Texas
I'll repeat... he's lost my vote. I'll vote for anyone before him... well anyone but a democrat but I'll write in screw you both before voting for cruz.

Cruz is just making shit up. Not doing something is defacto law making.. what a POS.

I'm going to do EVERYTHING in my power to make sure Cruz is never re-elected in this state.

go ahead break your neck doing it. the dramatics

He's dead to me. And dead to this state.

 

[Stephanie]

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

cruz didn't say it. it was from someone on the SITE with the article on Senator Cruz for crying out loud

Allowing Lower Court Rulings on Same-Sex Marriage to Stand is 145 Tragic and Indefensible 146 and 145 Judicial Activism at its Worst 146 Ted Cruz U.S. Senator for Texas
I'll repeat... he's lost my vote. I'll vote for anyone before him... well anyone but a democrat but I'll write in screw you both before voting for cruz.

Cruz is just making shit up. Not doing something is defacto law making.. what a POS.

I'm going to do EVERYTHING in my power to make sure Cruz is never re-elected in this state.

go ahead break your neck doing it. the dramatics

He's dead to me. And dead to this state.

 

[Stephanie]

again, this is something to think about without all you hysterical loons jumping in with your dramatics

---------------
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?

 

[RKMBrown]

cruz didn't say it. it was from someone on the SITE with the article on Senator Cruz for crying out loud

Allowing Lower Court Rulings on Same-Sex Marriage to Stand is 145 Tragic and Indefensible 146 and 145 Judicial Activism at its Worst 146 Ted Cruz U.S. Senator for Texas
I'll repeat... he's lost my vote. I'll vote for anyone before him... well anyone but a democrat but I'll write in screw you both before voting for cruz.

Cruz is just making shit up. Not doing something is defacto law making.. what a POS.

I'm going to do EVERYTHING in my power to make sure Cruz is never re-elected in this state.

go ahead break your neck doing it. the dramatics

He's dead to me. And dead to this state.

go shoot yourself then

Homophobic bigoted POS republicans have no place in my government.

 

[Stephanie]

I posted the above for anyone who want's to consider the LEGAL end of things..your choice to look at or not

I'm out of here can't stomach the hysterical hyperventilating loony toons

 

[WorldWatcher]

The states have never amended the Constitution to specifically protect so-called gay “rights,” such as gay marriage.

Here is where your repeated post fails Steph....


................. The Constitution is not a document, and never has been, that must enumerate rights.



>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Allowing Lower Court Rulings on Same-Sex Marriage to Stand is 145 Tragic and Indefensible 146 and 145 Judicial Activism at its Worst 146 Ted Cruz U.S. Senator for Texas
I'll repeat... he's lost my vote. I'll vote for anyone before him... well anyone but a democrat but I'll write in screw you both before voting for cruz.

Cruz is just making shit up. Not doing something is defacto law making.. what a POS.

I'm going to do EVERYTHING in my power to make sure Cruz is never re-elected in this state.

go ahead break your neck doing it. the dramatics

He's dead to me. And dead to this state.

go shoot yourself then

Homophobic bigoted POS republicans have no place in my government.

You have no god damn place in my country leave faggot.

 

[guno]

Someone needs a lesson on STATES RIGHTS

States don't have "rights". Under the 9th Amendment people have rights, under the 10th Amendment States have "powers".



>>>>>

I'm not interested in apples and oranges. thank you

only government cheese

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Want to bet I can't discriminate? I will never hire a faggot as long as I run my company.

 

[guno]

I'm going to do EVERYTHING in my power to make sure Cruz is never re-elected in this state.

go ahead break your neck doing it. the dramatics

He's dead to me. And dead to this state.

go shoot yourself then

Homophobic bigoted POS republicans have no place in my government.

You have no god damn place in my country leave faggot.

Such white christer rage!!

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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 tha


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.

iF you're going to play word games. I'll move on.. What are you, in kindergarten?



Minnesota s Muslim cab drivers face crackdown Reuters


Here's some that refuse to allow service animals in their cabs

By the way, what you have just essentially admitted to is that SOME discriminating is okay. Which is true, under the CRA of 1965 and all subsequent addendum SOME discrimination is alright, while others isn't. And that makes the law a blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the COTUS.

How the 14th Amendment got extended to private businesses is ridiculous. No other part of the COTUS extends constitutional protections from a private business violating your rights.Not one.

 

[Stephanie]

I'm going to do EVERYTHING in my power to make sure Cruz is never re-elected in this state.

go ahead break your neck doing it. the dramatics

He's dead to me. And dead to this state.

go shoot yourself then

Homophobic bigoted POS republicans have no place in my government.

You have no god damn place in my country leave faggot.

they're just showing their so called "tolerance" for others they crow they are famous for having more of. disagree with them and you get called all kinds of cute little names because they are so empty of anything else

 

[bigrebnc1775]

go ahead break your neck doing it. the dramatics

He's dead to me. And dead to this state.

go shoot yourself then

Homophobic bigoted POS republicans have no place in my government.

You have no god damn place in my country leave faggot.

Such white christer rage!!

You're a fucking faggot ass hypocrite
Who said this?
"Homophobic bigoted POS republicans have no place in my government."
Now go suck another dick.