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

[bodecea]

Same-sex marriage should be legal in every state by the end of the decade, but for now there will be a lot of court battles and appeals. There are sure to be hold out states.

Just like there were hold out states with civil rights in the 60s and 70s.

 

[Seawytch]

It was ruled unconstitutional based on race, and an amendment was created specifically to lead to that (and ignored for around 1/2 a century).

Actually, some people tried to stop the 14th because it would lead to interracial marriage.

Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned? It's not? You don't say...

That was the intent of the amendment, which has been perverted to the point of making it a catch all for any progressive tripe you clowns come up with (and find a pliable judge for).

So you can't find where in the Amendment it specifically mentions race as it pertains to equal protection. Imagine that!

I love that you're still beating the "activist judge" meme. How many ruling have there been now? How many have gone the anti gay way? But still you want to try for the "activist judge" storyline.

Hmmmm...19 rulings one way...none the other. Riiiggghhhhttt...."activism".

 

[bodecea]

It was ruled unconstitutional based on race, and an amendment was created specifically to lead to that (and ignored for around 1/2 a century).

Actually, some people tried to stop the 14th because it would lead to interracial marriage.

Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned? It's not? You don't say...

That was the intent of the amendment, which has been perverted to the point of making it a catch all for any progressive tripe you clowns come up with (and find a pliable judge for).

Where is the part of the equal protection clause that specifically states it's only to apply to race issues?

 

[martybegan]

It was ruled unconstitutional based on race, and an amendment was created specifically to lead to that (and ignored for around 1/2 a century).

Actually, some people tried to stop the 14th because it would lead to interracial marriage.

Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned? It's not? You don't say...

That was the intent of the amendment, which has been perverted to the point of making it a catch all for any progressive tripe you clowns come up with (and find a pliable judge for).

So you can't find where in the Amendment it specifically mentions race as it pertains to equal protection. Imagine that!

I love that you're still beating the "activist judge" meme. How many ruling have there been now? How many have gone the anti gay way? But still you want to try for the "activist judge" storyline.

Hmmmm...19 rulings one way...none the other. Riiiggghhhhttt...."activism".

Yes, activism. We have lost contact with the constitution in favor of placating a vocal minority and their backers.

 

[martybegan]

It was ruled unconstitutional based on race, and an amendment was created specifically to lead to that (and ignored for around 1/2 a century).

Actually, some people tried to stop the 14th because it would lead to interracial marriage.

Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned? It's not? You don't say...

That was the intent of the amendment, which has been perverted to the point of making it a catch all for any progressive tripe you clowns come up with (and find a pliable judge for).

Where is the part of the equal protection clause that specifically states it's only to apply to race issues?

We all know the intent of the amendment, its a historical fact. It's being stretched beyond its intent. Its that simple.

 

[Seawytch]

It was ruled unconstitutional based on race, and an amendment was created specifically to lead to that (and ignored for around 1/2 a century).

Actually, some people tried to stop the 14th because it would lead to interracial marriage.

Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned? It's not? You don't say...

That was the intent of the amendment, which has been perverted to the point of making it a catch all for any progressive tripe you clowns come up with (and find a pliable judge for).

So you can't find where in the Amendment it specifically mentions race as it pertains to equal protection. Imagine that!

I love that you're still beating the "activist judge" meme. How many ruling have there been now? How many have gone the anti gay way? But still you want to try for the "activist judge" storyline.

Hmmmm...19 rulings one way...none the other. Riiiggghhhhttt...."activism".

Yes, activism. We have lost contact with the constitution in favor of placating a vocal minority and their backers.

Funny...sounds more like the old "sour grapes" story to me.

Our "backers" are the majority or haven't you seen the polls?

 

[rightwinger]

It was ruled unconstitutional based on race, and an amendment was created specifically to lead to that (and ignored for around 1/2 a century).

Actually, some people tried to stop the 14th because it would lead to interracial marriage.

Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned? It's not? You don't say...

That was the intent of the amendment, which has been perverted to the point of making it a catch all for any progressive tripe you clowns come up with (and find a pliable judge for).

So you can't find where in the Amendment it specifically mentions race as it pertains to equal protection. Imagine that!

I love that you're still beating the "activist judge" meme. How many ruling have there been now? How many have gone the anti gay way? But still you want to try for the "activist judge" storyline.

Hmmmm...19 rulings one way...none the other. Riiiggghhhhttt...."activism".

Yes, activism. We have lost contact with the constitution in favor of placating a vocal minority and their backers.

I think, if anything we are closer to the original intent of the Constitution to provide equal protection of the laws

 

[bodecea]

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."

Where is that codified in our Constitution?

 

[rightwinger]

It was ruled unconstitutional based on race, and an amendment was created specifically to lead to that (and ignored for around 1/2 a century).

Actually, some people tried to stop the 14th because it would lead to interracial marriage.

Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned? It's not? You don't say...

That was the intent of the amendment, which has been perverted to the point of making it a catch all for any progressive tripe you clowns come up with (and find a pliable judge for).

Where is the part of the equal protection clause that specifically states it's only to apply to race issues?

We all know the intent of the amendment, its a historical fact. It's being stretched beyond its intent. Its that simple.

If they wanted to restrict the scope, they could have

These were intelligent men back then, they knew the meaning of the words they wrote

 

[paperview]

It was ruled unconstitutional based on race, and an amendment was created specifically to lead to that (and ignored for around 1/2 a century).

Actually, some people tried to stop the 14th because it would lead to interracial marriage.

Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned? It's not? You don't say...

That was the intent of the amendment, which has been perverted to the point of making it a catch all for any progressive tripe you clowns come up with (and find a pliable judge for).

Where is the part of the equal protection clause that specifically states it's only to apply to race issues?

We all know the intent of the amendment, its a historical fact. It's being stretched beyond its intent. Its that simple.

Bush v Gore. That was a pretty wicked stretch of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Seawytch]

It was ruled unconstitutional based on race, and an amendment was created specifically to lead to that (and ignored for around 1/2 a century).

Actually, some people tried to stop the 14th because it would lead to interracial marriage.

Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned? It's not? You don't say...

That was the intent of the amendment, which has been perverted to the point of making it a catch all for any progressive tripe you clowns come up with (and find a pliable judge for).

Where is the part of the equal protection clause that specifically states it's only to apply to race issues?

We all know the intent of the amendment, its a historical fact. It's being stretched beyond its intent. Its that simple.

And yet, if that was the only intent, race would have been mentioned specifically wouldn't it? Loving was not the only marriage case that cited the 14th...and that one wasn't about race.

 

[Iceweasel]

Yet we consider slavery and the rape of slave women a perversion and immorality and they all made sure the right to own slaves and do with them as property was protected.

It was contentious from the beginning, read John Adams as one example. But trying to piggyback your pet cause on top of slavery or women's suffrage is stupid. Anyone can claim anything using that tactic. But we are talking about folks that can't figure out that tab A goes into slot B.

 

[Stephanie]

It was ruled unconstitutional based on race, and an amendment was created specifically to lead to that (and ignored for around 1/2 a century).

Actually, some people tried to stop the 14th because it would lead to interracial marriage.

Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned? It's not? You don't say...

That was the intent of the amendment, which has been perverted to the point of making it a catch all for any progressive tripe you clowns come up with (and find a pliable judge for).

So you can't find where in the Amendment it specifically mentions race as it pertains to equal protection. Imagine that!

I love that you're still beating the "activist judge" meme. How many ruling have there been now? How many have gone the anti gay way? But still you want to try for the "activist judge" storyline.

Hmmmm...19 rulings one way...none the other. Riiiggghhhhttt...."activism".

Yes, activism. We have lost contact with the constitution in favor of placating a vocal minority and their backers.

Funny...sounds more like the old "sour grapes" story to me.

Our "backers" are the majority or haven't you seen the polls?

well for sure the millions of people being stepped on by you has no reason for sour grapes. what do you care about them. You're all strutting around beating your chest like hairy apes

 

[Seawytch]

Yet we consider slavery and the rape of slave women a perversion and immorality and they all made sure the right to own slaves and do with them as property was protected.

It was contentious from the beginning, read John Adams as one example. But trying to piggyback your pet cause on top of slavery or women's suffrage is stupid. Anyone can claim anything using that tactic. But we are talking about folks that can't figure out that tab A goes into slot B.

So the 35% of straight people that engage in anal sex get their marriage licenses revoke?

We're not "piggybacking" anything. We're challenging anti gay rulings on our merits. Not our fault that the precedent for marriage being a fundamental right was set before we got here.

 

[bodecea]

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?

So...you can't think for yourself....only can regurgitate the same thing over and over.....color me surprised.

 

[martybegan]

It was ruled unconstitutional based on race, and an amendment was created specifically to lead to that (and ignored for around 1/2 a century).

Actually, some people tried to stop the 14th because it would lead to interracial marriage.

Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned? It's not? You don't say...

That was the intent of the amendment, which has been perverted to the point of making it a catch all for any progressive tripe you clowns come up with (and find a pliable judge for).

So you can't find where in the Amendment it specifically mentions race as it pertains to equal protection. Imagine that!

I love that you're still beating the "activist judge" meme. How many ruling have there been now? How many have gone the anti gay way? But still you want to try for the "activist judge" storyline.

Hmmmm...19 rulings one way...none the other. Riiiggghhhhttt...."activism".

Yes, activism. We have lost contact with the constitution in favor of placating a vocal minority and their backers.

I think, if anything we are closer to the original intent of the Constitution to provide equal protection of the laws

Strongly disagree. Removal of this issue from the state legislatures, where it has always been decided basically shits on the constitution.

 

[bodecea]

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.

You think.... You got gaydar then?

 

[rightwinger]

Actually, some people tried to stop the 14th because it would lead to interracial marriage.

Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned? It's not? You don't say...

That was the intent of the amendment, which has been perverted to the point of making it a catch all for any progressive tripe you clowns come up with (and find a pliable judge for).

So you can't find where in the Amendment it specifically mentions race as it pertains to equal protection. Imagine that!

I love that you're still beating the "activist judge" meme. How many ruling have there been now? How many have gone the anti gay way? But still you want to try for the "activist judge" storyline.

Hmmmm...19 rulings one way...none the other. Riiiggghhhhttt...."activism".

Yes, activism. We have lost contact with the constitution in favor of placating a vocal minority and their backers.

Funny...sounds more like the old "sour grapes" story to me.

Our "backers" are the majority or haven't you seen the polls?

well for sure the millions of people being stepped on by you has no reason for sour grapes. what do you care about them. You're all strutting around beating your chest like hairy apes

How, specifically, does gay marriage "step on " you?

 

[martybegan]

It was ruled unconstitutional based on race, and an amendment was created specifically to lead to that (and ignored for around 1/2 a century).

Actually, some people tried to stop the 14th because it would lead to interracial marriage.

Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned? It's not? You don't say...

That was the intent of the amendment, which has been perverted to the point of making it a catch all for any progressive tripe you clowns come up with (and find a pliable judge for).

Where is the part of the equal protection clause that specifically states it's only to apply to race issues?

We all know the intent of the amendment, its a historical fact. It's being stretched beyond its intent. Its that simple.

And yet, if that was the only intent, race would have been mentioned specifically wouldn't it? Loving was not the only marriage case that cited the 14th...and that one wasn't about race.

You assume that same sex and opposite sex marriage are the equal, they are not, no matter how much you wish it to be.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually, some people tried to stop the 14th because it would lead to interracial marriage.

Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned? It's not? You don't say...

That was the intent of the amendment, which has been perverted to the point of making it a catch all for any progressive tripe you clowns come up with (and find a pliable judge for).

So you can't find where in the Amendment it specifically mentions race as it pertains to equal protection. Imagine that!

I love that you're still beating the "activist judge" meme. How many ruling have there been now? How many have gone the anti gay way? But still you want to try for the "activist judge" storyline.

Hmmmm...19 rulings one way...none the other. Riiiggghhhhttt...."activism".

Yes, activism. We have lost contact with the constitution in favor of placating a vocal minority and their backers.

I think, if anything we are closer to the original intent of the Constitution to provide equal protection of the laws

Strongly disagree. Removal of this issue from the state legislatures, where it has always been decided basically shits on the constitution.

State legislations do not have the authority to violate the Constitution. We saw that during the civil rights era