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

[JakeStarkey]

The far right here sounds like the far right in all centuries: screwed up and out of the mainstream.

 

[AceRothstein]

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

Who is being stepped on? How does gays having the ability to marry affect you personally?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Just face, they beat you down. They couldn't pass it by the people in the states so they used black robes activism to step on you

what a country eh?

This is ignorant and ridiculous.

The people have no authority to deny citizens their civil rights. The courts are reaffirming that fact.

 

[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.

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

It was one 7 of 9 Justices agreed on.

However, seven of the justices agreed that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards of counting in different counties

Bush v. Gore is a terrible decision to reference for anything. It was based on a time dependent situation that would result in 1/2 the country hating it, and 1/2 the country accepting it no matter which way it went.

 

[Stephanie]

Just face, they beat you down. They couldn't pass it by the people in the states so they used black robes activism to step on you

what a country eh?

This is ignorant and ridiculous.

The people have no authority to deny citizens their civil rights. The courts are reaffirming that fact.

civil rights to frikken marry someone. You are the ignorant one. I doubt anyone care's who you call ignorant anymore you do it in every post

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marriage equality steps on no one.

Marriage equality hurts neither Marty nor Stephanie.

 

[Qball]

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.

I'd slightly disagree. Millennials support gay marriage insofar as they associate disagreement with it with the Christian right and homophobia. They look at the debate over gay marriage as being a referendum on homosexuality, and "who cares about people who are gay???", so thus, they "support" it. But, like you said, this is an issue about law, not culture.

I would also suggest you could polarize even the "millennials" by fully explaining that gay marriage isn't simply being "legalized", it's being declared the law by judges. It might be all well and good now, but let a Republican administration or Republican-appointed judge do something similar and suddenly they will get that pesky separation of powers doctrine actually has a purpose.

You should try actually looking at the polls and the poll questions. Look at the actual question. It's not "should gays be left alone to be gay". The question is, in essence; "should marriage for gays be legal just like marriage for straights"

That doesn't refute what I said. They say they support it because they don't want to look like homophobic busybodies who care way too much about other people's private lives.

 

[JakeStarkey]

They aren't and they don't.

 

[Pop23]

found this on another site I posted on earlier:
Supreme Court declines to hear same-sex marriage cases making it legal in five new states Hot Air

Your religion may not like that, but as a matter of secular government, you don’t get to determine what a marriage is for other consenting adults and deny them taxpayer benefits based upon your personally preferred definition.
Good Lt on October 6, 2014 at 1:02 PM

So a secular government is free to redefine the meaning of a word to fit and advance their rights over others? How Orwellian.
At what point does the redefinition of the meaning of certain words end?
Frankly, a secular government can define a new term, ‘civil unions’ and extend to them the same rights and responsibilities as those in a ‘marriage’ without having to redefine a word or permitting a minority to leverage a tyranny over the majority in the name of ‘rights’ – where their ‘rights’ are more endowed by the secular government than the ‘rights’ of others.

And Civil Unions would be just dandy...if they applied to everyone. Trying to set up civil marriage for straights and civil unions for gays would be separate but equal. I'm not sure if you're aware, but that was ruled unconstitutional.

I'd also like to point out that many of the anti gay marriage laws passed by bigots in their states also prohibit civil unions.

Seperate but equal is not unconstitutional in all cases. It's often used when gender is concerned.

Why don't you explain pottys to us?

I see you agree

Next time just hit the check mark

Easy peazy

 

[bodecea]

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.

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.

Your question is more detailed than can be answered by yes or no only. But you have an angle and that's why you asked it that way.
People who should be allowed to marry are those who could possibly conceive or who would provide the ideal circumstances for raising children. That, of course, being a man and a woman.

I have a friend who is in her late 60s, a widow, who has just gotten engaged. She's not allowed to marry in your world then?

 

[bodecea]

So what would happen if the states just refused to follow the lower courts decisions?

The people in this country better wake up to this judical actitivism taking away the rights of the states you live in

How has Nullification worked out in the past?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right might think it has the right to tell the rest of us how to live but is learning that it can't make it happen anymore.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Your bigoted opinion of gays is irrelevant. The only reason they are unequal at this point is because of Section 2 of the Unconstitutional DOMA. That will fall soon enough.

Tell me, precisely, why you believe my civil marriage license, issued by my state, should be treated differently than yours?

 

[rightwinger]

found this on another site I posted on earlier:
Supreme Court declines to hear same-sex marriage cases making it legal in five new states Hot Air

Your religion may not like that, but as a matter of secular government, you don’t get to determine what a marriage is for other consenting adults and deny them taxpayer benefits based upon your personally preferred definition.
Good Lt on October 6, 2014 at 1:02 PM

So a secular government is free to redefine the meaning of a word to fit and advance their rights over others? How Orwellian.
At what point does the redefinition of the meaning of certain words end?
Frankly, a secular government can define a new term, ‘civil unions’ and extend to them the same rights and responsibilities as those in a ‘marriage’ without having to redefine a word or permitting a minority to leverage a tyranny over the majority in the name of ‘rights’ – where their ‘rights’ are more endowed by the secular government than the ‘rights’ of others.

And Civil Unions would be just dandy...if they applied to everyone. Trying to set up civil marriage for straights and civil unions for gays would be separate but equal. I'm not sure if you're aware, but that was ruled unconstitutional.

I'd also like to point out that many of the anti gay marriage laws passed by bigots in their states also prohibit civil unions.

Seperate but equal is not unconstitutional in all cases. It's often used when gender is concerned.

Why don't you explain pottys to us?

I see you agree

Next time just hit the check mark

Easy peazy

You still haven't explained that potty thing

 

[jillian]

I am asking about your concept of 'forced acquiescence'. Please clarify.

When the government mandates tax breaks and subsidies and equal footing for adoption that is forced acquiescence. Tolerance is accepting homos for who they are and not interfering their own personal choices. That is all fine. But forcing others to grant privileges to homos in the name of their personal choices is forced acquiescence. It is fascism.

No, it's equality. Tax breaks are granted to parents, married couples, the uber wealthy and corporations leaving the country. Now, which of these groups forced acquiescence upon you? The marriage license is simply that. A marriage license. It's not a heterosexual license, nor is it a homosexual license. The rights, privileges and protections provided apply to each and every license.

so, idiota, if someone is infertile they should be treated differently?

perhaps you should take your head out of your butt and drop the bigotry.

Discriminating because of NO SOUND REASON WHATEVER is, indeed Fascism.

Any tax break afforded is a subsidy paid by the rest of the taxpayers. Using and objectionable tax break as rationale to defend and equally objectionable tax break doesn't defend either.
Granting tax breaks created with the intention of aiding child rearing to homo couples (and thereby forcing the subsidization of homo marriages), who by their very nature cannot procreate, is a fascist imposition.
There is no need to give homo marriage legal status. They can't procreate as can hetero couples. That is the only and most necessary distinction. There is no denying rights or any undue discrimination.

Moron...we get the tax breaks for the kids regardless of whether we are married or not.

Dumbass, homos can't have kids together.

 

[jillian]

found this on another site I posted on earlier:
Supreme Court declines to hear same-sex marriage cases making it legal in five new states Hot Air

Your religion may not like that, but as a matter of secular government, you don’t get to determine what a marriage is for other consenting adults and deny them taxpayer benefits based upon your personally preferred definition.
Good Lt on October 6, 2014 at 1:02 PM

So a secular government is free to redefine the meaning of a word to fit and advance their rights over others? How Orwellian.
At what point does the redefinition of the meaning of certain words end?
Frankly, a secular government can define a new term, ‘civil unions’ and extend to them the same rights and responsibilities as those in a ‘marriage’ without having to redefine a word or permitting a minority to leverage a tyranny over the majority in the name of ‘rights’ – where their ‘rights’ are more endowed by the secular government than the ‘rights’ of others.

And Civil Unions would be just dandy...if they applied to everyone. Trying to set up civil marriage for straights and civil unions for gays would be separate but equal. I'm not sure if you're aware, but that was ruled unconstitutional.

I'd also like to point out that many of the anti gay marriage laws passed by bigots in their states also prohibit civil unions.

Seperate but equal is not unconstitutional in all cases. It's often used when gender is concerned.

Why don't you explain pottys to us?

I see you agree

Next time just hit the check mark

Easy peazy

why do you need to pretend someone is agreeing with you when they're clearly kicking your butt?

are you ten or something?

 

[jillian]

The far right might think it has the right to tell the rest of us how to live but is learning that it can't make it happen anymore.

which is why they aren't anything but one huge temper tantrum.

 

[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.

The idea was to prevent the government from imposing a religion on PEOPLE, not other people practicing their religion and harming no one.

Having to go to another baker is not harm.

it was both. and one can't exist without the other.

the whole point is that your extremist religious views are what they are. I don't really care what they are. but no religion was ever supposed to be given preferential treatment.

so do us a favor and don't interfere what is acceptable in others' belief systems.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

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.

Your question is more detailed than can be answered by yes or no only. But you have an angle and that's why you asked it that way.
People who should be allowed to marry are those who could possibly conceive or who would provide the ideal circumstances for raising children. That, of course, being a man and a woman.

Okay. so you realize that you have just discounted every sterile - whether naturally, through accident, or surgery - and infertile heterosexual couple in the country, right? Well done, Sir. Well done. Your side tried this argument - it resulted in ridicule.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Your bigoted opinion of gays is irrelevant. The only reason they are unequal at this point is because of Section 2 of the Unconstitutional DOMA. That will fall soon enough.

Tell me, precisely, why you believe my civil marriage license, issued by my state, should be treated differently than yours?

Did your state ratify it via legislative action, or judicial fiat?

And facts can't be bigoted.