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

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

YOU are the one who wants government to interfere in other's belief systems, not me. YOU are the one forcing people to decide between faith or pursing their career of choice. YOU are the one who loves smashing people who disagree with you with the hammer of government.

My views are irrelevant here, what matters is the process, the process that you and your ilk seem to ignore or bastardize as long as you get what you want.

fist. take a deep breath. frankly, i'm unsure as to why you give a flying that two adult people who love each other can get married. i'm not sure why it makes you turn into a venom spewing extremist. I've not always found you to be this angry.

what process? the court has ALWAYS put the kibosh on unconstitutional actions by bigots. well, when it gets things right.

and, frankly, my gay friends have as much right to have their relationships recognized by the state as you do.

You mean not at all?

 

[jillian]

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.

YOU are the one who wants government to interfere in other's belief systems, not me. YOU are the one forcing people to decide between faith or pursing their career of choice. YOU are the one who loves smashing people who disagree with you with the hammer of government.

My views are irrelevant here, what matters is the process, the process that you and your ilk seem to ignore or bastardize as long as you get what you want.

fist. take a deep breath. frankly, i'm unsure as to why you give a flying that two adult people who love each other can get married. i'm not sure why it makes you turn into a venom spewing extremist. I've not always found you to be this angry.

what process? the court has ALWAYS put the kibosh on unconstitutional actions by bigots. well, when it gets things right.

and, frankly, my gay friends have as much right to have their relationships recognized by the state as you do.

You mean not at all?

oh... are you one of those people who thinks marriage is about what deity you worship? lol

 

[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.

I keep hearing the media say that it extends to 11 states but I dont see why, I would think that would still depend on state by state cases,... but whatever,even if it does, I still see it as weaseling out of a definitive ruling. .....As I understand Marshall, if the court doesn't take every case presented, it undermines its moral authority to judge the Constitutionality of the law.

Also why do you care about 30 states being a majority????....your basing your validation on the decision of what 4 people?

It includes the other 11 states, because all of those states fall within the circuit's jurisdiction, and those states are, therefore, subject to abide by those courts' rulings. That makes the bans in those states invalid. Well, those four people just dramatically changed the landscape of the marriage Equality fight, so, yeah. The fact is, contrary to your rant about "the law of the land", the lower courts already declared "gay marriage", as you put it, a right. By refusing to hear the cases, the Supreme Court tacitly agreed with their findings.

 

[martybegan]

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.

YOU are the one who wants government to interfere in other's belief systems, not me. YOU are the one forcing people to decide between faith or pursing their career of choice. YOU are the one who loves smashing people who disagree with you with the hammer of government.

My views are irrelevant here, what matters is the process, the process that you and your ilk seem to ignore or bastardize as long as you get what you want.

fist. take a deep breath. frankly, i'm unsure as to why you give a flying that two adult people who love each other can get married. i'm not sure why it makes you turn into a venom spewing extremist. I've not always found you to be this angry.

what process? the court has ALWAYS put the kibosh on unconstitutional actions by bigots. well, when it gets things right.

and, frankly, my gay friends have as much right to have their relationships recognized by the state as you do.

Again, if it is via the state legislature changing the marriage contract, I have no issue with it. I would probably vote for it.

My issue is with courts making up rights, because the same courts can make shit up to take them away. My other issue is with PA laws that force people to either compromise their religious beliefs, or abandon their preferred way of making a living. PA laws were meant to cover essentials, like lodging, transportation, and basic necessity purchasing, they were not meant to protect the feelings of a couple that has to call another baker/photographer for their wedding.

And what really gets my goat is the same people who are OK with making crap up in the constitution are A-OK with ignoring another part of it when it suits them.

The fact you have to accuse of me of some non existent bigotry is sad.

federal law trumps state law. and, if I've mischaracterized you, i'm sorry. I can only go by what I see. and, to be fair, most states' rights extremists are only states rights extremists because they're still pissed off about brown v board of ed, outlawing segregation and theocracy.... none of which is permissible anywhere but in the extremes of the right.

Federal law trumps state law, but federal laws should only concern themselves with what the constitution gives them. We have sadly moved far away from that, with the feds getting into crap that they have no right interfering with. States rights may be a catch all for everything you detest about the right, but that does not make all federalists the same. For example NY State is in violation of the 2nd amendment with a lot of their gun control laws (i.e may issue instead of shall issue CCW) and here the federal courts SHOULD step in and fix it.

 

[martybegan]

and martybegan the states rights battle was lost at the end of the civil war. perhaps its time to get over it.

States rights are secession are two separate things. To Equate the two is ridiculous. The 10th amendment is still in effect, last I looked.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

YOU are the one who wants government to interfere in other's belief systems, not me. YOU are the one forcing people to decide between faith or pursing their career of choice. YOU are the one who loves smashing people who disagree with you with the hammer of government.

My views are irrelevant here, what matters is the process, the process that you and your ilk seem to ignore or bastardize as long as you get what you want.

fist. take a deep breath. frankly, i'm unsure as to why you give a flying that two adult people who love each other can get married. i'm not sure why it makes you turn into a venom spewing extremist. I've not always found you to be this angry.

what process? the court has ALWAYS put the kibosh on unconstitutional actions by bigots. well, when it gets things right.

and, frankly, my gay friends have as much right to have their relationships recognized by the state as you do.

Again, if it is via the state legislature changing the marriage contract, I have no issue with it. I would probably vote for it.

My issue is with courts making up rights, because the same courts can make shit up to take them away. My other issue is with PA laws that force people to either compromise their religious beliefs, or abandon their preferred way of making a living. PA laws were meant to cover essentials, like lodging, transportation, and basic necessity purchasing, they were not meant to protect the feelings of a couple that has to call another baker/photographer for their wedding.

And what really gets my goat is the same people who are OK with making crap up in the constitution are A-OK with ignoring another part of it when it suits them.

The fact you have to accuse of me of some non existent bigotry is sad.

federal law trumps state law. and, if I've mischaracterized you, i'm sorry. I can only go by what I see. and, to be fair, most states' rights extremists are only states rights extremists because they're still pissed off about brown v board of ed, outlawing segregation and theocracy.... none of which is permissible anywhere but in the extremes of the right.

Federal law trumps state law, but federal laws should only concern themselves with what the constitution gives them. We have sadly moved far away from that, with the feds getting into crap that they have no right interfering with. States rights may be a catch all for everything you detest about the right, but that does not make all federalists the same. For example NY State is in violation of the 2nd amendment with a lot of their gun control laws (i.e may issue instead of shall issue CCW) and here the federal courts SHOULD step in and fix it.

And they know they are wrong.. thus why NY keeps backing off before punishing anyone with their unconstitutional laws. They know as soon as they actually enforce it ... the law will go before the courts and they will be thrown out.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Facts can't be, but you saying that marriage between gays and marriage between heterosexuals isn't equal IS bigoted. In half the states now it is equal. Can you explain why you believe that my civil marriage license should be treated differently than yours?

Again, if it was passed by your state legislature, it should be legally equal. If it was created via judicial fiat, it is tainted by the use of courts to create something out of thin air.

The two forms of marriage are not the same thing. It's not bigoted to point it out, its realistic.

 

[Czernobog]

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

I don't get it The supreme court decided not to hear any cases regrading faggots rights to marriage because it's viewed as a states issue, but it is the federal appointed judges ruled states cannot make this decision. When the lower FEDERAL courts overturn thew will of the people of each state it made it a federal issue. Didn't the supreme court say let the states decide?

No. It said "let the previous rulings stand". That's the part you don't get. The Supreme Court essentially said, "While this is a Federal issue, the issue has already been correctly ruled upon, and we see no reason to revisit the question,"

 

[bodecea]

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.

I would very much like to have people practice their religion and harm no one....but when they try to codify their religion into law, making law that discriminates against others....that IS harm.

 

[martybegan]

YOU are the one who wants government to interfere in other's belief systems, not me. YOU are the one forcing people to decide between faith or pursing their career of choice. YOU are the one who loves smashing people who disagree with you with the hammer of government.

My views are irrelevant here, what matters is the process, the process that you and your ilk seem to ignore or bastardize as long as you get what you want.

fist. take a deep breath. frankly, i'm unsure as to why you give a flying that two adult people who love each other can get married. i'm not sure why it makes you turn into a venom spewing extremist. I've not always found you to be this angry.

what process? the court has ALWAYS put the kibosh on unconstitutional actions by bigots. well, when it gets things right.

and, frankly, my gay friends have as much right to have their relationships recognized by the state as you do.

Again, if it is via the state legislature changing the marriage contract, I have no issue with it. I would probably vote for it.

My issue is with courts making up rights, because the same courts can make shit up to take them away. My other issue is with PA laws that force people to either compromise their religious beliefs, or abandon their preferred way of making a living. PA laws were meant to cover essentials, like lodging, transportation, and basic necessity purchasing, they were not meant to protect the feelings of a couple that has to call another baker/photographer for their wedding.

And what really gets my goat is the same people who are OK with making crap up in the constitution are A-OK with ignoring another part of it when it suits them.

The fact you have to accuse of me of some non existent bigotry is sad.

federal law trumps state law. and, if I've mischaracterized you, i'm sorry. I can only go by what I see. and, to be fair, most states' rights extremists are only states rights extremists because they're still pissed off about brown v board of ed, outlawing segregation and theocracy.... none of which is permissible anywhere but in the extremes of the right.

Federal law trumps state law, but federal laws should only concern themselves with what the constitution gives them. We have sadly moved far away from that, with the feds getting into crap that they have no right interfering with. States rights may be a catch all for everything you detest about the right, but that does not make all federalists the same. For example NY State is in violation of the 2nd amendment with a lot of their gun control laws (i.e may issue instead of shall issue CCW) and here the federal courts SHOULD step in and fix it.

And they know they are wrong.. thus why NY keeps backing off before punishing anyone with their unconstitutional laws. They know as soon as they actually enforce it ... the law will go before the courts and they will be thrown out.

NYC's onerous concealed carry laws have existed for two decades now. I'm not confident in the courts to fix it, because they haven't yet.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Facts can't be, but you saying that marriage between gays and marriage between heterosexuals isn't equal IS bigoted. In half the states now it is equal. Can you explain why you believe that my civil marriage license should be treated differently than yours?

Again, if it was passed by your state legislature, it should be legally equal. If it was created via judicial fiat, it is tainted by the use of courts to create something out of thin air.

The two forms of marriage are not the same thing. It's not bigoted to point it out, its realistic.

It's not the same thing. But it is bigoted to allow one form but not another for consenting adults.

 

[martybegan]

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.

I would very much like to have people practice their religion and harm no one....but when they try to codify their religion into law, making law that discriminates against others....that IS harm.

The only harm codified by law is harming the religious people, not you.

 

[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?

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

Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned?

 

[martybegan]

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.

Facts can't be, but you saying that marriage between gays and marriage between heterosexuals isn't equal IS bigoted. In half the states now it is equal. Can you explain why you believe that my civil marriage license should be treated differently than yours?

Again, if it was passed by your state legislature, it should be legally equal. If it was created via judicial fiat, it is tainted by the use of courts to create something out of thin air.

The two forms of marriage are not the same thing. It's not bigoted to point it out, its realistic.

It's not the same thing. But it is bigoted to allow one form but not another for consenting adults.

Then do it the right way, by petitioning your state legislature to change the law defining the marriage contract, and not by whipping up some right out of thin air.

 

[RKMBrown]

fist. take a deep breath. frankly, i'm unsure as to why you give a flying that two adult people who love each other can get married. i'm not sure why it makes you turn into a venom spewing extremist. I've not always found you to be this angry.

what process? the court has ALWAYS put the kibosh on unconstitutional actions by bigots. well, when it gets things right.

and, frankly, my gay friends have as much right to have their relationships recognized by the state as you do.

Again, if it is via the state legislature changing the marriage contract, I have no issue with it. I would probably vote for it.

My issue is with courts making up rights, because the same courts can make shit up to take them away. My other issue is with PA laws that force people to either compromise their religious beliefs, or abandon their preferred way of making a living. PA laws were meant to cover essentials, like lodging, transportation, and basic necessity purchasing, they were not meant to protect the feelings of a couple that has to call another baker/photographer for their wedding.

And what really gets my goat is the same people who are OK with making crap up in the constitution are A-OK with ignoring another part of it when it suits them.

The fact you have to accuse of me of some non existent bigotry is sad.

federal law trumps state law. and, if I've mischaracterized you, i'm sorry. I can only go by what I see. and, to be fair, most states' rights extremists are only states rights extremists because they're still pissed off about brown v board of ed, outlawing segregation and theocracy.... none of which is permissible anywhere but in the extremes of the right.

Federal law trumps state law, but federal laws should only concern themselves with what the constitution gives them. We have sadly moved far away from that, with the feds getting into crap that they have no right interfering with. States rights may be a catch all for everything you detest about the right, but that does not make all federalists the same. For example NY State is in violation of the 2nd amendment with a lot of their gun control laws (i.e may issue instead of shall issue CCW) and here the federal courts SHOULD step in and fix it.

And they know they are wrong.. thus why NY keeps backing off before punishing anyone with their unconstitutional laws. They know as soon as they actually enforce it ... the law will go before the courts and they will be thrown out.

NYC's onerous concealed carry laws have existed for two decades now. I'm not confident in the courts to fix it, because they haven't yet.

Has anyone been prosecuted yet?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Facts can't be, but you saying that marriage between gays and marriage between heterosexuals isn't equal IS bigoted. In half the states now it is equal. Can you explain why you believe that my civil marriage license should be treated differently than yours?

Again, if it was passed by your state legislature, it should be legally equal. If it was created via judicial fiat, it is tainted by the use of courts to create something out of thin air.

The two forms of marriage are not the same thing. It's not bigoted to point it out, its realistic.

It's not the same thing. But it is bigoted to allow one form but not another for consenting adults.

Then do it the right way, by petitioning your state legislature to change the law defining the marriage contract, and not by whipping up some right out of thin air.

Since when is the right to marry ... "out of thin air?" Or any other human right for that matter? Do I need a law that allows me to breathe?

 

[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.

Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned?

It's not, but we all know the intent of it. Interpretation is of course needed, but the 14th is being used so far outside it's intent that it can basically be used to make anything unconstitutional if you get a sympathetic court.

 

[martybegan]

Again, if it is via the state legislature changing the marriage contract, I have no issue with it. I would probably vote for it.

My issue is with courts making up rights, because the same courts can make shit up to take them away. My other issue is with PA laws that force people to either compromise their religious beliefs, or abandon their preferred way of making a living. PA laws were meant to cover essentials, like lodging, transportation, and basic necessity purchasing, they were not meant to protect the feelings of a couple that has to call another baker/photographer for their wedding.

And what really gets my goat is the same people who are OK with making crap up in the constitution are A-OK with ignoring another part of it when it suits them.

The fact you have to accuse of me of some non existent bigotry is sad.

federal law trumps state law. and, if I've mischaracterized you, i'm sorry. I can only go by what I see. and, to be fair, most states' rights extremists are only states rights extremists because they're still pissed off about brown v board of ed, outlawing segregation and theocracy.... none of which is permissible anywhere but in the extremes of the right.

Federal law trumps state law, but federal laws should only concern themselves with what the constitution gives them. We have sadly moved far away from that, with the feds getting into crap that they have no right interfering with. States rights may be a catch all for everything you detest about the right, but that does not make all federalists the same. For example NY State is in violation of the 2nd amendment with a lot of their gun control laws (i.e may issue instead of shall issue CCW) and here the federal courts SHOULD step in and fix it.

And they know they are wrong.. thus why NY keeps backing off before punishing anyone with their unconstitutional laws. They know as soon as they actually enforce it ... the law will go before the courts and they will be thrown out.

NYC's onerous concealed carry laws have existed for two decades now. I'm not confident in the courts to fix it, because they haven't yet.

Has anyone been prosecuted yet?

Really? NYC prosecutes people carrying handguns all the time, but that's not the point. The point is unless I prove to a NYPD bureaucrat my "need" for A CCW permit, I get denied automatically.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

ahh judgemental is the PC correct word for these decisions ?

you prefer bigot? ok.

So what word do you prefer to use when judging people ? Do you base it on moral principals or are they all passé ?

 

[MisterBeale]

Not sure why this happened. By taking the cases they could have set precedent for the entire country, now the rulings vary by which circuit the original cases were held in.

Well, by not taking the case, they have set the precedent for those 7 circuits. Which will bring the count of states without same sex ban to 31. Clearly, those who oppose marriage equality are losing this fight.

It should also be noted that the Court said it will not hear any of the cases during this session. As I understand it, this still leaves them the option to pick any of the cases up at a later time...

Agreed. I think what they want to do, is wait till there is a more conservative bench that reflects the will of the people.