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

[JakeStarkey]

No, rosh. You are merely a chew toy for our amusement

 

[Czernobog]

You are confusing religious marriage with partnerships under contract via marriage license as regulated by government.

Show some proof of a marriage license being offered to same sex couples in the US (besides cases of fraud) prior to the current few decades.

So, you want proof that people were getting married during an age when even admitting to being gay was a crime?!?! I suppose that kind of does make your point - when they was originally conceived, the statutes of marriage probably were assumed to be between only men, and women, since even admitting that you were involved in a relationship with a man could land you in jail. That is the beauty of our legal system, and our Constitutions, whether they be Federal, or State - they are imminently fluid. When the sodomy laws all began to fall apart, and it was no longer considered inappropriate, let alone illegal (well...for everyone except the religious zealots) to be gay, it was only a matter of time before they started taking advantage of the marital rights afforded to loving committed couples.

The point I was trying to make concerns posters here getting all in a snit about states making laws to restrict marriage to opposite sex couples, acting as if the original precedent was never there, and that these laws were passed "all of a sudden for no reason."

Oh no! There was a reason: You people were shitting yourselves that these damned faggots were acting like normal people! How DARE they!!!!

The Constitution is being treated far more fluidly then it ever was designed to be. It is being changed, not interpreted via the courts. It should be though the amendment process, not the opinions of 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers.

Wellll...that's not entirely true. If a state makes changes to its constitution, even if it was done so in accordance with its own amendment process (which, for the record, many of these weren't), and that change is in conflict with the Federal Constitution, then guess which one takes precedent. So, the Federal Courts were still within their purview to hand down the rulings they did.

How was I shitting myself If I support changing marriage laws by state legislative action, and have said repeatedly on this board I would support a law doing that, and oppose a law saying marriage is between one man and one woman?

Again, the federal constitution is mum on marriage contracts, thus defining them falls to the state legislatures via the 10th amendment.

But its not mum on equal treatment under the law. You know, that whole 14th amendment thing? You don't get to deny all of the rights and privileges of marriage to a whole class of committed couples just because you don't like how they live their lives.

 

[Czernobog]

So, you want proof that people were getting married during an age when even admitting to being gay was a crime?!?! I suppose that kind of does make your point - when they was originally conceived, the statutes of marriage probably were assumed to be between only men, and women, since even admitting that you were involved in a relationship with a man could land you in jail. That is the beauty of our legal system, and our Constitutions, whether they be Federal, or State - they are imminently fluid. When the sodomy laws all began to fall apart, and it was no longer considered inappropriate, let alone illegal (well...for everyone except the religious zealots) to be gay, it was only a matter of time before they started taking advantage of the marital rights afforded to loving committed couples.

The point I was trying to make concerns posters here getting all in a snit about states making laws to restrict marriage to opposite sex couples, acting as if the original precedent was never there, and that these laws were passed "all of a sudden for no reason."

Oh no! There was a reason: You people were shitting yourselves that these damned faggots were acting like normal people! How DARE they!!!!

The Constitution is being treated far more fluidly then it ever was designed to be. It is being changed, not interpreted via the courts. It should be though the amendment process, not the opinions of 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers.

Wellll...that's not entirely true. If a state makes changes to its constitution, even if it was done so in accordance with its own amendment process (which, for the record, many of these weren't), and that change is in conflict with the Federal Constitution, then guess which one takes precedent. So, the Federal Courts were still within their purview to hand down the rulings they did.

How was I shitting myself If I support changing marriage laws by state legislative action, and have said repeatedly on this board I would support a law doing that, and oppose a law saying marriage is between one man and one woman?

Again, the federal constitution is mum on marriage contracts, thus defining them falls to the state legislatures via the 10th amendment.

10th and 14th.

Only if you consider gay and opposite sex marriage equal.

And I keep asking, other than the gender of the participants, how are they not? And please avoid the whole "they can't make babies" silliness. After all, that is also true of many heterosexual couples, so that isn't a difference between the two. So, I'll wait for your reply...

 

[RKMBrown]

So, you want proof that people were getting married during an age when even admitting to being gay was a crime?!?! I suppose that kind of does make your point - when they was originally conceived, the statutes of marriage probably were assumed to be between only men, and women, since even admitting that you were involved in a relationship with a man could land you in jail. That is the beauty of our legal system, and our Constitutions, whether they be Federal, or State - they are imminently fluid. When the sodomy laws all began to fall apart, and it was no longer considered inappropriate, let alone illegal (well...for everyone except the religious zealots) to be gay, it was only a matter of time before they started taking advantage of the marital rights afforded to loving committed couples.

The point I was trying to make concerns posters here getting all in a snit about states making laws to restrict marriage to opposite sex couples, acting as if the original precedent was never there, and that these laws were passed "all of a sudden for no reason."

Oh no! There was a reason: You people were shitting yourselves that these damned faggots were acting like normal people! How DARE they!!!!

The Constitution is being treated far more fluidly then it ever was designed to be. It is being changed, not interpreted via the courts. It should be though the amendment process, not the opinions of 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers.

Wellll...that's not entirely true. If a state makes changes to its constitution, even if it was done so in accordance with its own amendment process (which, for the record, many of these weren't), and that change is in conflict with the Federal Constitution, then guess which one takes precedent. So, the Federal Courts were still within their purview to hand down the rulings they did.

How was I shitting myself If I support changing marriage laws by state legislative action, and have said repeatedly on this board I would support a law doing that, and oppose a law saying marriage is between one man and one woman?

Again, the federal constitution is mum on marriage contracts, thus defining them falls to the state legislatures via the 10th amendment.

10th and 14th.

Only if you consider gay and opposite sex marriage equal.

You are confusing equal protection for equal value. Equal protection under the law does not mean "if you deserve to be represented as an equal." What you are talking about is a subjective opinion as to whether gays marriages would have the same function and/or value to society. But that's not what equal "protection" means.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

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.

You mean they have to adopt kids, use IVF or artificial insemination just like millions of straight couples? No shit. Does that change the FACT that gays do have children that are legally and emotionally "theirs"? No, it does not, but keep talking and looking more moronic, please.

The heteros provide children the mother and father that is necessary for ideal child raising. That makes the difference as far as contrived conception of family creation. Homos intentionally deprive a kid not only of its true parents but of the opportunity to be raised by a mom and dad. That is probably too progressive and current for you to understand as you are a rigidly conservative lefty stuck in the 1960's.

That's crap. There has been only one study that came to this finding, and if that study is to be your guide, then you also need to lobby to abolish all divorce, as well as to require all unwed mothers to have their children removed, and placed in "traditional" homes, as this study made no distinction between homosexual couples, single mothers, and single fathers. Are you prepared to lobby for those changes as well?

No study that made direct comparison between homosexual couples, and heterosexual couples have found any major deficiencies among children raised by homosexual couples.

 

[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.

Your misapprehension is not shared. You either missed, failed to understand or willfully disregarded the part about kids needing a man and a woman as parents.

I didn't miss that at all. It is simply not true, and no matter how many times you keep telling the same lie, it isn't going to magically turn it into truth.

 

[RKMBrown]

The point I was trying to make concerns posters here getting all in a snit about states making laws to restrict marriage to opposite sex couples, acting as if the original precedent was never there, and that these laws were passed "all of a sudden for no reason."

Oh no! There was a reason: You people were shitting yourselves that these damned faggots were acting like normal people! How DARE they!!!!

The Constitution is being treated far more fluidly then it ever was designed to be. It is being changed, not interpreted via the courts. It should be though the amendment process, not the opinions of 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers.

Wellll...that's not entirely true. If a state makes changes to its constitution, even if it was done so in accordance with its own amendment process (which, for the record, many of these weren't), and that change is in conflict with the Federal Constitution, then guess which one takes precedent. So, the Federal Courts were still within their purview to hand down the rulings they did.

How was I shitting myself If I support changing marriage laws by state legislative action, and have said repeatedly on this board I would support a law doing that, and oppose a law saying marriage is between one man and one woman?

Again, the federal constitution is mum on marriage contracts, thus defining them falls to the state legislatures via the 10th amendment.

10th and 14th.

Only if you consider gay and opposite sex marriage equal.

And I keep asking, other than the gender of the participants, how are they not? And please avoid the whole "they can't make babies" silliness. After all, that is also true of many heterosexual couples, so that isn't a difference between the two. So, I'll wait for your reply...

They are talking about subjective personal opinions. It's like asking someone to prove the god father 2 is a better movie that jaws 2. Everyone knows it is based on subjective viewpoints. Thus, the anti-gay stuff is boiling down to likes and dislikes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rosh and Pop and Marty will keep telling lies because they have not the truth.

 

[RKMBrown]

Same sex couplings have never and will never reproduce a child. Ever

Which means nothing in the marriage equality discussion, ever

It means everything. The life altering circumstance brought about by child rearing are cause for the gov protections of legal marriage. Where procreation or child rearing is not an issue marriage is moot.

Maybe in your marriage. But not in mine. There are 20k laws regarding marriage. It's not all about procreation.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Oh no! There was a reason: You people were shitting yourselves that these damned faggots were acting like normal people! How DARE they!!!!

Wellll...that's not entirely true. If a state makes changes to its constitution, even if it was done so in accordance with its own amendment process (which, for the record, many of these weren't), and that change is in conflict with the Federal Constitution, then guess which one takes precedent. So, the Federal Courts were still within their purview to hand down the rulings they did.

How was I shitting myself If I support changing marriage laws by state legislative action, and have said repeatedly on this board I would support a law doing that, and oppose a law saying marriage is between one man and one woman?

Again, the federal constitution is mum on marriage contracts, thus defining them falls to the state legislatures via the 10th amendment.

10th and 14th.

Only if you consider gay and opposite sex marriage equal.

And I keep asking, other than the gender of the participants, how are they not? And please avoid the whole "they can't make babies" silliness. After all, that is also true of many heterosexual couples, so that isn't a difference between the two. So, I'll wait for your reply...

They are talking about subjective personal opinions. It's like asking someone to prove the god father 2 is a better movie that jaws 2. Everyone knows it is based on subjective viewpoints. Thus, the anti-gay stuff is boiling down to likes and dislikes.

What a load of horse shit, Godfather 2 is without question the better movie.

 

[RKMBrown]

How was I shitting myself If I support changing marriage laws by state legislative action, and have said repeatedly on this board I would support a law doing that, and oppose a law saying marriage is between one man and one woman?

Again, the federal constitution is mum on marriage contracts, thus defining them falls to the state legislatures via the 10th amendment.

10th and 14th.

Only if you consider gay and opposite sex marriage equal.

And I keep asking, other than the gender of the participants, how are they not? And please avoid the whole "they can't make babies" silliness. After all, that is also true of many heterosexual couples, so that isn't a difference between the two. So, I'll wait for your reply...

They are talking about subjective personal opinions. It's like asking someone to prove the god father 2 is a better movie that jaws 2. Everyone knows it is based on subjective viewpoints. Thus, the anti-gay stuff is boiling down to likes and dislikes.

What a load of horse shit, Godfather 2 is without question the better movie.

Prove it. But more to the point, is it ok to ban Jaws 2 cause we don't like it as much as G2?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

10th and 14th.

Only if you consider gay and opposite sex marriage equal.

And I keep asking, other than the gender of the participants, how are they not? And please avoid the whole "they can't make babies" silliness. After all, that is also true of many heterosexual couples, so that isn't a difference between the two. So, I'll wait for your reply...

They are talking about subjective personal opinions. It's like asking someone to prove the god father 2 is a better movie that jaws 2. Everyone knows it is based on subjective viewpoints. Thus, the anti-gay stuff is boiling down to likes and dislikes.

What a load of horse shit, Godfather 2 is without question the better movie.

Prove it. But more to the point, is it ok to ban Jaws 2 cause we don't like it as much as G2?

You know damn well I agree with you on gay marriage. Why anyone would care what someone calls their relationship is beyond me.

 

[Czernobog]

Same sex couplings have never and will never reproduce a child. Ever

Which means nothing in the marriage equality discussion, ever

It means everything. The life altering circumstance brought about by child rearing are cause for the gov protections of legal marriage.

No it's not. None of the rights and privileges have anything to do with child rearing. They are all about recognizing, and protecting people who are committed to spending their lives together. Procreation has nothing to do with it. The fact is there are many many things that homosexual couples are not allowed to do, simply because repressive bigots keep wanting to dismiss them because they don't happen to like their lifestyle.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

No, rosh. You are merely a chew toy for our amusement

And you speak for whom? Are they aware of that?

 

[Seawytch]

You still haven't explained that potty thing

And neither have you

Excuse me for a moment while I visit the MENS room.

You do realize that when separate restrooms are challenged, they lose in court right?

Maine Supreme Court rules in favor of transgender girl in Orono school bathroom case 8212 Bangor 8212 Bangor Daily News 8212 BDN Maine

Let's get that news on the front page and see how society accepts it!!!

Changing your story now?

You just pointed out exactly why restroom get to be separate...nobody has challenged them on a wide scale.

Still wanna fall back on your bullshit "some separate but equal is okay" meme or you gonna go for the utterly silly "when gays fuck they can't get pregnant" ridiculousness?

Changing what story?

I've taken out roughly a dozen commercial building permits this year, each and every one demanded that the space have both men's and women's restrooms.

And talk about silly, you are the silliest of silly world. Of course (as I've pointed out hundreds of times you silly goose), gays of opposite sex can reproduce.

Same sex couplings have never and will never reproduce a child. Ever

Did I mention that you are a big ol silly goose?

How veryyyyyy exciting.

Your putting in separate bathrooms does not change what I said or the facts as they are today. The fact is that when challenged, separate bathrooms cannot be forced. Also a fact, separate bathrooms have not been challenged all the way to the SCOTUS.

The additional fact that couples who cannot or do not procreate are allowed to marry renders your "arguments" as worthy of ridicule.

 

[bodecea]

No, rosh. You are merely a chew toy for our amusement

And you speak for whom? Are they aware of that?

I am...and I agree with Jake.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Your misapprehension is not shared. You either missed, failed to understand or willfully disregarded the part about kids needing a man and a woman as parents.

Of course you can produce a study that supports your claim that children need a mother and father?

 

[mamooth]

Most of Republican presidential hopefuls don't want to touch this issue.

The exception is Ted Cruz, who is calling for a constitutional amendment. Which has zero chance of ever passing, but he's just tossing meat to the base. He's also criticizing the Supreme Court for "judicial activism", which is a peculiar accusation, given that the Supreme Court's only action was not to take any action.

Ted Cruz to Introduce Constitutional Amendment Defending Traditional Marriage

I hope Cruz goes through with his plans to introduce the amendment, as it would put the rest of the GOP in an uncomfortable spot.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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.

You mean they have to adopt kids, use IVF or artificial insemination just like millions of straight couples? No shit. Does that change the FACT that gays do have children that are legally and emotionally "theirs"? No, it does not, but keep talking and looking more moronic, please.

The heteros provide children the mother and father that is necessary for ideal child raising. That makes the difference as far as contrived conception of family creation. Homos intentionally deprive a kid not only of its true parents but of the opportunity to be raised by a mom and dad. That is probably too progressive and current for you to understand as you are a rigidly conservative lefty stuck in the 1960's.

That's crap. There has been only one study that came to this finding, and if that study is to be your guide, then you also need to lobby to abolish all divorce, as well as to require all unwed mothers to have their children removed, and placed in "traditional" homes, as this study made no distinction between homosexual couples, single mothers, and single fathers. Are you prepared to lobby for those changes as well?

No study that made direct comparison between homosexual couples, and heterosexual couples have found any major deficiencies among children raised by homosexual couples.

You are an out of touch, neocon lefty. Move forward with us true progressives and see what the prevalence of unstructured families has done to this society in the past forty years. This is a recent phenomenon. You need to progress and move forward to be truly aware. Don't rely on backwards, stodgy left wing propaganda.
Kids are best suited with their two actual parents or a facsimile thereof. Not one of either or two of either. One of each.

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.

You mean they have to adopt kids, use IVF or artificial insemination just like millions of straight couples? No shit. Does that change the FACT that gays do have children that are legally and emotionally "theirs"? No, it does not, but keep talking and looking more moronic, please.

The heteros provide children the mother and father that is necessary for ideal child raising. That makes the difference as far as contrived conception of family creation. Homos intentionally deprive a kid not only of its true parents but of the opportunity to be raised by a mom and dad. That is probably too progressive and current for you to understand as you are a rigidly conservative lefty stuck in the 1960's.

That's crap. There has been only one study that came to this finding, and if that study is to be your guide, then you also need to lobby to abolish all divorce, as well as to require all unwed mothers to have their children removed, and placed in "traditional" homes, as this study made no distinction between homosexual couples, single mothers, and single fathers. Are you prepared to lobby for those changes as well?

No study that made direct comparison between homosexual couples, and heterosexual couples have found any major deficiencies among children raised by homosexual couples.

You are an out of touch, neocon lefty. Move forward with us true progressives and see what the prevalence of unstructured families has done to this society in the past forty years. This is a recent phenomenon. You need to progress and move forward to be truly aware. Don't rely on backwards, stodgy left wing propaganda.
Kids are best suited with their two actual parents or a facsimile thereof. Not one of either or two of either. One of each.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

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.

of course they can...dumbass

No, they can't. Homos cannot procreate together. Where did you get that idea?
And why did you call me dumbass? I didn't call you any name. I called her that in response to her initiating the name calling.

Yes actually we can. Gay men can donate sperm to gay women and gay women can carry children for gay men. I speak from first hand experience on both counts.