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

[Czernobog]

Hey, dumbass. Those "lower courts" were still federal courts, and still part of that United States Judicial Branch. So, guess what? In deciding that there was nothing that needed to be revisited by the Supreme Court, and letting those lower Federal Court rulings stand, the judicial system did its job. Just because you don't happen to like the ruling doesn't make it any less valid.

You got your say. You got to tell gay people you don't like them, and you don't want them getting married. That was your right, and you got your vote. Now, the Courts have told you whether or not your actions were Constitutional. Guess what? They weren't. No one took your rights away; you exercised them. It is no one's fault but your own that you attempted to exiercise them in a way that exceeded the limitations of the Constitution.

But, hey! You keep right on screaming, "It's not fair! It's not fair! It's not fair!" if that makes you feel better. In the meantime, all those folks whose rights you tried to deny, well, they're just gonna ignore you, and go right on doing what the Constitution, and the Courts said they get to do.

Gay marriage advocates are so wrapped up in their single issue they cant see the damage this kind of judicial interventionism does to our whole system. I'm sure most would disagree, as I do, with the court's ruling on Citizens United.

I patently disagree. What you call "Judicial interventionism" the Constitution calls the courts doing their job. Yes, I do disagree with the court ruling on Citizens' United. However, that decision doesn't make me change my mind about what the Court's job is. Just because I may have a different interpretation of the constitution, that's irrelevant. Guess what? My interpretation of the constitution is irrelevant; it is the interpretation of those guys in the black robes - whether at the district level, or the Supreme Court - that matters.

Gay marriage is not protected by the constitution if it was the higher court would have ruled that but they sent it back to the lower federally appointed judges judicial activism at it's best.

Equal protection...

You know what? Fuck this! If you are going to spew your bullshit is a thread, at least take time to read the thread, first. This stupidity has already been dealt with - three fucking times.

So, all you get is, you're wrong. if you would like to know why you're wrong, go back and read the thread, and pay attention to the last three people who tried to make this argument, and what happened to their attempts.

I am so done answering the same stupid arguments over, and over, just because people are too stupid to read through a thread they are posting to, to see that, "Oh! this argument already failed. Lemme try something different,"

The 14th amendment does not apply to queen marriage if it did the supreme court would have ruled shut the fuck up and sit down you are embarrassing yourself.

The Supreme Court didn't have to rule, you dumb fuck! The Lower Federal Courts already made that ruling! So, the Supreme Court saw no reason to revisit a case that had already been adjudicated properly!

And, in case you are too stupid to understand what that means;m it means that since the lower courts already decided that same sex marriage is an issue of equal protection under the 14th amendment, and the Supreme Court decided not to overturn that ruling, it has been decided that this is a matter of the 14th amendment, whether your dumb ass likes it, or not.

 

[Czernobog]

I refer to my previous question...

LOWER COURTS MADE UP OF FEDERALLY APPOINTED JUDGES OVER TURNING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF A STATE IS NOT LETTING THE PEOPLE HAVE IT'S SAY, AND ALSO GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WITH THE HIGHER COURTS. DUMB ASS

THAT WASN'T WHAT YOU SAID.

I asked about your specific claim that the courts ruled that this was a state issue. Why would you make that claim, knowing full well that that is a false claim?

As to your claim here. Answer a simple question: Is there any limit on the "will of the people"?

Fuck off I told you exact how it is.

Really?

Okay. Well, since "Fuck you" is not really a reply that allows for an intelligible response, you are dismissed.

I told you that you have a problem with comprehension
I said FUCK OFF

"Fuck you" and "Fuck off" are pretty much the same thing, and neither really allows for further intelligent discussion.

You are dismissed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

bigrebnc1775 said: ↑


“You are not talking logically if the higher courts ruled that it is a state issue how can it be one when a federally appointed judge made the ruling? The higher courts should have ruled it's a state issue and let stand what the people had voted on you dumb ass queen.”


Yet another example of the hate and ignorance common to those hostile to the civil liberties of gay Americans, hate and ignorance offensive to the Constitution.

The people have neither the right nor authority to decide who will or will not have his Constitutional rights.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Low or no morals, eh? Who arbitrates morality in your world? Who has the final judgment? What law forces you to associate with anyone else? What rights have actually been eroded? Are you forced to hang with colored boys due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Did those darkies muck up your world?.

In the world of people I associate with, I get to set the standard. I am forced to exist in a society where I may have to deal with any number of immoral individuals or at least people in positions they ought not be seen doing in a polite society because our society no longer has rules. Try to find a male bank teller when you need one.

I admit I seldom deal with bank tellers, but the last time I did (last week), there were three working...two men and a woman. I ended up at the woman's window...which was good, because she was extremely attractive.

I lost out on a very nice career opportunity because it would have meant dealing with a female supervisor in an Engineering Department. Now imagine being a business owner trying to hire personnel or deal with customers if you have actual morals.

You're a grade A weirdo, boy...but everyone knew that. Maybe time for a career change: I suspect few women drive garbage trucks or pump septic tanks.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Why should I pay the same rate, when I produce future tax payers, then those that don't or won't?

Your future tax payers use up current resources like school busses, classrooms, etc.... which many of us will never use yet still pay for.

yeah, it's pretty clear you've never benefitted from classrooms

He's quite intelligent...but also batshit insane and evil on the level of Stalin.

 

[Seawytch]

Let me type real slow cuz you same sex marriage types are kinda slooooowwwwwww

If procreation was not a reason for marriage........

I'll hold up a bit here so you can catch up on your reading..........

Why is it that fathers are prohibited (I know that's a big word.....take your time) from marrying their own daughters?

Did you make it this far?

Use your phonic skills, it's ok

And I'll type this really slowly for you...incest is illegal. Get it declared not illegal and you will begin to have an argument.

As has been stated repeatedly, no one is prohibited from civilly marrying due to an inability or unwillingness to procreate. YOU only wish to deny one group, gays, access to civil marriage based on YOUR perception of procreation. That makes you an anti gay bigot.

Procreation matters only when certain folks want to wed, but not when YOU want to wed?

Tell me again how you define bigot?

Procreation, by law, only matters in some states among married couples with close familial ties...they are prohibited from doing it.

This simple fact destroys your ludicrous "argument" regarding procreation and civil marriage.

A bigot is someone who wishes to deny equal rights to a minority group. That describes you to a "T".

Pops: Gays can't get married because they cannot procreate with each other
Everyone Else: What about sterile or childless by choice couples, they don't procreate and you don't wish to deny them civil marriage?
Pops: They aren't gay.

 

[Seawytch]

The Supreme court just decided it will not hear the Same Sex Marriage cases from IN, OK, UT, VA, or WI. So that means two things.

First, since, in all of those cases, the lower court ruling was to strike down the state ban on Same Sex Marriage, that now means that Marriage Equality is now the "Law of the Land" in those 7 states.

Second, and more importantly, all of those states had a stay on their rulings until the Supreme Court acted. Well, guess what? It just did. So, the stays in all of those states are about to run out.

Bad news for the religious fanatics.

Supreme Court declines to hear gay marriages case in surprise move

No, you dangerous dolt. Regardless of your opinion on gay marriages, what the those unelected black robes just did was diminish the vote, voice and rights of the people of those states, and thus further eroded the liberty of our citizenry within our republic as it was formed.

Your summation of "religious fanatics" is dumb on the surface, shows your narrow and intolerant bias, and completely misses the larger point.

But you are definitely NOT alone. Thus, we're doomed.

No you dangerous dolt. What those unelected black robes just did was their job. You know, interpret the Constitution? In case you weren't there for that class, the entire purpose of the Judicial Branch of the United States Government is to rule on whether or not laws are Constitutional. You see, no one took away your right to vote. You got that, and you voted. After that, the Judicial Branch, when a question of the law is brought before them, gets to rule on whther or not that law you just voted on is Constitutional, or not.

That's the beauty of our system, and what keeps us from being subject to the tyranny of the masses. Just because you said you wanted it, doesn't make it Constitutional. So, you only get your "vote, voice, and rights of the people so long as those votes, voices, and rights are exercised within the boundaries of the Constitution.

And my summation of religious zealots is right on. I do not have, and have never had, a problem with Christians, or people of faith. I do have, an d will always have, a problem with religious zealots who want to force everyone else to behave in accordance with their understanding of their faith using the law.

But, you're right. You are doomed. You were doomed from the beginning. People rather like the freedom to make decisions for themselves, so you zealots who feel like you get to demand that everyone act the way you tell them they should lost before you even began to fight.

Really is that what they did? regardless what the lower judicial activist did? You fucking hypocrite

Hey, dumbass. Those "lower courts" were still federal courts, and still part of that United States Judicial Branch. So, guess what? In deciding that there was nothing that needed to be revisited by the Supreme Court, and letting those lower Federal Court rulings stand, the judicial system did its job. Just because you don't happen to like the ruling doesn't make it any less valid.

You got your say. You got to tell gay people you don't like them, and you don't want them getting married. That was your right, and you got your vote. Now, the Courts have told you whether or not your actions were Constitutional. Guess what? They weren't. No one took your rights away; you exercised them. It is no one's fault but your own that you attempted to exiercise them in a way that exceeded the limitations of the Constitution.

But, hey! You keep right on screaming, "It's not fair! It's not fair! It's not fair!" if that makes you feel better. In the meantime, all those folks whose rights you tried to deny, well, they're just gonna ignore you, and go right on doing what the Constitution, and the Courts said they get to do.

Gay marriage advocates are so wrapped up in their single issue they cant see the damage this kind of judicial interventionism does to our whole system. I'm sure most would disagree, as I do, with the court's ruling on Citizens United.

Yes, we do disagree with the courts ruling on Citizens United...what does that have to do with marriage equality rulings (which, by the way, did not come from the SCOTUS, but dozens of lower and Federal District courts)

Tell us, precisely, what "damage" Loving v Virginia did to our "whole system". Be specific.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes. You know what 99% equality is? INequality. People are only equal when they are 100% equal.

You know that, since the state can never force, say, the Roman Cathollic Church to marry same-sex couples, you shall not see 100% equity -- right?

 

[Czernobog]

Yes. You know what 99% equality is? INequality. People are only equal when they are 100% equal.

You know that, since the state can never force, say, the Roman Cathollic Church to marry same-sex couples, you shall not see 100% equity -- right?

You know that forcing religious organizations to do something has nothing to do with civil equality, right?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes. You know what 99% equality is? INequality. People are only equal when they are 100% equal.

You know that, since the state can never force, say, the Roman Cathollic Church to marry same-sex couples, you shall not see 100% equality -- right?

You know that forcing religious organizations to do something has nothing to do with civil equality, right?

I think you missed the point, which wasn't so much a point but a question of your understanding.
Strauight couples can be married in the RCC.
Sane-sex couple cannot because the RCC will not marry them.
Thus, inequality.
Since the state cannot force the RCC to marry same-sex couple, you shall not see 100% equallity.
You recognize ths, correct?

 

[Czernobog]

Yes. You know what 99% equality is? INequality. People are only equal when they are 100% equal.

You know that, since the state can never force, say, the Roman Cathollic Church to marry same-sex couples, you shall not see 100% equality -- right?

You know that forcing religious organizations to do something has nothing to do with civil equality, right?

I think you missed the point, which wasn't so much a point but a question of your understanding.
Strauight couples can be married in the RCC.
Sane-sex couple cannot because the RCC will not marry them.
Thus, inequality.
Since the state cannot force the RCC to marry same-sex couple, you shall not see 100% equallity.
You recognize ths, correct?

Actually the point is that you are creating a red herring by misrepresenting what equality is concerned with.

You recognize this correct?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes. You know what 99% equality is? INequality. People are only equal when they are 100% equal.

You know that, since the state can never force, say, the Roman Cathollic Church to marry same-sex couples, you shall not see 100% equity -- right?

Fallacy of inverse false comparison.

No one is preventing anyone from becoming RC.

 

[JakeStarkey]

M14 is misrepresenting private association as being the equivalent of public association in civil liberties.

 

[Vigilante]

Please remember the rules about copying and pasting an article.

• Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

You cannot paste the entire article, only a portion.

What the 'gay marriage' debate is really about!

It’s called Pandora’s Box.

And the Supreme Court just opened it.

Did you actually think the debate over “gay marriage” was about marriage? Have you really come to believe that this cultural kerfuffle has anything to do with “civil rights” or “equality”? Have you bought into the popular premise that this is a legitimate discussion on federalism – that it’s a reasonable disagreement over whether the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause requires that newfangled “gay marriage,” something rooted in same-sex sodomy, a deviant and disease-prone behavior our Constitution’s framers officially declared “the infamous crime against nature,” be made law of the land?

A lot of people have, so don’t feel bad. A lot of reasonable, well-meaning and even, at times, intelligent people have taken the bait.
But that’s all window dressing. It’s superficial. It’s collateral. It’s chaff, a diversion, a squirrel. Don’t chase it.

At its core, this increasingly heated fight over “gay marriage” is about two diametrically opposed and profoundly incompatible views of reality (or lack thereof). It’s the modern manifestation of a millennia-old clash between worldviews. This ugly cultural conflict is, in reality, neither legal nor political in nature, but, rather, is fundamentally a philosophical debate. Ultimately, it derives from, and is illustrative of, deep-seeded spiritual warfare. Quite simply, the clash over “gay marriage” is emblematic of the larger, and much older, clash between good and evil.

And it’s reaching critical mass.

Read more at What the 8216 gay marriage 8217 debate is really about

 

[jillian]

wonderful news for individual rights

Dangerous Dolt,

Individual rights were just diminished. A small handful of unelected black robes, far removed from your best interests, just over-rided the will of the people in those states. Millions of people. And you rejoice? How ignorant!!!!

I live when ignorant rightwingnut bigots think they are insulting me. Cracks me up.

 

[Vigilante]

wonderful news for individual rights

Dangerous Dolt,

Individual rights were just diminished. A small handful of unelected black robes, far removed from your best interests, just over-rided the will of the people in those states. Millions of people. And you rejoice? How ignorant!!!!

I live when ignorant rightwingnut bigots think they are insulting me. Cracks me up.

We can't insult someone like you.... you need a BRAIN to become insulted!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, you dangerous dolt. Regardless of your opinion on gay marriages, what the those unelected black robes just did was diminish the vote, voice and rights of the people of those states, and thus further eroded the liberty of our citizenry within our republic as it was formed.

Your summation of "religious fanatics" is dumb on the surface, shows your narrow and intolerant bias, and completely misses the larger point.

But you are definitely NOT alone. Thus, we're doomed.

No you dangerous dolt. What those unelected black robes just did was their job. You know, interpret the Constitution? In case you weren't there for that class, the entire purpose of the Judicial Branch of the United States Government is to rule on whether or not laws are Constitutional. You see, no one took away your right to vote. You got that, and you voted. After that, the Judicial Branch, when a question of the law is brought before them, gets to rule on whther or not that law you just voted on is Constitutional, or not.

That's the beauty of our system, and what keeps us from being subject to the tyranny of the masses. Just because you said you wanted it, doesn't make it Constitutional. So, you only get your "vote, voice, and rights of the people so long as those votes, voices, and rights are exercised within the boundaries of the Constitution.

And my summation of religious zealots is right on. I do not have, and have never had, a problem with Christians, or people of faith. I do have, an d will always have, a problem with religious zealots who want to force everyone else to behave in accordance with their understanding of their faith using the law.

But, you're right. You are doomed. You were doomed from the beginning. People rather like the freedom to make decisions for themselves, so you zealots who feel like you get to demand that everyone act the way you tell them they should lost before you even began to fight.

Really is that what they did? regardless what the lower judicial activist did? You fucking hypocrite

Hey, dumbass. Those "lower courts" were still federal courts, and still part of that United States Judicial Branch. So, guess what? In deciding that there was nothing that needed to be revisited by the Supreme Court, and letting those lower Federal Court rulings stand, the judicial system did its job. Just because you don't happen to like the ruling doesn't make it any less valid.

You got your say. You got to tell gay people you don't like them, and you don't want them getting married. That was your right, and you got your vote. Now, the Courts have told you whether or not your actions were Constitutional. Guess what? They weren't. No one took your rights away; you exercised them. It is no one's fault but your own that you attempted to exiercise them in a way that exceeded the limitations of the Constitution.

But, hey! You keep right on screaming, "It's not fair! It's not fair! It's not fair!" if that makes you feel better. In the meantime, all those folks whose rights you tried to deny, well, they're just gonna ignore you, and go right on doing what the Constitution, and the Courts said they get to do.

Gay marriage advocates are so wrapped up in their single issue they cant see the damage this kind of judicial interventionism does to our whole system. I'm sure most would disagree, as I do, with the court's ruling on Citizens United.

Yes, we do disagree with the courts ruling on Citizens United...what does that have to do with marriage equality rulings (which, by the way, did not come from the SCOTUS, but dozens of lower and Federal District courts)

Tell us, precisely, what "damage" Loving v Virginia did to our "whole system". Be specific.

Loving vs VA is not the same if it was the supreme court would have ruled on it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigrebnc1775 said: ↑


“You are not talking logically if the higher courts ruled that it is a state issue how can it be one when a federally appointed judge made the ruling? The higher courts should have ruled it's a state issue and let stand what the people had voted on you dumb ass queen.”


Yet another example of the hate and ignorance common to those hostile to the civil liberties of gay Americans, hate and ignorance offensive to the Constitution.

The people have neither the right nor authority to decide who will or will not have his Constitutional rights.

Talk about ignorance? YOU'VE BEEN HERE HOW LONG 3 YEARS? AND STILL DON'T KNOW HOW TO USE THE QUOTE FUNCTION.

 

[Czernobog]

No you dangerous dolt. What those unelected black robes just did was their job. You know, interpret the Constitution? In case you weren't there for that class, the entire purpose of the Judicial Branch of the United States Government is to rule on whether or not laws are Constitutional. You see, no one took away your right to vote. You got that, and you voted. After that, the Judicial Branch, when a question of the law is brought before them, gets to rule on whther or not that law you just voted on is Constitutional, or not.

That's the beauty of our system, and what keeps us from being subject to the tyranny of the masses. Just because you said you wanted it, doesn't make it Constitutional. So, you only get your "vote, voice, and rights of the people so long as those votes, voices, and rights are exercised within the boundaries of the Constitution.

And my summation of religious zealots is right on. I do not have, and have never had, a problem with Christians, or people of faith. I do have, an d will always have, a problem with religious zealots who want to force everyone else to behave in accordance with their understanding of their faith using the law.

But, you're right. You are doomed. You were doomed from the beginning. People rather like the freedom to make decisions for themselves, so you zealots who feel like you get to demand that everyone act the way you tell them they should lost before you even began to fight.

Really is that what they did? regardless what the lower judicial activist did? You fucking hypocrite

Hey, dumbass. Those "lower courts" were still federal courts, and still part of that United States Judicial Branch. So, guess what? In deciding that there was nothing that needed to be revisited by the Supreme Court, and letting those lower Federal Court rulings stand, the judicial system did its job. Just because you don't happen to like the ruling doesn't make it any less valid.

You got your say. You got to tell gay people you don't like them, and you don't want them getting married. That was your right, and you got your vote. Now, the Courts have told you whether or not your actions were Constitutional. Guess what? They weren't. No one took your rights away; you exercised them. It is no one's fault but your own that you attempted to exiercise them in a way that exceeded the limitations of the Constitution.

But, hey! You keep right on screaming, "It's not fair! It's not fair! It's not fair!" if that makes you feel better. In the meantime, all those folks whose rights you tried to deny, well, they're just gonna ignore you, and go right on doing what the Constitution, and the Courts said they get to do.

Gay marriage advocates are so wrapped up in their single issue they cant see the damage this kind of judicial interventionism does to our whole system. I'm sure most would disagree, as I do, with the court's ruling on Citizens United.

Yes, we do disagree with the courts ruling on Citizens United...what does that have to do with marriage equality rulings (which, by the way, did not come from the SCOTUS, but dozens of lower and Federal District courts)

Tell us, precisely, what "damage" Loving v Virginia did to our "whole system". Be specific.

Loving vs VA is not the same if it was the supreme court would have ruled on it.

Care to explain what you mean by that? Surely you're not suggesting that the ruling in Loving v Virginia is invalidated because the Supreme Court saw no reason to hear the state's appeal.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes. You know what 99% equality is? INequality. People are only equal when they are 100% equal.

You know that, since the state can never force, say, the Roman Cathollic Church to marry same-sex couples, you shall not see 100% equality -- right?

You know that forcing religious organizations to do something has nothing to do with civil equality, right?

I think you missed the point, which wasn't so much a point but a question of your understanding.
Strauight couples can be married in the RCC.
Sane-sex couple cannot because the RCC will not marry them.
Thus, inequality.
Since the state cannot force the RCC to marry same-sex couple, you shall not see 100% equallity.
You recognize ths, correct?

Actually the point is that you are creating a red herring by misrepresenting what equality is concerned with.
You recognize this correct?

So, your answer to my question must be "no".