Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

[Barb]

And when you're called out as the American Taliban, you balk, bitch, and

It's expected that a liberal would compare American Christians to Taliban.

To the liberal, outrageous comparisons are the norm in conversation.

A lot of it you can't help because you have been conditioned to respond that way. You get a peanut everytime you repeat a democrat talking point.

It's a conditioned reflex on your part.

YOU posted the "christian" position that was accurately compared to one that also insisted "their" religious law be made part of government policies. You need to take a good hard look at that stance yourselves before bitching about the very accurate comparison.

 

[Kondor3]

Utah: "Gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage. Now continue to marry ten women." IDIOTS.

But, according to Liberal tolerance-philosophy, it's OK when a Muslim marries four.

Personally, I'll side with a bigamist over a fudge-packer any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

Pretend Christians like you sully the faith.

The beauty of this is that I make no pretense about being a 'good Christian'...

Yer gonna have to go down another road to get at me over this one, mine good colleague...

I see no 'sullying' going on here, other than the Gay Gestapo sullying the social and cultural environment with their moral relativity and bullying and perversions...

 

[Kondor3]

How did you reach that conclusion?

The 'Lib-tolerance' conclusion, or the 'side with' conclusion?

Please explain. You see, I'm a Liberal and I can't understand your conclusions.

(1) Lib-tolerance Conclusion: stereotypically speaking, Liberals are far more tolerant of cultural differences that go against the grain of Western culture; ergo, Liberals are far more likely to be tolerant of polygamy in a Muslim context than a Moderate or Conservative would be.

(2) Siding with hetero polygamists over fudge-packers Conclusion: Pure personal opinion and preference. If you do not understand the choice then it seems unlikely that elaboration will prove to be of any substantive benefit.

 

[Kondor3]

Utah: "Gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage. Now continue to marry ten women." IDIOTS.

But, according to Liberal tolerance-philosophy, it's OK when a Muslim marries four.

Personally, I'll side with a bigamist over a fudge-packer any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

Another fucking idiot on this forum. No, no one has said that. Not one person and you have no source or proof of that. Go back to FOX news 24/7 scumbag.

Bite me, bitchboy.

 

[Silhouette]

YOU posted the "christian" position that was accurately compared to one that also insisted "their" religious law be made part of government policies. You need to take a good hard look at that stance yourselves before bitching about the very accurate comparison.

The topic of christian/mormon values and Utah is one of both religion and secular law. Because the state of Utah has a strong religious foundation that forbids homosexuality or enabling homosexuality under promise of their beliefs that doing so leads to mortal sin and eternal damnation, they voted in a secular environment to exclude gays from the privelege of marriage. So the issue straddles both sides of the fence.

In the DOMA opinion, the Court made it clear that each state's broad consensus has a vested interest in setting the parameters of their own discreet community apart from the other 50 states. The Harvey-Milk worshipping LGBT cult just simply doesn't jibe with that state's majority values, be they secular values or religious ones.

In California, those who voted for Prop 8 tipped the scales in favor of excluding gays also. Likewise, each individual christian within a state has the right to vote their value system even apart from a greater established formal church. Or with secular objectors, a sound and visceral objection to mainstreaming values that give clear indicators of impending harm to children caught in the midst of these newly-legitimized perverse values. [see the biography of Harvey Milk and his iconic representation of the greater LGBT community] And so the same thing happened there. Gay marriage is forbidden in both states according to DOMA.

That's why the stay was issued and approved. That's why Utah will not be forced to violate their faith and enact gay marriage or the next to follow: polygamy.

Any other rendering would be judicial overreach inasmuch as LGBTs will never be able to convince the Court that Loving applies to behaviors. ie: they'll never be able to convince the Court that LGBT is a completely inclusive innate class of people instead of a group of intrepid deviants to mainstream sociosexual values. ie: The Rocky Horror Picture Show writ large [and growing] is not a "race" of people.

If you haven't seen The Rocky Horror Picture Show, I suggest you do. It's a show about a bisexual transvestite who seeks to undo a marriage between two innocent heterosexuals and how he completely corrupts their value system by sexual seduction and repetitive chanting and singsong. Eventually he does "liberate" the two newleyweds and the movie ends with them completely inducted as anything-goes sluts. But not before in a sideline premise, this bisexual transvestite "Dr. Frankenfurter" creates a youthful boy-toy as his child/son/sodomy toy. The frankenstein-boy's name is "Rocky". Hence "The Rocky Horror Picture Show".

Once you see the movie you will instantly understand all the pieces of the gay agenda puzzle and how they fit exactly with the twin plot lines of the movie. You will also know that this growing group of deviants is not even close to a race of people and is in fact a coordinated movement to completely dismantle all stays on base human behavior and taboos.

 

[Kondor3]

Please cite a legitimate legal reason for opposing marriage equality.

My State constitution forbids and it is State matter.

Ummmm... because in some remaining sane jurisdictions, Gay Marriage is merely another manifestation of the aberration and perversion known as homosexuality, to encompass its sexual practices and its manifested behaviors and collective activism and its latter-day political bullying and attempts to silence all opposition... an extension of Fascism, Leftist-style... and because a lot of good and decent people don't want that sort of filth and perversity to be empowered within their own jurisdictions?

A great many people equate homosexuality with unclean and ungodly and immoral behaviors and practices, spiritually akin to pedophilia and bestiality and necrophilia and other sexual perversions, and they don't want it around them or their children.

And they use Home Rule precedents insofar as they can, to keep The Darkness and wickedness and degeneracy at-bay, for as long as they can?

 

[Nosmo King]

The 'Lib-tolerance' conclusion, or the 'side with' conclusion?

Please explain. You see, I'm a Liberal and I can't understand your conclusions.

(1) Lib-tolerance Conclusion: stereotypically speaking, Liberals are far more tolerant of cultural differences that go against the grain of Western culture; ergo, Liberals are far more likely to be tolerant of polygamy in a Muslim context than a Moderate or Conservative would be.

(2) Siding with hetero polygamists over fudge-packers Conclusion: Pure personal opinion and preference. If you do not understand the choice then it seems unlikely that elaboration will prove to be of any substantive benefit.

I have not mentioned Islam until now.

What the faux Christian bigots are insisting upon is directly analogous to the Taliban. That is to say the faux Xhristians are wrapping themselves in a warped interpretation of the Bible, ignoring the prime directive from Jesus Christ that we love one another and insisting that their interpretation of Biblical law become national secular law.

The American Taliban shares an intolerance with the Islamic Taliban. The American Taliban wants to institute Biblical Law with all the zeal shown by the Islamic Taliban in their push to force Sharia Law on their fellow citizens.

It's ironic that the American Taliban cannot recognized their similarities with their Islamic counterparts.

 

[Kondor3]

Please explain. You see, I'm a Liberal and I can't understand your conclusions.

(1) Lib-tolerance Conclusion: stereotypically speaking, Liberals are far more tolerant of cultural differences that go against the grain of Western culture; ergo, Liberals are far more likely to be tolerant of polygamy in a Muslim context than a Moderate or Conservative would be.

(2) Siding with hetero polygamists over fudge-packers Conclusion: Pure personal opinion and preference. If you do not understand the choice then it seems unlikely that elaboration will prove to be of any substantive benefit.

I have not mentioned Islam until now...

No, but I did, in the post to which you originally responded (polygamy in Islam).

"...What the faux Christian bigots are insisting upon is directly analogous to the Taliban..."

Well, that is certainly the rallying imagery by which the Gay Lobby tries to bully those lacking the courage or the wit to deny the analogy, anyway.

"...That is to say the faux Xhristians are wrapping themselves in a warped interpretation of the Bible, ignoring the prime directive from Jesus Christ that we love one another..."

Counterpointed, of course, by 'hate the sin, but love the sinner'.

What cracks me up is that the modern-day Gay Lobby thinks that it is conjuring new arguments in support of its case in a spiritual context; whereas, in truth, such arguments have been made time and again over the centuries; nothing new under the sun, nor in canon law proceedings.

It's all been said and addressed before - dozens of times over the centuries.

"...and insisting that their interpretation of Biblical law become national secular law..."

Given that our secular law has its roots in English Common Law, which, in turn, has its roots in a combination of Roman Law and Germanic Law and Salic Law and Canon Law, there has always been some truth to such a perspective; it's just that it's several hops from Canon Law to some of own statutory traditions, and most folks don't realize that.

A nations' laws reflect its moral compass.

A nation's moral compass usually reflects its 'confession' (its dominant spiritual beliefs).

I fully support our national tradition of a Separation of Church and State.

But I'm not overly concerned about some of our legislated moral stances closely mirroring our dominant religious beliefs.

Especially when that works to the benefit of 97% of the population (The Straights).

"...The American Taliban shares an intolerance with the Islamic Taliban. The American Taliban wants to institute Biblical Law with all the zeal shown by the Islamic Taliban in their push to force Sharia Law on their fellow citizens..."

Gay Lobby hyperbole.

"...It's ironic that the American Taliban cannot recognized their similarities with their Islamic counterparts."

More of the same.

This nation needs more people willing to openly stand up to the Gay Gestapo...

And to have the courage to take their brickbats (like this latter-day Taliban tactical horseshit) and throw it back in their faces.

Taking a stand...

Like men.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You now need to have a neutral third party examine your computer for evidence of lesbian pornography!

 

[Seawytch]

God talk again? Nobody's religion is of any relevance to a discussion about legal, civil marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

God talk again? Nobody's religion is of any relevance to a discussion about legal, civil marriage.

Well to be fair you are partially correct. But secular laws spring from moral convictions at the voting booth. So you are also partially wrong.

In any event, DOMA has covered the bases and has said that the fundamental and "unquestioned authority" in the context of gay marriage lies within a broad "consensus" in state and not federal boundaries. Cults are not race. They brought up the 14th by citing Loving and then said in DOMA states still get to decide on gay marriage. So, yeah, there's that little snag you're going to have to argue at the Utah case this year. Essentially people will have to ask the Court why they brought up Loving and then went ahead and said states get to decide as of the writing of the Opinion June 2013.

 

[Barb]

YOU posted the "christian" position that was accurately compared to one that also insisted "their" religious law be made part of government policies. You need to take a good hard look at that stance yourselves before bitching about the very accurate comparison.

The topic of christian/mormon values and Utah is one of both religion and secular law. Because the state of Utah has a strong religious foundation that forbids homosexuality or enabling homosexuality under promise of their beliefs that doing so leads to mortal sin and eternal damnation, they voted in a secular environment to exclude gays from the privelege of marriage. So the issue straddles both sides of the fence.

In the DOMA opinion, the Court made it clear that each state's broad consensus has a vested interest in setting the parameters of their own discreet community apart from the other 50 states. The Harvey-Milk worshipping LGBT cult just simply doesn't jibe with that state's majority values, be they secular values or religious ones.

In California, those who voted for Prop 8 tipped the scales in favor of excluding gays also. Likewise, each individual christian within a state has the right to vote their value system even apart from a greater established formal church. Or with secular objectors, a sound and visceral objection to mainstreaming values that give clear indicators of impending harm to children caught in the midst of these newly-legitimized perverse values. [see the biography of Harvey Milk and his iconic representation of the greater LGBT community] And so the same thing happened there. Gay marriage is forbidden in both states according to DOMA.

That's why the stay was issued and approved. That's why Utah will not be forced to violate their faith and enact gay marriage or the next to follow: polygamy.

Any other rendering would be judicial overreach inasmuch as LGBTs will never be able to convince the Court that Loving applies to behaviors. ie: they'll never be able to convince the Court that LGBT is a completely inclusive innate class of people instead of a group of intrepid deviants to mainstream sociosexual values. ie: The Rocky Horror Picture Show writ large [and growing] is not a "race" of people.

If you haven't seen The Rocky Horror Picture Show, I suggest you do. It's a show about a bisexual transvestite who seeks to undo a marriage between two innocent heterosexuals and how he completely corrupts their value system by sexual seduction and repetitive chanting and singsong. Eventually he does "liberate" the two newleyweds and the movie ends with them completely inducted as anything-goes sluts. But not before in a sideline premise, this bisexual transvestite "Dr. Frankenfurter" creates a youthful boy-toy as his child/son/sodomy toy. The frankenstein-boy's name is "Rocky". Hence "The Rocky Horror Picture Show".

Once you see the movie you will instantly understand all the pieces of the gay agenda puzzle and how they fit exactly with the twin plot lines of the movie. You will also know that this growing group of deviants is not even close to a race of people and is in fact a coordinated movement to completely dismantle all stays on base human behavior and taboos.

You base your understanding and theory of society and social policy on the Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Additionally, once I:

see the movie you will instantly understand all the pieces of the gay agenda puzzle and how they fit exactly with the twin plot lines of the movie. You will also know that this growing group of deviants is not even close to a race of people and is in fact a coordinated movement to completely dismantle all stays on base human behavior and taboos

 

[dcraelin]

Civil rights are based on the government treating all law-abiding tax paying citizens equally under the law. It's really that simple.

if its really that simple than no person on the basis of their relationship status should get favorable tax treatment.

False argument because the legislature cannot deny civil rights.

I am making the same argument for single people that gay-marriage advocates make on their side. If mine is a false argument then theirs is also.

That's pretty dern close to what they said to interracial couples. How'd that argument turn out in court?

ITS YOUR LOGIC!!!!
The 14th amendment was never meant to apply to gender issues or it would have legalized womens' suffrage.

Because Section II of the 14th Amendment addressed, specifically, the right to vote.

If I understand you right, the 14th addressed the right to vote in context of race, then that testifies to the overall intent of the amendment also.

 

[Silhouette]

You base your understanding and theory of society and social policy on the Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Take things out of context much?

I said that if you want to know about the GAY AGENDA, not society as a whole, you should watch the Rocky Horror Picture Show. Try to keep the dishonesty down to a dull roar, OK?

 

[Barb]

You base your understanding and theory of society and social policy on the Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Take things out of context much?

I said that if you want to know about the GAY AGENDA, not society as a whole, you should watch the Rocky Horror Picture Show. Try to keep the dishonesty down to a dull roar, OK?

You are stark staring out of your mind. Somewhere, deep down in the back of that cesspit you call a mind, you must know that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

if its really that simple than no person on the basis of their relationship status should get favorable tax treatment.

False argument because the legislature cannot deny civil rights.

I am making the same argument for single people that gay-marriage advocates make on their side. If mine is a false argument then theirs is also.

ITS YOUR LOGIC!!!!
The 14th amendment was never meant to apply to gender issues or it would have legalized womens' suffrage.

Because Section II of the 14th Amendment addressed, specifically, the right to vote.

If I understand you right, the 14th addressed the right to vote in context of race, then that testifies to the overall intent of the amendment also.

You don't understand it at all, period.

The 14th grants all the same rights and privileges, may deny none to any.

 

[OODA_Loop]

You don't understand it at all, period.

The 14th grants all the same rights and privileges, may deny none to any.

Cept the ghey is not a protected class.

 

[Seawytch]

You don't understand it at all, period.



The 14th grants all the same rights and privileges, may deny none to any.

Cept the ghey is not a protected class.

In some states they are...

Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, individuals who identify as gays, lesbians, or transgendered have successfully asserted claims of discrimination under Title VII.

http://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2011...s-are-not-in-a-protected-class-or-are-they/#

 

[OODA_Loop]

You don't understand it at all, period.



The 14th grants all the same rights and privileges, may deny none to any.

Cept the ghey is not a protected class.

In some states they are...

The comment was regarding the 14th
and the Federal government.

Ghey is not protected Federally.

 

[WorldWatcher]

In any event, DOMA has covered the bases and has said that the fundamental and "unquestioned authority" in the context of gay marriage lies within a broad "consensus" in state and not federal boundaries. Cults are not race. They brought up the 14th by citing Loving and then said in DOMA states still get to decide on gay marriage. So, yeah, there's that little snag you're going to have to argue at the Utah case this year.

From the decision:

"This is strong evidence of al aw having the purpose and effe
ct of disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical
effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage,
a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex
marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States. "​

You are correct, there is no question to the authority of the States to say yes to Marriage Equality.

Also from the decision:

"The States’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation,
subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding
that marriage is more than a routine classification for purposes of
certain statutory benefits."​

The court actually points out that the State does not have "unquestioned authority" over Civil Marriage, it specifically says their actions are specifically subject to "constitutional guarantees".

If the States authority was "unquestioned", then the SCOTUS would not have been able to over turn previous laws (and State Constitutional Amendments voted on by the people - Such as Alabama).

They brought up the 14th by citing Loving and then said in DOMA states still get to decide on gay marriage.

No, they cited Loving as an example of when the Constitution overrides State law. It was cited only once in the decision to make that note.

The decision says nothing about whether States can say "No", the Windsor decision only addresses States that have said "Yes".

As the court noted in the ruling:

"This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages."​

>>>>