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

[Iceweasel]

Uh huh...only TWO were about "the gays". Which ones?

You couldn't understand my point.

 

[Seawytch]

Uh huh...only TWO were about "the gays". Which ones?

You couldn't understand my point.

Oh, I understand fine. I understand that discrimination is discrimination no matter how justified the bigoted feel at the time.

 

[emilynghiem]

This is where I become confused. Marriage s a conservative concept.

Why are conservatives against it and gays for it?

Gays want to be more conservative why don't we let them?

The marriage being contested is the religious sacrament that belongs in church.

if liberals/gays are for "separation of church and state"
then why are they imposing a private spiritual ceremony on govt jurisdiction?

The Christians do this who DO NOT believe in separating church and state.
What is the liberal excuse for pushing this issue on govt policy
and then screaming 'separation of church and state' when they oppose such imposition?

 

[emilynghiem]

Silohuette's last post above is feeble and ranting. We were talking about party affiliation, she sliced my post to get it out of context (reported), and then wants to talk about states' rights.

The rulings last year made it clear that states may not abridge citizens' civil liberties. The court also made it clear that it is not following the Bible and that it is not following natural law.

End of story.

The only way I see that "states don't abridge citizens' civil liberties" is to either
A. stay out of marriage if the state citizens don't agree 100% religiously
B. agree to uphold whatever policy ALL citizens of that state agree to compromise on
Otherwise, if ALL citizens do NOT fully agree, then the state is in fact imposing
the religious views of one group over the other and discriminating by establishing
a religiously biased policy against the beliefs of dissenting believers of other views.

 

[Bumberclyde]

Sil, your political affiliation is immaterial to the inevitability of marriage equality.

That's not what the US Supreme Court said in DOMA. They said that state's "unquestioned authority" in determining whether or not gay marriage was legal within its boundaries is of "central relevance" to the DOMA Decision. They said that a broad consensus within a state's boundaries is the right and proper way this determination should be made in accordance with the way "the Framers of the Constutition intended" [those are direct quotes]. That's Justice code for saying "such and such is upheld constituitonally". And, they also said in Windsor/DOMA that this affirmation of a state's right and proper way of defining marriage is retroactive to the founding of the nation.

So, as it happens, my political affiliation or leanings on this particular question are of "central relevance" to the open and unanswered question as to the "inevitability" of gay marriage.

Most relevant to that ongoing consensus discussion is what's in my signature and legal mandates to protect adoptable orphans. You can't have a cult that worships old men sodomizing orphaned teen boys while officiating as their "father figure", having top-tier access to adopt orphans as one of the perks of legal marriage, now can you? Also, you cannot force christians, mormons or muslims to commit the mortal sin [Bible, Jude 1, Romans 1...Koran, Poets 26] of enabling a homosexual culture and be damned to hell for eternity for it, now can you?

Aside: Seawytch, I've been meaning to ask you, or any other gay advocate here how you feel about outreach to youth in the currently identified hetero population to "come out gay" or explore their "bi-curious" urgings? A simple answer or a complex one: either one will do.

So the Supreme Court Justices are homophobes, what else is new?

 

[Iceweasel]

Oh, I understand fine. I understand that discrimination is discrimination no matter how justified the bigoted feel at the time.

...which means that you have no clue what I said. The "feel" is all yours.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh, I understand fine. I understand that discrimination is discrimination no matter how justified the bigoted feel at the time.

I'm sure the cult of Warren Jeffs and people who think Jerry Sandusky were wronged feel exactly the same way you do Seawytch.

Look at your messiah: Harvey Milk. Read my signature. THINK about how people who don't belong to your religion feel about your faithful flock. Is it bigotry or something else? Common sense maybe? Or perhaps a mandate to protect children from harm upon suspicion of that harm; a mandate that if you fail to live up to it, you can be prosecuted...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Oh, I understand fine. I understand that discrimination is discrimination no matter how justified the bigoted feel at the time.

I'm sure the cult of Warren Jeffs and people who think Jerry Sandusky were wronged feel exactly the same way you do Seawytch.

Look at your messiah: Harvey Milk. Read my signature. THINK about how people who don't belong to your religion feel about your faithful flock. Is it bigotry or something else? Common sense maybe? Or perhaps a mandate to protect children from harm upon suspicion of that harm; a mandate that if you fail to live up to it, you can be prosecuted...

I have raised three biological kids and put in some nightmare years in with an adopted one.

In that time, and with my grand children, my policy is that where my children are concerned, I am the supreme authority. I do not accept any government authority where my kids are concerned.

I made it clear to everyone, without exception to their affiliation, family, friend, employee or outer associations of same: Screw with my kids and you deal with me. And a perspective of me that most never knew.

There'd be no frantic calls to the Po-po, no crisis management with counselors. Just me, a hammer, chainsaw, shower curtain and a Bar-BQ. No bullshit, no cryin', no mercy.

Don't care who ya are, who ya were. Judgment is immediate and final.

I see 'stories' of kids being abused and I wonder, 'where in the HELL is their Father?".

If it was their Father, where in the hell is HIS FATHER?

Then, one day it occurred to me. That the Feminist Left has been at war with Fathers for 40 years.

And I suddenly realized: WHY!

Does that make me an extremist?

LOL! You bet your ass it does. And most who read this, have no idea what that even means. They 'feel' they do, but they're clueless.

IF they HAD a clue. They'd never allow themselves to even THINK of children and sex. 'Cause in my circles, I'M THE SOFTY! And we're E V E R Y W H E R E ! ! !

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Oh, I understand fine. I understand that discrimination is discrimination no matter how justified the bigoted feel at the time.

...which means that you have no clue what I said. The "feel" is all yours.

What tickles me, is that she doesn't have the slightest clue that she is a bigot.

Imagine bigotry SO PROFOUND, that your opinion is superior to a thousand years of hard fought, human experience.

Now THAT is a bigot!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Silohuette's last post above is feeble and ranting. We were talking about party affiliation, she sliced my post to get it out of context (reported), and then wants to talk about states' rights.

The rulings last year made it clear that states may not abridge citizens' civil liberties. The court also made it clear that it is not following the Bible and that it is not following natural law.

End of story.

The only way I see that "states don't abridge citizens' civil liberties" is to either
A. stay out of marriage if the state citizens don't agree 100% religiously
B. agree to uphold whatever policy ALL citizens of that state agree to compromise on
Otherwise, if ALL citizens do NOT fully agree, then the state is in fact imposing
the religious views of one group over the other and discriminating by establishing
a religiously biased policy against the beliefs of dissenting believers of other views.

Are you talking about the State Sponsored religious view, that any mention of God, his only begotten Son and the natural, objective principles that sustain a viable individual and the sum of individuals known as a culture?

'Cause last time I checked, the US Constitution provides stark limitations on the power of government, providing that one can practice their religion anywhere, with absolutely NO RESTRICTIONS being provided UPON THE INDIVIDUAL.

Anything gettin' through here?

 

[Jarlaxle]

That's your opinion or religious view. I happen to be legally married and we just filed our first joint Federal tax return. WOW, what a difference!

Huh. Look at that, the Relativist offers up the LEGAL qualifier, noting, NOT the LIFELONG BOND of two individuals who have FULLY COMMITTED TO ONE ANOTHER, but the TAX FILING, as representing her primary concerns for her would-be "marriage", and, in so doing establishing "That", as a fact of the incontrovertible variety.

And in a delightfully sweet, ironic twist, one which is FURTHER validated through her inability to contest such being limited to the attempt to distract from such, through feckless and fallacious appeals.

For all intents and purposes, she and her most special friend are bound through simple incorporation, basically a modification of an LLC. But instead of actually using the path of incorporation, the Homo-lobby advocating the normalization of sexual abnormality, DESPERATELY needed to take the pretense of "Marriage" path. The thing is that HAD they opted to incorporate, instead of demanding Marriage, they could load up the car and drive, or fly or sail, anywhere in the world, where their 'union' would be recognized. Because a corporation is a legally binding contract. As it stands now, the moment our contributor and her 'significant other' cross their state line, they're right back to being little more than roomies.

So, we should WHY would the Homo-movement reject a secular and throughly binding, perfectly suited instrument, over something for which they are THOROUGHLY UNQUALIFIED FOR?

They DESPERATELY NEED the legitimacy inherent in "Marriage" which is unobtainable as a practicing homosexual. The proof of which is demonstrated in the desperation itself.

Much as many homosexuals are obsessed with the accumulation of wealth, they need Marriage to secure legitimacy. But, being illegitimate, nothing they DO will ever produce legitimacy, until they turn from the illegitimacy, that defines them, which is their deviant BEHAVIOR.

WOO HOO!! NATURE WINS ANOTHER ONE!
You can't fight Mother Nature​

Wow...who knew a simple marriage license could so unhinge some people.

We've been "bonded" for 18 years now. We're well on our way to "lifelong". Finally our relationship is treated equally under the law. What a great time to be alive!

[obligatory offensive remark]
So...were you the models for your avatar?
[/obligatory offensive remark]

*runs*

Seriously...I like the avatar, and congratulations.

18 years for me this March. Geez...has it really been that long?!

 

[Jarlaxle]

Huh. Look at that, the Relativist offers up the LEGAL qualifier, noting, NOT the LIFELONG BOND of two individuals who have FULLY COMMITTED TO ONE ANOTHER, but the TAX FILING, as representing her primary concerns for her would-be "marriage", and, in so doing establishing "That", as a fact of the incontrovertible variety.

And in a delightfully sweet, ironic twist, one which is FURTHER validated through her inability to contest such being limited to the attempt to distract from such, through feckless and fallacious appeals.

For all intents and purposes, she and her most special friend are bound through simple incorporation, basically a modification of an LLC. But instead of actually using the path of incorporation, the Homo-lobby advocating the normalization of sexual abnormality, DESPERATELY needed to take the pretense of "Marriage" path. The thing is that HAD they opted to incorporate, instead of demanding Marriage, they could load up the car and drive, or fly or sail, anywhere in the world, where their 'union' would be recognized. Because a corporation is a legally binding contract. As it stands now, the moment our contributor and her 'significant other' cross their state line, they're right back to being little more than roomies.

So, we should WHY would the Homo-movement reject a secular and throughly binding, perfectly suited instrument, over something for which they are THOROUGHLY UNQUALIFIED FOR?

They DESPERATELY NEED the legitimacy inherent in "Marriage" which is unobtainable as a practicing homosexual. The proof of which is demonstrated in the desperation itself.

Much as many homosexuals are obsessed with the accumulation of wealth, they need Marriage to secure legitimacy. But, being illegitimate, nothing they DO will ever produce legitimacy, until they turn from the illegitimacy, that defines them, which is their deviant BEHAVIOR.

WOO HOO!! NATURE WINS ANOTHER ONE!
You can't fight Mother Nature​

Wow...who knew a simple marriage license could so unhinge some people.

We've been "bonded" for 18 years now. We're well on our way to "lifelong". Finally our relationship is treated equally under the law. What a great time to be alive!

Oh! Are you the only Homosexual playing house, as a modified LLC?

I had heard there were dozens of such. SO MANY, that the culture needed to be slammed on its ear so we could strip the nuclear core of the nation of any form of standard.

(Relativism << See how that works folks?

She's not advocating for anyone but her self and her most special friend, who enjoyed a nice reduction in federal liabilities, because of they recently incorporated.)

Deceit <=> FRAUD <=> Ignorance
>>> >> S O C I A L I S M << <<<​

Are you on drugs?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Oh, I understand fine. I understand that discrimination is discrimination no matter how justified the bigoted feel at the time.

I'm sure the cult of Warren Jeffs and people who think Jerry Sandusky were wronged feel exactly the same way you do Seawytch.

Look at your messiah: Harvey Milk. Read my signature. THINK about how people who don't belong to your religion feel about your faithful flock. Is it bigotry or something else? Common sense maybe? Or perhaps a mandate to protect children from harm upon suspicion of that harm; a mandate that if you fail to live up to it, you can be prosecuted...

I have raised three biological kids and put in some nightmare years in with an adopted one.

In that time, and with my grand children, my policy is that where my children are concerned, I am the supreme authority. I do not accept any government authority where my kids are concerned.

I made it clear to everyone, without exception to their affiliation, family, friend, employee or outer associations of same: Screw with my kids and you deal with me. And a perspective of me that most never knew.

There'd be no frantic calls to the Po-po, no crisis management with counselors. Just me, a hammer, chainsaw, shower curtain and a Bar-BQ. No bullshit, no cryin', no mercy.

Don't care who ya are, who ya were. Judgment is immediate and final.

I see 'stories' of kids being abused and I wonder, 'where in the HELL is their Father?".

If it was their Father, where in the hell is HIS FATHER?

Then, one day it occurred to me. That the Feminist Left has been at war with Fathers for 40 years.

And I suddenly realized: WHY!

Does that make me an extremist?

LOL! You bet your ass it does. And most who read this, have no idea what that even means. They 'feel' they do, but they're clueless.

IF they HAD a clue. They'd never allow themselves to even THINK of children and sex. 'Cause in my circles, I'M THE SOFTY! And we're E V E R Y W H E R E ! ! !

Translation: you're a psycho and need to be locked up forever.

 

[beagle9]

I'm sure the cult of Warren Jeffs and people who think Jerry Sandusky were wronged feel exactly the same way you do Seawytch.

Look at your messiah: Harvey Milk. Read my signature. THINK about how people who don't belong to your religion feel about your faithful flock. Is it bigotry or something else? Common sense maybe? Or perhaps a mandate to protect children from harm upon suspicion of that harm; a mandate that if you fail to live up to it, you can be prosecuted...

I have raised three biological kids and put in some nightmare years in with an adopted one.

In that time, and with my grand children, my policy is that where my children are concerned, I am the supreme authority. I do not accept any government authority where my kids are concerned.

I made it clear to everyone, without exception to their affiliation, family, friend, employee or outer associations of same: Screw with my kids and you deal with me. And a perspective of me that most never knew.

There'd be no frantic calls to the Po-po, no crisis management with counselors. Just me, a hammer, chainsaw, shower curtain and a Bar-BQ. No bullshit, no cryin', no mercy.

Don't care who ya are, who ya were. Judgment is immediate and final.

I see 'stories' of kids being abused and I wonder, 'where in the HELL is their Father?".

If it was their Father, where in the hell is HIS FATHER?

Then, one day it occurred to me. That the Feminist Left has been at war with Fathers for 40 years.

And I suddenly realized: WHY!

Does that make me an extremist?

LOL! You bet your ass it does. And most who read this, have no idea what that even means. They 'feel' they do, but they're clueless.

IF they HAD a clue. They'd never allow themselves to even THINK of children and sex. 'Cause in my circles, I'M THE SOFTY! And we're E V E R Y W H E R E ! ! !

Translation: you're a psycho and need to be locked up forever.

Sounds like a man protective over his children or all children in general, so is that considered psycho & dangerous these days or is it still the right way to be ? If not the right way to be, then my how the times do change on some things. Are these times creating more and more unstable people ? Could very well be the case.

I mean look around at what is happening these days, then ask oneself why are things so upside down anymore, and this as according to many who think in these ways ? These attitudes in which he has expressed should not be ignored, but instead should be respected as a space in which he guards in his mind and in his thoughts. They more than likely are the attitudes of many still, so it's probably best to take heed wouldn't you agree ? Hmmm, or maybe you think that all whom think like this should be locked up, and if so why, and is that even possible ? No it isn't.

 

[Seawytch]

Huh. Look at that, the Relativist offers up the LEGAL qualifier, noting, NOT the LIFELONG BOND of two individuals who have FULLY COMMITTED TO ONE ANOTHER, but the TAX FILING, as representing her primary concerns for her would-be "marriage", and, in so doing establishing "That", as a fact of the incontrovertible variety.

And in a delightfully sweet, ironic twist, one which is FURTHER validated through her inability to contest such being limited to the attempt to distract from such, through feckless and fallacious appeals.

For all intents and purposes, she and her most special friend are bound through simple incorporation, basically a modification of an LLC. But instead of actually using the path of incorporation, the Homo-lobby advocating the normalization of sexual abnormality, DESPERATELY needed to take the pretense of "Marriage" path. The thing is that HAD they opted to incorporate, instead of demanding Marriage, they could load up the car and drive, or fly or sail, anywhere in the world, where their 'union' would be recognized. Because a corporation is a legally binding contract. As it stands now, the moment our contributor and her 'significant other' cross their state line, they're right back to being little more than roomies.

So, we should WHY would the Homo-movement reject a secular and throughly binding, perfectly suited instrument, over something for which they are THOROUGHLY UNQUALIFIED FOR?

They DESPERATELY NEED the legitimacy inherent in "Marriage" which is unobtainable as a practicing homosexual. The proof of which is demonstrated in the desperation itself.

Much as many homosexuals are obsessed with the accumulation of wealth, they need Marriage to secure legitimacy. But, being illegitimate, nothing they DO will ever produce legitimacy, until they turn from the illegitimacy, that defines them, which is their deviant BEHAVIOR.

WOO HOO!! NATURE WINS ANOTHER ONE!
You can't fight Mother Nature​

Wow...who knew a simple marriage license could so unhinge some people.

We've been "bonded" for 18 years now. We're well on our way to "lifelong". Finally our relationship is treated equally under the law. What a great time to be alive!

[obligatory offensive remark]
So...were you the models for your avatar?
[/obligatory offensive remark]

*runs*

Seriously...I like the avatar, and congratulations.

18 years for me this March. Geez...has it really been that long?!

15 years ago I could have modeled for the avatar...5 babies later, not so much

Congrats yourself. The time flies doesn't it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silohuette's last post above is feeble and ranting. We were talking about party affiliation, she sliced my post to get it out of context (reported), and then wants to talk about states' rights.

The rulings last year made it clear that states may not abridge citizens' civil liberties. The court also made it clear that it is not following the Bible and that it is not following natural law.

End of story.

The only way I see that "states don't abridge citizens' civil liberties" is to either
A. stay out of marriage if the state citizens don't agree 100% religiously
B. agree to uphold whatever policy ALL citizens of that state agree to compromise on
Otherwise, if ALL citizens do NOT fully agree, then the state is in fact imposing
the religious views of one group over the other and discriminating by establishing
a religiously biased policy against the beliefs of dissenting believers of other views.

Are you talking about the State Sponsored religious view, that any mention of God, his only begotten Son and the natural, objective principles that sustain a viable individual and the sum of individuals known as a culture?

'Cause last time I checked, the US Constitution provides stark limitations on the power of government, providing that one can practice their religion anywhere, with absolutely NO RESTRICTIONS being provided UPON THE INDIVIDUAL.

Anything gettin' through here?

That Constitution, as you describe it, does not exist.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Wow...who knew a simple marriage license could so unhinge some people.

We've been "bonded" for 18 years now. We're well on our way to "lifelong". Finally our relationship is treated equally under the law. What a great time to be alive!

Oh! Are you the only Homosexual playing house, as a modified LLC?

I had heard there were dozens of such. SO MANY, that the culture needed to be slammed on its ear so we could strip the nuclear core of the nation of any form of standard.

(Relativism << See how that works folks?

She's not advocating for anyone but her self and her most special friend, who enjoyed a nice reduction in federal liabilities, because of they recently incorporated.)

Deceit <=> FRAUD <=> Ignorance
>>> >> S O C I A L I S M << <<<​

Are you on drugs?

Hey! Now there's a snappy and oh SO original deflection.

OH! Now claim that I fear myself, you know: do the one where you assert that I contest the normalization of sexual abnormality because I internally fear that I too crave sexual gratification through sexual congress with those of my own gender, because, APPARENTLY, only THAT would cause someone to not recognize that which is abnormal as normal.

I LOVE that one.

You people really are all over this stuff, you've clearly given all of this a LOT of thought.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I'm sure the cult of Warren Jeffs and people who think Jerry Sandusky were wronged feel exactly the same way you do Seawytch.

Look at your messiah: Harvey Milk. Read my signature. THINK about how people who don't belong to your religion feel about your faithful flock. Is it bigotry or something else? Common sense maybe? Or perhaps a mandate to protect children from harm upon suspicion of that harm; a mandate that if you fail to live up to it, you can be prosecuted...

I have raised three biological kids and put in some nightmare years in with an adopted one.

In that time, and with my grand children, my policy is that where my children are concerned, I am the supreme authority. I do not accept any government authority where my kids are concerned.

I made it clear to everyone, without exception to their affiliation, family, friend, employee or outer associations of same: Screw with my kids and you deal with me. And a perspective of me that most never knew.

There'd be no frantic calls to the Po-po, no crisis management with counselors. Just me, a hammer, chainsaw, shower curtain and a Bar-BQ. No bullshit, no cryin', no mercy.

Don't care who ya are, who ya were. Judgment is immediate and final.

I see 'stories' of kids being abused and I wonder, 'where in the HELL is their Father?".

If it was their Father, where in the hell is HIS FATHER?

Then, one day it occurred to me. That the Feminist Left has been at war with Fathers for 40 years.

And I suddenly realized: WHY!

Does that make me an extremist?

LOL! You bet your ass it does. And most who read this, have no idea what that even means. They 'feel' they do, but they're clueless.

IF they HAD a clue. They'd never allow themselves to even THINK of children and sex. 'Cause in my circles, I'M THE SOFTY! And we're E V E R Y W H E R E ! ! !

Translation: you're a psycho and need to be locked up forever.

Of course I'm a psycho. I must be, because I have absolutely no tolerance for people who assault the innocence of a child.

Do ya see how it works folks?

They have a right to murder their children, so it naturally follows that they have a right to pursue children for sexual gratification.

That it's YOUR CHILDREN, is irrelevant. THEY are the center of the universe and their needs come first.

And anyone who disagrees and will shut them DOWN the instant that word comes that they've done so to the 'shutter-downers' children, is therefore, relatively speaking, A PSYCHO!

(If that doesn't quite make sense to you, please consider the 'relativist' point of view. Wherein popular culture determines normality, through legality. Therefore, those who do not adhere to popular decree, are mentally disturbed.

I know, I know, that's crazy. I'm just tryin' to explain the perspective of the addle minded fools who adhere to relativism.

This is why the qualify EVERYTHING in terms of LEGAL and Legally. In their mind they SIMULTANEOUSLY 'feel' that what IS Legal is MORALLY sound and what WAS LEGAL was not.

Yes, they're insane. But that's only in reality and has NOTHING to do with the perspective of the militant homo-cult OKA: the Socialist, who, FTR>> Are presently working to LEGALIZE adult/child sexual relations.)

 

[Silhouette]

15 years ago I could have modeled for the avatar...5 babies later, not so much

Congrats yourself. The time flies doesn't it?

Thank goodness there was someone around to provide the sperm for those 5 babies. I guess men are good for something after all. Did they insert something into you, did you use a turkey baster, or just a friend? I'm not being grotesque or irreverent. I'm curious actually. I hear of lesbians having babies and I really wonder how most of them do it. Not all of them have the money to go to fertility clinics.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Since Where_ and Sil know the SCOTUS most likely will rule against their beliefs, they know resort to ad hom and meanness, identifiers of narcissistic personalities who despise all those other people who see them differently.