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

[beagle9]

The boy was 17, Shilts was wrong, and Sil is banging the drum on a tune that was out of chord long ago.

Sil accredits nobody, period; the documentation is against her.

End of story.

16, 17, 18, I mean does it really matter within the context of the entire story here ? Technicalities are something a lawyer is looking for when trying to get his client off in a murder trial when he knows his client is guilty, but isn't it just that a technicality and not justice as it should be sought after in a case as presented by all who are involved? What it seems here, is that some are looking for a technicality in order to win the argument, and so it appears that there is not a good sound judgment or rational being sought after upon the entire circumstances of the story that is being discussed by some here.

 

[Seawytch]

I'm pro allowing fags to marry you dummy.



I'm equally pro being allowed to tell them to shove it up their asses when they try to force others to do business with them, but it has nothing to do with gay. It has to do with my fundamental belief that the Constitution gives us the freedom to discriminate , no matter how distasteful it may be.



That's the part people like you don't get, and probably never will. Well, to put it more bluntly, you don't WANT to get it. You have no Constitutionally protected right to force me to like you or to business with you. Oh sure , you can dishonestly claim that forcing people not to discriminate is simply regulating , but it isn't and deep down you know it.



But the part you REALLY don't get is that I can be PRO allowing people to discriminate while at the same time being against discrimination. Or actually I'm not against discrimination , I'm for it in some cases; because I believe a business owner should be able to hang up a big sign that says "no gays" if he wishes, likewise I'd discriminate and not do business with him. See how that works? Probably not.

The constitutionality of public accommodation laws has already been determined...so, yeah there is a RIGHT to "force" you to provide the service your business advertises to blacks, Jews, Muslims and in almost half the states, gays.

The Court got it wrong, and sadly morons like you do not understand that protecting our RIGHT to do with our property as we please should take precedence over ANYTHING, no matter how distasteful some people are in exercising those rights

Then go right ahead and repeal public accommodation laws but until then they apply to us in 21 states and you can just shut the fuck up and get me my coffee. I have to get you your coffee in all 50 because I can't discriminate against religious cooks.

 

[Seawytch]

The constitutionality of public accommodation laws has already been determined...so, yeah there is a RIGHT to "force" you to provide the service your business advertises to blacks, Jews, Muslims and in almost half the states, gays.

The Court got it wrong, and sadly morons like you do not understand that protecting our RIGHT to do with our property as we please should take precedence over ANYTHING, no matter how distasteful some people are in exercising those rights

What do blacks and jews and muslims have to do with gays? The LGBTers haven't formally formed a church yet have they? If not, they have nothing to do with race or federally recognized religions...

What does discrimination against a minority group based purely on animus have to do with discrimination against a minority group based purely on animus? Surely you can figure that one out all on your own, can't you?

 

[Silhouette]

What does discrimination against a minority group based purely on animus have to do with discrimination against a minority group based purely on animus? Surely you can figure that one out all on your own, can't you?

Compulsive gamblers are a minority too. Why should they be discriminated against when it comes to getting credit? Shouldn't they form a group that seeks to redefine the word "credit" to mean "a guarantee of a loan to anyone, no matter what their spending orientation, or a lawsuit"?

Behaviors are behaviors. The incomplete grouping of sexual deviants known as LGBT will be the SCOTUS' primary concern. What compulsive behaviors will group together next to pray for special inclusion on privelges like marriage, or credit, or...?

After all, if the self-diagnosed feel they were "born that way", how can we close the door on each new compulsion that knocks on the door of SCOTUS. Their lawyers will know how to cite precedent. That's something the Justices will have to honestly back up into outer space and look far off into the future to determine..

 

[beagle9]

What does discrimination against a minority group based purely on animus have to do with discrimination against a minority group based purely on animus? Surely you can figure that one out all on your own, can't you?

Compulsive gamblers are a minority too. Why should they be discriminated against when it comes to getting credit? Shouldn't they form a group that seeks to redefine the word "credit" to mean "a guarantee of a loan to anyone, no matter what their spending orientation, or a lawsuit"?

Behaviors are behaviors. The incomplete grouping of sexual deviants known as LGBT will be the SCOTUS' primary concern. What compulsive behaviors will group together next to pray for special inclusion on privelges like marriage, or credit, or...?

After all, if the self-diagnosed feel they were "born that way", how can we close the door on each new compulsion that knocks on the door of SCOTUS. Their lawyers will know how to cite precedent. That's something the Justices will have to honestly back up into outer space and look far off into the future to determine..

I think these things are already going on as a result of it all Sil, I mean look at all the new thinking that is being considered now, and all the new legislation that is being considered now in relation to it all. Like you and many others say " where does it all make sense anymore", and where do people stand up for what they believe in anymore ? Will the nation have to split into many sectors in order to satisfy everyone or all the different groups finally ? What will be tried or attempted next one wonders ? Once the genie is out of that bottle, will it be any specific genie that the nation will be regretting one day or will it all somehow just mesh together one day ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The boy was 17, Shilts was wrong, and Sil is banging the drum on a tune that was out of chord long ago.

Sil accredits nobody, period; the documentation is against her.

End of story.

16, 17, 18, I mean does it really matter within the context of the entire story here ? Technicalities are something a lawyer is looking for when trying to get his client off in a murder trial when he knows his client is guilty, but isn't it just that a technicality and not justice as it should be sought after in a case as presented by all who are involved? What it seems here, is that some are looking for a technicality in order to win the argument, and so it appears that there is not a good sound judgment or rational being sought after upon the entire circumstances of the story that is being discussed by some here.

Thank you for bringing out that the issue above is a criminal matter.

The story itself has no relevance to the case before the circuit court.

 

[JakeStarkey]

your just being deliberately obtuse.

I am being very clear. You are calling the removal of where a trial would be held (to GB) the antecedents of our judicial review. It is not.

I suppose you could also include that example as an instance of the judicial overreach, by the king's stooges.
heres a link to that modern stooge judge, (and supporting federal court aides & clerks) that dont know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration. Ironically a female judge who quotes "all MEN are created equal" and gets the source wrong. Rushes the opinion out in an egotistic attempt to get her name in the history books with a valentines day opinion.

Virginia Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Confuses Declaration of Independence with Constitution

No, you could not and be right.

 

[beagle9]

The boy was 17, Shilts was wrong, and Sil is banging the drum on a tune that was out of chord long ago.

Sil accredits nobody, period; the documentation is against her.

End of story.

16, 17, 18, I mean does it really matter within the context of the entire story here ? Technicalities are something a lawyer is looking for when trying to get his client off in a murder trial when he knows his client is guilty, but isn't it just that a technicality and not justice as it should be sought after in a case as presented by all who are involved? What it seems here, is that some are looking for a technicality in order to win the argument, and so it appears that there is not a good sound judgment or rational being sought after upon the entire circumstances of the story that is being discussed by some here.

Thank you for bringing out that the issue above is a criminal matter.

The story itself has no relevance to the case before the circuit court.

You may be interpreting my reasoning behind the message I wrote wrong maybe, where as I was making a comparison about the tactic in which is being used here to refocus or to put it all on the age of the boy in which we are seeing so much focus on in this way.

It is basically making a case for a technicality to be used to distract from the core of the issue that is being discovered on whole here or is being reviewed on whole here. Just as a technicality works in other cases in these ways, it does the same here by refocusing the case in order to take the mind off of the rest of the case at hand, and so I think that is what was being sought after here when you all spent so much time on the age thing.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The boy was 17, Shilts was wrong, and Sil is banging the drum on a tune that was out of chord long ago.

Sil accredits nobody, period; the documentation is against her.

End of story.

16, 17, 18, I mean does it really matter within the context of the entire story here ? Technicalities are something a lawyer is looking for when trying to get his client off in a murder trial when he knows his client is guilty, but isn't it just that a technicality and not justice as it should be sought after in a case as presented by all who are involved? What it seems here, is that some are looking for a technicality in order to win the argument, and so it appears that there is not a good sound judgment or rational being sought after upon the entire circumstances of the story that is being discussed by some here.

Thank you for bringing out that the issue above is a criminal matter.

The story itself has no relevance to the case before the circuit court.

Exactly.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

16, 17, 18, I mean does it really matter within the context of the entire story here ? Technicalities are something a lawyer is looking for when trying to get his client off in a murder trial when he knows his client is guilty, but isn't it just that a technicality and not justice as it should be sought after in a case as presented by all who are involved? What it seems here, is that some are looking for a technicality in order to win the argument, and so it appears that there is not a good sound judgment or rational being sought after upon the entire circumstances of the story that is being discussed by some here.

Thank you for bringing out that the issue above is a criminal matter.

The story itself has no relevance to the case before the circuit court.

You may be interpreting my reasoning behind the message I wrote wrong maybe, where as I was making a comparison about the tactic in which is being used here to refocus or to put it all on the age of the boy in which we are seeing so much focus on in this way.

It is basically making a case for a technicality to be used to distract from the core of the issue that is being discovered on whole here or is being reviewed on whole here. Just as a technicality works in other cases in these ways, it does the same here by refocusing the case in order to take the mind off of the rest of the case at hand, and so I think that is what was being sought after here when you all spent so much time on the age thing.

No, the issue is completely irrelevant.

Those who bring up ‘pedophilia’ or other irrelevant nonsense concerning the equal protection rights of gay Americans do so only as an attempt at demagoguery; it’s also a concession on their part that they’ve lost the argument, whether they’re aware of it or not.

 

[Silhouette]

No, the issue is completely irrelevant.

Those who bring up ‘pedophilia’ or other irrelevant nonsense concerning the equal protection rights of gay Americans do so only as an attempt at demagoguery; it’s also a concession on their part that they’ve lost the argument, whether they’re aware of it or not.

The sexual behavior icon sodomizing a 16 year old minor who continued to be a minor for two more years as he transported him across state lines to California, where he officiated as his guardian also..that boy being on drugs exacerbating the crime...and mentally ill exacerbating it further...and the string of other homeless teens on drugs that Harvey Milk sodomized...is very relevant.

When we see here people reminded of the boys age, his status as a minor etc. and they lie in order to cover for Milk, saying the boy was older than he really was, or they defend these crimes as excusable when gays are involved...that creates HUGE relevance when Utah is considering opening the door to the legal shoehorn [marriage] that the cult of LGBT will then use to access minor orphans in that state.

HUGE relevance. Over 60 groups who knew Harvey Milk's bio well, petitioned tirelessly to have his mug on a US Postage stamp with rainbow 'USA' at the top.

HUGE relevance...

 

[Seawytch]

16, 17, 18, I mean does it really matter within the context of the entire story here ? Technicalities are something a lawyer is looking for when trying to get his client off in a murder trial when he knows his client is guilty, but isn't it just that a technicality and not justice as it should be sought after in a case as presented by all who are involved? What it seems here, is that some are looking for a technicality in order to win the argument, and so it appears that there is not a good sound judgment or rational being sought after upon the entire circumstances of the story that is being discussed by some here.

Thank you for bringing out that the issue above is a criminal matter.

The story itself has no relevance to the case before the circuit court.

You may be interpreting my reasoning behind the message I wrote wrong maybe, where as I was making a comparison about the tactic in which is being used here to refocus or to put it all on the age of the boy in which we are seeing so much focus on in this way.

It is basically making a case for a technicality to be used to distract from the core of the issue that is being discovered on whole here or is being reviewed on whole here. Just as a technicality works in other cases in these ways, it does the same here by refocusing the case in order to take the mind off of the rest of the case at hand, and so I think that is what was being sought after here when you all spent so much time on the age thing.

Milk was brought up as the distraction. You know that. What does Harvey Milk have to do with marriage equality? Absolutely nothing. Let it go. Both parties are dead so re-litigating something that was never litigated in the first place is silly.

You might ask; Why is Sil trying to distract from the discussion on marriage equality with discussions about a guy who has been dead for decades?

 

[beagle9]

Thank you for bringing out that the issue above is a criminal matter.

The story itself has no relevance to the case before the circuit court.

You may be interpreting my reasoning behind the message I wrote wrong maybe, where as I was making a comparison about the tactic in which is being used here to refocus or to put it all on the age of the boy in which we are seeing so much focus on in this way.

It is basically making a case for a technicality to be used to distract from the core of the issue that is being discovered on whole here or is being reviewed on whole here. Just as a technicality works in other cases in these ways, it does the same here by refocusing the case in order to take the mind off of the rest of the case at hand, and so I think that is what was being sought after here when you all spent so much time on the age thing.

Milk was brought up as the distraction. You know that. What does Harvey Milk have to do with marriage equality? Absolutely nothing. Let it go. Both parties are dead so re-litigating something that was never litigated in the first place is silly.

You might ask; Why is Sil trying to distract from the discussion on marriage equality with discussions about a guy who has been dead for decades?

Both parties involved are dead yes, but one lives on through the iconizing him by what Sil has explained here. You see just because someone is physically dead means nothing, because if someone creates a situation where people are expected to glorify that person into the future or to set aside as a holiday or day of remembrance in that he be recognized on, then for those who are required to honor that day of remembrance, said person is then lifted from his grave to be honored again and again.

There in lay the problem in which Sil is heavily focused upon with all of this, and then she looks into the persons character to find that he was a bad man for whom should have no day of remembrance in honor of at all, and so she digs a little more deeper and finds that certain groups or people are responsible for this stamp and such in which he is honored by, and then she digs a little deeper, and even a little more deeper. See how all that works ?

 

[Silhouette]

Both parties involved are dead yes, but one lives on through the iconizing him by what Sil has explained here. You see just because someone is physically dead means nothing, because if someone creates a situation where people are expected to glorify that person into the future or to set aside as a holiday or day of remembrance in that he be recognized on, then for those who are required to honor that day of remembrance, said person is then lifted from his grave to be honored again and again.

There in lay the problem in which Sil is heavily focused upon with all of this, and then she looks into the persons character to find that he was a bad man for whom should have no day of remembrance in honor of at all, and so she digs a little more deeper and finds that certain groups or people are responsible for this stamp and such in which he is honored by, and then she digs a little deeper, and even a little more deeper. See how all that works ?

Seawytch knows this. She wants the topic dropped as yet another de facto assistance to the past crimes of Harvey Milk. She doesn't want the public knowing what he did to the 16 year old minor boy, dragging him across state lines from New York to California where he remained a minor for two more years while Milk switched between sodomizing him and officiating as his legal guardian.

She doesn't want the fact that a gay accredited journalist and friend of Harvey Milk jotted down all this information for ANYONE to read. Most especially those of the 60 + LGBT groups from the US, Mexico and Canada who petitioned tirelessly for their messiah to be immortalized as an LGBT icon yet again, on a US Postage stamp.

No, this discussion of how tightly knit the sexuality of Harvey Milk is with those who admire him and what he did definitely bothers Seawytch and she would rather drop it, rather quickly. Because if people keep discussing LGBTers upholding a man guilty of serial sexual abuse against minor teens, homeless orphans on drugs, then maybe people in Utah might do the math on allowing gays to marry. They might figure out that marriage has as one of its perks, elevation to top-tier status to adopt .....orphans... And a group that clearly, obtusely and unambiguously embraces the sexuality specifically of a serial sex abuser of orphaned teen boys..might not be worthy of such a perk and such access to orphans.

Making it worse, Seawytch and others like her seek to shroud the abuse, to make it go away, to lie about it, to change key dates to make it look like McKinley wasn't a minor. All these things are exactly the same things pedophiles do to cover up their crimes. When reminded of those crimes, instead of recoiling in horror, every single gay person I've debated about it, without exception, has jumped to Milk's defense in lockstep fashion..

I'm sure Seawytch wants the topic of Harvey Milk to go away. And gladly it will: the minute the 60+ gay groups who so recently had his image and sexualness iconized on the US Postage stamp publicly stand up and denounce him. They could even pretend they hadn't read his biography and were mistaken in getting him immortalized in law in California and on the stamp in the US as "the embodiment of the LGBT movement across the nation and the world". When they stand up and denounce Milk, I will stop talking about him. If they don't, I won't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silohuette continues to filibabble: long, repetitious strings of already- rebutted arguments that mean nothing before the court.

Sil's opinion about homosexuality contributes nothing to the legal argumentation before the court.

 

[Silhouette]

Silohuette continues to filibabble: long, repetitious strings of already- rebutted arguments that mean nothing before the court.

Sil's opinion about homosexuality contributes nothing to the legal argumentation before the court.

I hardly think that petitioning the Court to not ignore children in the discussion of gay marriage is "filibabble".

What Harvey Milk did to children is inexcusable. Yet not only do LGBTers across three nations elevate him to their sexual-icon status, they actively exonerate his crimes in full knowledge of them; and to the direct intent of spirit of endangerment to children. As if children are some sort of afterthought to their sexuality, only "things they can get at once they are married.."

Both parties involved are dead yes, but one lives on through the iconizing him by what Sil has explained here. You see just because someone is physically dead means nothing, because if someone creates a situation where people are expected to glorify that person into the future or to set aside as a holiday or day of remembrance in that he be recognized on, then for those who are required to honor that day of remembrance, said person is then lifted from his grave to be honored again and again.

There in lay the problem in which Sil is heavily focused upon with all of this, and then she looks into the persons character to find that he was a bad man for whom should have no day of remembrance in honor of at all, and so she digs a little more deeper and finds that certain groups or people are responsible for this stamp and such in which he is honored by, and then she digs a little deeper, and even a little more deeper. See how all that works ?

Seawytch knows this. She wants the topic dropped as yet another de facto assistance to the past crimes of Harvey Milk. She doesn't want the public knowing what he did to the 16 year old minor boy, dragging him across state lines from New York to California where he remained a minor for two more years while Milk switched between sodomizing him and officiating as his legal guardian.

She doesn't want the fact that a gay accredited journalist and friend of Harvey Milk jotted down all this information for ANYONE to read. Most especially those of the 60 + LGBT groups from the US, Mexico and Canada who petitioned tirelessly for their messiah to be immortalized as an LGBT icon yet again, on a US Postage stamp.

No, this discussion of how tightly knit the sexuality of Harvey Milk is with those who admire him and what he did definitely bothers Seawytch and she would rather drop it, rather quickly. Because if people keep discussing LGBTers upholding a man guilty of serial sexual abuse against minor teens, homeless orphans on drugs, then maybe people in Utah might do the math on allowing gays to marry. They might figure out that marriage has as one of its perks, elevation to top-tier status to adopt .....orphans... And a group that clearly, obtusely and unambiguously embraces the sexuality specifically of a serial sex abuser of orphaned teen boys..might not be worthy of such a perk and such access to orphans.

Making it worse, Seawytch and others like her seek to shroud the abuse, to make it go away, to lie about it, to change key dates to make it look like McKinley wasn't a minor. All these things are exactly the same things pedophiles do to cover up their crimes. When reminded of those crimes, instead of recoiling in horror, every single gay person I've debated about it, without exception, has jumped to Milk's defense in lockstep fashion..

I'm sure Seawytch wants the topic of Harvey Milk to go away. And gladly it will: the minute the 60+ gay groups who so recently had his image and sexualness iconized on the US Postage stamp publicly stand up and denounce him. They could even pretend they hadn't read his biography and were mistaken in getting him immortalized in law in California and on the stamp in the US as "the embodiment of the LGBT movement across the nation and the world". When they stand up and denounce Milk, I will stop talking about him. If they don't, I won't.

 

[Seawytch]

You may be interpreting my reasoning behind the message I wrote wrong maybe, where as I was making a comparison about the tactic in which is being used here to refocus or to put it all on the age of the boy in which we are seeing so much focus on in this way.

It is basically making a case for a technicality to be used to distract from the core of the issue that is being discovered on whole here or is being reviewed on whole here. Just as a technicality works in other cases in these ways, it does the same here by refocusing the case in order to take the mind off of the rest of the case at hand, and so I think that is what was being sought after here when you all spent so much time on the age thing.

Milk was brought up as the distraction. You know that. What does Harvey Milk have to do with marriage equality? Absolutely nothing. Let it go. Both parties are dead so re-litigating something that was never litigated in the first place is silly.

You might ask; Why is Sil trying to distract from the discussion on marriage equality with discussions about a guy who has been dead for decades?

Both parties involved are dead yes, but one lives on through the iconizing him by what Sil has explained here. You see just because someone is physically dead means nothing, because if someone creates a situation where people are expected to glorify that person into the future or to set aside as a holiday or day of remembrance in that he be recognized on, then for those who are required to honor that day of remembrance, said person is then lifted from his grave to be honored again and again.

There in lay the problem in which Sil is heavily focused upon with all of this, and then she looks into the persons character to find that he was a bad man for whom should have no day of remembrance in honor of at all, and so she digs a little more deeper and finds that certain groups or people are responsible for this stamp and such in which he is honored by, and then she digs a little deeper, and even a little more deeper. See how all that works ?

There is no "there" there. Digging deeper to find what? Nothing.

Harvey Milk has nothing to do with marriage equality just as his relationship has nothing to do with his accomplishments.

It's called grasping at straws for a reason.

 

[beagle9]

Milk was brought up as the distraction. You know that. What does Harvey Milk have to do with marriage equality? Absolutely nothing. Let it go. Both parties are dead so re-litigating something that was never litigated in the first place is silly.

You might ask; Why is Sil trying to distract from the discussion on marriage equality with discussions about a guy who has been dead for decades?

Both parties involved are dead yes, but one lives on through the iconizing him by what Sil has explained here. You see just because someone is physically dead means nothing, because if someone creates a situation where people are expected to glorify that person into the future or to set aside as a holiday or day of remembrance in that he be recognized on, then for those who are required to honor that day of remembrance, said person is then lifted from his grave to be honored again and again.

There in lay the problem in which Sil is heavily focused upon with all of this, and then she looks into the persons character to find that he was a bad man for whom should have no day of remembrance in honor of at all, and so she digs a little more deeper and finds that certain groups or people are responsible for this stamp and such in which he is honored by, and then she digs a little deeper, and even a little more deeper. See how all that works ?

There is no "there" there. Digging deeper to find what? Nothing.

Harvey Milk has nothing to do with marriage equality just as his relationship has nothing to do with his accomplishments.

It's called grasping at straws for a reason.

Which side is grasping at straws again ?

 

[Seawytch]

Both parties involved are dead yes, but one lives on through the iconizing him by what Sil has explained here. You see just because someone is physically dead means nothing, because if someone creates a situation where people are expected to glorify that person into the future or to set aside as a holiday or day of remembrance in that he be recognized on, then for those who are required to honor that day of remembrance, said person is then lifted from his grave to be honored again and again.

There in lay the problem in which Sil is heavily focused upon with all of this, and then she looks into the persons character to find that he was a bad man for whom should have no day of remembrance in honor of at all, and so she digs a little more deeper and finds that certain groups or people are responsible for this stamp and such in which he is honored by, and then she digs a little deeper, and even a little more deeper. See how all that works ?

There is no "there" there. Digging deeper to find what? Nothing.

Harvey Milk has nothing to do with marriage equality just as his relationship has nothing to do with his accomplishments.

It's called grasping at straws for a reason.

Which side is grasping at straws again ?

Why don't you tell me. Who is bringing up a guy who has been dead over two decades in a pathetic attempt to paint gays as pedophiles? I think you know damn good and well who is grasping at straws.

What we see in Sil's continued insistence in bringing up completely irrelevant topics like Milk is the last flopping, dying gasps of the anti-gay movement. It's over, you lost. We are marrying in 17 states and it's just going to grow.

You have two choices; 1) Capitalize on it. Go into the gay wedding business. 2) Get over it, there's nothing you can do to stop it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Both parties involved are dead yes, but one lives on through the iconizing him by what Sil has explained here. You see just because someone is physically dead means nothing, because if someone creates a situation where people are expected to glorify that person into the future or to set aside as a holiday or day of remembrance in that he be recognized on, then for those who are required to honor that day of remembrance, said person is then lifted from his grave to be honored again and again.

There in lay the problem in which Sil is heavily focused upon with all of this, and then she looks into the persons character to find that he was a bad man for whom should have no day of remembrance in honor of at all, and so she digs a little more deeper and finds that certain groups or people are responsible for this stamp and such in which he is honored by, and then she digs a little deeper, and even a little more deeper. See how all that works ?

There is no "there" there. Digging deeper to find what? Nothing.

Harvey Milk has nothing to do with marriage equality just as his relationship has nothing to do with his accomplishments.

It's called grasping at straws for a reason.

Which side is grasping at straws again ?

What's sad and telling is you perceive "sides."