Chris Christie Chooses to Drop Opposition to Marriage Equality

[Seawytch]

Nope, but it might soon be in yours. Is a gay hookup between two sisters considered incest? Maybe you need to consult your Websters. What if they "marry" but never have sex? incest or gay marriage?

The marriage contract establishes a next of kin relationship. Siblings already enjoy that relationship so marriage would be redundant.

So what do you call it when sisters live together and make a committment to take care of each other? why are they denied the benefits of two gay women who are unrelated but make the same kind of committment?

why are those sisters taxed as individuals and the gay women allowed to file as married?

like I said earlier, you fools have no idea the can of worms you are opening with this gay marriage BS.

Do brothers and sisters get to do that? Dumb argument.

 

[Redfish]

Bullshit. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional. DOMA was clearly unconstitutional.

please quote the language in the constitution that specifically addresses marriage in any form.

something cannot be unconstitutional if the constitution is silent on it.

The SCOTUS rulings declaring marriage a fundamental right. Turner v Safely, Zabloski v Redhail and Loving v Virginia.

DOMA cited the 5th Amendment in striking down section 3. The CA ruling cited the 14th.

a SCOTUS ruling does not add something to the constitution that wasn't there before the ruling.

when SCOTUS makes rulings like these they are attempting to make law, not to interpret the constitution.

The ONLY way to make gay marriage constitutional would be via a constitutional amendment ratified by 38 states---------good luck on that one seabytch.

 

[Redfish]

The marriage contract establishes a next of kin relationship. Siblings already enjoy that relationship so marriage would be redundant.

So what do you call it when sisters live together and make a committment to take care of each other? why are they denied the benefits of two gay women who are unrelated but make the same kind of committment?

why are those sisters taxed as individuals and the gay women allowed to file as married?

like I said earlier, you fools have no idea the can of worms you are opening with this gay marriage BS.

Do brothers and sisters get to do that? Dumb argument.

So, you are OK with sisters living together in a committed relationship being denied the tax breaks that you want for yourself and your partner??? please explain the logic in that.

 

[Redfish]

The marriage contract establishes a next of kin relationship. Siblings already enjoy that relationship so marriage would be redundant.

So what do you call it when sisters live together and make a committment to take care of each other? why are they denied the benefits of two gay women who are unrelated but make the same kind of committment?

why are those sisters taxed as individuals and the gay women allowed to file as married?

like I said earlier, you fools have no idea the can of worms you are opening with this gay marriage BS.

Do brothers and sisters get to do that? Dumb argument.

No, but why shouldn't they if you can?

 

[Redfish]

The marriage contract establishes a next of kin relationship. Siblings already enjoy that relationship so marriage would be redundant.

So what do you call it when sisters live together and make a committment to take care of each other? why are they denied the benefits of two gay women who are unrelated but make the same kind of committment?

why are those sisters taxed as individuals and the gay women allowed to file as married?

like I said earlier, you fools have no idea the can of worms you are opening with this gay marriage BS.

What do you call it now when a brother and sister live together and make a commitment?
You don't call it marriage

is it a civil union? why are they denied the tax benefits that you want for two unrelated women?

 

[Redfish]

I am just trying to get you libs to think this through to its logical conclusion. As soon as gay marriage becomes equal to hetero marriage, then the lawyers will be lining up to use that as a precedent for everything from bigamay to polygamy to mother/dauther and father/son.

And the SCOTUS will have no logical argument to rule against them. Those groups will become a discriminated against minority.

You know I am right, but you just cannot bring your liberal heads into focus.

 

[g5000]

Most people think of the average homo like Mitch and Cam on Modern Family.

Not. Not even close. Many are, many aren't. Some of them are just downright -- sick.

Most people think of the average homosexual to be the ones they know. You seem to think most people isolate themselves from gays the same way you do, and their only knowledge of gays is through the TV.

Only homophobic goons like yourself think they are like the guys at gay pride parades whose images you are spoon fed by fellow homophobes on Fox and Breitbart.

Believing gays are like the ones you see at gay pride parades is like believing all heteros are like the ones you see at Mardi Gras.

 

[Politico]

Had no other option = Choose bahahahaha gotta love the Leftytoon brain.

 

[g5000]

I am just trying to get you libs to think this through to its logical conclusion. As soon as gay marriage becomes equal to hetero marriage, then the lawyers will be lining up to use that as a precedent for everything from bigamay to polygamy to mother/dauther and father/son.

And the SCOTUS will have no logical argument to rule against them. Those groups will become a discriminated against minority.

You know I am right, but you just cannot bring your liberal heads into focus.

Fallacy: Slippery Slope

 

[Seawytch]

please quote the language in the constitution that specifically addresses marriage in any form.

something cannot be unconstitutional if the constitution is silent on it.

The SCOTUS rulings declaring marriage a fundamental right. Turner v Safely, Zabloski v Redhail and Loving v Virginia.

DOMA cited the 5th Amendment in striking down section 3. The CA ruling cited the 14th.

a SCOTUS ruling does not add something to the constitution that wasn't there before the ruling.

when SCOTUS makes rulings like these they are attempting to make law, not to interpret the constitution.

The ONLY way to make gay marriage constitutional would be via a constitutional amendment ratified by 38 states---------good luck on that one seabytch.

So original...seabytch? That's the best you can come up with?

When the SCOTUS finally rules on one of those "no" states we shall see won't we? Wonder which will be first. We know it won't be NJ now.

 

[Seawytch]

So what do you call it when sisters live together and make a committment to take care of each other? why are they denied the benefits of two gay women who are unrelated but make the same kind of committment?

why are those sisters taxed as individuals and the gay women allowed to file as married?

like I said earlier, you fools have no idea the can of worms you are opening with this gay marriage BS.

Do brothers and sisters get to do that? Dumb argument.

So, you are OK with sisters living together in a committed relationship being denied the tax breaks that you want for yourself and your partner??? please explain the logic in that.

The same that applies to a brother and sister.

 

[martybegan]

The courts are ruling contrary to your opinion.

The courts have been overstepping thier consitutional bounds for the past 40 years.

Bullshit. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional. DOMA was clearly unconstitutional.

DOMA was unconstitutional because the federal government overstepped its bounds in a matter that has been regulated by the states. So basically you have a strict constructionist interpretation that you actually agree with for once.

The content of the law is meaningless when it came to DOMA's unconstitutionality.

 

[Seawytch]

The courts have been overstepping thier consitutional bounds for the past 40 years.

Bullshit. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional. DOMA was clearly unconstitutional.

DOMA was unconstitutional because the federal government overstepped its bounds in a matter that has been regulated by the states. So basically you have a strict constructionist interpretation that you actually agree with for once.

The content of the law is meaningless when it came to DOMA's unconstitutionality.

Hmmm, except that's not why DOMA was struck down. It wasn't struck down because the federal government "overstepped its bounds". It was struck down because it treated a group of people differently under the law.

This is going back to the SCOTUS. One of the "no" states are going back to the Supreme Court, probably soon, and the anti-gay states are going to be ruled unconstitutional as well.

 

[rightwinger]

The SCOTUS rulings declaring marriage a fundamental right. Turner v Safely, Zabloski v Redhail and Loving v Virginia.

DOMA cited the 5th Amendment in striking down section 3. The CA ruling cited the 14th.

a SCOTUS ruling does not add something to the constitution that wasn't there before the ruling.

when SCOTUS makes rulings like these they are attempting to make law, not to interpret the constitution.

The ONLY way to make gay marriage constitutional would be via a constitutional amendment ratified by 38 states---------good luck on that one seabytch.

So original...seabytch? That's the best you can come up with?

When the SCOTUS finally rules on one of those "no" states we shall see won't we? Wonder which will be first. We know it won't be NJ now.

Congress is no longer capable of passing anmendments. They can't even pass a simple budget.
If the Democrats win the Presidency in 2016 they will pack the Supreme Court with young liberals. Gay marriage will be ruled legal under the 14th amendment

 

[martybegan]

Bullshit. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional. DOMA was clearly unconstitutional.

DOMA was unconstitutional because the federal government overstepped its bounds in a matter that has been regulated by the states. So basically you have a strict constructionist interpretation that you actually agree with for once.

The content of the law is meaningless when it came to DOMA's unconstitutionality.

Hmmm, except that's not why DOMA was struck down. It wasn't struck down because the federal government "overstepped its bounds". It was struck down because it treated a group of people differently under the law.

This is going back to the SCOTUS. One of the "no" states are going back to the Supreme Court, probably soon, and the anti-gay states are going to be ruled unconstitutional as well.

This analysis begs to differ.

Kennedy's decision to strike down a central part of DOMA cited the principles of state autonomy, equal protection and liberty,[44] but the constitutional basis for striking down the law was not entirely clear, as it had elements of federalism, equal protection and due process.[2] The Court wrote:[4

 

[martybegan]

a SCOTUS ruling does not add something to the constitution that wasn't there before the ruling.

when SCOTUS makes rulings like these they are attempting to make law, not to interpret the constitution.

The ONLY way to make gay marriage constitutional would be via a constitutional amendment ratified by 38 states---------good luck on that one seabytch.

So original...seabytch? That's the best you can come up with?

When the SCOTUS finally rules on one of those "no" states we shall see won't we? Wonder which will be first. We know it won't be NJ now.

Congress is no longer capable of passing anmendments. They can't even pass a simple budget.
If the Democrats win the Presidency in 2016 they will pack the Supreme Court with young liberals. Gay marriage will be ruled legal under the 14th amendment

So basically you want to create rights you like, and destroy ones I like.

Expect blowback if that is the case.

 

[rightwinger]

So original...seabytch? That's the best you can come up with?

When the SCOTUS finally rules on one of those "no" states we shall see won't we? Wonder which will be first. We know it won't be NJ now.

Congress is no longer capable of passing anmendments. They can't even pass a simple budget.
If the Democrats win the Presidency in 2016 they will pack the Supreme Court with young liberals. Gay marriage will be ruled legal under the 14th amendment

So basically you want to create rights you like, and destroy ones I like.

Expect blowback if that is the case.

I lack the power to create anything

Gay marriage is now available to a third of the population. Major issues will be created as gay couples visit and move to states that do not recognize their marriage. Those issues will be resolved in the courts.

The cultural tide on gay marriage has already turned. It is only a matter of time until the courts recognize it

 

[billyerock1991]

.
By Becky Bratu, Staff Writer, NBC News

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie announced Monday he is abandoning the legal challenge to same-sex marriage, saying last week's court decision giving gays and lesbians the right to wed "left no ambiguity."

.

he didn't drop it ... he was forced legally, to drop it .. other wise he would be turning them down ...

 

[martybegan]

Congress is no longer capable of passing anmendments. They can't even pass a simple budget.
If the Democrats win the Presidency in 2016 they will pack the Supreme Court with young liberals. Gay marriage will be ruled legal under the 14th amendment

So basically you want to create rights you like, and destroy ones I like.

Expect blowback if that is the case.

I lack the power to create anything

Gay marriage is now available to a third of the population. Major issues will be created as gay couples visit and move to states that do not recognize their marriage. Those issues will be resolved in the courts.

The cultural tide on gay marriage has already turned. It is only a matter of time until the courts recognize it

and along with that will come destruction of the 2nd amendment, more restrictions on business and the economy, bullshit environmental cases, and everything else your statist progressive asshole justices can come up with.

If that happens, prepare for dissent, and not the paper mache liberal dissent your side puts up.

 

[Seawytch]

DOMA was unconstitutional because the federal government overstepped its bounds in a matter that has been regulated by the states. So basically you have a strict constructionist interpretation that you actually agree with for once.

The content of the law is meaningless when it came to DOMA's unconstitutionality.

Hmmm, except that's not why DOMA was struck down. It wasn't struck down because the federal government "overstepped its bounds". It was struck down because it treated a group of people differently under the law.

This is going back to the SCOTUS. One of the "no" states are going back to the Supreme Court, probably soon, and the anti-gay states are going to be ruled unconstitutional as well.

This analysis begs to differ.

Kennedy's decision to strike down a central part of DOMA cited the principles of state autonomy, equal protection and liberty,[44] but the constitutional basis for striking down the law was not entirely clear, as it had elements of federalism, equal protection and due process.[2] The Court wrote:[4

Only as it applies to the "yes" states. The "no" states haven't been ruled upon yet by the SCOTUS. (But they do keep losing in lower courts...an indication of things to come)