Conservative SCOTUS Justices FAIL: Backdoor Legislating by Marriage Attrition

[Katzndogz]

Gays have every intention of imposing depravity as the new morality on every other person so there isn't much difference in intent.

 

[Syriusly]

Gays have every intention of imposing depravity as the new morality on every other person so there isn't much difference in intent.

Yep- wanting to get married just imposes depravity on you.........lol

 

[Silhouette]

Gays have every intention of imposing depravity as the new morality on every other person so there isn't much difference in intent.

Yep- wanting to get married just imposes depravity on you.........lol

It imposes depravity on children and would require catholic charity orphanges to close their doors [public accomodation] to all but catholics to adopt. This would render out into direct harm to children. Not to mention secular orphanages being legally-forced to place a child with a pair of dudes they saw in a gay pride parade the day before doing mock anal-sex in front of kids invited to watch.

LGBT are behaviors. They are gotten, not born with. They are not race. They are not innate or intrinsic to the person. They are a compulsive affect much like a person developes a habitual pattern of seeking out a certain specific drug to get high off of. We have no business mainstreaming a behavior repugnant to the majority against the majority's will. Equal rights dictate that if we are foolish enough to do so, we cannot arbitrarily exclude other behaviors repugnant to the majority "special federal protection".

So in addition to real, measurable harm to children, federal protection for "gay marriage" means real, measurable harm to democracy. The precedent will unravel the majority's ability to self-rule with regards to any repugnant behaviors that organize and call themselves "special and discriminated against"..

 

[Syriusly]

Gays have every intention of imposing depravity as the new morality on every other person so there isn't much difference in intent.

Yep- wanting to get married just imposes depravity on you.........lol

It imposes depravity on children and would require catholic charity orphanges to close their doors.

And of course it does no such thing.

You swing at the ball, miss by a mile, and are doing your victory dance while the wino in the alley wonders what the hell you are talking about.

 

[Skylar]

It imposes depravity on children and would require catholic charity orphanges to close their doors [public accomodation] to all but catholics to adopt. This would render out into direct harm to children. Not to mention secular orphanages being legally-forced to place a child with a pair of dudes they saw in a gay pride parade the day before doing mock anal-sex in front of kids invited to watch.

What 'depravity'?

LGBT are behaviors. They are gotten, not born with. They are not race. They are not innate or intrinsic to the person. They are a compulsive affect much like a person developes a habitual pattern of seeking out a certain specific drug to get high off of. We have no business mainstreaming a behavior repugnant to the majority against the majority's will. Equal rights dictate that if we are foolish enough to do so, we cannot arbitrarily exclude other behaviors repugnant to the majority "special federal protection"

So what if they are? Speech is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. Religion is a behavior. And yet all these behaviors can be the basis of protection. The issue of whether or not gays can be protected from discrimination by state laws was answered 8 years ago with the Romer V. Evans decision.

That you disagree is irrelevant. As neither caselaw nor precedent is dependant on you. And take a nice long look at who wrote the Romer Decision. That would be swing voter Kennedy. The man who in all likelihood sided with the rest of the USSC in preserving all the lower court decisions that overturned gay marriage bans by denying cert for every appeal in the 4th, 7th and 10th circuit court. Which means? That's right!

Gay marriage is now legal in Utah.

o in addition to real, measurable harm to children, federal protection for "gay marriage" means real, measurable harm to democracy. The precedent will unravel the majority's ability to self-rule with regards to any repugnant behaviors that organize and call themselves "special and discriminated against"..

What 'real measurable harm'? Remember, your ability to type those three words doesn't acutally mean the world is magically obligated to change to make them true.

 

[Syriusly]

It imposes depravity on children and would require catholic charity orphanges to close their doors [public accomodation] to all but catholics to adopt. This would render out into direct harm to children. Not to mention secular orphanages being legally-forced to place a child with a pair of dudes they saw in a gay pride parade the day before doing mock anal-sex in front of kids invited to watch.

What 'depravity'?

LGBT are behaviors. They are gotten, not born with. They are not race. They are not innate or intrinsic to the person. They are a compulsive affect much like a person developes a habitual pattern of seeking out a certain specific drug to get high off of. We have no business mainstreaming a behavior repugnant to the majority against the majority's will. Equal rights dictate that if we are foolish enough to do so, we cannot arbitrarily exclude other behaviors repugnant to the majority "special federal protection"

So what if they are? Speech is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. Religion is a behavior. And yet all these behaviors can be the basis of protection. The issue of whether or not gays can be protected from discrimination by state laws was answered 8 years ago with the Romer V. Evans decision.

That you disagree is irrelevant. As neither caselaw nor precedent is dependant on you. And take a nice long look at who wrote the Romer Decision. That would be swing voter Kennedy. The man who in all likelihood sided with the rest of the USSC in preserving all the lower court decisions that overturned gay marriage bans by denying cert for every appeal in the 4th, 7th and 10th circuit court. Which means? That's right!

Gay marriage is now legal in Utah.

o in addition to real, measurable harm to children, federal protection for "gay marriage" means real, measurable harm to democracy. The precedent will unravel the majority's ability to self-rule with regards to any repugnant behaviors that organize and call themselves "special and discriminated against"..

What 'real measurable harm'? Remember, your ability to type those three words doesn't acutally mean the world is magically obligated to change to make them true.

Marriage itself is a behavior.

And it is a civil right Americans- even gay Americans have.

 

[Katzndogz]

What have all the laws against discrimination done for black people? Is there any less discrimination?

 

[Silhouette]

Gay marriage is now legal in Utah.

And in the interest of "marriage equality", so then is polygamy and incest marriage. As long as all are consenting adults in love.

Unless of course you find it "icky" and "repugnant to the majority"?

 

[Skylar]

And in the interest of "marriage equality", so then is polygamy and incest marriage. As long as all are consenting adults in love.

Says you, citing you! And remember, if this whole legal journey, the stays, the appeals, the petitions for writs of cert, the USSC rulings have taught us anything......

....is that you citing you don't amount to jack shit!

Gay marriage is legal in Arizona as of this afternoon. And look! Alaska just joined the club. That's 31.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gay marriage is now legal in Utah.

And in the interest of "marriage equality", so then is polygamy and incest marriage. As long as all are consenting adults in love.

Unless of course you find it "icky" and "repugnant to the majority"?

After two weeks of steady loses, gays now getting married in more than 30 states, I came in to see what was left of Sil? Not much I see, still crazy as ever and unable to accept that a large part of our society has grown up a little on this issue while she remains a temper-tantrum throwing child. So be it.

Hey Sil, we told you that you would lose, over and over again. Why in God's name didn't you believe us? Next time, believe us.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And in the interest of "marriage equality", so then is polygamy and incest marriage. As long as all are consenting adults in love.

Says you, citing you! And remember, if this whole legal journey, the stays, the appeals, the petitions for writs of cert, the USSC rulings have taught us anything......

....is that you citing you don't amount to jack shit!

Gay marriage is legal in Arizona as of this afternoon. And look! Alaska just joined the club. That's 31.

That Supreme Court that was supposed to turn this around for her, passed. They have washed their hands of this issue, until they are forced to rule but the ruling is obvious, and Sil loses yet again.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What have all the laws against discrimination done for black people? Is there any less discrimination?

Of course there is. But life is pretty much exactly the same as 100 years ago under the rock where you live.

 

[Skylar]

Gays have every intention of imposing depravity as the new morality on every other person so there isn't much difference in intent.

What 'depravity'?

 

[Skylar]

And in the interest of "marriage equality", so then is polygamy and incest marriage. As long as all are consenting adults in love.

Says you, citing you! And remember, if this whole legal journey, the stays, the appeals, the petitions for writs of cert, the USSC rulings have taught us anything......

....is that you citing you don't amount to jack shit!

Gay marriage is legal in Arizona as of this afternoon. And look! Alaska just joined the club. That's 31.

That Supreme Court that was supposed to turn this around for her, passed. They have washed their hands of this issue, until they are forced to rule but the ruling is obvious, and Sil loses yet again.

I tried to explain this situation with the USSC to a friend of mine. And she came up with a startling little conspiracy theory;

What if the conservative justices won't take up the issue because they know they'd lose. So they're leaving the issue without binding precedent waiting for one of their fellow justices to die and be replaced. With a different court mix, they might be able to institute support for a gay marriage ban affirmation ruling.

I think its far fetched. But its definitely interesting.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What have all the laws against discrimination done for black people? Is there any less discrimination?

Um, yes.

Rather undeniably.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And in the interest of "marriage equality", so then is polygamy and incest marriage. As long as all are consenting adults in love.

Says you, citing you! And remember, if this whole legal journey, the stays, the appeals, the petitions for writs of cert, the USSC rulings have taught us anything......

....is that you citing you don't amount to jack shit!

Gay marriage is legal in Arizona as of this afternoon. And look! Alaska just joined the club. That's 31.

That Supreme Court that was supposed to turn this around for her, passed. They have washed their hands of this issue, until they are forced to rule but the ruling is obvious, and Sil loses yet again.

I tried to explain this situation with the USSC to a friend of mine. And she came up with a startling little conspiracy theory;

What if the conservative justices won't take up the issue because they know they'd lose. So they're leaving the issue without binding precedent waiting for one of their fellow justices to die and be replaced. With a different court mix, they might be able to institute support for a gay marriage ban affirmation ruling.

I think its far fetched. But its definitely interesting.

Not gonna happen. This is a new Loving to anyone who watches the court. All they've been doing is trying not to get ahead of public opinion. They know the obvious, there's no need to ban something that in the end matters very little to anyone but some religious nutters who don't get a say in how a secular state passes laws anyway.

This fight is well past the tipping point, and the "but gays are scary" folks no longer have a dog that hunts, he's on meds and about to be put down.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gays have every intention of imposing depravity as the new morality on every other person so there isn't much difference in intent.

What 'depravity'?

The kind where they get married, buy a house, and raise two healthy children. God only knows how the rest of us will manage to survive such immoral depravity.

 

[Skylar]

Not gonna happen. This is a new Loving to anyone who watches the court. All they've been doing is trying not to get ahead of public opinion. They know the obvious, there's no need to ban something that in the end matters very little to anyone but some religious nutters who don't get a say in how a secular state passes laws anyway.

Its different than Loving in one major way: The USSC has yet to rule on the issue. I think its more likely that they haven't interfered because there are no conflicts in the circuit courts. While an errant judge here and there might rule in favor of the bans, the quorums have been slapping them down like a game of whack-a-mole.

I think the scenario suggested over dinner tonight is implausible and needlessly complicated. But not so implausible or so complicated that it was beyond the realm of possibility.

 

[Katzndogz]

No country in all of history has survived the normalization of same sex relationships. It has never been passed on as a positive value to any subsequent civilization.

The tolerant of europe are being replaced by the very intolerant of islam now. There is no one interested enough to preserve that value. There's no one much interested at all.

 

[Katzndogz]

What have all the laws against discrimination done for black people? Is there any less discrimination?

Um, yes.

Rather undeniably.

Black people would disagree with that.