Conservative SCOTUS Justices FAIL: Backdoor Legislating by Marriage Attrition

[Kosh]

No they do not have the blessing of the USSC, they did not make any ruling or hear any arguments. That is not a blessing by the supreme court, but to a far left drone, I am sure it is.

The USSC allowed every lower court ruling to stand from the 4th, 7th and 10th appeals circuit. They denied cert for every one of those cases. Making the lower court rulings enforceable and authoritative in their respective districts.

Gay marriage is now legal in 30 of the 50 states.

No they did not, but I am sure that is the thoughts of a far left drone that does not understand what happened.

But then again you are only repeating the programmed talking points of the far left blogosphere.

It will be heard by the USSC, they chose at this time not to hear those cases as it would have been more of an opinion than a ruling.

Proof the far left can not understand anything beyond their programming.

 

[jon_berzerk]

So you are saying your party threw your moral compass under the buss??

Maybe they were just tired of being in the closet

Whatever the motivation. I just cannot respect and more importantly support at the polls a party who knowingly allows the furthest liberal left damaging agenda to overtake it without so much as a *peep*. And worse, who enables it to spread by attrition; which is exactly what's happening.

You can't tell me that Justice Roberts, Scalia, Alito & Thomas "didn't know" that this state of lawlessness they've created wasn't "legislation by limbo". By their refusal to take up this Century's most important legal question [for how far the ramifications of a torpedo to man/woman marriage will extrapolate into future generations, society and the country as a whole in every conceivable direction], they did knowingly aid and abet gay marriage being forced on your state, dear reader, against your will. So when you are watching two dudes kissing at an altar preparing to be fake "mommy and daddy" to little kids they're going to force adoption agencies in your state to relinquish to their custody, you can turn to the good old GOP and thank them. Because all that was needed was the four of their steady-eddies in the SCOTUS to vote to take this matter up.

Now even as just a few weeks pass...or months before any GOP senators can be sworn in, or GOP assume control of Congress, it will be too late because so much attrition to standing marriage laws [by attrition of gays stuffing the clerk's offices] that there will be no hope at all of recovering a normal situation to be held out as the incentivized family for children's benefit.

Thanks conservatives for giving orphans gay "moms and dads" and their accompanying cultural values [see photos in the OP] as a matter of law.

PUNISH THE GOP AT THE POLLS. Let them win...but only by the slimmest of margins..

Vote independants or simply don't show up. Send a goddamned message to the republicans that we no longer believe they are the conservative party..

You can't tell me that Justice Roberts, Scalia, Alito & Thomas "didn't know" that this state of lawlessness they've created wasn't "legislation by limbo". By their refusal to take up this Century's most important legal question



they didnt refuse anything

they didnt take up the issue at this time

state rights are important

you dont see what they are doing here

they are running out the clock

on the old leftists on the bench

tick tick tick

with a republican congress the next two years

the prezbo cant replace the old bat

and a republican prezbo after that

well

 

[Skylar]

No they did not, but I am sure that is the thoughts of a far left drone that does not understand what happened.

Of course they did.

The Supreme Court on Monday turned away appeals from five states looking to prohibit gay marriage, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in those states and likely others -- but also leaving the issue unresolved nationally.

The justices rejected appeals from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. The court's order immediately ends delays on gay marriage in those states.

Supreme Court paves way for gay marriage in several states leaves issue unresolved nationally Fox News

Undoubtedly, you'll denounce the 'far left drones' at Fox News just as you did Gallup, and every poll at Polling Report.com that contradicts your beliefs. Reality doesn't change just because you close your eyes.

 

[Silhouette]

You can't tell me that Justice Roberts, Scalia, Alito & Thomas "didn't know" that this state of lawlessness they've created wasn't "legislation by limbo". By their refusal to take up this Century's most important legal question



they didnt refuse anything

they didnt take up the issue at this time

state rights are important

you dont see what they are doing here

they are running out the clock

on the old leftists on the bench

tick tick tick

with a republican congress the next two years

the prezbo cant replace the old bat

and a republican prezbo after that

well

Yeah, I've long known that's the strategy. But its a very poor one. And here's why:. y'all could've PACKED Congress. Instead what you've done is maybe dribble in a weak majority. The middle crowd doesn't like the uber conservative values and when you start clamping down on things like abortion and forcing people's drinking water to catch fire, removing hopes of universal healthcare, they're going to reject you again.

Plus, like I've said, the GOP has branded itself as pro-gay marriage against the will of the majority. It's that last bit that's more important really. You've declared your penchant which is identical to the far left: a complete willingness to shove your elitists-agenda of a "special minority" down the throats of a massive resistence to your ideology. ie: the electorate is sick of being told "how it's going to be" by their public "servants".

You're risking fracturing your parties. For real this time, not just the usual grumblings. How's promoting gay marriage going to pan out for you in the near future? Say 30 years? You're creating children who will be raised in an ever-spreading social virus environment that, face it, is a little thin on self-control and conservative values. You're creating a very very rogue herd from which you think you're going to hold onto power? Not to mention the fact that you're acting as the devil's servants. But that's all just religious "mumbo jumbo" right? Sweet dreams.

Children learn from their parents. Creating an environment where they are raised with parents who teach them NOTHING of conservative ways is like commiting political suicide. Allowing them to "marry in" gay marriage into law in this limbo interim is opening a door that will almost certain backfire on you if you try to close it. And everyone knows this.

Bet you didn't think that one through to its end eh?

 

[Youch]

So you are saying your party threw your moral compass under the buss??

Parties do what is politically expedient. They are, after all , political parties, groups, disassociated from our best interests. Basic stuff.

What the American citizenry expects and deserves and should demand is beyond party politics; they expect and deserve adherence to the Constitution. We'd all be better off.

 

[Youch]

Well, you knew it was coming....a rant from the middle.

I disagree that there is a middle.

The middle is for fence-sitters who know naught of the underlying, opposing, political philosophies.

But that was not the gist of your thread, and I don't mean to derail an otherwise excellent post. But I was compelled to make the point.

 

[Silhouette]

So you are saying your party threw your moral compass under the buss??

Parties do what is politically expedient. They are, after all , political parties, groups, disassociated from our best interests. Basic stuff.

What the American citizenry expects and deserves and should demand is beyond party politics; they expect and deserve adherence to the Constitution. We'd all be better off.

Yes. The founding fathers created the constitution knowing full well that humans are petty little pricks always grappling for undue power over their fellows...coming from any and every conceivable ilk and direction. They saw how they gang together in little groups of power-thugs. How they manipulate law. How they spin propaganda. How they impoverish others to their own gain. How they want to erode democracy at every turn in the road...every new "Johnny come lately" trend or idea. They made the constitution flexible but with limits. They didn't make it out of silly putty. And they made it with children in mind too.

SCOTUS's refusal to take this case up is dissolving the constitution at its core. It is dissolving state-rule on human behaviors within their discreet community. And this is REALLY VERY BAD. It's a lot worse than it looks on its surface. Often the most destructive "change" comes under the garment of "just doing what we feel is right"....outside asking the majority for their permission....

....and that is NOT a conservative position...and it will predictably lead not just to harm to religion, but to children as well: Should Churches Be Forced to Accomodate for Homosexual Adoptions US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Youch]

So you are saying your party threw your moral compass under the buss??

Parties do what is politically expedient. They are, after all , political parties, groups, disassociated from our best interests. Basic stuff.

What the American citizenry expects and deserves and should demand is beyond party politics; they expect and deserve adherence to the Constitution. We'd all be better off.

Yes. The founding fathers created the constitution knowing full well that humans are petty little pricks always grappling for undue power over their fellows...coming from any and every conceivable ilk and direction. They saw how they gang together in little groups of power-thugs. How they manipulate law. How they spin propaganda. How they impoverish others to their own gain. How they want to erode democracy at every turn in the road...every new "Johnny come lately" trend or idea. They made the constitution flexible but with limits. They didn't make it out of silly putty. And they made it with children in mind too.

SCOTUS's refusal to take this case up is dissolving the constitution at its core. It is disssolving state-rule on human behaviors within their discreet community. And this is REALLY VERY BAD. It's a lot worse than it looks on its surface. Often the most destructive "change" comes under the garment of "just doing what we feel is right"....outside asking the majority for their permission....

....and that is NOT a conservative position...

Yessir.

Finally an intellectual response.......

 

[Moonglow]

If you can't see that this movement has been going strong since the later 19th century then you need to catch up on your politics studies...the reason,,money, power the usual crap that exists at the top tiers of societies..

 

[Youch]

If you can't see that this movement has been going strong since the later 19th century then you need to catch up on your politics studies...the reason,,money, power the usual crap that exists at the top tiers of societies..

What movement? Bowl movement?

I welcome the debate, lets discuss the "movement" since the 19th century. Are you referring to 1913, when socialistic progressivism entered our society for the first time?

 

[Moonglow]

If you can't see that this movement has been going strong since the later 19th century then you need to catch up on your politics studies...the reason,,money, power the usual crap that exists at the top tiers of societies..

What movement? Bowl movement?

I welcome the debate, lets discuss the "movement" since the 19th century. Are you referring to 1913, when socialistic progressivism entered our society for the first time?

We can start it a little earlier when a republican president decided that the Constitution was irrelevant to the molding of our country...

 

[Youch]

If you can't see that this movement has been going strong since the later 19th century then you need to catch up on your politics studies...the reason,,money, power the usual crap that exists at the top tiers of societies..

What movement? Bowl movement?

I welcome the debate, lets discuss the "movement" since the 19th century. Are you referring to 1913, when socialistic progressivism entered our society for the first time?

We can start it a little earlier when a republican president decided that the Constitution was irrelevant to the molding of our country...

I see, you are 13,

You don't even know who was the first Republican President, Or when. Or what the issues really are.

Sorry to engage you.

 

[Silhouette]

I see, you are 13,

You don't even know who was the first Republican President, Or when. Or what the issues really are.

Sorry to engage you.

Have you visited the thread about churches having to either adopt out to gay couples or close their doors to the public?

 

[Youch]

I see, you are 13,

You don't even know who was the first Republican President, Or when. Or what the issues really are.

Sorry to engage you.

Have you visited the thread about churches having to either adopt out to gay couples or close their doors to the public?

No, as that is not relevant to my position. But what horse-shit.

 

[Silhouette]

Have you visited the thread about churches having to either adopt out to gay couples or close their doors to the public?

No, as that is not relevant to my position. But what horse-shit.

We are talking about gay marraige. How do the public accomodation laws and churches being the main operators of orphanges that may be forced to adopt to gays playing at "mom and dad" via marriage not stand relevant to your position? They are the fundamentals of your position I would think.

At the front of everyone's mind [you listening Scalia, Robers, Thomas, Alito?] should be "how will all this affect the orphans"? "What types of homes will we be forcing them into inadvertently by how we rule [or in this case DON'T rule and allow attrition to rule for us]?" "Have we not seen the scores of pictures and footage of gay pride parades with children present?" "Can we not deduce if this is how they're 100% behind as a culture as a matter of open "pride", that behind closed doors children are almost certain to be in easily-predictable peril"?

These points should be a starting-point, not a peripheral consideration or worse, a "non-issue".

 

[Skylar]

Yeah, I've long known that's the strategy. But its a very poor one. And here's why:. y'all could've PACKED Congress. Instead what you've done is maybe dribble in a weak majority. The middle crowd doesn't like the uber conservative values and when you start clamping down on things like abortion and forcing people's drinking water to catch fire, removing hopes of universal healthcare, they're going to reject you again.

Uh-huh. That's why when Utah was granted a stay you insisted that the court just ruled that gay marriage bans were legal. You gave us elaborate internal monologues for the justices, telling us how they wanted to uphold the bans, how the stay applied to the entire country and how Prop 8 was now authoritative again.

Because you've 'long known that was the strategy'. Odd, how your story changed so radically when the courts lifted the stay, denied Utah's appeal and preserved the lower court rulings that overturned the bans on gay marriage.

You completely fucked up. You were wrong on every single point. You were wrong on what motivated the justices, you were wrong on what the stay meant, you were wrong on where the stay applied, you were wrong on Prop 8 being reauthorized.

But *this* time is different, huh? Um, no. It isn't. Its the exact same as last time. With you making up elaborate internal monologues for people you don't know and have never met. And still not having the slightest clue what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

We are talking about gay marraige. How do the public accomodation laws and churches being the main operators of orphanges that may be forced to adopt to gays playing at "mom and dad" via marriage not stand relevant to your position? They are the fundamentals of your position I would think.

No child is required for a marriage to be valid. Nor the ability to have children. So why would a requirement that applies to no one prevent gays from being legally married?

It makes no sense.

 

[Skylar]

What the American citizenry expects and deserves and should demand is beyond party politics; they expect and deserve adherence to the Constitution. We'd all be better off.

Adherence to the constitution....according to who? See, this is the problem. The constitution is by its very nature, interpretive. Especially when you factor in section 1 of the 14th amendment which uses some pretty broad language.

 

[Skylar]

Plus, like I've said, the GOP has branded itself as pro-gay marriage against the will of the majority. It's that last bit that's more important really. You've declared your penchant which is identical to the far left: a complete willingness to shove your elitists-agenda of a "special minority" down the throats of a massive resistence to your ideology. ie: the electorate is sick of being told "how it's going to be" by their public "servants".

Actually, the majority favors gay marriage by a pretty wide margin. Gallup put it at about 12 points. Pew, Bloomberg, CBS, CNN, and others have polls that put margin of support for gay marriage at between 12 and 18 points.

You're projecting again. Assuming that because you don't like gay marriage, the majority must think just like you. Alas, they don't. Nor is there any mandate that they mirror your beliefs on anything.

 

[Silhouette]

No child is required for a marriage to be valid. Nor the ability to have children. So why would a requirement that applies to no one prevent gays from being legally married?

It makes no sense.

Yet marriage is the central institution by which all children are formed as fledged adult people. So who is marriage more important to society for? Gays or children?