Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The people in question do not want to participate in a gay wedding. You say they have to.
Why says they are participating in a wedding? You do, citing yourself.
Who says that their rights were infringed? You do, citing yourself.
Who says that PA laws are invalid? You do, citing yourself.
Who says that any ruling you don't agree with is invalid? You do, citing yourself.
Your problem....is that I don't give a shit what your source believes. As our law isn't defined by your personal opinion.
Is there anything to your argument but you citing yourself?
They felt that making the cake was participating in a ceremony they find sinful. Is that true or false?
What relevance do their 'feelings' have to do with the law? Is the law based on their 'feelings'?
Nope. Your 'legal standard' isn't. You're offering us what you think the case was SUPPOSED to be based on rather than what it actually was.
Sigh....citing yourself. Do you have any argument that isn't you citing you? Because your source is clearly inadequate to carry your argument.
What right does government have in deciding how a person exercises their religion, unless such exercise causes actual harm?
Causes harm....according to who? Again, Marty......you keep backing on subjective, Marty-defined piece of pseudo-legal gibberish ANOTHER piece of Marty-defined pseudo-legal gibberish.
Where YOU define what harm is, where YOU define what infringement is, where YOU define what constitutional rights are, YOU define what the law allows, make up whatever standard YOU wish (laughing....your predictably abandoned 'feelings' standard, for example), where YOU decide which supreme court rulings are valid or invalid.
And you don't do any of that. Your argument requires that you do all of that.
I ask again, do you have any argument that isn't you citing yourself?
Marty, here is your problem. The mainstream didn't promote SSM, that would have led to a discussion of its deeper implications (same sex siblings).
What they promoted was (brilliant marketing when you think about it) was that this was simply a law allowing "gay marriage). Deflecting from obvious problems.
I meant the mainstream, average supporter of SSM.
Doesn't matter, the average supporter was never given the information that same sex marriage had any other implications other than allowing gays to marry. Clearly it does.
That is irrelevant. Legalizing opposite sex marriage clearly had the implication of allowing same sex marriage, as has now been proven in the courts.
Except the law stated that those too closely related could not.
Possible reason for that?
If you have an argument in favor of legalizing incest, make it. But laughably, you keep demanding I make your argument for you.
Possible reason for that?
Just using the mainstream, simplified logic used to promote acceptance of SSM.
Marty, here is your problem. The mainstream didn't promote SSM, that would have led to a discussion of its deeper implications (same sex siblings).
What they promoted was (brilliant marketing when you think about it) was that this was simply a law allowing "gay marriage). Deflecting from obvious problems.
I meant the mainstream, average supporter of SSM.
Doesn't matter, the average supporter was never given the information that same sex marriage had any other implications other than allowing gays to marry. Clearly it does.
Save that none of your 'implications' have every played out. I think the word you're looking for is 'assumption'.
And one perfectly contradicted by history. As nothing you've claimed must happen....has happened. Not a single state has legalized polygamy. Not a single state has legalized incest. Nor incest marriage.
Your record of failure is perfect.
12 years ago I could have made the same claim. I guess your argument fails as it has no merit.
In Maryland and iowa, incest is only between opposite sex partners and/ or vaginal penetration. Do males even have vagina's.
You imply that marriage requires sex. Cite a single statute that requires such.
Then it seems no one is advocating polygamy nor incest marriage.I meant the mainstream, average supporter of SSM.
Doesn't matter, the average supporter was never given the information that same sex marriage had any other implications other than allowing gays to marry. Clearly it does.
That is irrelevant. Legalizing opposite sex marriage clearly had the implication of allowing same sex marriage, as has now been proven in the courts.
Except the law stated that those too closely related could not.
Possible reason for that?
If you have an argument in favor of legalizing incest, make it. But laughably, you keep demanding I make your argument for you.
Possible reason for that?
Why do you keep wanting me to argue something I never have?
The context of the law as it was written, and its "original intent" through the minds and purpose of those who had written the law is all that matters. To read into a law with the purpose to find "justification" beyond the "original intent" and purpose to which the issues of that law were discussed and debated to address, amounts to .. by definition .. judicial activism..
Yes, and in this case, judicial activism that actively suppressed the rights of one of the parties to the proposed contract revision who stands to lose the most from that radical revision: children.
Marty, here is your problem. The mainstream didn't promote SSM, that would have led to a discussion of its deeper implications (same sex siblings).
What they promoted was (brilliant marketing when you think about it) was that this was simply a law allowing "gay marriage). Deflecting from obvious problems.
I meant the mainstream, average supporter of SSM.
Doesn't matter, the average supporter was never given the information that same sex marriage had any other implications other than allowing gays to marry. Clearly it does.
Save that none of your 'implications' have every played out. I think the word you're looking for is 'assumption'.
And one perfectly contradicted by history. As nothing you've claimed must happen....has happened. Not a single state has legalized polygamy. Not a single state has legalized incest. Nor incest marriage.
Your record of failure is perfect.
12 years ago I could have made the same claim. I guess your argument fails as it has no merit.
We've had same sex marriage for a decade. Yet nothing you predicted actually happened.
Your 'implications' are merely your own personal baseless assumptions. And have a perfect record of contradiction by actual history.
In Maryland and iowa, incest is only between opposite sex partners and/ or vaginal penetration. Do males even have vagina's.
If you have an argument to make in favor of legalizing incest, make it.
I'm not making it for you.
You imply that marriage requires sex. Cite a single statute that requires such.
I've neither said nor implied any such thing. If you believe I have, quote me.
You can't. You're merely trolling. And I treat trolls with what they deserve: by trolling them right back. I call it 'uber-trolling'.
See how that works?
There's no compelling reason to not allow two or three brothers to marry. Your ignorance and propensity to speak with your head firmly ensconced in your rectum is duly noted.It is an infringement on the rights of those excluded. Whether that infringement is permissible depends on the reason for the infringement. If there is a compelling reason for the infringement, it is constitutional. There is no reason to exclude gay people from marriage, compelling or otherwise. Your ignorance and bigotry and desire to force others to live according to your faith is not a compelling reason.But defining marriage isn't an infringement to everyone not included. Two brothers unable to marry aren't infringed upon, it's what society determined. You guys play fast and loose with terminology.When you begin to understand how our constitution works, perhaps, you can add something intelligent to discussions like these. There reason for a Bill of Rights and for the 14th Amendment was to insure that certain rights are protected from infringement even if the majority wants to infringe.
Why says they are participating in a wedding? You do, citing yourself.
Who says that their rights were infringed? You do, citing yourself.
Who says that PA laws are invalid? You do, citing yourself.
Who says that any ruling you don't agree with is invalid? You do, citing yourself.
Your problem....is that I don't give a shit what your source believes. As our law isn't defined by your personal opinion.
Is there anything to your argument but you citing yourself?
They felt that making the cake was participating in a ceremony they find sinful. Is that true or false?
What relevance do their 'feelings' have to do with the law? Is the law based on their 'feelings'?
Nope. Your 'legal standard' isn't. You're offering us what you think the case was SUPPOSED to be based on rather than what it actually was.
Sigh....citing yourself. Do you have any argument that isn't you citing you? Because your source is clearly inadequate to carry your argument.
What right does government have in deciding how a person exercises their religion, unless such exercise causes actual harm?
Causes harm....according to who? Again, Marty......you keep backing on subjective, Marty-defined piece of pseudo-legal gibberish ANOTHER piece of Marty-defined pseudo-legal gibberish.
Where YOU define what harm is, where YOU define what infringement is, where YOU define what constitutional rights are, YOU define what the law allows, make up whatever standard YOU wish (laughing....your predictably abandoned 'feelings' standard, for example), where YOU decide which supreme court rulings are valid or invalid.
And you don't do any of that. Your argument requires that you do all of that.
I ask again, do you have any argument that isn't you citing yourself?
It is my right as a citizen of a free country to do so. My opinions are my own, and they are true to the original intent of the constitution, and the concept of strict constructional federalism (with a libertarian bent).
I meant the mainstream, average supporter of SSM.
Doesn't matter, the average supporter was never given the information that same sex marriage had any other implications other than allowing gays to marry. Clearly it does.
Save that none of your 'implications' have every played out. I think the word you're looking for is 'assumption'.
And one perfectly contradicted by history. As nothing you've claimed must happen....has happened. Not a single state has legalized polygamy. Not a single state has legalized incest. Nor incest marriage.
Your record of failure is perfect.
12 years ago I could have made the same claim. I guess your argument fails as it has no merit.
We've had same sex marriage for a decade. Yet nothing you predicted actually happened.
Your 'implications' are merely your own personal baseless assumptions. And have a perfect record of contradiction by actual history.
In Maryland and iowa, incest is only between opposite sex partners and/ or vaginal penetration. Do males even have vagina's.
If you have an argument to make in favor of legalizing incest, make it.
I'm not making it for you.
You imply that marriage requires sex. Cite a single statute that requires such.
I've neither said nor implied any such thing. If you believe I have, quote me.
You can't. You're merely trolling. And I treat trolls with what they deserve: by trolling them right back. I call it 'uber-trolling'.
See how that works?
We had opposite sex marriage only for centuries.
Your argument is shown even more without merit.
I meant the mainstream, average supporter of SSM.
Doesn't matter, the average supporter was never given the information that same sex marriage had any other implications other than allowing gays to marry. Clearly it does.
Save that none of your 'implications' have every played out. I think the word you're looking for is 'assumption'.
And one perfectly contradicted by history. As nothing you've claimed must happen....has happened. Not a single state has legalized polygamy. Not a single state has legalized incest. Nor incest marriage.
Your record of failure is perfect.
12 years ago I could have made the same claim. I guess your argument fails as it has no merit.
We've had same sex marriage for a decade. Yet nothing you predicted actually happened.
Your 'implications' are merely your own personal baseless assumptions. And have a perfect record of contradiction by actual history.
In Maryland and iowa, incest is only between opposite sex partners and/ or vaginal penetration. Do males even have vagina's.
If you have an argument to make in favor of legalizing incest, make it.
I'm not making it for you.
You imply that marriage requires sex. Cite a single statute that requires such.
I've neither said nor implied any such thing. If you believe I have, quote me.
You can't. You're merely trolling. And I treat trolls with what they deserve: by trolling them right back. I call it 'uber-trolling'.
See how that works?
We had opposite sex marriage only for centuries.
Your argument is shown even more without merit.
Purely political arguments make for bad law. Dante responded to a political argumentONLY AN IDIOT WOULD ARGUE THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS SET UP TO DIVINE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLEYes, because 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers is a great sample set to find out the "will of the majority"
Progressives only protect the rights of the minority when it suits their goals.
Poor political arguments make for lousy law
how about you read the post I was responding to before you respond?
Dumbass.
From this link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/25...nst-supreme-courts-huge-gay-marriage-decision
Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts’s argument centered around the need to preserve states’ rights rather than follow the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”
Justice Antonin Scalia
According to Scalia, the majority ruling represents a “judicial Putsch.”
Scalia wrote that while he has no personal opinions on whether the law should allow same-sex marriage, he feels very strongly that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide.
“Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best,” Scalia wrote. “But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.”
Justice Clarence Thomas
Thomas, echoing a grievance expressed by many conservative politicians, also lamented that the Supreme Court’s decision is enshrining a definition of marriage into the Constitution in a way that puts it “beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire nation.”
Justice Samuel Alito
Alito also reaffirmed his position that there is no way to confirm what the outcome of gay marriage may be on the institution of traditional marriage, and therefore the Court is and should not be in a position to take on the topic...“At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment,” Alito wrote. Alito said that traditional marriage has existed between a man and woman for one key reason: children.
And as to that last point by Justice Alito: Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Now, I'm not a super powerful lawyer but it seems to me there may be simple contract case law that says if a contract is up for radical revision, the parties who are tacitly signed on to that contract, like children or the states that look after them as future citizens, must have representation at the revision-table.
Not only did that not happen for children and the states' interest in protecting them and their own fiscal future directly impacted by what happens to them growing up, but when adult children raised in gay homes submitted amicus briefs to that revision tribunal, the tribunal (The Fascist-Five) flatly ignored their pleas that they longed for both a mother and father in their home; and that longing damaged them.
Not one word that I know of in June's Opinion addressed these contract parties' concerns. Nor were there attorneys present at the hearing as guardians ad litem for childrens' voices at the table. The most important parties to the marriage contract were systematically barred from the table discussing its radical revision. Not only would contract case law come into play here, but also federal child endangerment statutes. Neglecting to allow a child's voice to cry out in protest is still neglect.
Thomas writes further:
“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” Thomas wrote. “Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”
And what do you know? Several cases are on their way back to the Court in less than 6 months time on that precise loggerhead of Law. The crap will really hit the fan when Chuck & Dave go to suing a catholic adoption agency for refusing to adopt little boys to them.
From this link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/25...nst-supreme-courts-huge-gay-marriage-decision
Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts’s argument centered around the need to preserve states’ rights rather than follow the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”
Justice Antonin Scalia
According to Scalia, the majority ruling represents a “judicial Putsch.”
Scalia wrote that while he has no personal opinions on whether the law should allow same-sex marriage, he feels very strongly that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide.
“Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best,” Scalia wrote. “But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.”
Justice Clarence Thomas
Thomas, echoing a grievance expressed by many conservative politicians, also lamented that the Supreme Court’s decision is enshrining a definition of marriage into the Constitution in a way that puts it “beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire nation.”
Justice Samuel Alito
Alito also reaffirmed his position that there is no way to confirm what the outcome of gay marriage may be on the institution of traditional marriage, and therefore the Court is and should not be in a position to take on the topic...“At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment,” Alito wrote. Alito said that traditional marriage has existed between a man and woman for one key reason: children.
And as to that last point by Justice Alito: Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Now, I'm not a super powerful lawyer but it seems to me there may be simple contract case law that says if a contract is up for radical revision, the parties who are tacitly signed on to that contract, like children or the states that look after them as future citizens, must have representation at the revision-table.
Not only did that not happen for children and the states' interest in protecting them and their own fiscal future directly impacted by what happens to them growing up, but when adult children raised in gay homes submitted amicus briefs to that revision tribunal, the tribunal (The Fascist-Five) flatly ignored their pleas that they longed for both a mother and father in their home; and that longing damaged them.
Not one word that I know of in June's Opinion addressed these contract parties' concerns. Nor were there attorneys present at the hearing as guardians ad litem for childrens' voices at the table. The most important parties to the marriage contract were systematically barred from the table discussing its radical revision. Not only would contract case law come into play here, but also federal child endangerment statutes. Neglecting to allow a child's voice to cry out in protest is still neglect.
Thomas writes further:
“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” Thomas wrote. “Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”
And what do you know? Several cases are on their way back to the Court in less than 6 months time on that precise loggerhead of Law. The crap will really hit the fan when Chuck & Dave go to suing a catholic adoption agency for refusing to adopt little boys to them.
Doesn't matter, the average supporter was never given the information that same sex marriage had any other implications other than allowing gays to marry. Clearly it does.
Save that none of your 'implications' have every played out. I think the word you're looking for is 'assumption'.
And one perfectly contradicted by history. As nothing you've claimed must happen....has happened. Not a single state has legalized polygamy. Not a single state has legalized incest. Nor incest marriage.
Your record of failure is perfect.
12 years ago I could have made the same claim. I guess your argument fails as it has no merit.
We've had same sex marriage for a decade. Yet nothing you predicted actually happened.
Your 'implications' are merely your own personal baseless assumptions. And have a perfect record of contradiction by actual history.
In Maryland and iowa, incest is only between opposite sex partners and/ or vaginal penetration. Do males even have vagina's.
If you have an argument to make in favor of legalizing incest, make it.
I'm not making it for you.
You imply that marriage requires sex. Cite a single statute that requires such.
I've neither said nor implied any such thing. If you believe I have, quote me.
You can't. You're merely trolling. And I treat trolls with what they deserve: by trolling them right back. I call it 'uber-trolling'.
See how that works?
We had opposite sex marriage only for centuries.
Your argument is shown even more without merit.
We haven't had incest marriage or polygamy. Making your 'implications' merely baseless opinion signifying nothing.
And contradicted perfectly by history.
Doesn't matter, the average supporter was never given the information that same sex marriage had any other implications other than allowing gays to marry. Clearly it does.
Save that none of your 'implications' have every played out. I think the word you're looking for is 'assumption'.
And one perfectly contradicted by history. As nothing you've claimed must happen....has happened. Not a single state has legalized polygamy. Not a single state has legalized incest. Nor incest marriage.
Your record of failure is perfect.
12 years ago I could have made the same claim. I guess your argument fails as it has no merit.
We've had same sex marriage for a decade. Yet nothing you predicted actually happened.
Your 'implications' are merely your own personal baseless assumptions. And have a perfect record of contradiction by actual history.
In Maryland and iowa, incest is only between opposite sex partners and/ or vaginal penetration. Do males even have vagina's.
If you have an argument to make in favor of legalizing incest, make it.
I'm not making it for you.
You imply that marriage requires sex. Cite a single statute that requires such.
I've neither said nor implied any such thing. If you believe I have, quote me.
You can't. You're merely trolling. And I treat trolls with what they deserve: by trolling them right back. I call it 'uber-trolling'.
See how that works?
We had opposite sex marriage only for centuries.
Your argument is shown even more without merit.
Then go challenge the law if you you are so offended by it.
Nothing stops you.
There's no compelling reason to not allow two or three brothers to marry. Your ignorance and propensity to speak with your head firmly ensconced in your rectum is duly noted.It is an infringement on the rights of those excluded. Whether that infringement is permissible depends on the reason for the infringement. If there is a compelling reason for the infringement, it is constitutional. There is no reason to exclude gay people from marriage, compelling or otherwise. Your ignorance and bigotry and desire to force others to live according to your faith is not a compelling reason.But defining marriage isn't an infringement to everyone not included. Two brothers unable to marry aren't infringed upon, it's what society determined. You guys play fast and loose with terminology.When you begin to understand how our constitution works, perhaps, you can add something intelligent to discussions like these. There reason for a Bill of Rights and for the 14th Amendment was to insure that certain rights are protected from infringement even if the majority wants to infringe.
Well you have the right to go argue your right to marry your 3 brothers in court.
Meanwhile- in the real world- you have your own opinion- citing your own opinion, spoken from firmly within your rectum.
Save that none of your 'implications' have every played out. I think the word you're looking for is 'assumption'.
And one perfectly contradicted by history. As nothing you've claimed must happen....has happened. Not a single state has legalized polygamy. Not a single state has legalized incest. Nor incest marriage.
Your record of failure is perfect.
12 years ago I could have made the same claim. I guess your argument fails as it has no merit.
We've had same sex marriage for a decade. Yet nothing you predicted actually happened.
Your 'implications' are merely your own personal baseless assumptions. And have a perfect record of contradiction by actual history.
In Maryland and iowa, incest is only between opposite sex partners and/ or vaginal penetration. Do males even have vagina's.
If you have an argument to make in favor of legalizing incest, make it.
I'm not making it for you.
You imply that marriage requires sex. Cite a single statute that requires such.
I've neither said nor implied any such thing. If you believe I have, quote me.
You can't. You're merely trolling. And I treat trolls with what they deserve: by trolling them right back. I call it 'uber-trolling'.
See how that works?
We had opposite sex marriage only for centuries.
Your argument is shown even more without merit.
We haven't had incest marriage or polygamy. Making your 'implications' merely baseless opinion signifying nothing.
And contradicted perfectly by history.
And (cuz you're a nazi), 20 years ago there was no same sex marriage.
Save that none of your 'implications' have every played out. I think the word you're looking for is 'assumption'.
And one perfectly contradicted by history. As nothing you've claimed must happen....has happened. Not a single state has legalized polygamy. Not a single state has legalized incest. Nor incest marriage.
Your record of failure is perfect.
12 years ago I could have made the same claim. I guess your argument fails as it has no merit.
We've had same sex marriage for a decade. Yet nothing you predicted actually happened.
Your 'implications' are merely your own personal baseless assumptions. And have a perfect record of contradiction by actual history.
In Maryland and iowa, incest is only between opposite sex partners and/ or vaginal penetration. Do males even have vagina's.
If you have an argument to make in favor of legalizing incest, make it.
I'm not making it for you.
You imply that marriage requires sex. Cite a single statute that requires such.
I've neither said nor implied any such thing. If you believe I have, quote me.
You can't. You're merely trolling. And I treat trolls with what they deserve: by trolling them right back. I call it 'uber-trolling'.
See how that works?
We had opposite sex marriage only for centuries.
Your argument is shown even more without merit.
Then go challenge the law if you you are so offended by it.
Nothing stops you.
Except standing in the case. See, I'm married.
From this link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/25...nst-supreme-courts-huge-gay-marriage-decision
Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts’s argument centered around the need to preserve states’ rights rather than follow the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”
Justice Antonin Scalia
According to Scalia, the majority ruling represents a “judicial Putsch.”
Scalia wrote that while he has no personal opinions on whether the law should allow same-sex marriage, he feels very strongly that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide.
“Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best,” Scalia wrote. “But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.”
Justice Clarence Thomas
Thomas, echoing a grievance expressed by many conservative politicians, also lamented that the Supreme Court’s decision is enshrining a definition of marriage into the Constitution in a way that puts it “beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire nation.”
Justice Samuel Alito
Alito also reaffirmed his position that there is no way to confirm what the outcome of gay marriage may be on the institution of traditional marriage, and therefore the Court is and should not be in a position to take on the topic...“At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment,” Alito wrote. Alito said that traditional marriage has existed between a man and woman for one key reason: children.
And as to that last point by Justice Alito: Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Now, I'm not a super powerful lawyer but it seems to me there may be simple contract case law that says if a contract is up for radical revision, the parties who are tacitly signed on to that contract, like children or the states that look after them as future citizens, must have representation at the revision-table.
Not only did that not happen for children and the states' interest in protecting them and their own fiscal future directly impacted by what happens to them growing up, but when adult children raised in gay homes submitted amicus briefs to that revision tribunal, the tribunal (The Fascist-Five) flatly ignored their pleas that they longed for both a mother and father in their home; and that longing damaged them.
Not one word that I know of in June's Opinion addressed these contract parties' concerns. Nor were there attorneys present at the hearing as guardians ad litem for childrens' voices at the table. The most important parties to the marriage contract were systematically barred from the table discussing its radical revision. Not only would contract case law come into play here, but also federal child endangerment statutes. Neglecting to allow a child's voice to cry out in protest is still neglect.
Thomas writes further:
“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” Thomas wrote. “Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”
And what do you know? Several cases are on their way back to the Court in less than 6 months time on that precise loggerhead of Law. The crap will really hit the fan when Chuck & Dave go to suing a catholic adoption agency for refusing to adopt little boys to them.
Their comments
From this link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/25...nst-supreme-courts-huge-gay-marriage-decision
Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts’s argument centered around the need to preserve states’ rights rather than follow the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”
Justice Antonin Scalia
According to Scalia, the majority ruling represents a “judicial Putsch.”
Scalia wrote that while he has no personal opinions on whether the law should allow same-sex marriage, he feels very strongly that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide.
“Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best,” Scalia wrote. “But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.”
Justice Clarence Thomas
Thomas, echoing a grievance expressed by many conservative politicians, also lamented that the Supreme Court’s decision is enshrining a definition of marriage into the Constitution in a way that puts it “beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire nation.”
Justice Samuel Alito
Alito also reaffirmed his position that there is no way to confirm what the outcome of gay marriage may be on the institution of traditional marriage, and therefore the Court is and should not be in a position to take on the topic...“At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment,” Alito wrote. Alito said that traditional marriage has existed between a man and woman for one key reason: children.
And as to that last point by Justice Alito: Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Now, I'm not a super powerful lawyer but it seems to me there may be simple contract case law that says if a contract is up for radical revision, the parties who are tacitly signed on to that contract, like children or the states that look after them as future citizens, must have representation at the revision-table.
Not only did that not happen for children and the states' interest in protecting them and their own fiscal future directly impacted by what happens to them growing up, but when adult children raised in gay homes submitted amicus briefs to that revision tribunal, the tribunal (The Fascist-Five) flatly ignored their pleas that they longed for both a mother and father in their home; and that longing damaged them.
Not one word that I know of in June's Opinion addressed these contract parties' concerns. Nor were there attorneys present at the hearing as guardians ad litem for childrens' voices at the table. The most important parties to the marriage contract were systematically barred from the table discussing its radical revision. Not only would contract case law come into play here, but also federal child endangerment statutes. Neglecting to allow a child's voice to cry out in protest is still neglect.
Thomas writes further:
“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” Thomas wrote. “Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”
And what do you know? Several cases are on their way back to the Court in less than 6 months time on that precise loggerhead of Law. The crap will really hit the fan when Chuck & Dave go to suing a catholic adoption agency for refusing to adopt little boys to them.
Those comments may or may not be true.
James Clark McReynolds' dissent in the gold cases was suppressed, censored, never some the light of day.
I can not believe that "justice" Roberts who believes that the federal government has the authority to compel Americans to buy insurance has ever read or is familiar with the US Constitution (1787).
12 years ago I could have made the same claim. I guess your argument fails as it has no merit.
We've had same sex marriage for a decade. Yet nothing you predicted actually happened.
Your 'implications' are merely your own personal baseless assumptions. And have a perfect record of contradiction by actual history.
In Maryland and iowa, incest is only between opposite sex partners and/ or vaginal penetration. Do males even have vagina's.
If you have an argument to make in favor of legalizing incest, make it.
I'm not making it for you.
You imply that marriage requires sex. Cite a single statute that requires such.
I've neither said nor implied any such thing. If you believe I have, quote me.
You can't. You're merely trolling. And I treat trolls with what they deserve: by trolling them right back. I call it 'uber-trolling'.
See how that works?
We had opposite sex marriage only for centuries.
Your argument is shown even more without merit.
We haven't had incest marriage or polygamy. Making your 'implications' merely baseless opinion signifying nothing.
And contradicted perfectly by history.
And (cuz you're a nazi), 20 years ago there was no same sex marriage.
Nor was there an Ipod Nano 20 years ago. But your assumption was that same sex marriage legalizes incest marriage and polygamy.
Neither of which is actually true. Nor has history backed, with nothing you've insisted must happen....ever actually happening.
And its this profound difference between what you assume and what reality actually indicates where your argument collapse into sad little pieces. As it demonstrates that you simply don't know what you're talking about.
