Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal

[Procrustes Stretched]

You are off topic of this thread. This thread is about Obergefell....not some state PA law.

if you are going to lecture, and worse scold people -- you should know what you are talking about. The federal case had to do with state laws

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

mdk

This thread is an exercise in futility. It is literally the same bullshit rehashed over and over and over again. I am out. lol

You are out of order and off topic! bodecea has ruled so!

be gone!!!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

This thread is an exercise in futility. It is literally the same bullshit rehashed over and over and over again. I am out. lol

Actually, I always glean at least one useful tidbit of information from such threads....it may be very little but I always learn something new.

If you had claimed you gleaned anything more than a little from ANY thread you would be laughed out of USMB along with Dave and Liability, and Mal, and...

 

[bodecea]

This thread is an exercise in futility. It is literally the same bullshit rehashed over and over and over again. I am out. lol

Actually, I always glean at least one useful tidbit of information from such threads....it may be very little but I always learn something new.

If you had claimed you gleaned anything more than a little from ANY thread you would be laughed out of USMB along with Dave and Liability, and Mal, and...

For example, I can see you are a MacLean.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

This thread is an exercise in futility. It is literally the same bullshit rehashed over and over and over again. I am out. lol

Actually, I always glean at least one useful tidbit of information from such threads....it may be very little but I always learn something new.

If you had claimed you gleaned anything more than a little from ANY thread you would be laughed out of USMB along with Dave and Liability, and Mal, and...

For example, I can see you are a MacLean.

Proud and Honorable

 

[bodecea]

This thread is an exercise in futility. It is literally the same bullshit rehashed over and over and over again. I am out. lol

Actually, I always glean at least one useful tidbit of information from such threads....it may be very little but I always learn something new.

If you had claimed you gleaned anything more than a little from ANY thread you would be laughed out of USMB along with Dave and Liability, and Mal, and...

For example, I can see you are a MacLean.

Proud and Honorable

Well, not everyone can be a MacDonald.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

This thread is an exercise in futility. It is literally the same bullshit rehashed over and over and over again. I am out. lol

Actually, I always glean at least one useful tidbit of information from such threads....it may be very little but I always learn something new.

If you had claimed you gleaned anything more than a little from ANY thread you would be laughed out of USMB along with Dave and Liability, and Mal, and...

For example, I can see you are a MacLean.

Proud and Honorable

Well, not everyone can be a MacDonald.

nor would most honorable people want to

 

[Seawytch]

I always thought Sil and her cult like behavior when talking about the imaginary 'LGBT cult' was the height. Apparently its an entire range of irony.....with more peaks than the Rockies.

The funny thing is that gays petitioned to marry 32 years before Lawrence v. Texas was decided.

32 years aye?

Good god dude, show some pride.

See Baker v. Nelson. Good god dude, show some knowledge of the topic.

Edit: My bad, it was 33 years. lol

So it took 46 years?

And my argument is invalid after what, 6 months.

You are one bizarre dude.

The 'implications' of Baker v. Nelson legalized same sex marriage? If no, then you're clearly not following what's being discussed.

And same sex marriage has been legal in the US for 10 years. Yet nothing you've claimed must happen....did happen.

How do you explain your perfect record of failure?

And in other countries much longer. Which countries allow gays to marry each other and ALSO perform polygamist marriages?

None? You don't say. Such a slippery slope!

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

The case is settled and over...

The fact is you will not be happy until you can force every gay couple back into the closet and deny them the same rights you enjoy in life. You will not be happy until you have laws that outlaw homosexuality and put them on trial for their sexual acts within their own home...

Also let get something straight and this is something that a clueless individual like you may not understand but gay men sometimes have children with other women... Now I know you will think that it happen with a test tube or some other way, but reality is there are many gay men that father children out of wedlock, and then go on with their homosexual lifestyle, so should they be denied the right to be a father because of their sexuality?

Also you scream about the children and one poster did write and I will ask again how many unwanted kids have you adopted from broken straight homes?

Also you do know that in every state a child underage can get married at a certain age that ranges from 14 to 17 with parent, guardian or court permission, or are you clueless about these laws?

So where was your outrage about the fact a 14 year old can enter marriage, and where is your cry for protecting those poor kids?

Oh wait as long as it is between a male and female you do not care about age, and just want Homosexuals to be forced to back of the bus, or worst stoned to death...

So as I finish you will keep up your objection to allowing Same Sex couples to be treated equally under the law and show how there is not much difference between those like you and ISIL...

Religious nuts need to sit down and stop pushing their religious bigotry onto others!

Your State-by-State Guide to Teen Marriage Laws

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

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.

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.

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.

In other words, you can't answer the challenge. The fact is that there's no reason to deny 3 brothers marrying except societal norms. Exactly what you assholes scream about until you get your way. Once you have a favorable law, the law is the law, period.

It's typical of leftists, dishonest, inconsistent and self righteous.

What challenge? I don't want to marry my siblings. I am not the one claiming that siblings now have the right to marry- that would be you and Pops.

If you believe you have the right to marry your siblings now- go for it- challenge the law.

IF you believe that the only reason that you shouldn't marry your 3 brothers is 'societal norms' then go make that argument.

I support your right to challenge the law that you feel is unconstitutional.

Go for it.

I didn't claim siblings could marry, you're too stupid to follow simple words. You have no argument against it, that's the point.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.

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.

In other words, you can't answer the challenge. The fact is that there's no reason to deny 3 brothers marrying except societal norms. Exactly what you assholes scream about until you get your way. Once you have a favorable law, the law is the law, period.

It's typical of leftists, dishonest, inconsistent and self righteous.

What challenge? I don't want to marry my siblings. I am not the one claiming that siblings now have the right to marry- that would be you and Pops.

If you believe you have the right to marry your siblings now- go for it- challenge the law.

IF you believe that the only reason that you shouldn't marry your 3 brothers is 'societal norms' then go make that argument.

I support your right to challenge the law that you feel is unconstitutional.

Go for it.

I didn't claim siblings could marry, you're too stupid to follow simple words. You have no argument against it, that's the point.

If you want to make an argument for incest marriage, feel free.

But I'm not making it for you.

 

[bodecea]

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.

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.

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.

In other words, you can't answer the challenge. The fact is that there's no reason to deny 3 brothers marrying except societal norms. Exactly what you assholes scream about until you get your way. Once you have a favorable law, the law is the law, period.

It's typical of leftists, dishonest, inconsistent and self righteous.

What challenge? I don't want to marry my siblings. I am not the one claiming that siblings now have the right to marry- that would be you and Pops.

If you believe you have the right to marry your siblings now- go for it- challenge the law.

IF you believe that the only reason that you shouldn't marry your 3 brothers is 'societal norms' then go make that argument.

I support your right to challenge the law that you feel is unconstitutional.

Go for it.

I didn't claim siblings could marry, you're too stupid to follow simple words. You have no argument against it, that's the point.

If there is no argument against it....you'd think a court case would have made it lickety split up to the Supreme Court by now.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

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.

In other words, you can't answer the challenge. The fact is that there's no reason to deny 3 brothers marrying except societal norms. Exactly what you assholes scream about until you get your way. Once you have a favorable law, the law is the law, period.

It's typical of leftists, dishonest, inconsistent and self righteous.

What challenge? I don't want to marry my siblings. I am not the one claiming that siblings now have the right to marry- that would be you and Pops.

If you believe you have the right to marry your siblings now- go for it- challenge the law.

IF you believe that the only reason that you shouldn't marry your 3 brothers is 'societal norms' then go make that argument.

I support your right to challenge the law that you feel is unconstitutional.

Go for it.

I didn't claim siblings could marry, you're too stupid to follow simple words. You have no argument against it, that's the point.

Why are you so stupid to think that I must have an argument against siblings marrying?

What challenge? I don't want to marry my siblings. I am not the one claiming that siblings now have the right to marry- that would be you and Pops.

If you believe you have the right to marry your siblings now- go for it- challenge the law.

IF you believe that the only reason that you shouldn't marry your 3 brothers is 'societal norms' then go make that argument.

I support your right to challenge the law that you feel is unconstitutional.

Go for it

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

In other words, you can't answer the challenge. The fact is that there's no reason to deny 3 brothers marrying except societal norms. Exactly what you assholes scream about until you get your way. Once you have a favorable law, the law is the law, period.

It's typical of leftists, dishonest, inconsistent and self righteous.

What challenge? I don't want to marry my siblings. I am not the one claiming that siblings now have the right to marry- that would be you and Pops.

If you believe you have the right to marry your siblings now- go for it- challenge the law.

IF you believe that the only reason that you shouldn't marry your 3 brothers is 'societal norms' then go make that argument.

I support your right to challenge the law that you feel is unconstitutional.

Go for it.

I didn't claim siblings could marry, you're too stupid to follow simple words. You have no argument against it, that's the point.

If there is no argument against it....you'd think a court case would have made it lickety split up to the Supreme Court by now.

Same gender marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for 12 years now.

Yet we still haven't seen any of Pops of Iceweasels buddies trying to marry their siblings there.

I guess they just haven't figured it out in 12 years.

 

[Silhouette]

Same gender marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for 12 years now.

Yet we still haven't seen any of Pops of Iceweasels buddies trying to marry their siblings there.

I guess they just haven't figured it out in 12 years.

In Utah, the Brown polygamy family will be pushing for legal polygamy-marriage next. And it will make it to the US Supreme Court within the next five years or less; whereupon there will be no justificaiton now for denying them based on sexual activity (plural partners). When, and not "if" that case is confirmed in favor of the polygamists, all 50 states will have to abide since now sexual activity-as-identities have "the civil right to marry whom they wish" irregardless of state input or what it does to the other parties to the marriage contract (children).

Would you care to talk about polygamy instead because that's the one that is already pushing to make it to SCOTUS.

 

[Syriusly]

Same gender marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for 12 years now.

Yet we still haven't seen any of Pops of Iceweasels buddies trying to marry their siblings there.

I guess they just haven't figured it out in 12 years.

In Utah, the Brown polygamy family will be pushing for legal polygamy-marriage next. And it will make it to the US Supreme Court within the next five years or less; whereupon there will be no justificaiton now for denying them based on sexual activity (plural partners). .

The Brown's have the legal right to go to court- doesn't mean it will win.

And since your record of predictions of how courts will act is one of 100% failure- you have doomed the Brown's chances of ever winning in court.

 

[Skylar]

Same gender marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for 12 years now.

Yet we still haven't seen any of Pops of Iceweasels buddies trying to marry their siblings there.

I guess they just haven't figured it out in 12 years.

In Utah, the Brown polygamy family will be pushing for legal polygamy-marriage next. And it will make it to the US Supreme Court within the next five years or less; whereupon there will be no justificaiton now for denying them based on sexual activity (plural partners).

Are you honestly going to be giving us another round of legal predictions?

You've *never* been right. Not once. You were wrong on every prediction you've made. Wrong on the implication of actual rulings. Wrong no Windsor. Wrong on Obergefell. Wrong on the meaning of stays. Wrong on Kennedy. Wrong on what Windsor signaled. Wrong on congress 'impeaching' the Supreme Court. Wrong on every significant legal point, court case or ruling on this entire issue.

And now you're going to try and base your entire argument on a *another* hapless set of predictions after you've already demonstrated that you couldn't predict rain in a hurricane?

Really? Holy shit, Sil. You're raising self delusion to an art form.

 

[Pop23]

sex is not a requirement of a legal marriage.

No it is not, but its assumed that siblings who want to marry will have children. That is a public health interest.

Are you saying siblings or close cousins wanting to receive marriage benefits from the state would promise NOT to have children? If so why would they be getting married? For what reasons?

Why would they promise anything?

In the United States of America (come visit it sometimes). The State has the burdon of proof, not the individual.

It is no more likely that two siblings would break the law within a marriage, then in an LLC. You assume otherwise? That's your problem, not theirs.

You're totally ignoring the state's interest in outlawing polygamy. You can do that, but ignoring it is not an argument

And that would be?

Please don't keep us in suspense.

Remember, there is no requirement of sex in a marriage, and, why is the institution of marriage the only partnership that only allows two?

Tradition maybe?

 

[Skylar]

sex is not a requirement of a legal marriage.

No it is not, but its assumed that siblings who want to marry will have children. That is a public health interest.

Are you saying siblings or close cousins wanting to receive marriage benefits from the state would promise NOT to have children? If so why would they be getting married? For what reasons?

Why would they promise anything?

In the United States of America (come visit it sometimes). The State has the burdon of proof, not the individual.

It is no more likely that two siblings would break the law within a marriage, then in an LLC. You assume otherwise? That's your problem, not theirs.

You're totally ignoring the state's interest in outlawing polygamy. You can do that, but ignoring it is not an argument

And that would be?

Please don't keep us in suspense.

Remember, there is no requirement of sex in a marriage, and, why is the institution of marriage the only partnership that only allows two?

Tradition maybe?

If you an argument to make for polygamy....offer it. But I'm not making the argument for you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

sex is not a requirement of a legal marriage.

No it is not, but its assumed that siblings who want to marry will have children. That is a public health interest.

Are you saying siblings or close cousins wanting to receive marriage benefits from the state would promise NOT to have children? If so why would they be getting married? For what reasons?

Why would they promise anything?

In the United States of America (come visit it sometimes). The State has the burdon of proof, not the individual.

It is no more likely that two siblings would break the law within a marriage, then in an LLC. You assume otherwise? That's your problem, not theirs.

You're totally ignoring the state's interest in outlawing polygamy. You can do that, but ignoring it is not an argument

And that would be?

Please don't keep us in suspense.

Remember, there is no requirement of sex in a marriage, and, why is the institution of marriage the only partnership that only allows two?

Tradition maybe?

Save of course that Lawerence v. Texas struck down the statutes criminalizing 'sodomy'. While laws prohibiting polygamy are still on the books.

Remember.....you don't actually have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

AND, since Skylar can see into the future, he will demonstrate his uncanny abilities by providing us the next winning powerball numbers!

Is that how you're explaining your perfect record of failure? How *none* of your assumed 'implications' regarding same sex marriage have occurred, nor ever been recognized by the courts?

If incest marriage and polygamy are the inevitable outcomes of same sex marriage......why weren't they?

Its been 10 full years of utter failure for you. How do you explain the incompatibility between your assumptions....and actual history?

And now those lottery numbers!

"Lottery numbers" are why nothing you insisted must happen regarding same sex marriage....ever has?

Laughing....I have a much simpler explanation: you don't know what you're talking about. It simple, plausible, and accounts for your perfect, decade long record of failure.

But you keep hoping for those 'lottery numbers' while I keep laughing. Deal?

Without them dimwit, you're opinion of what will happen in the future is no more valid than anyone else's.

I gave you a way to prove the validity of yours several times. First by supplying the States compelling interest, and next by asking you to supply the lottery numbers.

You failed both. Proving you're a simpleton.

Why do you think that states can constitutionally limit marriage to one man one woman?