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.
Or if you think who one has sex with legally constitutes "a race of people"..
No they did not...because they officiated at SSM's where it was legal...AND not in any of the states involved in the lawsuit. You can go on all you want, but there was no conflict.Why would they do that?
They both participate in same sex weddings with the knowledge they would likely be hearing a case on it. That demonstrates a bias, and even the perception of bias should cause a judge to recuse themselves. No one can say they were neutral on the subject.
So Scalia and Thomas, who have shown extreme anti gay bias in the past would also have had to recuse themselves. The ruling would have been the same.
Really, what did they do that had any bearing on a pending case? Would you wish to recuse anyone who was in a traditional marriage?
What did Sotomayor or Ginsberg do that had any bearing on the case?
You know, they officiated SSM's knowing a case was working its way to the court, they demonstrated a clear bias favoring SSM. The fact that they did it were it was legal is irrelevant to the demonstrated or perceived bias.
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.
I guess natural physical incomparability isn't compelling. LMAO If everyone thought that way humanity would disappear.
You're confusing sex with marriage. They aren't the same thing.
Let me get this straight, how can an inanimate object like a stone inscribed with the ten commandments, or a bible sitting in a glass case in a court house be some how construed as government endorsement of a religion, yet a supreme court justice officiating a SSM not be construed as an endorsement of SSM ?
I don't believe a bible sitting in a glass case or stone inscribed with the ten commandments is a government endorsement of religion. Be that as it may, you cannot demonstrate a bias existed considering both marriages occurred in locations that would have been unaffected by the ruling. If they officiated a SSMs in Texas or Ohio, I would completely would agree with that constitutes a bias; however, they didn't.
Right, except the courts are ordering these things be removed from the public square citing the mythical constitutional separation of church and state.
Or the very real establishment clause. You know, whichever.
Well I guess the supreme court is guilty of establishing a religion also, the ten commandments are inscribed on the stone walls of the court.
So I'm guessing you're not claiming the establishment clause is mythical?
You think they are going any farther?
We'll save those for you when the Oregon bakers and Kentucky Clerk cases get decided, OK? Unless you think the 1st Amendment is going to be repealed...you know, by the Judicial Branch...
You know, they officiated SSM's knowing a case was working its way to the court, they demonstrated a clear bias favoring SSM. The fact that they did it were it was legal is irrelevant to the demonstrated or perceived bias.
No they did not...because they officiated at SSM's where it was legal...AND not in any of the states involved in the lawsuit. You can go on all you want, but there was no conflict.
You think they are going any farther?
Who cares about bakers and clerks? Those are consolation gifts. The prize was the Supreme Court ruling.
We'll save those for you when the Oregon bakers and Kentucky Clerk cases get decided, OK? Unless you think the 1st Amendment is going to be repealed...you know, by the Judicial Branch...
There you go with that made up word again....did you ever post that pic of what you said was at the Supreme Court? The Ten Commandments? And which version was it?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.
I guess natural physical incomparability isn't compelling. LMAO If everyone thought that way humanity would disappear.
You're confusing sex with marriage. They aren't the same thing.
No, faghadist can't have sex because of natural physical incomparability, sex is part of the natural pro-creative process, you don't have to be married to engage in that. All the faghadist have is sodomy.
Who cares about bakers and clerks? Those are consolation gifts The prize was the Supreme Court ruling.
We're talking siblings, parents, etc.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?
NY State blesses ‘incest' marriage between uncle, niece
I like how quickly you deflect from your own thread.Who cares about bakers and clerks? Those are consolation gifts The prize was the Supreme Court ruling.
Soon to be rendered legally defunct by the protections of the 1st Amendment..
Didn't take much to swing you from the Supreme Court case to other cases. 
Wanna bet?Who cares about bakers and clerks? Those are consolation gifts The prize was the Supreme Court ruling.
Soon to be rendered legally defunct by the protections of the 1st Amendment..
Tax benefits as a married couple.No it is not, but its assumed that siblings who want to marry will have children. That is a public health interest.sex is not a requirement of a legal marriage.
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?
Tax benefits.
But what does a state get out of people simply cohabitating by the loss of that revenue? States incentivized marriage so that children would have both a mother and father.the stupid stuff you come up with
Were children being born without mothers and fathers so long ago that ... I can't continue.. you're a friggin kook
A bit off topic of this particular post, but on topic of something you said earlier....so............where is this ten commandments at the Supreme Court?But what does a state get out of people simply cohabitating by the loss of that revenue? States incentivized marriage so that children would have both a mother and father.
Were children being born without mothers and fathers so long ago that ... I can't continue.. you're a friggin kook
How is a kid born without a mother?
There you go with that made up word again....did you ever post that pic of what you said was at the Supreme Court? The Ten Commandments? And which version was it?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.
I guess natural physical incomparability isn't compelling. LMAO If everyone thought that way humanity would disappear.
You're confusing sex with marriage. They aren't the same thing.
No, faghadist can't have sex because of natural physical incomparability, sex is part of the natural pro-creative process, you don't have to be married to engage in that. All the faghadist have is sodomy.
But what does a state get out of people simply cohabitating by the loss of that revenue? States incentivized marriage so that children would have both a mother and father.
Were children being born without mothers and fathers so long ago that ... I can't continue.. you're a friggin kook
How is a kid born without a mother?
So...what version is it? Are you sure it's not Hammurabi? And what's with all the pagans?There you go with that made up word again....did you ever post that pic of what you said was at the Supreme Court? The Ten Commandments? And which version was it?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.
I guess natural physical incomparability isn't compelling. LMAO If everyone thought that way humanity would disappear.
You're confusing sex with marriage. They aren't the same thing.
No, faghadist can't have sex because of natural physical incomparability, sex is part of the natural pro-creative process, you don't have to be married to engage in that. All the faghadist have is sodomy.
I'll be nice and post one, there's more but I'll leave you to find them.
View attachment 52980
Note the second figure from the right, is Moses carrying the tablets. You tell me which version it is. There's even a nicer version on a stone pillar at the NY supreme court.
next to the Koran?A bit off topic of this particular post, but on topic of something you said earlier....so............where is this ten commandments at the Supreme Court?But what does a state get out of people simply cohabitating by the loss of that revenue? States incentivized marriage so that children would have both a mother and father.
Were children being born without mothers and fathers so long ago that ... I can't continue.. you're a friggin kook
How is a kid born without a mother?
Could be...with Hammurabi's Code and maybe even the Eightfold Path of Buddhism.next to the Koran?A bit off topic of this particular post, but on topic of something you said earlier....so............where is this ten commandments at the Supreme Court?But what does a state get out of people simply cohabitating by the loss of that revenue? States incentivized marriage so that children would have both a mother and father.
Were children being born without mothers and fathers so long ago that ... I can't continue.. you're a friggin kook
How is a kid born without a mother?
