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

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

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?

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.

they're historical pieces dummy. tradition and history of laws throughout mankind ... they do not signify the courts doling out laws from Moses' time/

 

[bodecea]

This is one of my favorites in Washington:

that's the Founders...being treated like they are gods.

First time I saw it I was like, "Holy Crap! They tried to deify Washington!"

 

[Pop23]

These are all just thumbsucker threads. Sil is self soothing by acting as the Avatar of butthurt.

It has no relevance to the law, any marriage, or the outcome of any case.

The four on the losing side of Citizens United all wrote dissenting opinions, and I'm pretty damn sure they thought that it was also "improper" and "illegal".

Silhouette is a crybaby.

So of course you've never brought up that others supported the losing side of citizens United. AND you still bring it up.

Crybaby

I don't start threads stating the obvious: Justices on the losing side don't believe the winning side is correct.

Nope - I sure don't.

That's not the title of the thread either.

Dishonest much?

I didn't say it was. Learn to read, dumbass.

The implication was clear enough looney tune

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If it can be proven Mason's had something to do with designing and building the court houses, what would OkTexas think that signifies?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

This is one of my favorites in Washington:

that's the Founders...being treated like they are gods.

First time I saw it I was like, "Holy Crap! They tried to deify Washington!"

Blasphemers! Idolators!

 

[OKTexas]

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.

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?

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.

So...what version is it? Are you sure it's not Hammurabi? And what's with all the pagans?

Great Figures Gaze Upon the Court

From Hammurabi to Moses to John Marshall, the stone sculptures commemorate written law as a force for stability in human affairs. The larger-than-life artworks, designed by architectural sculptor Adolph A. Weinman as the courthouse was being built in the early 1930s, convey the idea that, while the law begins with individuals, its principles never die.

Supreme Court Freize

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

and now a word from our sponsors

 

[NYcarbineer]

It took your side 40+ years.

Mine prediction will occur in half that time.

Why will it take your 20 years to file a law suit for your rights to marry a sibling or your mother?

Maybe 20 years to run out of excuses?

You got those lottery numbers yet?

Says the gun who just claimed to predict the future?

It took your side 40+ years.

Mine prediction will occur in half that time.

And yet no prediction you've ever made regarding same sex marriage has ever amounted to anything. Despite same sex marriage being legal in the US for over a decade.

So its only your LAST round of useless predictions that were meaningless garbage? Is that it?

Why do you argue so hard to deny people their fundimental constitutional rights?

Well it's certainly not because he's a fundie.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

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?

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.

So...what version is it? Are you sure it's not Hammurabi? And what's with all the pagans?

Great Figures Gaze Upon the Court

From Hammurabi to Moses to John Marshall, the stone sculptures commemorate written law as a force for stability in human affairs. The larger-than-life artworks, designed by architectural sculptor Adolph A. Weinman as the courthouse was being built in the early 1930s, convey the idea that, while the law begins with individuals, its principles never die.

Supreme Court Freize

Did you see those things for free? Free?

Damn, all those takers who go to Washington for the free stuff

 

[NYcarbineer]

And in a related story,

FIVE Supreme Court judges point to the scoreboard.

 

[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?

Tax benefits.

You

You're the one hung up on incest. You're the one that keeps bringing it up.

No, you're the one who keeps bringing it up. Its virtually the only topic you'll discuss. In any thread. And I've cited incest marriage or polygamy.

And neither are legal anywhere. So much for your imaginary 'implications'.

As far a polygamy goes, it appears the legal logic is sound.

Then how do you explain the fact that the legalization of neither incest marriage nor polygamy has ever followed the recognition of same sex marriage...in any State.

Ever. Even when same sex marriage has been recognized for 10 years or more.

This is the part where your argument always falls apart. As its based on your perception. And your perception is just garbage.....never actually reflecting the law or the outcome of any court case.

Only time I bring it up to indicate that it's illegal and that I oppose it.

Or any time you discuss the topic. As its the only topic you'll discuss in any thread. You're obsessed with it.

You have incest on the mind, and it's creepy how much you want people to talk to you about it.

You are a sick person. Of that there is little doubt.

And yet instead of answering any of my questions, you keep babbling about incest. Demonstrating the absurdity of your argument and the truth of mine: you're obsessed with the topic. Watch. You'll do it again:

"Then how do you explain the fact that the legalization of neither incest marriage nor polygamy has ever followed the recognition of same sex marriage...in any State.

Ever. Even when same sex marriage has been recognized for 10 years or more."

You'll ignore the question and continue with your obsession with incest. You can't help it.

Which might be why you're so awful at predicting any legal outcome.

Sick little bastards still trying to find someone to enable his sick twisted incest fantasies.

Who is it who keeps harping on incest?

You, Syriously and Skylar.

Sick twisted individuals you are

 

[OKTexas]

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.

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?

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.

they're historical pieces dummy. tradition and history of laws throughout mankind ... they do not signify the courts doling out laws from Moses' time/

Really, then why are they being ordered removed by courts?

 

[Pop23]

Why will it take your 20 years to file a law suit for your rights to marry a sibling or your mother?

Maybe 20 years to run out of excuses?

You got those lottery numbers yet?

Says the gun who just claimed to predict the future?

It took your side 40+ years.

Mine prediction will occur in half that time.

And yet no prediction you've ever made regarding same sex marriage has ever amounted to anything. Despite same sex marriage being legal in the US for over a decade.

So its only your LAST round of useless predictions that were meaningless garbage? Is that it?

Why do you argue so hard to deny people their fundimental constitutional rights?

Well it's certainly not because he's a fundie.

Hypocrict yes, fundie, prolly not.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

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?

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.

they're historical pieces dummy. tradition and history of laws throughout mankind ... they do not signify the courts doling out laws from Moses' time/

Really, then why are they being ordered removed by courts?

Which courts and when?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

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?

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.

So...what version is it? Are you sure it's not Hammurabi? And what's with all the pagans?

Great Figures Gaze Upon the Court

From Hammurabi to Moses to John Marshall, the stone sculptures commemorate written law as a force for stability in human affairs. The larger-than-life artworks, designed by architectural sculptor Adolph A. Weinman as the courthouse was being built in the early 1930s, convey the idea that, while the law begins with individuals, its principles never die.

Supreme Court Freize

Did you see those things for free? Free?

Damn, all those takers who go to Washington for the free stuff

Yep, I saw them for free, right from my computer. So take your implications and fuck off.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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?

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.

So...what version is it? Are you sure it's not Hammurabi? And what's with all the pagans?

Great Figures Gaze Upon the Court

From Hammurabi to Moses to John Marshall, the stone sculptures commemorate written law as a force for stability in human affairs. The larger-than-life artworks, designed by architectural sculptor Adolph A. Weinman as the courthouse was being built in the early 1930s, convey the idea that, while the law begins with individuals, its principles never die.

Supreme Court Freize

Did you see those things for free? Free?

Damn, all those takers who go to Washington for the free stuff

Yep, I saw them for free, right from my computer. So take your implications and fuck off.

Hey! We have rules around here. Ya know?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

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?

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.

they're historical pieces dummy. tradition and history of laws throughout mankind ... they do not signify the courts doling out laws from Moses' time/

Really, then why are they being ordered removed by courts?

Which courts and when?

Here's one, you can look up the rest.

Dixie County has 30 days to remove a granite monument of the Ten Commandments from atop the steps of the county courthouse in Cross City, where it has sat since 2006, according to a federal court ruling Friday.

Federal judge orders Ten Commandments removed from Dixie courthouse

 

[bodecea]

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.

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?

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.

So...what version is it? Are you sure it's not Hammurabi? And what's with all the pagans?

Great Figures Gaze Upon the Court

From Hammurabi to Moses to John Marshall, the stone sculptures commemorate written law as a force for stability in human affairs. The larger-than-life artworks, designed by architectural sculptor Adolph A. Weinman as the courthouse was being built in the early 1930s, convey the idea that, while the law begins with individuals, its principles never die.

Supreme Court Freize

So..Moses was one of many...ok. Again, which version of the Ten Commandments can be read on these scultures?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

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?

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.

So...what version is it? Are you sure it's not Hammurabi? And what's with all the pagans?

Great Figures Gaze Upon the Court

From Hammurabi to Moses to John Marshall, the stone sculptures commemorate written law as a force for stability in human affairs. The larger-than-life artworks, designed by architectural sculptor Adolph A. Weinman as the courthouse was being built in the early 1930s, convey the idea that, while the law begins with individuals, its principles never die.

Supreme Court Freize

So..Moses was one of many...ok. Again, which version of the Ten Commandments can be read on these scultures?

You tell me, I can't read it. BTW, what's a "sculture"? Proof read much?

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

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.

Look, if you and your two brothers like to do the nasty, go right ahead. But, since you are already related, it is not possible for you to form another familial relationship.

Cousins are familial relationships and are allowed to marry, 1st or 2nd depending on the states. I guess two same sex cousins should mimic heterosexuals...why?

You don't know what you're talking about, all you have is hot air.