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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
ANd you can bet those states that allow parents to sell their 12 year olds into a marriage with what could only be described as a pedophile also banned two consenting adults from marrying if they were gay to "preserve the sanctity" of marriagemarriage has always been a State level Contract, outside the control of the feds.
Wrong.
When you file federal income taxes, do you file a joint return?
That's federal.
When you file federal income taxes, do you accept child tax credits?
That's federal gifts you are accepting.
When a person dies, does their spouse collect Social Security survivor benefits?
That's federal cash and prizes.
The federal government is all up in your marriage and your family.
The feds don't set conditions for the State Contracts, which is why you can marry your 12 year old cousin (with parental permission) in one State and not another, but still apply as married when it comes to your taxes.
If government was not involved in marriage, why would two atheists get married?And if you don't believe in God? Can't be married?It's a contract before God, not the State.If you guys were the strict constructionists you claim to be, you would not have allowed the government to take over marriage a long time ago.
Did the original Founders believe the government should give you cash for having kids?
Nope.
Funny, I don't see you screaming in outrage that it does now.
You've been just fine with the government takeover of marriage. Until the gays suddenly decided they wanted some of that action.
Hypocrites.
marriage has always been a State level Contract, outside the control of the feds.
marriage as a status is a state issue. (not contract). and has always been in the federal purview when the grant of status violates the equal protection clause of the constitution. Again, see Loving v Virginia.
you can't win this one. the decision was impeccable... no matter what the wingers say.
Marriage is not a contract?
LOL impeccable...
Big government lovers want State approval of their contract so they can acquire cash and prizes.
Loving was about equal protection of the law and liberty under the due process clause.Such is the ridiculous right.it's not the system they set up, its the current crop of progressive justices that think they can change society by judicial fiat.
actually, they did...
the ones who "changed society" through judicial fiat is the rightwingnuts who ruled on citizens united and heller and hobby lobby.
but you like those decisions, so you don't care.
*shrug*
Conservatives can't have it both ways: if Obergefell is "wrong" then Heller is also "wrong" for the same reasons.
obergefell is based on precedent... heller was decided out of thin air..
I always felt it was Scalia's "f.u." to the incoming democratic president.
What precedent? Loving was about race, not sexuality.
on the other hand my RKBA is explicit in the document.
It's also a fact that people within a state are different. Something as basic as who one wishes to marry(human being of consenting age, of course), shouldn't be determined by people using their religious biases as a basis for their decision. THAT'S unconstitutional.It never before was a one size fits all issue. People in different states are different. That's just a fact.
Slippery slope fallacy. Also, apples and oranges fallacy. You cannot provide a rational reason for banning same sex marriage, but there are plenty of rational reasons for banning incest and polygamous marriages.marriage has always been a State level Contract, outside the control of the feds.
Wrong.
When you file federal income taxes, do you file a joint return?
That's federal.
When you file federal income taxes, do you accept child tax credits?
That's federal gifts you are accepting.
When a person dies, does their spouse collect Social Security survivor benefits?
That's federal cash and prizes.
The federal government is all up in your marriage and your family.
The feds don't set conditions for the State Contracts, which is why you can marry your 12 year old cousin (with parental permission) in one State and not another, but still apply as married when it comes to your taxes.
you can regulate for any reason or no reason at all but not for discriminatory reason.
that's how that works. you're also talking about the difference between EXPANDING access to marriage and contracting it.
again, you can rail about this but you lose.
The nation lost. Marriage lost. Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee. The Supreme Court has opened a Pandora's box which opens up court arguments for incestial and polygamous marriages. A tradition that has endured since Adam and Eve has been destroyed by five men with lifetime appointments.
"Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee." That is what is was before Obergefell.Wrong.
When you file federal income taxes, do you file a joint return?
That's federal.
When you file federal income taxes, do you accept child tax credits?
That's federal gifts you are accepting.
When a person dies, does their spouse collect Social Security survivor benefits?
That's federal cash and prizes.
The federal government is all up in your marriage and your family.
The feds don't set conditions for the State Contracts, which is why you can marry your 12 year old cousin (with parental permission) in one State and not another, but still apply as married when it comes to your taxes.
you can regulate for any reason or no reason at all but not for discriminatory reason.
that's how that works. you're also talking about the difference between EXPANDING access to marriage and contracting it.
again, you can rail about this but you lose.
The nation lost. Marriage lost. Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee. The Supreme Court has opened a Pandora's box which opens up court arguments for incestial and polygamous marriages. A tradition that has endured since Adam and Eve has been destroyed by five men with lifetime appointments.
At least you're not being dramatic or anything. lol. In what way has your marriage been destroyed as a result of this ruling?
This is just another example of how the right, in this case four right wing judges, are out of step with the majority. I understand their disappointment, but that's how our constitution works. Whining about the loss won't change a thing.
What majority are you talking about? In Kentucky alone, 75% of voters voted against same sex marriage. The issue of marriage has long been a tradition of State's rights of determination. This was a power grab by a very small majority of the justices of the Supreme Court. The decision was by a single vote - not even by a 2/3 majority.
I think that's high... but it's also meaningless since constitutional rights aren't subject to a vote... as you should know from brown v bd of ed...
No it is not high. That's exactly what the vote was. It has traditionally been up to vote. Nearly all states have voted on the issue. Some states voted for same sex marriage while the voters in other states voted against it in their states. It never before was a one size fits all issue. People in different states are different. That's just a fact.
feel free to provide a link.
but again, the vote is irrelevant since states can't pass laws that violate the constitution. and the constitution includes all of the caselaw on the issue of equal protection.
i'm still not certain why this doesn't resonate for you but for the fact that you don't like the outcome.
there are a lot of cases that I don't like the outcome to. most of them violate prior precedent and are made up out of whole cloth by an activist rightwing branch of the court that legislates from the bench.
but those decisions are law as well... as was bush v gore even though it had the temerity to limit itelself to the single case before it and violated 200 years of jurisprudence on the issue of election law.
Mainly because I'm a Christian Conservative and support small government and the rights of the people of the states to govern themselves.
Here's one of just many links:
Lexington, KY local and state news by the Lexington Herald-Leader | Kentucky.com
"Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee." That is what is was before Obergefell.The feds don't set conditions for the State Contracts, which is why you can marry your 12 year old cousin (with parental permission) in one State and not another, but still apply as married when it comes to your taxes.
you can regulate for any reason or no reason at all but not for discriminatory reason.
that's how that works. you're also talking about the difference between EXPANDING access to marriage and contracting it.
again, you can rail about this but you lose.
The nation lost. Marriage lost. Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee. The Supreme Court has opened a Pandora's box which opens up court arguments for incestial and polygamous marriages. A tradition that has endured since Adam and Eve has been destroyed by five men with lifetime appointments.
At least you're not being dramatic or anything. lol. In what way has your marriage been destroyed as a result of this ruling?
It will prevent the primary goal of the gay and lesbian community from forcing county clerks, justices of the peace, notary publics, and pastors from performing a marriage ceremony for them since they no longer will have any legal standing to force their desires upon anyone.
It's also a fact that people within a state are different. Something as basic as who one wishes to marry(human being of consenting age, of course), shouldn't be determined by people using their religious biases as a basis for their decision. THAT'S unconstitutional.It never before was a one size fits all issue. People in different states are different. That's just a fact.
"Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee." That is what is was before Obergefell.The feds don't set conditions for the State Contracts, which is why you can marry your 12 year old cousin (with parental permission) in one State and not another, but still apply as married when it comes to your taxes.
you can regulate for any reason or no reason at all but not for discriminatory reason.
that's how that works. you're also talking about the difference between EXPANDING access to marriage and contracting it.
again, you can rail about this but you lose.
The nation lost. Marriage lost. Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee. The Supreme Court has opened a Pandora's box which opens up court arguments for incestial and polygamous marriages. A tradition that has endured since Adam and Eve has been destroyed by five men with lifetime appointments.
At least you're not being dramatic or anything. lol. In what way has your marriage been destroyed as a result of this ruling?
It will prevent the primary goal of the gay and lesbian community from forcing county clerks, justices of the peace, notary publics, and pastors from performing a marriage ceremony for them since they no longer will have any legal standing to force their desires upon anyone.
Kentucky has one of the highest divorce rates in the country. They destroyed the marriage institution a long, long, long time ago.It's also a fact that people within a state are different. Something as basic as who one wishes to marry(human being of consenting age, of course), shouldn't be determined by people using their religious biases as a basis for their decision. THAT'S unconstitutional.It never before was a one size fits all issue. People in different states are different. That's just a fact.
They most probably didn't. I would bet you that many of the 75% of the Kentucky voters who voted against same sex marriage were non-religious.
What majority are you talking about? In Kentucky alone, 75% of voters voted against same sex marriage. The issue of marriage has long been a tradition of State's rights of determination. This was a power grab by a very small majority of the justices of the Supreme Court. The decision was by a single vote - not even by a 2/3 majority.
I think that's high... but it's also meaningless since constitutional rights aren't subject to a vote... as you should know from brown v bd of ed...
No it is not high. That's exactly what the vote was. It has traditionally been up to vote. Nearly all states have voted on the issue. Some states voted for same sex marriage while the voters in other states voted against it in their states. It never before was a one size fits all issue. People in different states are different. That's just a fact.
feel free to provide a link.
but again, the vote is irrelevant since states can't pass laws that violate the constitution. and the constitution includes all of the caselaw on the issue of equal protection.
i'm still not certain why this doesn't resonate for you but for the fact that you don't like the outcome.
there are a lot of cases that I don't like the outcome to. most of them violate prior precedent and are made up out of whole cloth by an activist rightwing branch of the court that legislates from the bench.
but those decisions are law as well... as was bush v gore even though it had the temerity to limit itelself to the single case before it and violated 200 years of jurisprudence on the issue of election law.
Mainly because I'm a Christian Conservative and support small government and the rights of the people of the states to govern themselves.
Here's one of just many links:
Lexington, KY local and state news by the Lexington Herald-Leader | Kentucky.com
that's nice... we don't live under the articles of confederation. and you are free to be a Christian conservative. you are not free to make the rest of us live under your religious beliefs.
marry whom you wish. leave everyone else alone.
"Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee." That is what is was before Obergefell.you can regulate for any reason or no reason at all but not for discriminatory reason.
that's how that works. you're also talking about the difference between EXPANDING access to marriage and contracting it.
again, you can rail about this but you lose.
The nation lost. Marriage lost. Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee. The Supreme Court has opened a Pandora's box which opens up court arguments for incestial and polygamous marriages. A tradition that has endured since Adam and Eve has been destroyed by five men with lifetime appointments.
At least you're not being dramatic or anything. lol. In what way has your marriage been destroyed as a result of this ruling?
It will prevent the primary goal of the gay and lesbian community from forcing county clerks, justices of the peace, notary publics, and pastors from performing a marriage ceremony for them since they no longer will have any legal standing to force their desires upon anyone.
the goal was to be treated like everyone else, wackadoodle.
Nope. Who is punished by legal gay marriage?You know the Obergefell decision has absolutely nothing to do with those bakers and photographers, right?the court was always liberal... it was intended to be because it was intended to protect us from the torch and pitchfork crowd.
you'd have said the same about brown v board of ed. hence why these protestations are so absurd to normal people.
Actually your side has the torches and pitchforks out now, just ask those bakers and photographers.
its two stops on the same train ride.
no.
one dealth with the fact that marriage is a fundamental right.
the other dealt only with the equal protection clause.
They both deal with making up things that you agree with, and punishing others who don;t agree with you.
"Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee." That is what is was before Obergefell.The feds don't set conditions for the State Contracts, which is why you can marry your 12 year old cousin (with parental permission) in one State and not another, but still apply as married when it comes to your taxes.
you can regulate for any reason or no reason at all but not for discriminatory reason.
that's how that works. you're also talking about the difference between EXPANDING access to marriage and contracting it.
again, you can rail about this but you lose.
The nation lost. Marriage lost. Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee. The Supreme Court has opened a Pandora's box which opens up court arguments for incestial and polygamous marriages. A tradition that has endured since Adam and Eve has been destroyed by five men with lifetime appointments.
At least you're not being dramatic or anything. lol. In what way has your marriage been destroyed as a result of this ruling?
It will prevent the primary goal of the gay and lesbian community from forcing county clerks, justices of the peace, notary publics, and pastors from performing a marriage ceremony for them since they no longer will have any legal standing to force their desires upon anyone.
"Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee." That is what is was before Obergefell.you can regulate for any reason or no reason at all but not for discriminatory reason.
that's how that works. you're also talking about the difference between EXPANDING access to marriage and contracting it.
again, you can rail about this but you lose.
The nation lost. Marriage lost. Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee. The Supreme Court has opened a Pandora's box which opens up court arguments for incestial and polygamous marriages. A tradition that has endured since Adam and Eve has been destroyed by five men with lifetime appointments.
At least you're not being dramatic or anything. lol. In what way has your marriage been destroyed as a result of this ruling?
It will prevent the primary goal of the gay and lesbian community from forcing county clerks, justices of the peace, notary publics, and pastors from performing a marriage ceremony for them since they no longer will have any legal standing to force their desires upon anyone.
Let's go back five decades and rewrite your post:
"It will prevent the primary goal of the interracial marriage community from forcing county clerks, justices of the peace, notary publics, and pastors from performing a marriage ceremony for them since they no longer will have any legal standing to force their desires upon anyone."
Same bullshit, different decade.
Then what's their problem? Why would they insist on minding someone else's business? You'd think that would get them a load of rock salt in their ass!They most probably didn't. I would bet you that many of the 75% of the Kentucky voters who voted against same sex marriage were non-religious.It's also a fact that people within a state are different. Something as basic as who one wishes to marry(human being of consenting age, of course), shouldn't be determined by people using their religious biases as a basis for their decision. THAT'S unconstitutional.It never before was a one size fits all issue. People in different states are different. That's just a fact.
"Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee." That is what is was before Obergefell.you can regulate for any reason or no reason at all but not for discriminatory reason.
that's how that works. you're also talking about the difference between EXPANDING access to marriage and contracting it.
again, you can rail about this but you lose.
The nation lost. Marriage lost. Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee. The Supreme Court has opened a Pandora's box which opens up court arguments for incestial and polygamous marriages. A tradition that has endured since Adam and Eve has been destroyed by five men with lifetime appointments.
At least you're not being dramatic or anything. lol. In what way has your marriage been destroyed as a result of this ruling?
It will prevent the primary goal of the gay and lesbian community from forcing county clerks, justices of the peace, notary publics, and pastors from performing a marriage ceremony for them since they no longer will have any legal standing to force their desires upon anyone.
Not a single pastor or church has been forced to marry ANY couple against their wishes. County Clerks and notaries do not marriage ceremonies.
I think that's high... but it's also meaningless since constitutional rights aren't subject to a vote... as you should know from brown v bd of ed...
No it is not high. That's exactly what the vote was. It has traditionally been up to vote. Nearly all states have voted on the issue. Some states voted for same sex marriage while the voters in other states voted against it in their states. It never before was a one size fits all issue. People in different states are different. That's just a fact.
feel free to provide a link.
but again, the vote is irrelevant since states can't pass laws that violate the constitution. and the constitution includes all of the caselaw on the issue of equal protection.
i'm still not certain why this doesn't resonate for you but for the fact that you don't like the outcome.
there are a lot of cases that I don't like the outcome to. most of them violate prior precedent and are made up out of whole cloth by an activist rightwing branch of the court that legislates from the bench.
but those decisions are law as well... as was bush v gore even though it had the temerity to limit itelself to the single case before it and violated 200 years of jurisprudence on the issue of election law.
Mainly because I'm a Christian Conservative and support small government and the rights of the people of the states to govern themselves.
Here's one of just many links:
Lexington, KY local and state news by the Lexington Herald-Leader | Kentucky.com
that's nice... we don't live under the articles of confederation. and you are free to be a Christian conservative. you are not free to make the rest of us live under your religious beliefs.
marry whom you wish. leave everyone else alone.
I have and I will. But you do have to admit that it was not the will of the people in many states. Therefore, to claim it is the will of the people is a lie.
Then what's their problem? Why would they insist on minding someone else's business? You'd think that would get them a load of rock salt in their ass!They most probably didn't. I would bet you that many of the 75% of the Kentucky voters who voted against same sex marriage were non-religious.It's also a fact that people within a state are different. Something as basic as who one wishes to marry(human being of consenting age, of course), shouldn't be determined by people using their religious biases as a basis for their decision. THAT'S unconstitutional.It never before was a one size fits all issue. People in different states are different. That's just a fact.
