Gay Marriage v Windsor Part II: "Separate But Equal!"

I've read Windsor 2013 & this is how I see things happening if it is reaffirmed in 2015:

  • Some gay marriages will be legal but others won't in various states: ushering new lawsuits.

    Votes: 1 50.0%
  • The Court will freeze any appeals on "separate but equal" but leave existing marriages intact.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Court will need to annul marriages performed in contempt of Windsor just since 2013.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Court needs to annul all gay marriages in states where voters said no: retroactive to the 1700s.

    Votes: 1 50.0%
  • I haven't read Windsor because Windsor doesn't matter on how gay marriage is legal in states.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    2
The hetero-fascist cult continues to mumble and fumble. Windsor reinforces the likelihood SCOTUS will interven on the side of marriage equality.

  1. Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%
    sb_safeannotation.png

    Gallup.Com - Daily News Polls Public Opinion on Politics Economy Wellbeing and Worldpoll/.../sex-marriage-support-reaches-new-high.asp...
    Gallup

    May 21, 2014 - In the latest May 8-11 poll, there is further evidence that support for gay marriage has solidified above the majority level. This comes on the ...
The hetero-fascist cult of cultural McCarthyism will not be allowed to get away with distorting and misrepresentation of the issue.
Really? Because 82% of responders to this huge poll here at USMB said they don't think gay marriage should be forced on churches.
Not the same thing idiot.

That kind of fucks with your poll data a bit on the "same-sex marriage support". At the very least it paints that support to be very lukewarm indeed: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 130 US Message Board - Political Discussion ForumV
No, not really. Some poll about churches on a private forum really means nothing.

And if Windsor was so supportive and indicative of SCOTUS intervening on behalf of gay marriage, why recently twice now has SCOTUS intervened to stop gay marriage while cases pend appeal there when Windsor was cited as the reason to halt gay marriage in favor of state's democratic rule?
It hasn't.
 
Windsor permits SCOTUS to rule in favor of marriage equality, as Sil well knows.

The cult of hetero-fascism realizes that its days of evil are coming to an end.
 
Windsor permits SCOTUS to rule in favor of marriage equality, as Sil well knows.

The cult of hetero-fascism realizes that its days of evil are coming to an end.

Only if the cult of LGBT can prove that it deserves federal protection under the constitution.....to access minors for adoption....given what we've seen in gay pride parades.....and the fact that the cult's messiah is the child sodomizer/parent Harvey Milk...

Speaking of evil....
 
There is no cult of LGBT.

The issue is about marriage and the 14th Amendment, nothing more.
 
Windsor permits SCOTUS to rule in favor of marriage equality, as Sil well knows.

The cult of hetero-fascism realizes that its days of evil are coming to an end.

Only if the cult of LGBT can prove that it deserves federal protection under the constitution.....to access minors for adoption....given what we've seen in gay pride parades.....and the fact that the cult's messiah is the child sodomizer/parent Harvey Milk...

Speaking of evil....
gazing intently while looking in the one of many mirrors in sillywets SRO...
 
Only if the cult of LGBT can prove that it deserves federal protection under the constitution.....to access minors for adoption....given what we've seen in gay pride parades.....and the fact that the cult's messiah is the child sodomizer/parent Harvey Milk...

Loonyville panting by Sil.
 
Only if the cult of LGBT can prove that it deserves federal protection under the constitution.....to access minors for adoption....given what we've seen in gay pride parades.....and the fact that the cult's messiah is the child sodomizer/parent Harvey Milk...

Loonyville panting by Sil.
painting is kinda gay !
 
Oh Sil. Dear, dear Sil. We have been over this so many times before. The very fact that the Supreme Court ruled that state's could not definite marriage as between two people of the same race means the court acknowledges the states cannot define marriage however they want.

In Windsor, the court clearly stated that “regulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States subject to certain constitutional guarantees."

In other words, states may definite marriage however they please if and only if those definitions do not violate the 14th amendment.
 

Forum List

Back
Top