High Court Homophobia

[NYcarbineer]

The damage caused by firearms is a Red Herring.

Nothing more, nothing less

-Geaux

And the damage caused by 2 people of the same sex entering into a legal civil union called marriage is.....?

 

[Geaux4it]

The damage caused by firearms is a Red Herring.

Nothing more, nothing less

-Geaux

And the damage caused by 2 people of the same sex entering into a legal civil union called marriage is.....?

My bad- I deleted that post as I posted in the wrong thread

-Geaux

 

[Wyatt earp]

Even Supreme Court justices can fail to understand the issues of a case; with regard to the conservative justices, it's likely willful ignorance.

At that highest level, ideally, the justices should be beyond that.

The moderate justices use logic and reason, asking smart questions.

The Con judges embrace some old school Catholic mentality. That has no place in a hight court.

I still dont understand why gays insist on marriage when a civil union does the same thing. Protecting assets... When we the people voted in the past it was always against even in California.

 

[occupied]

I have supported gay marriage for over 20 years but I don't see the homophobia in the comments posted. What am I missing?

Three of the main scare tactics used to fight marriage equality.

It's not traditional.

Opens the door to plural marriage and even animal marriage.

Loss of religious freedom.

Those are valid points to raise when considering the change of social dynamics and should easily be argued. Abortion wasn't traditional. Interracial marriage did not open the door to bestiality and religious freedom doesn't include the right to have different views.

None of them are valid points when considering questions of constitutionality.

That is one opinion, hence the forum to bring forth the arguments. It's not homophobia, it's dialogue. The answer is obvious (to me) but things don't change by declaring oneself correct and demonizing those who disagree.

It was a Republican Judge appointed by a Republican President that got the ball rolling, try to remember that.

I think the point here is that a justice of the supreme court is supposed to already be educated on an issue rather than present ignorant counter arguments based on phantom fears.

 

[The Rabbi]

I have supported gay marriage for over 20 years but I don't see the homophobia in the comments posted. What am I missing?

Then you don't understand what Homophobia means.

Not all bigotry is as overt of the Westboro Baptist Church.

No we get it.
Homophobia=opinions that disagree with me.
That's all it is. You keep screaming homophobia and no one will take you seriously. Actually we dont take you seriously now.

 

[The Rabbi]

Even Supreme Court justices can fail to understand the issues of a case; with regard to the conservative justices, it's likely willful ignorance.

At that highest level, ideally, the justices should be beyond that.

The moderate justices use logic and reason, asking smart questions.

The Con judges embrace some old school Catholic mentality. That has no place in a hight court.

I still dont understand why gays insist on marriage when a civil union does the same thing. Protecting assets... When we the people voted in the past it was always against even in California.

Because it isnt about rights. It's about destroying basic social institutions in America. It's about hounding and destroying anyone who dares disagree with them.

 

[Iceweasel]

I still dont understand why gays insist on marriage when a civil union does the same thing. Protecting assets... When we the people voted in the past it was always against even in California.

Because the real purpose is normalizing homosexuality. They want everyone to buy into the lie that gender is irrelevant.

The whole issue is stupid. If the people in a state want gay marriage, polygamy or family marriages they should have it. There's nothing in the Constitution to prevent it and no authority to over rule them. The Supremes shouldn't even be involved.

 

[The Rabbi]

I still dont understand why gays insist on marriage when a civil union does the same thing. Protecting assets... When we the people voted in the past it was always against even in California.

Because the real purpose is normalizing homosexuality. They want everyone to buy into the lie that gender is irrelevant.

The whole issue is stupid. If the people in a state want gay marriage, polygamy or family marriages they should have it. There's nothing in the Constitution to prevent it and no authority to over rule them. The Supremes shouldn't even be involved.

That is one of the strongest arguments going: that if the Court rules for gay marriage they will over ride the political process and impose standards on people who are sovereign.

 

[Seawytch]

Even Supreme Court justices can fail to understand the issues of a case; with regard to the conservative justices, it's likely willful ignorance.

At that highest level, ideally, the justices should be beyond that.

The moderate justices use logic and reason, asking smart questions.

The Con judges embrace some old school Catholic mentality. That has no place in a hight court.

I still dont understand why gays insist on marriage when a civil union does the same thing. Protecting assets... When we the people voted in the past it was always against even in California.

Really? You don't understand why gays wouldn't want to be relegated to 2nd class citizen status? Let me ask you a question...Did the same water come out of both of these fountains?

It did. The exact same water came out of both of those fountains.

The same does not hold true for civil unions and civil marriage.

Marriage vs Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships

Now, if you'd like to make all civil marriages civil unions, for gay and straight, that would be Constitutional. Marriage for straights, civil unions for gays would not be.

 

[Geaux4it]

Even Supreme Court justices can fail to understand the issues of a case; with regard to the conservative justices, it's likely willful ignorance.

At that highest level, ideally, the justices should be beyond that.

The moderate justices use logic and reason, asking smart questions.

The Con judges embrace some old school Catholic mentality. That has no place in a hight court.

I still dont understand why gays insist on marriage when a civil union does the same thing. Protecting assets... When we the people voted in the past it was always against even in California.

Really? You don't understand why gays wouldn't want to be relegated to 2nd class citizen status? Let me ask you a question...Did the same water come out of both of these fountains?

It did. The exact same water came out of both of those fountains.

The same does not hold true for civil unions and civil marriage.

Marriage vs Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships

Now, if you'd like to make all civil marriages civil unions, for gay and straight, that would be Constitutional. Marriage for straights, civil unions for gays would not be.

your comparison fails

Blacks didn't choose to be slaves..

Guys choose to puff peter, thus, choose to be gay

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

I still dont understand why gays insist on marriage when a civil union does the same thing. Protecting assets... When we the people voted in the past it was always against even in California.

Because the real purpose is normalizing homosexuality. They want everyone to buy into the lie that gender is irrelevant.

The whole issue is stupid. If the people in a state want gay marriage, polygamy or family marriages they should have it. There's nothing in the Constitution to prevent it and no authority to over rule them. The Supremes shouldn't even be involved.

That is one of the strongest arguments going: that if the Court rules for gay marriage they will over ride the political process and impose standards on people who are sovereign.

The high courts have been overturning public voted mandates for some time now. At least the 9th District in California

-Geaux

 

[Seawytch]

Even Supreme Court justices can fail to understand the issues of a case; with regard to the conservative justices, it's likely willful ignorance.

At that highest level, ideally, the justices should be beyond that.

The moderate justices use logic and reason, asking smart questions.

The Con judges embrace some old school Catholic mentality. That has no place in a hight court.

I still dont understand why gays insist on marriage when a civil union does the same thing. Protecting assets... When we the people voted in the past it was always against even in California.

Really? You don't understand why gays wouldn't want to be relegated to 2nd class citizen status? Let me ask you a question...Did the same water come out of both of these fountains?

It did. The exact same water came out of both of those fountains.

The same does not hold true for civil unions and civil marriage.

Marriage vs Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships

Now, if you'd like to make all civil marriages civil unions, for gay and straight, that would be Constitutional. Marriage for straights, civil unions for gays would not be.

your comparison fails

Blacks didn't choose to be slaves..

Guys choose to puff peter, thus, choose to be gay

-Geaux

Except we aren't talking about slavery, we're talking about separate but equal. You've heard of it yes?

Even if your supposition were true (it's not), what difference does it make in a free society? A person chooses their religion. Does that mean they should be relegated to 2nd class citizenship as a result?

As an aside, how long have you been choosing to be straight and when did you realize you were attracted to men?

 

[Seawytch]

I still dont understand why gays insist on marriage when a civil union does the same thing. Protecting assets... When we the people voted in the past it was always against even in California.

Because the real purpose is normalizing homosexuality. They want everyone to buy into the lie that gender is irrelevant.

The whole issue is stupid. If the people in a state want gay marriage, polygamy or family marriages they should have it. There's nothing in the Constitution to prevent it and no authority to over rule them. The Supremes shouldn't even be involved.

That is one of the strongest arguments going: that if the Court rules for gay marriage they will over ride the political process and impose standards on people who are sovereign.

The high courts have been overturning public voted mandates for some time now. At least the 9th District in California

-Geaux

It's been a lot more than the 9th. In fact, only one court didn't rule in favor of marriage equality (which caused there to be a question and why the SCOTUS took it up). The rulings have been dozens and dozens to one.

That's what happens when you pass laws that violate the US Constitution.

 

[Iceweasel]

Even Supreme Court justices can fail to understand the issues of a case; with regard to the conservative justices, it's likely willful ignorance.

At that highest level, ideally, the justices should be beyond that.

The moderate justices use logic and reason, asking smart questions.

The Con judges embrace some old school Catholic mentality. That has no place in a hight court.

I still dont understand why gays insist on marriage when a civil union does the same thing. Protecting assets... When we the people voted in the past it was always against even in California.

Really? You don't understand why gays wouldn't want to be relegated to 2nd class citizen status? Let me ask you a question...Did the same water come out of both of these fountains?

It did. The exact same water came out of both of those fountains.

The same does not hold true for civil unions and civil marriage.

Marriage vs Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships

Now, if you'd like to make all civil marriages civil unions, for gay and straight, that would be Constitutional. Marriage for straights, civil unions for gays would not be.

your comparison fails

Blacks didn't choose to be slaves..

Guys choose to puff peter, thus, choose to be gay

-Geaux

Except we aren't talking about slavery, we're talking about separate but equal. You've heard of it yes?

Even if your supposition were true (it's not), what difference does it make in a free society? A person chooses their religion. Does that mean they should be relegated to 2nd class citizenship as a result?

As an aside, how long have you been choosing to be straight and when did you realize you were attracted to men?

Is somebody trying to outlaw homosexuality? That isn't the topic.

 

[deltex1]

Never mind the retard who went off and had to be escorted out.... look at some of the things the homophobic justices said -


Supreme Court gay marriage arguments The 9 most awkward moments - POLITICO


1. Arguing that animosity or prejudice might not be motivation for same-sex marriage bans, Justice Samuel Alito notes that not all cultures that historically rejected same-sex marriage were hostile to gays:

ALITO: But there have been cultures that did not frown on homosexuality. That is not a universal opinion throughout history and across all cultures. Ancient Greece is an example. It was — it was well accepted within certain bounds. But did they have same-sex marriage in ancient Greece?

BONAUTO: Yeah. They don’t — I don’t believe they had anything comparable to what we have, Your Honor. You know, and we’re talking about —

ALITO: Well, they had marriage, didn’t they?


2. Alito asks whether, if states are forced to recognize gay marriage, they could hold the line against (for lack of a better term) two-on-two marriage:

ALITO: Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them a license?



3. Justice Antonin Scalia points to the potential fallout from finding a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, asking if that would mean a minister could be forced to conduct a gay wedding:




It's time for a couple of these old men to step down.

Hazel be looking for sum Italian sausage fo bkfst....

 

[bodecea]

Even Supreme Court justices can fail to understand the issues of a case; with regard to the conservative justices, it's likely willful ignorance.

At that highest level, ideally, the justices should be beyond that.

The moderate justices use logic and reason, asking smart questions.

The Con judges embrace some old school Catholic mentality. That has no place in a hight court.

I still dont understand why gays insist on marriage when a civil union does the same thing. Protecting assets... When we the people voted in the past it was always against even in California.

CIvil Union would have been acceptable...but it was the RW in many states that shot that one down.

 

[Seawytch]

At that highest level, ideally, the justices should be beyond that.

The moderate justices use logic and reason, asking smart questions.

The Con judges embrace some old school Catholic mentality. That has no place in a hight court.

I still dont understand why gays insist on marriage when a civil union does the same thing. Protecting assets... When we the people voted in the past it was always against even in California.

Really? You don't understand why gays wouldn't want to be relegated to 2nd class citizen status? Let me ask you a question...Did the same water come out of both of these fountains?

It did. The exact same water came out of both of those fountains.

The same does not hold true for civil unions and civil marriage.

Marriage vs Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships

Now, if you'd like to make all civil marriages civil unions, for gay and straight, that would be Constitutional. Marriage for straights, civil unions for gays would not be.

your comparison fails

Blacks didn't choose to be slaves..

Guys choose to puff peter, thus, choose to be gay

-Geaux

Except we aren't talking about slavery, we're talking about separate but equal. You've heard of it yes?

Even if your supposition were true (it's not), what difference does it make in a free society? A person chooses their religion. Does that mean they should be relegated to 2nd class citizenship as a result?

As an aside, how long have you been choosing to be straight and when did you realize you were attracted to men?

Is somebody trying to outlaw homosexuality? That isn't the topic.

Where did you get that out of my post? Oh, you didn't. You decided to throw in a non sequitur because?

Do you understand the concept of separate but equal, yes or no?

 

[Seawytch]

Even Supreme Court justices can fail to understand the issues of a case; with regard to the conservative justices, it's likely willful ignorance.

At that highest level, ideally, the justices should be beyond that.

The moderate justices use logic and reason, asking smart questions.

The Con judges embrace some old school Catholic mentality. That has no place in a hight court.

I still dont understand why gays insist on marriage when a civil union does the same thing. Protecting assets... When we the people voted in the past it was always against even in California.

CIvil Union would have been acceptable...but it was the RW in many states that shot that one down.

You know...I can't think of a single state where gays turned down Civil Unions. I know of a lot of anti gay states that wrote prohibitions on civil marriage AND civil unions for gays into their anti gay amendments, but not a single state where gays said "no" to Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships.

Funny how the bigots said "no, no, no" to civil unions until civil marriage became inevitable...now they want to go back in time and give us a consolation prize. Sorry bigots, it's too late.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Even Supreme Court justices can fail to understand the issues of a case; with regard to the conservative justices, it's likely willful ignorance.

What is it when liberal justices fail to understand the issues of a case? This should be good.

 

[Iceweasel]

I still dont understand why gays insist on marriage when a civil union does the same thing. Protecting assets... When we the people voted in the past it was always against even in California.

Really? You don't understand why gays wouldn't want to be relegated to 2nd class citizen status? Let me ask you a question...Did the same water come out of both of these fountains?

It did. The exact same water came out of both of those fountains.

The same does not hold true for civil unions and civil marriage.

Marriage vs Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships

Now, if you'd like to make all civil marriages civil unions, for gay and straight, that would be Constitutional. Marriage for straights, civil unions for gays would not be.

your comparison fails

Blacks didn't choose to be slaves..

Guys choose to puff peter, thus, choose to be gay

-Geaux

Except we aren't talking about slavery, we're talking about separate but equal. You've heard of it yes?

Even if your supposition were true (it's not), what difference does it make in a free society? A person chooses their religion. Does that mean they should be relegated to 2nd class citizenship as a result?

As an aside, how long have you been choosing to be straight and when did you realize you were attracted to men?

Is somebody trying to outlaw homosexuality? That isn't the topic.

Where did you get that out of my post? Oh, you didn't. You decided to throw in a non sequitur because?

Do you understand the concept of separate but equal, yes or no?

That's the part I responded to. Don't put your stupidity on me.