Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Skylar]

You should read the Constitution some time.

Meanwhile- you are a dollar short and 50 years too late.

Feel free to start a thread about how upset you are that the Supreme Court overturned the rights of Virginia voters to ban mixed race marriages.

I have. Marriage laws are not specifically under the prevue of the federal government. Marriage laws have long been under the prevue of the states themselves. It was purely a power grab and only then by one vote.

again... STATUS is the purview of the state. if that status is given out in discriminatory fashion it is up to the court to rule those regulations unconstitutional.

What would you homos do without the big old 5 members of the SCOUS protecting you?

my husband would probably find that assertion amusing.

as for the courts... the supreme court exists to protect normal people from bigots like you. they don't always do it, but they did here, bless their little hearts.

and asking what normal people would do without the courts is like saying what would we do if we lived under another system of government that didn't have courts protecting civil rights... you know, like in Saudi Arabia.... someplace you'd probably be much happier.

Most NORMAL people don't need 9 people interfering in their lives.

Most people don't have the state violating their rights for no particular reason.

 

[Syriusly]

You should read the Constitution some time.

Meanwhile- you are a dollar short and 50 years too late.

Feel free to start a thread about how upset you are that the Supreme Court overturned the rights of Virginia voters to ban mixed race marriages.

I have. Marriage laws are not specifically under the prevue of the federal government. Marriage laws have long been under the prevue of the states themselves. It was purely a power grab and only then by one vote.

again... STATUS is the purview of the state. if that status is given out in discriminatory fashion it is up to the court to rule those regulations unconstitutional.

What would you homos do without the big old 5 members of the SCOUS protecting you?

my husband would probably find that assertion amusing.

as for the courts... the supreme court exists to protect normal people from bigots like you. they don't always do it, but they did here, bless their little hearts.

and asking what normal people would do without the courts is like saying what would we do if we lived under another system of government that didn't have courts protecting civil rights... you know, like in Saudi Arabia.... someplace you'd probably be much happier.

Most NORMAL people don't need 9 people interfering in their lives.

Most normal people actually approve of the Supreme Court protecting our Constitutional rights.

You this upset when the Supreme Court strikes down State's gun laws too?

 

[Pop23]

Who treated them equally? The Supreme Court nullified the votes and will of the people and took upon themselves the rights of the states and their own citizens to determine in a democratic election the definition and legality of marriage among themselves. It was a huge power grab by the Supreme Court.

Which case are you referring to?

Loving v. Virginia?

Zablocki v. Rehail?

Turner v. Safley?

Or Obergefel?

All cases where the Supreme Court 'nullified the votes and will of the people and took upon themselvs the rights of their states'- i.e. ruled a State law unconstitutional.

If you think this was a 'huge power' grab- you are about 50 years behind the ball.

It is. It overruled the wishes of the people who expressed their wishes in a legal election.

You should read the Constitution some time.

Meanwhile- you are a dollar short and 50 years too late.

Feel free to start a thread about how upset you are that the Supreme Court overturned the rights of Virginia voters to ban mixed race marriages.

I have. Marriage laws are not specifically under the prevue of the federal government. Marriage laws have long been under the prevue of the states themselves. It was purely a power grab and only then by one vote.

again... STATUS is the purview of the state. if that status is given out in discriminatory fashion it is up to the court to rule those regulations unconstitutional.

Which, as anyone with a brain would know, is a right that the state would have to show a compelling interest in denying. Right?

 

[the_human_being]

I have. Marriage laws are not specifically under the prevue of the federal government. Marriage laws have long been under the prevue of the states themselves. It was purely a power grab and only then by one vote.

again... STATUS is the purview of the state. if that status is given out in discriminatory fashion it is up to the court to rule those regulations unconstitutional.

What would you homos do without the big old 5 members of the SCOUS protecting you?

my husband would probably find that assertion amusing.

as for the courts... the supreme court exists to protect normal people from bigots like you. they don't always do it, but they did here, bless their little hearts.

and asking what normal people would do without the courts is like saying what would we do if we lived under another system of government that didn't have courts protecting civil rights... you know, like in Saudi Arabia.... someplace you'd probably be much happier.

Most NORMAL people don't need 9 people interfering in their lives.

You look real normal LOL

You look like a faggot!

 

[Syriusly]

Says you. The Obergefell ruling never even mentions polygamy let alone authorizes it.

See, I've actually read the ruling. You never have. You might want to try. Here, I'll even give you the link:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Show me where it authorizes polygamy. Specifically.

It doesn't. It doesn't forbid it either. It opens the door though with its wording.

Forbidding bigamy is what the States do.

The Obergefell ruling never so much as mentions polygamy or bigamy. Let alone authorize them.

So what else have you got?

Well, again for the umpteenth time Sally, it doesn't forbid either.

For the Umpteeth time, Mary....it doesn't even mention it. Let alone authorize it.

Try again.

The Supreme Court's ruling does NOT prohibit these marriages.

Rather ironic you attempting to use 'fool' in a sentence.

The Supreme Court's ruling does not prohibit anything except bans on same gender marriage.

Just as previously the Supreme Court's ruling did not prohibit anything except bans on mixed race marriage.

The Supreme Court's ruling has nothing to do with bigamy, or polygamy- except in the tiny minds of homophobes.

 

[Skylar]

Which case are you referring to?

Loving v. Virginia?

Zablocki v. Rehail?

Turner v. Safley?

Or Obergefel?

All cases where the Supreme Court 'nullified the votes and will of the people and took upon themselvs the rights of their states'- i.e. ruled a State law unconstitutional.

If you think this was a 'huge power' grab- you are about 50 years behind the ball.

It is. It overruled the wishes of the people who expressed their wishes in a legal election.

You should read the Constitution some time.

Meanwhile- you are a dollar short and 50 years too late.

Feel free to start a thread about how upset you are that the Supreme Court overturned the rights of Virginia voters to ban mixed race marriages.

I have. Marriage laws are not specifically under the prevue of the federal government. Marriage laws have long been under the prevue of the states themselves. It was purely a power grab and only then by one vote.

again... STATUS is the purview of the state. if that status is given out in discriminatory fashion it is up to the court to rule those regulations unconstitutional.

Which, as anyone with a brain would know, is a right that the state would have to show a compelling interest in denying. Right?

If you believe that incest marriage should be legal, make your case for it. Yet every time I ask you to present your argument........you abandon it.

 

[the_human_being]

I have. Marriage laws are not specifically under the prevue of the federal government. Marriage laws have long been under the prevue of the states themselves. It was purely a power grab and only then by one vote.

again... STATUS is the purview of the state. if that status is given out in discriminatory fashion it is up to the court to rule those regulations unconstitutional.

What would you homos do without the big old 5 members of the SCOUS protecting you?

my husband would probably find that assertion amusing.

as for the courts... the supreme court exists to protect normal people from bigots like you. they don't always do it, but they did here, bless their little hearts.

and asking what normal people would do without the courts is like saying what would we do if we lived under another system of government that didn't have courts protecting civil rights... you know, like in Saudi Arabia.... someplace you'd probably be much happier.

Most NORMAL people don't need 9 people interfering in their lives.

Most normal people actually approve of the Supreme Court protecting our Constitutional rights.

You this upset when the Supreme Court strikes down State's gun laws too?

Of course. Those nuts are totally out of touch.

 

[Pop23]

I have. Marriage laws are not specifically under the prevue of the federal government. Marriage laws have long been under the prevue of the states themselves. It was purely a power grab and only then by one vote.

again... STATUS is the purview of the state. if that status is given out in discriminatory fashion it is up to the court to rule those regulations unconstitutional.

What would you homos do without the big old 5 members of the SCOUS protecting you?

my husband would probably find that assertion amusing.

as for the courts... the supreme court exists to protect normal people from bigots like you. they don't always do it, but they did here, bless their little hearts.

and asking what normal people would do without the courts is like saying what would we do if we lived under another system of government that didn't have courts protecting civil rights... you know, like in Saudi Arabia.... someplace you'd probably be much happier.

Most NORMAL people don't need 9 people interfering in their lives.

Most people don't have the state violating their rights for no particular reason.

Apparently they do, but you actually don't care because these don't have sex with each other.

Don't you find your veiw kinda weird?

 

[Skylar]

again... STATUS is the purview of the state. if that status is given out in discriminatory fashion it is up to the court to rule those regulations unconstitutional.

What would you homos do without the big old 5 members of the SCOUS protecting you?

my husband would probably find that assertion amusing.

as for the courts... the supreme court exists to protect normal people from bigots like you. they don't always do it, but they did here, bless their little hearts.

and asking what normal people would do without the courts is like saying what would we do if we lived under another system of government that didn't have courts protecting civil rights... you know, like in Saudi Arabia.... someplace you'd probably be much happier.

Most NORMAL people don't need 9 people interfering in their lives.

Most normal people actually approve of the Supreme Court protecting our Constitutional rights.

You this upset when the Supreme Court strikes down State's gun laws too?

Of course. Those nuts are totally out of touch.

So.....what do you think the 14th amendment actually does?

 

[the_human_being]

It doesn't. It doesn't forbid it either. It opens the door though with its wording.

Forbidding bigamy is what the States do.

The Obergefell ruling never so much as mentions polygamy or bigamy. Let alone authorize them.

So what else have you got?

Well, again for the umpteenth time Sally, it doesn't forbid either.

For the Umpteeth time, Mary....it doesn't even mention it. Let alone authorize it.

Try again.

The Supreme Court's ruling does NOT prohibit these marriages.

Rather ironic you attempting to use 'fool' in a sentence.

The Supreme Court's ruling does not prohibit anything except bans on same gender marriage.

Just as previously the Supreme Court's ruling did not prohibit anything except bans on mixed race marriage.

The Supreme Court's ruling has nothing to do with bigamy, or polygamy- except in the tiny minds of homophobes.

That's what we've been saying over and over.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Says you. The Obergefell ruling never even mentions polygamy let alone authorizes it.

See, I've actually read the ruling. You never have. You might want to try. Here, I'll even give you the link:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Show me where it authorizes polygamy. Specifically.

It doesn't. It doesn't forbid it either. It opens the door though with its wording.

Forbidding bigamy is what the States do.

The Obergefell ruling never so much as mentions polygamy or bigamy. Let alone authorize them.

So what else have you got?

Well, again for the umpteenth time Sally, it doesn't forbid either.

For the Umpteeth time, Mary....it doesn't even mention it. Let alone authorize it.

Try again.

Look fool, let me try to make it easier for you. We have a law in Pensacola that states one can make a right at a red light after coming to a complete stop and insuring there is no approaching traffic. There are NO signs indicating one may do this. Now, where it is not desirous of the state to allow this turn on red, there must be posted in plain view a sign PROHIBITING the turning on a red signal.

The Supreme Court's ruling does NOT prohibit these marriages.

That is so fucking stupid that I can't stand it! STATE Law prohibits it. State laws prohibiting it have not been challenged on constitutional or any other grounds. It was not a question before the court and therefor the court had no reason to comment on it-indeed it would have been inappropriate to do so. You're just fucking with us right? You cant really be that ignorant about how things work.? OMG you are!!

 

[Skylar]

again... STATUS is the purview of the state. if that status is given out in discriminatory fashion it is up to the court to rule those regulations unconstitutional.

What would you homos do without the big old 5 members of the SCOUS protecting you?

my husband would probably find that assertion amusing.

as for the courts... the supreme court exists to protect normal people from bigots like you. they don't always do it, but they did here, bless their little hearts.

and asking what normal people would do without the courts is like saying what would we do if we lived under another system of government that didn't have courts protecting civil rights... you know, like in Saudi Arabia.... someplace you'd probably be much happier.

Most NORMAL people don't need 9 people interfering in their lives.

Most people don't have the state violating their rights for no particular reason.

Apparently they do, but you actually don't care because these don't have sex with each other.

Don't you find your veiw kinda weird?

Is this where you advocate incest marriage....and then abandon your argument when I ask you why?

 

[Pop23]

It is. It overruled the wishes of the people who expressed their wishes in a legal election.

You should read the Constitution some time.

Meanwhile- you are a dollar short and 50 years too late.

Feel free to start a thread about how upset you are that the Supreme Court overturned the rights of Virginia voters to ban mixed race marriages.

I have. Marriage laws are not specifically under the prevue of the federal government. Marriage laws have long been under the prevue of the states themselves. It was purely a power grab and only then by one vote.

again... STATUS is the purview of the state. if that status is given out in discriminatory fashion it is up to the court to rule those regulations unconstitutional.

Which, as anyone with a brain would know, is a right that the state would have to show a compelling interest in denying. Right?

If you believe that incest marriage should be legal, make your case for it. Yet every time I ask you to present your argument........you abandon it.

Do you think all siblings wanna have sex, or just those that want to enter into a contract that doesn't require sex?

You are a kinky bastard aren't you Sally?

 

[the_human_being]

again... STATUS is the purview of the state. if that status is given out in discriminatory fashion it is up to the court to rule those regulations unconstitutional.

What would you homos do without the big old 5 members of the SCOUS protecting you?

my husband would probably find that assertion amusing.

as for the courts... the supreme court exists to protect normal people from bigots like you. they don't always do it, but they did here, bless their little hearts.

and asking what normal people would do without the courts is like saying what would we do if we lived under another system of government that didn't have courts protecting civil rights... you know, like in Saudi Arabia.... someplace you'd probably be much happier.

Most NORMAL people don't need 9 people interfering in their lives.

Most people don't have the state violating their rights for no particular reason.

Apparently they do, but you actually don't care because these don't have sex with each other.

Don't you find your veiw kinda weird?

They belong in a carnival sideshow. FREAKS!!

 

[Syriusly]

Which case are you referring to?

Loving v. Virginia?

Zablocki v. Rehail?

Turner v. Safley?

Or Obergefel?

All cases where the Supreme Court 'nullified the votes and will of the people and took upon themselvs the rights of their states'- i.e. ruled a State law unconstitutional.

If you think this was a 'huge power' grab- you are about 50 years behind the ball.

It is. It overruled the wishes of the people who expressed their wishes in a legal election.

You should read the Constitution some time.

Meanwhile- you are a dollar short and 50 years too late.

Feel free to start a thread about how upset you are that the Supreme Court overturned the rights of Virginia voters to ban mixed race marriages.

I have. Marriage laws are not specifically under the prevue of the federal government. Marriage laws have long been under the prevue of the states themselves. It was purely a power grab and only then by one vote.

again... STATUS is the purview of the state. if that status is given out in discriminatory fashion it is up to the court to rule those regulations unconstitutional.

What would you homos do without the big old 5 members of the SCOUS protecting you?

Well homosexuals would probably go back to being legally attacked by Christian Conservatives who want government to tell Americans exactly what kinds of sex should be legal between consenting adults.

Now what will Mormons and Jews and African Americans, and Latinos and every other minority group do without members of the Supreme Court protecting their rights?

Well probably get discriminated against.

Again.

 

[Skylar]

Forbidding bigamy is what the States do.

The Obergefell ruling never so much as mentions polygamy or bigamy. Let alone authorize them.

So what else have you got?

Well, again for the umpteenth time Sally, it doesn't forbid either.

For the Umpteeth time, Mary....it doesn't even mention it. Let alone authorize it.

Try again.

The Supreme Court's ruling does NOT prohibit these marriages.

Rather ironic you attempting to use 'fool' in a sentence.

The Supreme Court's ruling does not prohibit anything except bans on same gender marriage.

Just as previously the Supreme Court's ruling did not prohibit anything except bans on mixed race marriage.

The Supreme Court's ruling has nothing to do with bigamy, or polygamy- except in the tiny minds of homophobes.

That's what we've been saying over and over.

So how does the Supreme Court authorize polygamy......with a ruling that has nothing to do with polygamy nor even mentions it?

Remember, the STATE forbids bigamy. Do you know what a State is?

 

[Pop23]

What would you homos do without the big old 5 members of the SCOUS protecting you?

my husband would probably find that assertion amusing.

as for the courts... the supreme court exists to protect normal people from bigots like you. they don't always do it, but they did here, bless their little hearts.

and asking what normal people would do without the courts is like saying what would we do if we lived under another system of government that didn't have courts protecting civil rights... you know, like in Saudi Arabia.... someplace you'd probably be much happier.

Most NORMAL people don't need 9 people interfering in their lives.

Most people don't have the state violating their rights for no particular reason.

Apparently they do, but you actually don't care because these don't have sex with each other.

Don't you find your veiw kinda weird?

Is this where you advocate incest marriage....and then abandon your argument when I ask you why?

^^^^ apparently thinks all siblings wanna have sex with each other.

Get your freak off somewhere else Sally.

 

[Syriusly]

You should read the Constitution some time.

Meanwhile- you are a dollar short and 50 years too late.

Feel free to start a thread about how upset you are that the Supreme Court overturned the rights of Virginia voters to ban mixed race marriages.

I have. Marriage laws are not specifically under the prevue of the federal government. Marriage laws have long been under the prevue of the states themselves. It was purely a power grab and only then by one vote.

again... STATUS is the purview of the state. if that status is given out in discriminatory fashion it is up to the court to rule those regulations unconstitutional.

Which, as anyone with a brain would know, is a right that the state would have to show a compelling interest in denying. Right?

If you believe that incest marriage should be legal, make your case for it. Yet every time I ask you to present your argument........you abandon it.

Do you think all siblings wanna have sex, or just those that want to enter into a contract that doesn't require sex?

You are a kinky bastard aren't you Sally?

Yet who is the one who keeps wanting to talk about incestuous marriage?

Always you.

You are obsessed with it.

 

[the_human_being]

What would you homos do without the big old 5 members of the SCOUS protecting you?

my husband would probably find that assertion amusing.

as for the courts... the supreme court exists to protect normal people from bigots like you. they don't always do it, but they did here, bless their little hearts.

and asking what normal people would do without the courts is like saying what would we do if we lived under another system of government that didn't have courts protecting civil rights... you know, like in Saudi Arabia.... someplace you'd probably be much happier.

Most NORMAL people don't need 9 people interfering in their lives.

Most normal people actually approve of the Supreme Court protecting our Constitutional rights.

You this upset when the Supreme Court strikes down State's gun laws too?

Of course. Those nuts are totally out of touch.

So.....what do you think the 14th amendment actually does?

It protects you little homo victims from sane and normal people like me. BOO!!

 

[Syriusly]

my husband would probably find that assertion amusing.

as for the courts... the supreme court exists to protect normal people from bigots like you. they don't always do it, but they did here, bless their little hearts.

and asking what normal people would do without the courts is like saying what would we do if we lived under another system of government that didn't have courts protecting civil rights... you know, like in Saudi Arabia.... someplace you'd probably be much happier.

Most NORMAL people don't need 9 people interfering in their lives.

Most people don't have the state violating their rights for no particular reason.

Apparently they do, but you actually don't care because these don't have sex with each other.

Don't you find your veiw kinda weird?

Is this where you advocate incest marriage....and then abandon your argument when I ask you why?

^^^^ apparently thinks all siblings wanna have sex with each other.

Get your freak off somewhere else Sally.

You are obsessed with siblings having sex with each other.