Laymen's Closing Arguments on Gay Marriage

[JoeB131]

Hey bro, a million likes in less than 24 hours on Facebook and lines wrapping around the block at Chic-Fil-A across the country and where they had to shut down the crowd-fund for Memories Pizza in 1 day because it was approaching a million bucks isn't just "a few bigots'. It's a large statement of free speech on behaviors; and what behaviors quite a lot of people aren't into promoting "as married" (the core of our culture). Disagreeing with your cult doesn't automatically make a person a bigot.

Frankly people are getting sick of your bullying routine. It turns out you were right: people don't like bullies. And hence why there's a lot of resistance nowadays to the LGBT Agenda.

Uh, no, there isn't. You guys have already lost on the question of marriage and frankly, you are looking a little stupid on your backup position of "I'm not going to bake a cake".

 

[danielpalos]

Did Big Corporations decide supporting "gay marriage" is "good business" based on the million likes to the "Boycott A&E" Facebook page within 24 hours of their announcing they'd suspend Phil Robertson for publicly denouncing gay marriage? Or did they base their decision on the lines wrapping around the block in support at Chic-Fil-A when their CEO did the same thing? Perhaps they based their excellent business prospectus model off of the rapid influx of upper six figures in donations to Memories Pizza when they did the same thing?

Guy, you misread my point. Yes, you'll have a few bigots giving money to other bigots. But bigger businesses realize there's no money in homophobia.

In two years, Duck Dynasty wil be off the air. Chik-Fil-Hate has already shut the fuck up about Gay Marriage because cities wouldn't grant them new licences for stores....

Hey bro, a million likes in less than 24 hours on Facebook and lines wrapping around the block at Chic-Fil-A across the country and where they had to shut down the crowd-fund for Memories Pizza in 1 day because it was approaching a million bucks isn't just "a few bigots'. It's a large statement of free speech on behaviors; and what behaviors quite a lot of people aren't into promoting "as married" (the core of our culture). Disagreeing with your cult doesn't automatically make a person a bigot.

Frankly people are getting sick of your bullying routine. It turns out you were right: people don't like bullies. And hence why there's a lot of resistance nowadays to the LGBT Agenda.

Snake oil salesmen did the same thing, last millennium and on a for-profit basis. There is no exemption for being Bad Capitalists on a for-profit basis with our Commerce Clause and our public accommodation laws.

 

[Silhouette]

Hey bro, a million likes in less than 24 hours on Facebook and lines wrapping around the block at Chic-Fil-A across the country and where they had to shut down the crowd-fund for Memories Pizza in 1 day because it was approaching a million bucks isn't just "a few bigots'. It's a large statement of free speech on behaviors; and what behaviors quite a lot of people aren't into promoting "as married" (the core of our culture). Disagreeing with your cult doesn't automatically make a person a bigot.

Frankly people are getting sick of your bullying routine. It turns out you were right: people don't like bullies. And hence why there's a lot of resistance nowadays to the LGBT Agenda.

Uh, no, there isn't. You guys have already lost on the question of marriage and frankly, you are looking a little stupid on your backup position of "I'm not going to bake a cake".

The issue at hand is whether or not the states get to define marriage. Have you read Windsor? Here, take a look, and when you do, remember that Kennedy at this latest hearing stated grave concerns about just 9 people killing the conversation...that more "social studies" were needed because the concept is so brand new...the stripping of children of either a father or mother figure as a state-forced institution..

Have a look. 56 times the Court said the question was up to states...in just 26 pages. For an average of two time per page: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[danielpalos]

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law; Article 4, Section 2 applies upon appeal to the general government and that body of laws.

 

[Silhouette]

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law; Article 4, Section 2 applies upon appeal to the general government and that body of laws.

Except the question of which laws are dominant: laws concerning adult freedoms and priveleges vs laws protecting children from harm? Gonna answer that one eventually daniel?

 

[danielpalos]

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law; Article 4, Section 2 applies upon appeal to the general government and that body of laws.

Except the question of which laws are dominant: laws concerning adult freedoms and priveleges vs laws protecting children from harm? Gonna answer that one eventually daniel?

Article 4, Section 2 is in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We the People get to define marriage by our republican government that provides a SCOTUS to protect civil rights for all.

Marriage Equality in no way harms the hetero fascist: rather simply takes away the abuser's power (like that of Sil or Keys).

 

[Syriusly]

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law; Article 4, Section 2 applies upon appeal to the general government and that body of laws.

Except the question of which laws are dominant: laws concerning adult freedoms and priveleges vs laws protecting children from harm? Gonna answer that one eventually daniel?

Speaking of laws which cause children harm

During Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, Justice Anthony Kennedy--who is widely considered the swing vote in the case--suggested that California's gay marriage ban causes "immediate legal injury" to children of same-sex parents.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

 

[boilermaker55]

Explain how any "couple" would not have some male figure in the life of their offspring.
Did you ever try to think outside your extreme disgust for others.
Some single mothers are single because of a tragedy. Raising their child(ren) on their own excludes a male figure in their child(ren) lives.

This debate is missing the forest for the trees. The most important social problem facing our country is the decline of marriage in favor of having children out of wedlock. The question is whether gay marriage will serve to reverse or add to this decline. For the small minority of gay couples, the answer is obvious. But for the large majority of the population, corrupting the traditional definition of marriage will further undermine its status as a respected institution.

So you are of the opinion that male children can be just fine without a father figure in their life and female children can be just fine without a mother figure in their life? Because if you think this wouldn't be fine, you're saying gay marriage is not OK for that reason.

 

[Skylar]

Hey bro, a million likes in less than 24 hours on Facebook and lines wrapping around the block at Chic-Fil-A across the country and where they had to shut down the crowd-fund for Memories Pizza in 1 day because it was approaching a million bucks isn't just "a few bigots'. It's a large statement of free speech on behaviors; and what behaviors quite a lot of people aren't into promoting "as married" (the core of our culture). Disagreeing with your cult doesn't automatically make a person a bigot.

Frankly people are getting sick of your bullying routine. It turns out you were right: people don't like bullies. And hence why there's a lot of resistance nowadays to the LGBT Agenda.

Uh, no, there isn't. You guys have already lost on the question of marriage and frankly, you are looking a little stupid on your backup position of "I'm not going to bake a cake".

The issue at hand is whether or not the states get to define marriage. Have you read Windsor? Here, take a look, and when you do, remember that Kennedy at this latest hearing stated grave concerns about just 9 people killing the conversation...that more "social studies" were needed because the concept is so brand new...the stripping of children of either a father or mother figure as a state-forced institution..

Have a look. 56 times the Court said the question was up to states...in just 26 pages. For an average of two time per page: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Ah, but there's the part that you forget every time: that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

Windsor v. U.S.

Perhaps 'forget' isn't the right word. You already know this. You just really hope we don't. The Windsor ruling establishes an firm hierarchy in terms of authority in terms of marriage:

1) Constitutional Guarentees
2) State marriage laws
3) Federal Marriage laws.

You correctly assert that state marriage laws trump federal marriage laws. But then shamelessly omit that constitutional guarantees trump state marriage laws.

Ignore as you will. The court won't.

 

[Skylar]

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law; Article 4, Section 2 applies upon appeal to the general government and that body of laws.

Except the question of which laws are dominant: laws concerning adult freedoms and priveleges vs laws protecting children from harm? Gonna answer that one eventually daniel?

Your proposal doesn't protect children. It hurts them. Says who? Says Justice Kennedy in the Windsor decision:

And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.....

....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

So your entire premise that same sex marriage hurts kids is pseudo-legal gibberish. The courts have found the opposite to be true. And logically your claims are obvious nonsense. As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't mean that their children magically have opposite sex parents. It only guarantees that these children never have married parents. Which only hurts children.

So the actual question is "Individual freedom AND protecting children v. State Power''.

And in such a question, the winner is obvious. Or as Justice Scalia would put it, 'beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable'.

 

[JoeB131]

The issue at hand is whether or not the states get to define marriage. Have you read Windsor? Here, take a look, and when you do, remember that Kennedy at this latest hearing stated grave concerns about just 9 people killing the conversation...that more "social studies" were needed because the concept is so brand new...the stripping of children of either a father or mother figure as a state-forced institution..

Yeah, guy, Kennedy is not going to go down in history as the guy who delayed gay marriage. I mean, I know you poor over these decisions looking for any glimmer of hope that people will get to keep being bigots, but it ain't gonna happen.

Big Business has already decided, "Get on with it!" and the Repukes on the Supreme Court will say, "What is they bidding, my Master?"

My guess - 6-3 with Kennedy and Roberts joining the Liberals.

 

[Skylar]

The issue at hand is whether or not the states get to define marriage. Have you read Windsor? Here, take a look, and when you do, remember that Kennedy at this latest hearing stated grave concerns about just 9 people killing the conversation...that more "social studies" were needed because the concept is so brand new...the stripping of children of either a father or mother figure as a state-forced institution..

Yeah, guy, Kennedy is not going to go down in history as the guy who delayed gay marriage. I mean, I know you poor over these decisions looking for any glimmer of hope that people will get to keep being bigots, but it ain't gonna happen.

Big Business has already decided, "Get on with it!" and the Repukes on the Supreme Court will say, "What is they bidding, my Master?"

My guess - 6-3 with Kennedy and Roberts joining the Liberals.

Its tough to say. I'd say its likely that gay marriage will win the day. But, if there is a compromise ruling I think it will look something like this:

Question 1) 5 to 4 against
Question 2) 9 to 0 in favor.

I think if there can be some compromise on existing gay marriages still remaining viable (perhaps the old 'you can't withdraw a right once extended' line), the idea of Kennedy siding with state's rights becomes slightly more likely. But your numbers and your Justices do make sense. Kennedy is defining his legacy with this one. And Roberts is all about the integrity of the court. I think both recognize the importance of this issue in terms of civil rights. And I could see Roberts siding with Kennedy and the liberal wing of the court to give a greater air of authority to the ruling.

I'd say 80/20 yes on Question 1
100% on Question 2.

 

[Skylar]

Gallup just released its 2015 results for gay marriage support. Sil......I suspect you're about to invent a brand new conspiracy. Because you aren't going to like these results:

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Sixty percent of Americans now support same-sex marriage, as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on its constitutionality next month. This is up from 55% last year and is the highest Gallup has found on the question since it was first asked in 1996.

Record-High 60 of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage

That's a 23 point spread in favor of gay marriage.

Did opponents of same sex marriage pick the wrong side of history, or what?

 

[SwimExpert]

1) The Loving decision cited by the Windsor court as an example of state marriage laws being subject to constitutional guarantees wasn't about the limitation of federal power. It was about the limitation of STATE power. Specifically, the state marriage laws. With the federal government overturning those laws on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees.

Oh for fuck's sake, what's your point? You're taking a multi faceted issue and over-simplifying it into a one dimensional rationalization of incompatible truths. You need to work on your cognitive abilities before you try to continue any further.

 

[SwimExpert]

Hey bro, a million likes in less than 24 hours on Facebook and lines wrapping around the block at Chic-Fil-A across the country and where they had to shut down the crowd-fund for Memories Pizza in 1 day because it was approaching a million bucks isn't just "a few bigots'.

You're right. It's an entire culture of bigotry mixed with radicalized zeal. It's a stone's throw away from ISIS.

 

[Skylar]

1) The Loving decision cited by the Windsor court as an example of state marriage laws being subject to constitutional guarantees wasn't about the limitation of federal power. It was about the limitation of STATE power. Specifically, the state marriage laws. With the federal government overturning those laws on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees.

Oh for fuck's sake, what's your point? You're taking a multi faceted issue and over-simplifying it into a one dimensional rationalization of incompatible truths. You need to work on your cognitive abilities before you try to continue any further.

I'm taking the case and drawing the exact same conclusion that Scalia and 43 of 46 federal rulings did: that it communicated a clear and unmistakable view by the courts against state same sex marriage bans (which Scalia actually described as 'unmistakable), and that when the logic of the Windsor decision is applied to state same sex marriage bans, it invalidates them (which Scalia calls 'inevitable). A view underlined and wrapped in a bow by all of Justice Kennedy's actions since the ruling.

Are we all 'misinterpreting' the WIndsor ruling? Or is it you?

 

[Silhouette]

The issue at hand is whether or not the states get to define marriage. Have you read Windsor? Here, take a look, and when you do, remember that Kennedy at this latest hearing stated grave concerns about just 9 people killing the conversation...that more "social studies" were needed because the concept is so brand new...the stripping of children of either a father or mother figure as a state-forced institution..

Yeah, guy, Kennedy is not going to go down in history as the guy who delayed gay marriage. I mean, I know you poor over these decisions looking for any glimmer of hope that people will get to keep being bigots, but it ain't gonna happen.

Big Business has already decided, "Get on with it!" and the Repukes on the Supreme Court will say, "What is they bidding, my Master?"

My guess - 6-3 with Kennedy and Roberts joining the Liberals.

1. Kennedy may not be wanting to go down in history as "the guy who mandated killing the discussion of whether or not states have a say in incentivizing a redaction to marriage that includes institutional deprivation of boys of fathers or girls of mothers." Most people if given the choice would rather come out as a champion of children and democracy than of perverted adults and an oligarchy of 9..

2. Big Business may have decided "Get on with it!", but that was a foolish decision. Let me know who they are so I may prudently withdraw my stock and invest my money elsewhere in businesses that won't experience a backlash from the majority:

Over one million likes in one day on the "Boycott A&E" Facebook page when they threatened to hurt Phil Robertson for being against gay marriage:

Lines wrapped around the block in support of Chic Fil-A's CEO's stance in favor of father/mother marriage:

Memories Pizza stands their ground and in 1 day they had to shut down support at $800,000 for fear the support-fund might grow too large:

 

[Syriusly]

The issue at hand is whether or not the states get to define marriage. Have you read Windsor? Here, take a look, and when you do, remember that Kennedy at this latest hearing stated grave concerns about just 9 people killing the conversation...that more "social studies" were needed because the concept is so brand new...the stripping of children of either a father or mother figure as a state-forced institution..

Yeah, guy, Kennedy is not going to go down in history as the guy who delayed gay marriage. I mean, I know you poor over these decisions looking for any glimmer of hope that people will get to keep being bigots, but it ain't gonna happen.

Big Business has already decided, "Get on with it!" and the Repukes on the Supreme Court will say, "What is they bidding, my Master?"

My guess - 6-3 with Kennedy and Roberts joining the Liberals.

Its tough to say. I'd say its likely that gay marriage will win the day. But, if there is a compromise ruling I think it will look something like this:

Question 1) 5 to 4 against
Question 2) 9 to 0 in favor.

I think if there can be some compromise on existing gay marriages still remaining viable (perhaps the old 'you can't withdraw a right once extended' line), the idea of Kennedy siding with state's rights becomes slightly more likely. But your numbers and your Justices do make sense. Kennedy is defining his legacy with this one. And Roberts is all about the integrity of the court. I think both recognize the importance of this issue in terms of civil rights. And I could see Roberts siding with Kennedy and the liberal wing of the court to give a greater air of authority to the ruling.

I'd say 80/20 yes on Question 1
100% on Question 2.

I read the oral arguments completely differently. The questions for question #2 seemed to strongly indicate that if Question #1 was found 'against', that they would lean towards 'against' on Question #2 also.

I think Question #1 will be in favor of marriage equality- and will render #2 moot.

 

[Syriusly]

The issue at hand is whether or not the states get to define marriage. Have you read Windsor? Here, take a look, and when you do, remember that Kennedy at this latest hearing stated grave concerns about just 9 people killing the conversation...that more "social studies" were needed because the concept is so brand new...the stripping of children of either a father or mother figure as a state-forced institution..

Yeah, guy, Kennedy is not going to go down in history as the guy who delayed gay marriage. I mean, I know you poor over these decisions looking for any glimmer of hope that people will get to keep being bigots, but it ain't gonna happen.

Big Business has already decided, "Get on with it!" and the Repukes on the Supreme Court will say, "What is they bidding, my Master?"

My guess - 6-3 with Kennedy and Roberts joining the Liberals.

2. Big Business may have decided "Get on with it!", but that was a foolish decision. Let me know who they are so I may prudently withdraw my stock and invest my money elsewhere in businesses that won't experience a backlash from the majority:

Well let me help you with that

Here Are The 379 Companies Urging The Supreme Court To Support Same-Sex Marriage

Here Are The 379 Companies Urging The Supreme Court To Support Same-Sex Marriage

The list, provided in full below, includes corporate behemoths such as Coca-Cola Company, Goldman Sachs, Google and Morgan Stanley. It also includes brands like Ben & Jerry’s, a division of Unilever, and sports teams such as the New England Patriots, the San Francisco Giants and the Tampa Bay Rays.

And of course