Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

[mdk]

Breaking news: Gays can still legally marry today and all ya'll can do is whine about it. I take great solace in that fact.

They are not married, they are playing a glorified game of house.

That is your opinion and they will continued to be married regardless of that opinion.

No that is a fact. Marriage existed before government. Dogs get licenses from the government too.

....and another fact is that allowing gay people to marry causes you no harm whatsoever.

Wouldn't your wrath be better spent on those matters that do?

And that is why any of their legal challenges will ultimately fail. To have standing in court, you'll have to prove how the two fags down the street have harmed you and claiming it hurts "muh feels" isn't going to cut it in a court of law.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

And that is why any of their legally challenges will ultimately fail. To have standing in court, you'll have to prove how the two fags down the street have harmed you and claiming it hurts "muh feels" isn't going to cut it in a court of law.

Yep.

When it gets down to it, our entire judicial system is predicated upon a logical process asking basic questions about behavior. Now, it hasn't always worked according to this ideal due to ingrained attitudes, but it is SUPPOSED to treat all people equally and decide which activity harms another person and which doesn't while also considering intent.

Since two gay people getting married does not harm anybody and is not intended to do so, how anybody can argue against it is beyond me.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Breaking news: Gays can still legally marry today and all ya'll can do is whine about it. I take great solace in that fact.

They are not married, they are playing a glorified game of house.

That is your opinion and they will continued to be married regardless of that opinion.

No that is a fact. Marriage existed before government. Dogs get licenses from the government too.

....and another fact is that allowing gay people to marry causes you no harm whatsoever.

Wouldn't your wrath be better spent on those matters that do?

And that is why any of their legal challenges will ultimately fail. To have standing in court, you'll have to prove how the two fags down the street have harmed you and claiming it hurts "muh feels" isn't going to cut it in a court of law.

Ginsburg is near death and Trump needs conservative support. You need to stop pretending these decisions are made with anything more than political leanings. If you think they are...you are dumb.

 

[Silhouette]

Children were the reason marriage was invented; The anticipation of children being fatherless or motherless was something a tribe or community could not tolerate. They watched and saw enough miscreants created this way that the institution of marriage was invented as a remedy for the fatherless/motherless home.

Enter Obergefell which fundamentally reversed that contractual enjoyment children used to have.

As to mdk's assertion that "if something doesn't exist then it cannot be an implicit part of a contract", let me say this, children not being born yet, but anticipated by the society that sets up marriage parameters is the same as profits not yet in existence from a contract signed between budding business partners. Those profits anticipated are in fact part of that contract. So are children anticipated to come statistically from marriage.

It is that very anticipation and not wanting a tribe full of miscreants that led states to incentivize marriage with benefits in the first place. Now they are "legally" (not) required to incentivize THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE CREATION OF THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT.

Thanks to five unelected lawyers in DC in 2015.

they're angry deplorable bigots. they can't help it.

I agree. People who hate children and their right to both a mother and father from any marriage contract really are deplorable.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

The court leans right currently....we will end faggot mock marriages as a federal rule.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Marriage was never meant to be a fed case. And that is how the current majority Supreme court ruling would be if asked.

 

[mdk]

Ginsburg is near death and Trump needs conservative support. You need to stop pretending these decisions are made with anything more than political leanings. If you think they are...you are dumb.

Be that as it may, you'll still have to prove standing and the case will have to make it's way to SCOTUS. Your legal argument will have to be more than that it hurts my pussy.

 

[mdk]

The court leans right currently....we will end faggot mock marriages as a federal rule.

Did you get your hands on a Monkey's Paw?

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Two people of the same sex playing house with gubmint licensing doesnt hurt me...it hurts the kids they are preying on.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

The court leans right currently....we will end faggot mock marriages as a federal rule.

Did you get your hands on a Monkey's Paw?

Huh?

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Ginsburg is near death and Trump needs conservative support. You need to stop pretending these decisions are made with anything more than political leanings. If you think they are...you are dumb.

Be that as it may, you'll still have to prove standing and the case will have to make it's way to SCOTUS. Your legal argument will have to be more than that it hurts my pussy.

We just need enough conservatives who repect the constitution.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

I agree. People who hate children and their right to both a mother and father really are deplorable.

Said the single mother whose house doesn't have a father. If you spent half as much time worrying about my marriage perhaps you could find a husband. After all, children have a right to a mother and father...unless it's yours.

You will never be a natural father without disproving faggots are born that way. How does that make you feel?

 

[Silhouette]

Children were the reason marriage was invented; The anticipation of children being fatherless or motherless was something a tribe or community could not tolerate. They watched and saw enough miscreants created this way that the institution of marriage was invented as a remedy for the fatherless/motherless home.

Enter Obergefell which fundamentally reversed that contractual enjoyment children used to have.

As to mdk's assertion that "if something doesn't exist then it cannot be an implicit part of a contract", let me say this, children not being born yet, but anticipated by the society that sets up marriage parameters is the same as profits not yet in existence from a contract signed between budding business partners. Those profits anticipated are in fact part of that contract. So are children anticipated to come statistically from marriage.

It is that very anticipation and not wanting a tribe full of miscreants that led states to incentivize marriage with benefits in the first place. Now they are "legally" (not) required to incentivize THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE CREATION OF THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT.

Thanks to five unelected lawyers in DC in 2015.

they're angry deplorable bigots. they can't help it.

I agree. People who hate children and their right to both a mother and father from any marriage contract really are deplorable.

Said the single mother whose house doesn't have a father. If you spent half as much time worrying about my marriage perhaps you could find a husband. After all, children have a right to a mother and father...unless it's yours.

Is my marital status affecting the substance of my points? No. So lose the ad hominem and stick to the points.

...vv and refrain from obvious attempts at derailing the topic with a strawman...

 

[mdk]

The court leans right currently....we will end faggot mock marriages as a federal rule.

Did you get your hands on a Monkey's Paw?

Huh?

It's from short story by W. W. Jacobs. Having a Monkey's Paw allows the person that possess it three wishes.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

The court leans right currently....we will end faggot mock marriages as a federal rule.

Did you get your hands on a Monkey's Paw?

Huh?

It's from short story by W. W. Jacobs. Having a Monkey's Paw allows the person that possess it three wishes.

I don't need to wish. We will end up in a civil war if your filth prevails

 

[mdk]

Is my marital status affecting the substance of my points? No. So lose the ad hominem and stick to the points

It sure does. You seem so concerned about the happening in households of gays, but you get all pissy when the microscope gets pointed back. Hypocritical busybodies never like having the standards they set for others apply to themselves.

 

[mdk]

The court leans right currently....we will end faggot mock marriages as a federal rule.

Did you get your hands on a Monkey's Paw?

Huh?

It's from short story by W. W. Jacobs. Having a Monkey's Paw allows the person that possess it three wishes.

I don't need to wish. We will end up in a civil war if your filth prevails

That quaking you hear are my boots.

 

[Unkotare]

The court leans right currently....we will end faggot mock marriages as a federal rule.

Did you get your hands on a Monkey's Paw?

Huh?

It's from short story by W. W. Jacobs. Having a Monkey's Paw allows the person that possess it three wishes.

He really never heard of the story?

 

[Silhouette]

Oh Unkatore shows up to help spam.

 

[Unkotare]

Is my marital status affecting the substance of my points? No. So lose the ad hominem and stick to the points

It sure does. You seem so concerned about the happening in households of gays, but you get all pissy when the microscope gets pointed back. Hypocritical busybodies never like having the standards they set for others apply to themselves.

The discussion is about marriage laws. Not who is or isn't married and for what reasons. If I was a widower or a widow, would your comments be allowed?

"allowed"?