March For Marriage Draws Tens, But Promises Ultimate Victory Over Obergefell

[martybegan]

History, precedent, the fact that one is only a cosmetic difference between partners and the other is a biological difference.

Okay, except through most of "history" and "precedent", women were considered property of a marriage, and black folks were property of white folks. So that really doesn't get you anywhere.

If people want to allow it via legislative action or referendum I am all for it, but the courts have no play in this game.

That happens to be your opinion. It's also wrong. The COurts have a function of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

and changes were made to that via legislation and changing views. We also had to have a civil fucking war to get over the blacks as property thing. The courts enforce the constitution, not whatever they feel is just.

Marty simply rejects the authority of Article III.

Nope. I just think the Courts have overstepped their bounds.

Read Justice Kennedy's majority opinion . Then maybe you can write your own dissent calling on your vast legal knowlge


READ: Here's The Full Supreme Court Decision Finding Same-Sex Couples Have The Right To Marry

I don't have to, Scalia already countered said "jiggery pokery" in his dissent.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Melissa was reminded that as a Christian, she should not engage in sinful acts. She thought better of her conduct.

After her husband slapped her around for about an hour, I'm sure she did.

Christians are too peaceful. They need to obey the law, to the exact provisions of the law, then make pursuit of that lawful right so painful, no one wants to do it. This might well involve a published protest with the personal information of the couple disseminated all over the country.

Again, this is what Mr. Wifebeater did, and its' why he paid a huge fine.

Why Westboro hasn't started protesting at gay weddings is a disgraceful omission. Maybe all they need is a little encouragement.

Mostly because the Westboro freaks are trying to incite lawsuits. It's why they do things that will get their asses kicked so they get sued.

And yet you have no more proof that this man beats his wife than I proof that you beat yours. Since you immediately go to wife beating first thing, it is a subject close to you.

Homosexuals are proving over and over that for all their real faults, islam might be on to something in throwing these compulsive obsessives off rooftops.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Okay, except through most of "history" and "precedent", women were considered property of a marriage, and black folks were property of white folks. So that really doesn't get you anywhere.

That happens to be your opinion. It's also wrong. The COurts have a function of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

and changes were made to that via legislation and changing views. We also had to have a civil fucking war to get over the blacks as property thing. The courts enforce the constitution, not whatever they feel is just.

Marty simply rejects the authority of Article III.

Nope. I just think the Courts have overstepped their bounds.

Read Justice Kennedy's majority opinion . Then maybe you can write your own dissent calling on your vast legal knowlge


READ: Here's The Full Supreme Court Decision Finding Same-Sex Couples Have The Right To Marry

I don't have to, Scalia already countered said "jiggery pokery" in his dissent.

Uh, Scalia is dead, Marty, and I am quite sure that almost all major Christian denominations support SS marriage and disapprove of public service providers from denying their services to the LGBTQ minority.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Most Mormons and evangelicals no longer support businesses that refuse to serve gays, new survey shows

The battle is all but over for the acceptance of public service providers to serve LGBTQ customers.

Marriage privatization is nonsense unless the legislation that permits it also enacts automatic civil union protections for such private acts that have public effects: property, child custody, etc.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Most Mormons and evangelicals no longer support businesses that refuse to serve gays, new survey shows

Most Mormons and evangelicals no longer support businesses that refuse to serve gays, new survey shows.

The battle is all but over for the acceptance of public service providers to serve LGBTQ customers.

Now that article looks like the winner of this year's fake news tournament. Make the news, a change of opinion is sure to follow.

Why do ostensibly normal people deman that others become degenerate? What is this kind of sickness?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Alt Fact analysis by Tipsy.

Non one is saying that you have to become degenerate.

You will not become degenerate by handing someone a cookie or a cake or a pharmaceutical product.

To think you will become degenerate is doing so demonstrates that your thinking skills are degerating.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Alt Fact analysis by Tipsy.

Non one is saying that you have to become degenerate.

You will not become degenerate by handing someone a cookie or a cake or a pharmaceutical product.

To think you will become degenerate is doing so demonstrates that your thinking skills are degerating.

No one denied cookies and cakes. This very couple had received years of cookies and cakes from this very bakery. What was denied is active participation in a degenerate event.

The law is the law. Obey the law to the letter and make it as painful as possible. At the very least, same sex couples can be discouraged from using these services and encouraged to go elsewhere.

 

[martybegan]

and changes were made to that via legislation and changing views. We also had to have a civil fucking war to get over the blacks as property thing. The courts enforce the constitution, not whatever they feel is just.

Marty simply rejects the authority of Article III.

Nope. I just think the Courts have overstepped their bounds.

Read Justice Kennedy's majority opinion . Then maybe you can write your own dissent calling on your vast legal knowlge


READ: Here's The Full Supreme Court Decision Finding Same-Sex Couples Have The Right To Marry

I don't have to, Scalia already countered said "jiggery pokery" in his dissent.

Uh, Scalia is dead, Marty, and I am quite sure that almost all major Christian denominations support SS marriage and disapprove of public service providers from denying their services to the LGBTQ minority.

What does that matter?

And your statement that "all major Christian denominations support SS marriage" is total bullshit.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Marty simply rejects the authority of Article III.

Nope. I just think the Courts have overstepped their bounds.

Read Justice Kennedy's majority opinion . Then maybe you can write your own dissent calling on your vast legal knowlge


READ: Here's The Full Supreme Court Decision Finding Same-Sex Couples Have The Right To Marry

I don't have to, Scalia already countered said "jiggery pokery" in his dissent.

Uh, Scalia is dead, Marty, and I am quite sure that almost all major Christian denominations support SS marriage and disapprove of public service providers from denying their services to the LGBTQ minority.

What does that matter?

And your statement that "all major Christian denominations support SS marriage" is total bullshit.

Many denominations have had splinter groups break off. The Presbyterians split over this depravity.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Every state that voted on this voted AGAINST same sex marriage, so your side STOLE your victory, just like you STOLE victory with Roe v. Wade.

Well that is false. Same Sex Marriage existed by State action even before the Obergefel decision. "Legislative" means State Legislatures and "Ballot" means a general ballot initiative.

Delaware – Legislatively - 2013

District of Columbia – Legislatively - 2009

Hawaii – Legislatively - 2013

Illinois – Legislatively - 2013

Maine – Ballot – 2012

Maryland – Ballot - 2012

Minnesota – Ballot/Legislatively - 2012

New Hampshire – Legislatively - 2009

New York – Legislatively - 2011

Rhode Island – Legislatively - 2013

Vermont – Legislatively - 2009

Washington – Ballot – 2012


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

Nope. I just think the Courts have overstepped their bounds.

Read Justice Kennedy's majority opinion . Then maybe you can write your own dissent calling on your vast legal knowlge


READ: Here's The Full Supreme Court Decision Finding Same-Sex Couples Have The Right To Marry

I don't have to, Scalia already countered said "jiggery pokery" in his dissent.

Uh, Scalia is dead, Marty, and I am quite sure that almost all major Christian denominations support SS marriage and disapprove of public service providers from denying their services to the LGBTQ minority.

What does that matter?

And your statement that "all major Christian denominations support SS marriage" is total bullshit.

Many denominations have had splinter groups break off. The Presbyterians split over this depravity.

Yes that is true. However his statement that "almost all" of them support SSM is a blatant lie.

 

[martybegan]

Every state that voted on this voted AGAINST same sex marriage, so your side STOLE your victory, just like you STOLE victory with Roe v. Wade.

Well that is false. Same Sex Marriage existed by State action even before the Obergefel decision. "Legislative" means State Legislatures and "Ballot" means a general ballot initiative.

Delaware – Legislatively - 2013

District of Columbia – Legislatively - 2009

Hawaii – Legislatively - 2013

Illinois – Legislatively - 2013

Maine – Ballot – 2012

Maryland – Ballot - 2012

Minnesota – Ballot/Legislatively - 2012

New Hampshire – Legislatively - 2009

New York – Legislatively - 2011

Rhode Island – Legislatively - 2013

Vermont – Legislatively - 2009

Washington – Ballot – 2012


>>>>

Thank you for listing the States that did it the right way, not the wrong way.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Legislative action means states imposed this atrocity on the people whether they liked it or not.

Now it is the law which should not mean stripping the freedom and rights from everyone else.

 

[martybegan]

Legislative action means states imposed this atrocity on the people whether they liked it or not.

Now it is the law which should not mean stripping the freedom and rights from everyone else.

I disagree there. It's up to the States to decide and if they support changing the law, then its a done deal.

The use of PA laws to punish non-PA's is a related but separate issue.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Okay, except through most of "history" and "precedent", women were considered property of a marriage, and black folks were property of white folks. So that really doesn't get you anywhere.

That happens to be your opinion. It's also wrong. The COurts have a function of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

and changes were made to that via legislation and changing views. We also had to have a civil fucking war to get over the blacks as property thing. The courts enforce the constitution, not whatever they feel is just.

Marty simply rejects the authority of Article III.

Nope. I just think the Courts have overstepped their bounds.

That is rejecting the authority of Article III, Marty.

no, it isn't. its saying that they are overreaching their article III powers by legislating from the bench.

Legislating from the bench" Just words that both sides use to decry decisions that they don't like. Call it what you want .The fact is that what is also called case law or court made law is an important and rcognized part of constitutional law .

Courts make decisions on matters of law, and on finding of facts.Higher courts uphold or overturn lowe cour decisions. Is every case in which they overturn a decision legislating from the bench and is it always wrong to do so? If not when may they legitimatly overturn a decision?

If the appeals court had ruled that the ban on same sex marriage was unconstitutional, and SCOTUS upheld that ruling, would that have been legislating from the bench too? Maybe not since you would have approved.

What if SCOTUS ruled that marriage was a matter for the states to decied and turned it back to them? In each of these senerios , case law-or binding precidents are being set that carry the force of law . Again call it what you like, but if you are going to rail against legislating from the bench, consider this- what-exactly- can the court do that effects the way the constitution and the law is applied that is not legislating from the bench.

I believe that you said awhile back that you were "thrilled" when New Yourk state legislated same sex marriage. Thrilled? Really? Would you have us believe that you care so much as to be thrilled, but at the same time, be willing to let gays in many other states wait decades longer for equality, if it fact it would ever happen ? SCOTUS has a role in upholding the constitution and when states violate it, SCOTUS must step in.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Legislative action means states imposed this atrocity on the people whether they liked it or not.

Now it is the law which should not mean stripping the freedom and rights from everyone else.

Please list the "freedoms and rights" that have been stripped from everyone else as the result of same ex marriage.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Meh let them be pretend married if they want

 

[WorldWatcher]

A homosexual may choose to not engage in homosexual acts. A black person cannot choose not to engsge in being black. The courts are clearly wrong. Which does not mean that the law need not be complied with. Obey the law, THEN exact the price.

Mildred Jeter could clearly choose to marry Richard Loving. Therefore interracial marriage is a behavior.


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

and changes were made to that via legislation and changing views. We also had to have a civil fucking war to get over the blacks as property thing. The courts enforce the constitution, not whatever they feel is just.

Marty simply rejects the authority of Article III.

Nope. I just think the Courts have overstepped their bounds.

That is rejecting the authority of Article III, Marty.

no, it isn't. its saying that they are overreaching their article III powers by legislating from the bench.

Legislating from the bench" Just words that both sides use to decry decisions that they don't like. Call it what you want .The fact is that what is also called case law or court made law is an important and rcognized part of constitutional law .

Courts make decisions on matters of law, and on finding of facts.Higher courts uphold or overturn lowe cour decisions. Is every case in which they overturn a decision legislating from the bench and is it always wrong to do so? If not when may they legitimatly overturn a decision?

If the appeals court had ruled that the ban on same sex marriage was unconstitutional, and SCOTUS upheld that ruling, would that have been legislating from the bench too? Maybe not since you would have approved.

What if SCOTUS ruled that marriage was a matter for the states to decied and turned it back to them? In each of these senerios , case law-or binding precidents are being set that carry the force of law . Again call it what you like, but if you are going to rail against legislating from the bench, consider this- what-exactly- can the court do that effects the way the constitution and the law is applied that is not legislating from the bench.

I believe that you said awhile back that you were "thrilled" when New Yourk state legislated same sex marriage. Thrilled? Really? Would you have us believe that you care so much as to be thrilled, but at the same time, be willing to let gays in many other states wait decades longer for equality, if it fact it would ever happen ? SCOTUS has a role in upholding the constitution and when states violate it, SCOTUS must step in.

Yes, i supported changing the marriage law via legislative action. What I cannot support is Justices who think up bullshit to get what they want. I am a strict constructionist, and by that viewpoint SSM is something to be handled via the States. The best the feds can do is force all States to recognize any marriage license from any other State, the same they do now.

Wishful thinking is what got us Plessey, and that lead to decades of discrimination. Wishful thinking got us Roe, and decades later we are still fighting over it.

 

[bodecea]

Melissa was reminded that as a Christian, she should not engage in sinful acts. She thought better of her conduct.

After her husband slapped her around for about an hour, I'm sure she did.

Christians are too peaceful. They need to obey the law, to the exact provisions of the law, then make pursuit of that lawful right so painful, no one wants to do it. This might well involve a published protest with the personal information of the couple disseminated all over the country.

Again, this is what Mr. Wifebeater did, and its' why he paid a huge fine.

Why Westboro hasn't started protesting at gay weddings is a disgraceful omission. Maybe all they need is a little encouragement.

Mostly because the Westboro freaks are trying to incite lawsuits. It's why they do things that will get their asses kicked so they get sued.

And yet you have no more proof that this man beats his wife than I proof that you beat yours. Since you immediately go to wife beating first thing, it is a subject close to you.

Homosexuals are proving over and over that for all their real faults, islam might be on to something in throwing these compulsive obsessives off rooftops.

How was the March?