Oklahoma/Utah 10th Circuit May Lean To State Choice On Gay Marriage

Logically, which way shoudl the US Supreme Court Decide?

  • States get to choose via consensus, except California

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • All states get to choose via consensus but starting now

    Votes: 3 23.1%
  • All states get to choose via consensus but retroactive to nation's founding

    Votes: 4 30.8%
  • Only federal courts can decide if gay marrriage is legal.

    Votes: 4 30.8%
  • Only legislatures can decide if gay marriage is legal

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • Other, see my post

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    13
Little friend, I am on the side that is winning, the side of reason over irrational fear, the side, literally, of God. You are welcome to go down with the ship but that is what you are doing. Your dogma crashed against the rock of reason, and down it went. Even if you are right, and you aren't, it doesn't matter a damn since to most, you're a nutter, just like those who came before you and lost just as big...
In Junior high when a team knew it was losing it would engage as you are doing now. We called it "psyching out the opponent". People resort to it when they know they have a handicap. Yours is called "Harvey Milk's sex life"..
The only person, literally, that such a thing matters to, is you. Society has moved on, and left you behind. I simply wondered when you will cotton to such a thing?

You're beating a dead horse, which you are allowed to do here. It's dead, it no longer matters, like your position, and posts on this matter.
 
Last edited:
Sil is like those that opposed abolition, the child work laws, women's rights, civil rights, and so forth, in that Sil does not understand the Constitution.

Sil doesn't understand that tradition, and her irrational fears, doesn't trump equality.
 
Remember that when the Republican Taliban decides that they've had enough of a certain law, they can gather their white-trash militia and threaten America with guns from behind human shields to get what they want.

It's not called "psyching out your opponent". It's called "being a terrorist".
 
What they did was illegal, and five of them have been taken in and questioned.

How many are actually are in jail right now is not known.

Remember that the Bundyites' actions fall under provisions of the Patriot Act
 
Sil is like those that opposed abolition, the child work laws, women's rights, civil rights, and so forth, in that Sil does not understand the Constitution.

Sil doesn't understand that tradition, and her irrational fears, doesn't trump equality.

Right, equality, women that want to be treated like men and men that want to be treated like women, according to you, treating them as the people they are is mistreating them. Sorry, that's bullshit.
 
Last edited:
Sil is like those that opposed abolition, the child work laws, women's rights, civil rights, and so forth, in that Sil does not understand the Constitution.

Sil doesn't understand that tradition, and her irrational fears, doesn't trump equality.

Right, equality, women that want to be treated like men and men that want to be treated like women, according to you, treading them as the people they are is mistreating them. Sorry, that's bullshit.

df298.jpg
 
Sil doesn't understand that tradition, and her irrational fears, doesn't trump equality.

Right, equality, women that want to be treated like men and men that want to be treated like women, according to you, treading them as the people they are is mistreating them. Sorry, that's bullshit.

df298.jpg

LMAO, did it hurt your pea brain to come up with something related to that typo. Do you need an aspirin?
 
That was a Freudian typo. You spelled it correctly when you wanted to.
 
Sil is like those that opposed abolition, the child work laws, women's rights, civil rights, and so forth, in that Sil does not understand the Constitution.

Sil doesn't understand that tradition, and her irrational fears, doesn't trump equality.

Right, equality, women that want to be treated like men and men that want to be treated like women, according to you, treating them as the people they are is mistreating them. Sorry, that's bullshit.
Bullshit is not understanding what Equal Before the Law means. In this case two consenting adults versus two other consenting adults.
 
Little friend, I am on the side that is winning, the side of reason over irrational fear, the side, literally, of God. You are welcome to go down with the ship but that is what you are doing. Your dogma crashed against the rock of reason, and down it went. Even if you are right, and you aren't, it doesn't matter a damn since to most, you're a nutter, just like those who came before you and lost just as big...
In Junior high when a team knew it was losing it would engage as you are doing now. We called it "psyching out the opponent". People resort to it when they know they have a handicap. Yours is called "Harvey Milk's sex life"..

Harvey Milk died 30 years ago. I'm not sure why you are going on about Harvey Milk.

Here's the thing. Arguements against gay marriage boil down to two premises.

1) My Imaginary Friend in the Sky thinks it's wrong.

2) I think it's Icky (when Dudes do it.)

Neither of these are based on reason.
 
You know, it should be left up to the states. I personally believe in equal treatment under the law, so, let the people decide. Believe it or not, the Affirmative Action case set the precedent. The best way is to let the democratic process take over.
 
You know, it should be left up to the states. I personally believe in equal treatment under the law, so, let the people decide. Believe it or not, the Affirmative Action case set the precedent. The best way is to let the democratic process take over.

Let me know when I get to vote on your rights, after which you won't have any.
 
You know, it should be left up to the states. I personally believe in equal treatment under the law, so, let the people decide. Believe it or not, the Affirmative Action case set the precedent. The best way is to let the democratic process take over.

Translation- "History has passed me by on this issue, but maybe if I live in some backward ass redneck state where we still fly the Confederate Flag like that was ever something to be proud of, we can shut out the rest of hte world for a few more years."

Guy, it isn't a state's rights issue. The "Full Faith and Credit Clause" of the constitution means even your redneck state has to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.
 
You know, it should be left up to the states. I personally believe in equal treatment under the law, so, let the people decide. Believe it or not, the Affirmative Action case set the precedent. The best way is to let the democratic process take over.

Let me know when I get to vote on your rights, after which you won't have any.

i say vote to take away his joystick...
 
I'll buy that, just as soon as my concealed carry license is good in all states and territories. If states can ignore one license they can ignore any they chose.

You're arguing for reciprocity where there is none already. There IS reciprocity with a marriage license is there not? If you marry your underage 1st cousin in Alabama, you're married in California. However, my legal marriage license from California is "good" in fewer than half the states, yours all 50. See where there is not being treated equally under the law?

Actually there are only 18 states and territories that do not recognize my CHL, so you want to try that again? As for being treated equally, you are, you can marry any man you want in any state, just like every other woman.

See, you're off on an unrelated tangent again. A CHL isn't treated the same as a marriage license. Reciprocity isn't dependent upon who your consenting adult life partner is. Imagine if my CHL was good in 15 states because it was issued in CA, but because yours was issued in Mississippi it is only recognized in 2?

I'm married, legally, to a woman. I don't want to marry a man. I'm not in love with a man and I'm never going to be.

Do you know what they said to people that wanted to marry outside their race? Pretty much what you just told me..."marry within your race".
 
Marriage equality is rooted in the 14th Amendment; no state can prevent same-sex marriage.

The 10th may well in favor of the states, 2-1. If so, then it will go to SCOTUS where it looks like Sotomayor has at least a 6 to 3 vote for marriage equality.

If the 10th rules against states denying same sex marriage, the states will appeal to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS will not hear it.

Yet the supremes didn't strike the portion that allowed the states to decide in DOMA, did they?

It was not a question before the court. They can't rule on a case they don't hear. Just wait, patience...it's coming. The question is, which state will it be? For the irony, I like Virginia.
 
You know, it should be left up to the states. I personally believe in equal treatment under the law, so, let the people decide. Believe it or not, the Affirmative Action case set the precedent. The best way is to let the democratic process take over.

So if California decided to ban handguns, you'd be okay with that?
 
Sil is like those that opposed abolition, the child work laws, women's rights, civil rights, and so forth, in that Sil does not understand the Constitution.

Sil doesn't understand that tradition, and her irrational fears, doesn't trump equality.

Right, equality, women that want to be treated like men and men that want to be treated like women, according to you, treating them as the people they are is mistreating them. Sorry, that's bullshit.

What? That doesn't make any sense. You think gay people want to be "treated" like the opposite gender than what they are? What does it mean to you to treat a woman like a man or a man like a woman? See, under the law there should be no difference in the way I'm "treated" regardless of gender.
 
You know, it should be left up to the states. I personally believe in equal treatment under the law, so, let the people decide. Believe it or not, the Affirmative Action case set the precedent. The best way is to let the democratic process take over.

Uh no....removing aa isn't the same as banning gay marriage. You can't vote to strip people of a right. That's unconstitutional. This is 101 stuff.
 

Forum List

Back
Top