Religious Right Wing Bigots Still Obsessing About Marriage-Get a Life!

[Unkotare]

 

[Unkotare]

Is this argument still going on? Didn't the Supreme Court settle this for all practical purposes?

Not really. There is a question as to whether or not the decision should be reversed or not.......

What case or cases are pending or even making their way up to the SC?

 

[Polishprince]

Is this argument still going on? Didn't the Supreme Court settle this for all practical purposes?

Not really. There is a question as to whether or not the decision should be reversed or not.......

What case or cases are pending or even making their way up to the SC?

You never know for sure what case is going to make it to the court before it does. The Colorado baker case could be a real opening for the Court to outlaw Gay Marriage nationwide, if it made it to the Supreme Court. But there are other cases involving gay nuptials always bubbling up.

 

[Unkotare]

Is this argument still going on? Didn't the Supreme Court settle this for all practical purposes?

Not really. There is a question as to whether or not the decision should be reversed or not.......

What case or cases are pending or even making their way up to the SC?

You never know for sure what case is going to make it to the court before it does. ......

You know if there are none in the lower courts.

 

[Unkotare]

.... The Colorado baker case could be a real opening for the Court to outlaw Gay Marriage nationwide, if it made it to the Supreme Court. .....

That case was not about gay marriage.

 

[Polishprince]

.... The Colorado baker case could be a real opening for the Court to outlaw Gay Marriage nationwide, if it made it to the Supreme Court. .....

That case was not about gay marriage.

Sure it is, the Colorado baker refused to bake a cake to celebrate Gay Marriage.

The court could easily decide that Gay Marriage is unconstitutional

 

[Unkotare]

.... The Colorado baker case could be a real opening for the Court to outlaw Gay Marriage nationwide, if it made it to the Supreme Court. .....

That case was not about gay marriage.

Sure it is, ........

It absolutely was not. Find something from the court records stating that as fact.

 

[rightwinger]

Not for you to say. Not for this Brown to say. There is too wide a variety of people in the world who are Christians. You have to be much more specific than just referring to some sort of "attack on Christianity." Shoot. I used to work with a gay guy who is Christian and has taught Sunday school. Buttigieg was married in church. You are free to practice your own form of Christianity as long as you don't interfere with others.

This is a laugh, as libs attack leading ministers who oppose abominations like Homosexual Marriage or Cutting and Running, as "unchristian". President Trump has been attacked by libs as not a True Christian as well.

What's good for the good is good for the gander

I don't know who a "lib" actually is. These "ministers" chose to enter the political arena in an aggressive and highly insulting attempt to interfere with the public/civil rights of a whole group of people, of all faiths and none; a group of people defined by their sexual orientation rather than their religious views. Are you saying that people should not oppose them when these ministers seek to justify themselves by reference to their particular faith? How would you handle this sort of "asymmetrical" situation?

We are not all members of the same faith. And these people do not understand that religion is not a competitive sport.

That's one way to spin it.

But ministers would point out that it is a theological fact that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the garden , not Adam and Steve, and He just doesn't approve of homosexuality. I guess you can spin taking it in the ass as a "civil right", but that has not been the position of Christian theologians since antiquity

Adam was a homo

Your view that Adam took it in the ass is at odds with a lot of theological opinions you know.

Adam was known to patronize gay bars

 

[rightwinger]

.... The Colorado baker case could be a real opening for the Court to outlaw Gay Marriage nationwide, if it made it to the Supreme Court. .....

That case was not about gay marriage.

Sure it is, the Colorado baker refused to bake a cake to celebrate Gay Marriage.

The court could easily decide that Gay Marriage is unconstitutional

Too late now

 

[Polishprince]

.... The Colorado baker case could be a real opening for the Court to outlaw Gay Marriage nationwide, if it made it to the Supreme Court. .....

That case was not about gay marriage.

Sure it is, the Colorado baker refused to bake a cake to celebrate Gay Marriage.

The court could easily decide that Gay Marriage is unconstitutional

Too late now

Its never too late to reverse injustices.

 

[Polishprince]

This is a laugh, as libs attack leading ministers who oppose abominations like Homosexual Marriage or Cutting and Running, as "unchristian". President Trump has been attacked by libs as not a True Christian as well.

What's good for the good is good for the gander

I don't know who a "lib" actually is. These "ministers" chose to enter the political arena in an aggressive and highly insulting attempt to interfere with the public/civil rights of a whole group of people, of all faiths and none; a group of people defined by their sexual orientation rather than their religious views. Are you saying that people should not oppose them when these ministers seek to justify themselves by reference to their particular faith? How would you handle this sort of "asymmetrical" situation?

We are not all members of the same faith. And these people do not understand that religion is not a competitive sport.

That's one way to spin it.

But ministers would point out that it is a theological fact that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the garden , not Adam and Steve, and He just doesn't approve of homosexuality. I guess you can spin taking it in the ass as a "civil right", but that has not been the position of Christian theologians since antiquity

Adam was a homo

Your view that Adam took it in the ass is at odds with a lot of theological opinions you know.

Adam was known to patronize gay bars

The first known Gay Communities were established the cities of Sodom as well as in Gomorrah. Gay bars were unknown in Adam's time. The people on the plain were so enamored with butt sex that they named their city after the practice, calling their city "Sodom" because of their love of sodomy.

 

[rightwinger]

.... The Colorado baker case could be a real opening for the Court to outlaw Gay Marriage nationwide, if it made it to the Supreme Court. .....

That case was not about gay marriage.

Sure it is, the Colorado baker refused to bake a cake to celebrate Gay Marriage.

The court could easily decide that Gay Marriage is unconstitutional

Too late now

Its never too late to reverse injustices.

We already did, we are not going back to listening to the bigots

 

[Erinwltr]

This is a laugh, as libs attack leading ministers who oppose abominations like Homosexual Marriage or Cutting and Running, as "unchristian". President Trump has been attacked by libs as not a True Christian as well.

What's good for the good is good for the gander

I don't know who a "lib" actually is. These "ministers" chose to enter the political arena in an aggressive and highly insulting attempt to interfere with the public/civil rights of a whole group of people, of all faiths and none; a group of people defined by their sexual orientation rather than their religious views. Are you saying that people should not oppose them when these ministers seek to justify themselves by reference to their particular faith? How would you handle this sort of "asymmetrical" situation?

We are not all members of the same faith. And these people do not understand that religion is not a competitive sport.

That's one way to spin it.

But ministers would point out that it is a theological fact that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the garden , not Adam and Steve, and He just doesn't approve of homosexuality. I guess you can spin taking it in the ass as a "civil right", but that has not been the position of Christian theologians since antiquity

Adam was a homo

Your view that Adam took it in the ass is at odds with a lot of theological opinions you know.

Adam was known to patronize gay bars

Yeah, Adam was a little nelly queen bottom hustler.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't know who a "lib" actually is. These "ministers" chose to enter the political arena in an aggressive and highly insulting attempt to interfere with the public/civil rights of a whole group of people, of all faiths and none; a group of people defined by their sexual orientation rather than their religious views. Are you saying that people should not oppose them when these ministers seek to justify themselves by reference to their particular faith? How would you handle this sort of "asymmetrical" situation?

We are not all members of the same faith. And these people do not understand that religion is not a competitive sport.

That's one way to spin it.

But ministers would point out that it is a theological fact that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the garden , not Adam and Steve, and He just doesn't approve of homosexuality. I guess you can spin taking it in the ass as a "civil right", but that has not been the position of Christian theologians since antiquity

Adam was a homo

Your view that Adam took it in the ass is at odds with a lot of theological opinions you know.

Adam was known to patronize gay bars

The first known Gay Communities were established the cities of Sodom as well as in Gomorrah. Gay bars were unknown in Adam's time. The people on the plain were so enamored with butt sex that they named their city after the practice, calling their city "Sodom" because of their love of sodomy.

Adam was known to listen to broadway musicals and wear frilly clothes
His marriage to Eve was just for show

 

[Lysistrata]

Is this argument still going on? Didn't the Supreme Court settle this for all practical purposes?

Not really. There is a question as to whether or not the decision should be reversed or not.......

What case or cases are pending or even making their way up to the SC?

You never know for sure what case is going to make it to the court before it does. The Colorado baker case could be a real opening for the Court to outlaw Gay Marriage nationwide, if it made it to the Supreme Court. But there are other cases involving gay nuptials always bubbling up.

Why would anyone outlaw same-sex marriage? BTW: what's it to you? Even if you are unhappy in your own marriage, do you think that you would be happier if other people could not get married?

 

[Polishprince]

Is this argument still going on? Didn't the Supreme Court settle this for all practical purposes?

Not really. There is a question as to whether or not the decision should be reversed or not.......

What case or cases are pending or even making their way up to the SC?

You never know for sure what case is going to make it to the court before it does. The Colorado baker case could be a real opening for the Court to outlaw Gay Marriage nationwide, if it made it to the Supreme Court. But there are other cases involving gay nuptials always bubbling up.

Why would anyone outlaw same-sex marriage? BTW: what's it to you? Even if you are unhappy in your own marriage, do you think that you would be happier if other people could not get married?

The problem with glorifying Gay Marriage is what would happen if it became universal?

Normative children really are losing their role models and can be a lot more easily recruited into the gay lifestyle.

 

[Blues Man]

I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage. Meet Brian Brown of the National Organization for (Straight ) Marriage who is obsessing about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that he can get marriage equality reversed:

Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch

You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:

In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”

In addition:

Brown vowed to get marriage back before the U.S. Supreme Court so that Trump-nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh can, with the Court’s other conservatives, reverse the Court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling. And, without any apparent self-awareness of his glaring inconsistency, Brown accused Buttigieg of wanting to use “the force of law to impose his views on every American, especially those who disagree with him.” Which, of course, is exactly what Brown is trying to with his efforts to get rid of marriage equality.

What the hell is wrong with these people. The fact that they are so threatened by same sex marriage has to make me wonder what their marriage is like. In any case, they have one major and probably insurmountable problem in getting the case back to SCOTUS. Someone with statding- meaning someone who can show that they have been personally effected in a negative way by same sex marriage -must bring a case before a court. Who would that be? No one who I can think of. The fact is that no one is harmed by same sex marriage.

The only other way that the issue could get back into the federal courts is if a state stupidly passed a new ban on same sex marriage. Bujt that would not get far, since the court would be obligated to shoot it down based on the Obergefell precedent and any appeals court would have to do the same thing.

If it were then appealed to SCOTUS , they of course would have the option of not even taking the case and my guess is that is what would happen. It is too much of a hot potato.

However, if they did take the case, consider that Roberts, although a conservative who dissented in Obergefell is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court. He has an interest in not allowing the court to drift further right. He is aware of the fact that never in history has a right that has been established been taken away. He may well be the new swing voter on social issues .

So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're at it .

I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed out of the closet and live a normal life.
I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed to see their sick friends in the hospital, so a civil union was created.
I remember back in the day when Homosexuals were not allowed to be married and a few years later were allowed to be married.
It is never enough for faggots, because faggots can never be happy, and must FORCE upon the rest of US their immoral lifestyles and we must accept them as normal or be brow beaten into submission. And little do the faggots realize that the more they push, the more the normal people hate them. I almost wish every day that Islam in America will treat the faggots the same way they treat them in the middle east. Guess who the faggots will be begging to save them?

View attachment 266175

So other people having the same access to social contracts is forcing you to do what exactly?

 

[Polishprince]

I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage. Meet Brian Brown of the National Organization for (Straight ) Marriage who is obsessing about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that he can get marriage equality reversed:

Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch

You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:

In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”

In addition:

Brown vowed to get marriage back before the U.S. Supreme Court so that Trump-nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh can, with the Court’s other conservatives, reverse the Court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling. And, without any apparent self-awareness of his glaring inconsistency, Brown accused Buttigieg of wanting to use “the force of law to impose his views on every American, especially those who disagree with him.” Which, of course, is exactly what Brown is trying to with his efforts to get rid of marriage equality.

What the hell is wrong with these people. The fact that they are so threatened by same sex marriage has to make me wonder what their marriage is like. In any case, they have one major and probably insurmountable problem in getting the case back to SCOTUS. Someone with statding- meaning someone who can show that they have been personally effected in a negative way by same sex marriage -must bring a case before a court. Who would that be? No one who I can think of. The fact is that no one is harmed by same sex marriage.

The only other way that the issue could get back into the federal courts is if a state stupidly passed a new ban on same sex marriage. Bujt that would not get far, since the court would be obligated to shoot it down based on the Obergefell precedent and any appeals court would have to do the same thing.

If it were then appealed to SCOTUS , they of course would have the option of not even taking the case and my guess is that is what would happen. It is too much of a hot potato.

However, if they did take the case, consider that Roberts, although a conservative who dissented in Obergefell is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court. He has an interest in not allowing the court to drift further right. He is aware of the fact that never in history has a right that has been established been taken away. He may well be the new swing voter on social issues .

So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're at it .

I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed out of the closet and live a normal life.
I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed to see their sick friends in the hospital, so a civil union was created.
I remember back in the day when Homosexuals were not allowed to be married and a few years later were allowed to be married.
It is never enough for faggots, because faggots can never be happy, and must FORCE upon the rest of US their immoral lifestyles and we must accept them as normal or be brow beaten into submission. And little do the faggots realize that the more they push, the more the normal people hate them. I almost wish every day that Islam in America will treat the faggots the same way they treat them in the middle east. Guess who the faggots will be begging to save them?

View attachment 266175

So other people having the same access to social contracts is forcing you to do what exactly?

If homosexuals would call themselves "bum buddies" instead of spouses or husbands, it would make the difference between the Sexual Preferences clearer for young people to discern the difference

 

[Blues Man]

I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage. Meet Brian Brown of the National Organization for (Straight ) Marriage who is obsessing about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that he can get marriage equality reversed:

Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch

You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:

In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”

In addition:

Brown vowed to get marriage back before the U.S. Supreme Court so that Trump-nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh can, with the Court’s other conservatives, reverse the Court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling. And, without any apparent self-awareness of his glaring inconsistency, Brown accused Buttigieg of wanting to use “the force of law to impose his views on every American, especially those who disagree with him.” Which, of course, is exactly what Brown is trying to with his efforts to get rid of marriage equality.

What the hell is wrong with these people. The fact that they are so threatened by same sex marriage has to make me wonder what their marriage is like. In any case, they have one major and probably insurmountable problem in getting the case back to SCOTUS. Someone with statding- meaning someone who can show that they have been personally effected in a negative way by same sex marriage -must bring a case before a court. Who would that be? No one who I can think of. The fact is that no one is harmed by same sex marriage.

The only other way that the issue could get back into the federal courts is if a state stupidly passed a new ban on same sex marriage. Bujt that would not get far, since the court would be obligated to shoot it down based on the Obergefell precedent and any appeals court would have to do the same thing.

If it were then appealed to SCOTUS , they of course would have the option of not even taking the case and my guess is that is what would happen. It is too much of a hot potato.

However, if they did take the case, consider that Roberts, although a conservative who dissented in Obergefell is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court. He has an interest in not allowing the court to drift further right. He is aware of the fact that never in history has a right that has been established been taken away. He may well be the new swing voter on social issues .

So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're at it .

I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed out of the closet and live a normal life.
I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed to see their sick friends in the hospital, so a civil union was created.
I remember back in the day when Homosexuals were not allowed to be married and a few years later were allowed to be married.
It is never enough for faggots, because faggots can never be happy, and must FORCE upon the rest of US their immoral lifestyles and we must accept them as normal or be brow beaten into submission. And little do the faggots realize that the more they push, the more the normal people hate them. I almost wish every day that Islam in America will treat the faggots the same way they treat them in the middle east. Guess who the faggots will be begging to save them?

View attachment 266175

So other people having the same access to social contracts is forcing you to do what exactly?

If homosexuals would call themselves "bum buddies" instead of spouses or husbands, it would make the difference between the Sexual Preferences clearer for young people to discern the difference

Once kids know about sex the difference is quite clear.

 

[Polishprince]

I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage. Meet Brian Brown of the National Organization for (Straight ) Marriage who is obsessing about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that he can get marriage equality reversed:

Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch

You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:

In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”

In addition:

Brown vowed to get marriage back before the U.S. Supreme Court so that Trump-nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh can, with the Court’s other conservatives, reverse the Court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling. And, without any apparent self-awareness of his glaring inconsistency, Brown accused Buttigieg of wanting to use “the force of law to impose his views on every American, especially those who disagree with him.” Which, of course, is exactly what Brown is trying to with his efforts to get rid of marriage equality.

What the hell is wrong with these people. The fact that they are so threatened by same sex marriage has to make me wonder what their marriage is like. In any case, they have one major and probably insurmountable problem in getting the case back to SCOTUS. Someone with statding- meaning someone who can show that they have been personally effected in a negative way by same sex marriage -must bring a case before a court. Who would that be? No one who I can think of. The fact is that no one is harmed by same sex marriage.

The only other way that the issue could get back into the federal courts is if a state stupidly passed a new ban on same sex marriage. Bujt that would not get far, since the court would be obligated to shoot it down based on the Obergefell precedent and any appeals court would have to do the same thing.

If it were then appealed to SCOTUS , they of course would have the option of not even taking the case and my guess is that is what would happen. It is too much of a hot potato.

However, if they did take the case, consider that Roberts, although a conservative who dissented in Obergefell is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court. He has an interest in not allowing the court to drift further right. He is aware of the fact that never in history has a right that has been established been taken away. He may well be the new swing voter on social issues .

So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're at it .

I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed out of the closet and live a normal life.
I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed to see their sick friends in the hospital, so a civil union was created.
I remember back in the day when Homosexuals were not allowed to be married and a few years later were allowed to be married.
It is never enough for faggots, because faggots can never be happy, and must FORCE upon the rest of US their immoral lifestyles and we must accept them as normal or be brow beaten into submission. And little do the faggots realize that the more they push, the more the normal people hate them. I almost wish every day that Islam in America will treat the faggots the same way they treat them in the middle east. Guess who the faggots will be begging to save them?

View attachment 266175

So other people having the same access to social contracts is forcing you to do what exactly?

If homosexuals would call themselves "bum buddies" instead of spouses or husbands, it would make the difference between the Sexual Preferences clearer for young people to discern the difference

Once kids know about sex the difference is quite clear.

Young people are pretty confused nowadays, with all the homosexuality they see on TV.

When I was a young kid, my old man gave me a ride to school when it was raining one day. Stopped at a light, there was a guy on the corner with a "bubble" style umbrella- my dad told me "son, that man doesn't pee standing up".

They didn't have gays on TV then, that's the first homo I ever saw.