SCOTUS divided over SSM

[PaintMyHouse]

Well of course they are.

Duh.

Very telling that some believe equal rights, as guaranteed by our constitution is "something radical".

Straights have changed the definition of marriage many times. Are you phobes okay with that?

The real question here is whether homosexuality is a normal human condition. The marriage issue is just a dodge of the real issue.

Society as a whole should decide this, not 9 old farts in black robes.

My problem with that is the "people" weren't the ones elected to represent me. Not sure "majority rule" is a good idea.

We don't have mob-rule here folks. We are not a democracy, which the Founders hated, for good reason.

 

[Pop23]

They will decide they cannot dictate social policy to all the states and overturn 1000 years of western tradition.

"We've always discriminated against this group" is the worst excuse there is. And one of the Justices rightly pointed out the same argument was used to defend discrimination against blacks.

Same bullshit, different decade.

Blacks don't choosr to be black, but according to Bruce Jenner, he/she chose to be gay.

Huge difference

Doesn't change the fact that he was equal before the law as a male, and will be as a female. This is about equality, not gender, genitals, or sexual orientation.

You will need to shorten that bull up a bit to fit it on a bumper sticker.

 

[danielpalos]

It may beg the question of indulgence fees or sin fees, depending on ideology.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They will decide they cannot dictate social policy to all the states and overturn 1000 years of western tradition.

"We've always discriminated against this group" is the worst excuse there is. And one of the Justices rightly pointed out the same argument was used to defend discrimination against blacks.

Same bullshit, different decade.

Blacks don't choosr to be black, but according to Bruce Jenner, he/she chose to be gay.

Huge difference

Doesn't change the fact that he was equal before the law as a male, and will be as a female. This is about equality, not gender, genitals, or sexual orientation.

You will need to shorten that bull up a bit to fit it on a bumper sticker.

No bull in there. A contract between two adults is just that. It matters not a damn that it goes against tradition, many things here do.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Gays are not Negroes from 1960. 'nuff said.

It shames me to hear that you are a "Jew".

Real Jews don't spew racism. You once also called our President the "Head ****** in Chief".

And your inability to stay on topic in any meaningful way tells us that either you have Alzheimers or your diapers are full -or both.

 

[Skylar]

It will go 6-3 in favor

Wait a minute. Wasn't Kagan recused from this argument, or did she not recuse herself?

Perhaps I read something erroneously in the last days.

I was busy writing a small book somewhere else.

she should recuse because she officiated a gay wedding, but she hasn't. She clearly has a conflict of interest.

The fact that she's gay herself would be enough for recusal.

As long as those who have entered into a traditional marriage also recused themselves.

 

[Statistikhengst]

If the SCOTUS doesn't support the gays then what? You can't sue the SCOTUS.

You think a cake not being baked was bad. Just wait if they refuse to hear this one

OMG omg omg omg omg. it will be tens time as ugly as all the rest of their Faux outrages

Hello? They ARE hearing this one. Aren't you paying attention? Isn't that why you were thrown out of the SCOTUS chambers yesterday?

 

[Skylar]

It will go 6-3 in favor

Wait a minute. Wasn't Kagan recused from this argument, or did she not recuse herself?

Perhaps I read something erroneously in the last days.

I was busy writing a small book somewhere else.

she should recuse because she officiated a gay wedding, but she hasn't. She clearly has a conflict of interest.

How is that a conflict of interest? The State she performed the marriage had voted in same sex marriage. You can't demonstrate a 'conflict of interest' with same sex marriage bans when no such bans exist.

Plus, Kagan didn't benefit personally from officiating the wedding. Killing your claims again.

 

[BluesLegend]

There's no logical reason to have same sex marriage. Genders matter. So homophobia is now defined as fear of marriage destruction? You have a unique dictionary.

Yes there is, two loving members of the same sex want to get married, yes, genders do matter, when it comes to fucking, what does it matter there? Marriage destruction? LOL. Do you think two gay men getting married destroys marriage? You must have a shitty marriage then.

I have no issues with your homosexual pleasure seeking, rich lifestyle. I do not have issues for homosexuals getting into legally binding contracts but do not called it marriage. That's where the issues come when you try to destroy families to fade the lines between normal people and pleasure seeking homosexuals.

How is allowing gays access to marriage destroying families? Specifically.

That isn't what gays are after.

I am not surprised you can't offer specifics on how gays getting married are destroying families.

What are they really after? Enlighten me.

Don't listen to what gays are saying, observe militant gay's actions that will tell you all you need to know.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Well of course they are.

Duh.

Very telling that some believe equal rights, as guaranteed by our constitution is "something radical".

Straights have changed the definition of marriage many times. Are you phobes okay with that?

The real question here is whether homosexuality is a normal human condition. The marriage issue is just a dodge of the real issue.

Society as a whole should decide this, not 9 old farts in black robes.

My problem with that is the "people" weren't the ones elected to represent me. Not sure "majority rule" is a good idea.

Ah, I see.

Well, if a Republic via indirect representative Democracy is not your thing, there are some really nice totalitarian countries you can go to!!

 

[BluesLegend]

Funny that the phony christians don't have the same concern for the children of straight couples.

Why do they hold gays up to a much higher standard than they do gays?

If they keep this up, they might even start making threads about beating kids being the best way to parent or something silly like that.

Why are you picking on that black mother in Baltimore?

 

[Skylar]

Well of course they are.

Duh.

Very telling that some believe equal rights, as guaranteed by our constitution is "something radical".

Straights have changed the definition of marriage many times. Are you phobes okay with that?

The real question here is whether homosexuality is a normal human condition.

You may want to take a look at the questions the courts are actually answering in Obergefell. Because that's not it.

 

[mdk]

Yes there is, two loving members of the same sex want to get married, yes, genders do matter, when it comes to fucking, what does it matter there? Marriage destruction? LOL. Do you think two gay men getting married destroys marriage? You must have a shitty marriage then.

I have no issues with your homosexual pleasure seeking, rich lifestyle. I do not have issues for homosexuals getting into legally binding contracts but do not called it marriage. That's where the issues come when you try to destroy families to fade the lines between normal people and pleasure seeking homosexuals.

How is allowing gays access to marriage destroying families? Specifically.

That isn't what gays are after.

I am not surprised you can't offer specifics on how gays getting married are destroying families.

What are they really after? Enlighten me.

Don't listen to what gays are saying, observe militant gay's actions that will tell you all you need to know.

As I suspected you got nothing.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Don't listen to what gays are saying, observe militant gay's actions that will tell you all you need to know.

 

[BluesLegend]

I have no issues with your homosexual pleasure seeking, rich lifestyle. I do not have issues for homosexuals getting into legally binding contracts but do not called it marriage. That's where the issues come when you try to destroy families to fade the lines between normal people and pleasure seeking homosexuals.

How is allowing gays access to marriage destroying families? Specifically.

That isn't what gays are after.

I am not surprised you can't offer specifics on how gays getting married are destroying families.

What are they really after? Enlighten me.

Don't listen to what gays are saying, observe militant gay's actions that will tell you all you need to know.

As I suspected you got nothing.

Don't get huffy with me, I'm not a SCOTUS justice. I will laugh and mock gays if the SCOTUS swats down their over reach.

 

[BluesLegend]

Don't listen to what gays are saying, observe militant gay's actions that will tell you all you need to know.

I have often thought you resembled a cartoon character.

 

[mdk]

How is allowing gays access to marriage destroying families? Specifically.

That isn't what gays are after.

I am not surprised you can't offer specifics on how gays getting married are destroying families.

What are they really after? Enlighten me.

Don't listen to what gays are saying, observe militant gay's actions that will tell you all you need to know.

As I suspected you got nothing.

Don't get huffy with me, I'm not a SCOTUS justice. I will laugh and mock gays if the SCOTUS swats down their over reach.

There is nothing to get huffy about considering you have offered nothing. I am sure if the SCOTUS rules against your position you will be mocked and laughed at as well.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Don't listen to what gays are saying, observe militant gay's actions that will tell you all you need to know.

I have often thought you resembled a cartoon character.

You called?

 

[paperview]

How is allowing gays access to marriage destroying families? Specifically.

That isn't what gays are after.

I am not surprised you can't offer specifics on how gays getting married are destroying families.

What are they really after? Enlighten me.

Don't listen to what gays are saying, observe militant gay's actions that will tell you all you need to know.

As I suspected you got nothing.

Don't get huffy with me, I'm not a SCOTUS justice. I will laugh and mock gays if the SCOTUS swats down their over reach.

And you'll run out and get gay married if they don't.

 

[The Rabbi]

That isn't what gays are after.

I am not surprised you can't offer specifics on how gays getting married are destroying families.

What are they really after? Enlighten me.

Don't listen to what gays are saying, observe militant gay's actions that will tell you all you need to know.

As I suspected you got nothing.

Don't get huffy with me, I'm not a SCOTUS justice. I will laugh and mock gays if the SCOTUS swats down their over reach.

And you'll run out and get gay married if they don't.

Should we put you on suicide watch in case the Supreme Court freaks out and decides to uphold the Constitution?