SCOTUS divided over SSM

[mdk]

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.

Kagan officiated a same-sex marriage in Maryland. The duly-elected legislators of the state passed same sex marriage and the two questions before the court will have no effect on same-sex couples getting married in the Maryland. There is no conflict of interest. The only reason you and others want her to recuse herself is b/c you do not believe she is going to vote the way you want her to vote.

 

[BluesLegend]

If the SCOTUS doesn't support the gays then what? You can't sue the SCOTUS. Gays over reach is going to bite them in the ass.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Kagan officiated a same-sex marriage in Maryland. The duly-elected legislators of the state passed same sex marriage and the two questions before the court will have no effect on same-sex couples getting married in the Maryland. There is no conflict of interest. The only reason you and others want her to reuse herself is b/c you do not believe she is going to vote the way you want her to vote.

Agreed. Now if she officiated one in a State that had it imposed by judicial fiat, there might be cause, might be, because even then I wouldn't be sure.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"When citizens of a" Republic "have a difference of opinion" about Constitutional issue, the Courts decide.

 

[Katzndogz]

Since we already have animal brothels in the United States all perverts need do is legalize them. Which will happen. After all if drugs can be legalized and perverts can be legalized the sky is the limit.

VICE United States The Definitive Guide to Enlightening Information

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Millennials are overwhelmingly contemptuous of the discrimination against marriage equality. They don't get the anger and hate, and they will vote against it next year.

 

[Stephanie]

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

 

[JakeStarkey]

Since we already have animal brothels in the United States all perverts need do is legalize them. Which will happen. After all if drugs can be legalized and perverts can be legalized the sky is the limit.

VICE United States The Definitive Guide to Enlightening Information

No, it won't, and the far right aficionados of the action will have to keep going to Denmark.

 

[rightwinger]

I would be enormously surprised if these justices did not uphold same sex marriage. Then overturn incest laws. Then lower the age of consent to ten. Then issue business licenses for animal brothels like was done in Germany.

Slippery Slope!

 

[defcon4]

Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)

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.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

Kagan officiated a same-sex marriage in Maryland. The duly-elected legislators of the state passed same sex marriage and the two questions before the court will have no effect on same-sex couples getting married in the Maryland. There is no conflict of interest. The only reason you and others want her to reuse herself is b/c you do not believe she is going to vote the way you want her to vote.

We know how she's going to vote. Her officiating at a same sex marriage is an indication that her mind is made up. It would not be surprising to see the decision of the court unanimous.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"you try to destroy families to fade the lines between normal people and pleasure seeking homosexuals" is complete bunkum.

 

[BluesLegend]

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

Gays have been acting a fool, mocking their opponents, intentionally targeting Christians looking for a payday, they are overdue for a beat down.

 

[mdk]

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.

Kagan officiated a same-sex marriage in Maryland. The duly-elected legislators of the state passed same sex marriage and the two questions before the court will have no effect on same-sex couples getting married in the Maryland. There is no conflict of interest. The only reason you and others want her to reuse herself is b/c you do not believe she is going to vote the way you want her to vote.

We know how she's going to vote. Her officiating at a same sex marriage is an indication that her mind is made up. It would not be surprising to see the decision of the court unanimous.

And we know how Scalia is going to vote as well. Does that mean he should recuse himself as well? Not hardly.

 

[konradv]

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

I don't see the problem. Should an NRA member recuse themselves from discussions on gun control? You'd be screaming if they had to. Thurgood Marshall was a civil rights lawyer. Did he have to recuse himself when civil rights measures came before the court? Justices have opinions and biases acquired during their lives. They're human. It's up to the lawyers presenting the case to try and change their minds.

 

[jillian]

Looks like SCOTUS ruling in favor of SSM isn't the lock the homos led everyone to believe. Roberts nailed it. Kennedy is all over the map, he's obviously conflicted.

Gay Marriage Arguments Divide Supreme Court Justices

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that Ms. Bonauto was asking the court to do something radical.

“You’re not seeking to join the institution,” he said. “You’re seeking to change what the institution is.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html

Who on earth ever said Scalia and his brother wackos we're going to rule in favor of civil rights?

I'm always amazed you claim to be a lawyer. when you go off and say dumb things like this.

this isn't a CIVIL rights case and you know it. How you of all people can go around and distort and mislead people in this manner is shameful. You took an oath or was that a lie too?

I'm always amazed that you're too stupid to understand that's what I do for a living. But then again, I'm always amazed hat anyone as stupid as you are is able to tie your own shoes.

 

[mdk]

Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)

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.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Homophobes are gonna be homophobes. (People in this thread)

the thread is about the division in the SC. I don't really think that anyone posting in this thread is afraid of gays.

but what is quite clear is that you fear open equal debate. Because when its open and equal you always lose, your left wing bullshit always loses, your marxist collectivist bullshit always loses. In short, you are a loser.

Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)

the reason is that a majority of human beings on planet earth consider it wrong. no other reason is required.

A majority believe in invisible, magic beings flying around their heads, living on clouds or sitting in an eternal fire.

Pretty stupid but true.

But hey, that's why we have the US Constitution.

 

[Anathema]

Not true.

How many times do I need to post this before the phobes get it?

Wow. How many times has the SCOTUS/Legislature already made mistakes on marriage. Quite a few, according to that image..... 1900, 1965, 1975, 1981, 1993. That's pretty pathetic.

 

[BluesLegend]

Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)

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.