SCOTUS divided over SSM

[Pop23]

It's a states issue, the court and the feds will step back from this in the end. Everyone has the right to marry. No one is being discriminated against. If you want the right to marry the same sex you need to convince people in your state that you're right and hold a vote. SSM supporters just don't want to do the hard work. They want daddy federal government to do it for them but that is unconstitutional. PERIOD.

Wrong.

The states have no authority to violate the civil rights of the American citizens who reside within the states; one does not forfeit his civil rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, nor are one's civil rights subject to 'majority rule.'

Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that, where as citizens of the United States one's inalienable rights are immune from attack by the states.

In this case the states sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, absent objective, documented evidence in support, and absent a proper legislative end – indeed, such measures were enacted only to disadvantage gay Americans based solely on who they are, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Marriage is not a civil right. And everyone can marry a member of the opposite sex. If that doesn't work for you because you love a member of your own sex then there are civil unions. If that ain't good enough too bad! no one gets everything they want in life. There is always give and take in everything. Grow up baby.

There was a time everyone could marry someone of their own race but that didn't protect the anti-miscegenation laws.

Before and after it was 1 male to 1 female.

 

[Pop23]

It's a states issue, the court and the feds will step back from this in the end. Everyone has the right to marry. No one is being discriminated against. If you want the right to marry the same sex you need to convince people in your state that you're right and hold a vote. SSM supporters just don't want to do the hard work. They want daddy federal government to do it for them but that is unconstitutional. PERIOD.

Wrong.

The states have no authority to violate the civil rights of the American citizens who reside within the states; one does not forfeit his civil rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, nor are one's civil rights subject to 'majority rule.'

Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that, where as citizens of the United States one's inalienable rights are immune from attack by the states.

In this case the states sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, absent objective, documented evidence in support, and absent a proper legislative end – indeed, such measures were enacted only to disadvantage gay Americans based solely on who they are, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Homosexuals have every right to marry that heterosexuals do. There is no discrimination at all. There has never been an application for a marriage license that asks you to list sexual preference.
Ergo it is not a 14thA issue at all. It is a 10thA issue. And the 10thA is very clear that such matters are for states to settle.

Says you. 44 of 46 federal courts have found that same sex marriage bans do discriminate against gays. As there's no reason for same sex marriage bans to exist. The restrictions are arbitrary and satisfy no requirement of a marriage. They serve no compelling state interest. They satisfy no valid legislative end. They don't even have a good reason.

And like interracial marriage bans before them, arbitrary discrimination in marriage isn't going to stand. And before you begin your song and dance about how race has nothing to do with it, the USSC has cited race based discrimination cases 4 times between Windsor v. US and Romer v. Evans when describing why you can't discriminate against gays.

Fathers marrying Sons is also arbitrary.

 

[Skylar]

It's a states issue, the court and the feds will step back from this in the end. Everyone has the right to marry. No one is being discriminated against. If you want the right to marry the same sex you need to convince people in your state that you're right and hold a vote. SSM supporters just don't want to do the hard work. They want daddy federal government to do it for them but that is unconstitutional. PERIOD.

Wrong.

The states have no authority to violate the civil rights of the American citizens who reside within the states; one does not forfeit his civil rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, nor are one's civil rights subject to 'majority rule.'

Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that, where as citizens of the United States one's inalienable rights are immune from attack by the states.

In this case the states sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, absent objective, documented evidence in support, and absent a proper legislative end – indeed, such measures were enacted only to disadvantage gay Americans based solely on who they are, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Marriage is not a civil right. And everyone can marry a member of the opposite sex. If that doesn't work for you because you love a member of your own sex then there are civil unions. If that ain't good enough too bad! no one gets everything they want in life. There is always give and take in everything. Grow up baby.

There was a time everyone could marry someone of their own race but that didn't protect the anti-miscegenation laws.

Before and after it was 1 male to 1 female.

And after same sex marriage bans are eliminated, it will be one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.

You need a valid reason for such restrictions to exist. And there are none in same sex marriage bans.

 

[Skylar]

It's a states issue, the court and the feds will step back from this in the end. Everyone has the right to marry. No one is being discriminated against. If you want the right to marry the same sex you need to convince people in your state that you're right and hold a vote. SSM supporters just don't want to do the hard work. They want daddy federal government to do it for them but that is unconstitutional. PERIOD.

Wrong.

The states have no authority to violate the civil rights of the American citizens who reside within the states; one does not forfeit his civil rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, nor are one's civil rights subject to 'majority rule.'

Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that, where as citizens of the United States one's inalienable rights are immune from attack by the states.

In this case the states sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, absent objective, documented evidence in support, and absent a proper legislative end – indeed, such measures were enacted only to disadvantage gay Americans based solely on who they are, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Homosexuals have every right to marry that heterosexuals do. There is no discrimination at all. There has never been an application for a marriage license that asks you to list sexual preference.
Ergo it is not a 14thA issue at all. It is a 10thA issue. And the 10thA is very clear that such matters are for states to settle.

Says you. 44 of 46 federal courts have found that same sex marriage bans do discriminate against gays. As there's no reason for same sex marriage bans to exist. The restrictions are arbitrary and satisfy no requirement of a marriage. They serve no compelling state interest. They satisfy no valid legislative end. They don't even have a good reason.

And like interracial marriage bans before them, arbitrary discrimination in marriage isn't going to stand. And before you begin your song and dance about how race has nothing to do with it, the USSC has cited race based discrimination cases 4 times between Windsor v. US and Romer v. Evans when describing why you can't discriminate against gays.

Fathers marrying Sons is also arbitrary.

When a 'fathers marrying sons' case is being heard by the Supreme Court, lets talk about it. But Obergefell has none.

 

[Pop23]

It's a states issue, the court and the feds will step back from this in the end. Everyone has the right to marry. No one is being discriminated against. If you want the right to marry the same sex you need to convince people in your state that you're right and hold a vote. SSM supporters just don't want to do the hard work. They want daddy federal government to do it for them but that is unconstitutional. PERIOD.

Wrong.

The states have no authority to violate the civil rights of the American citizens who reside within the states; one does not forfeit his civil rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, nor are one's civil rights subject to 'majority rule.'

Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that, where as citizens of the United States one's inalienable rights are immune from attack by the states.

In this case the states sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, absent objective, documented evidence in support, and absent a proper legislative end – indeed, such measures were enacted only to disadvantage gay Americans based solely on who they are, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Marriage is not a civil right. And everyone can marry a member of the opposite sex. If that doesn't work for you because you love a member of your own sex then there are civil unions. If that ain't good enough too bad! no one gets everything they want in life. There is always give and take in everything. Grow up baby.

There was a time everyone could marry someone of their own race but that didn't protect the anti-miscegenation laws.

Before and after it was 1 male to 1 female.

And after same sex marriage bans are eliminated, it will be one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.

You need a valid reason for such restrictions to exist. And there are none in same sex marriage bans.

Or to gay brothers. But hetro sibling brother/sister.

Fun game, your turn

 

[Pop23]

It's a states issue, the court and the feds will step back from this in the end. Everyone has the right to marry. No one is being discriminated against. If you want the right to marry the same sex you need to convince people in your state that you're right and hold a vote. SSM supporters just don't want to do the hard work. They want daddy federal government to do it for them but that is unconstitutional. PERIOD.

Wrong.

The states have no authority to violate the civil rights of the American citizens who reside within the states; one does not forfeit his civil rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, nor are one's civil rights subject to 'majority rule.'

Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that, where as citizens of the United States one's inalienable rights are immune from attack by the states.

In this case the states sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, absent objective, documented evidence in support, and absent a proper legislative end – indeed, such measures were enacted only to disadvantage gay Americans based solely on who they are, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Homosexuals have every right to marry that heterosexuals do. There is no discrimination at all. There has never been an application for a marriage license that asks you to list sexual preference.
Ergo it is not a 14thA issue at all. It is a 10thA issue. And the 10thA is very clear that such matters are for states to settle.

Says you. 44 of 46 federal courts have found that same sex marriage bans do discriminate against gays. As there's no reason for same sex marriage bans to exist. The restrictions are arbitrary and satisfy no requirement of a marriage. They serve no compelling state interest. They satisfy no valid legislative end. They don't even have a good reason.

And like interracial marriage bans before them, arbitrary discrimination in marriage isn't going to stand. And before you begin your song and dance about how race has nothing to do with it, the USSC has cited race based discrimination cases 4 times between Windsor v. US and Romer v. Evans when describing why you can't discriminate against gays.

Fathers marrying Sons is also arbitrary.

When a 'fathers marrying sons' case is being heard by the Supreme Court, lets talk about it. But Obergefell has none.

Nice dodge.

 

[Skylar]

Wrong.

The states have no authority to violate the civil rights of the American citizens who reside within the states; one does not forfeit his civil rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, nor are one's civil rights subject to 'majority rule.'

Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that, where as citizens of the United States one's inalienable rights are immune from attack by the states.

In this case the states sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, absent objective, documented evidence in support, and absent a proper legislative end – indeed, such measures were enacted only to disadvantage gay Americans based solely on who they are, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Homosexuals have every right to marry that heterosexuals do. There is no discrimination at all. There has never been an application for a marriage license that asks you to list sexual preference.
Ergo it is not a 14thA issue at all. It is a 10thA issue. And the 10thA is very clear that such matters are for states to settle.

Says you. 44 of 46 federal courts have found that same sex marriage bans do discriminate against gays. As there's no reason for same sex marriage bans to exist. The restrictions are arbitrary and satisfy no requirement of a marriage. They serve no compelling state interest. They satisfy no valid legislative end. They don't even have a good reason.

And like interracial marriage bans before them, arbitrary discrimination in marriage isn't going to stand. And before you begin your song and dance about how race has nothing to do with it, the USSC has cited race based discrimination cases 4 times between Windsor v. US and Romer v. Evans when describing why you can't discriminate against gays.

Fathers marrying Sons is also arbitrary.

When a 'fathers marrying sons' case is being heard by the Supreme Court, lets talk about it. But Obergefell has none.

Nice dodge.

Laughing....talking about the topic of the OP is a 'dodge'?

This is a debate on gay marriage and the case before the USSC. IF you want to discuss something else, enjoy. I'll stick with the topic.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's a states issue, the court and the feds will step back from this in the end. Everyone has the right to marry. No one is being discriminated against. If you want the right to marry the same sex you need to convince people in your state that you're right and hold a vote. SSM supporters just don't want to do the hard work. They want daddy federal government to do it for them but that is unconstitutional. PERIOD.

Wrong.

The states have no authority to violate the civil rights of the American citizens who reside within the states; one does not forfeit his civil rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, nor are one's civil rights subject to 'majority rule.'

Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that, where as citizens of the United States one's inalienable rights are immune from attack by the states.

In this case the states sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, absent objective, documented evidence in support, and absent a proper legislative end – indeed, such measures were enacted only to disadvantage gay Americans based solely on who they are, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Marriage is not a civil right. And everyone can marry a member of the opposite sex. If that doesn't work for you because you love a member of your own sex then there are civil unions. If that ain't good enough too bad! no one gets everything they want in life. There is always give and take in everything. Grow up baby.

There was a time everyone could marry someone of their own race but that didn't protect the anti-miscegenation laws.

Before and after it was 1 male to 1 female.

No it wasn't. The law discriminated against people based on race. A white man could marry a white woman, but a black man could not marry that woman.

That is discrimination based on race. A person of one color is allowed to do something but a person of another color is barred from doing exactly the same thing.

The same applies to gender discrimination. A man is allowed to marry a woman, but a woman is not allowed to marry that same woman.

A man is allowed to do something but a woman is barred from doing exactly the same thing.

Sex/gender discrimination. A violation of a constitutional right.

 

[Skylar]

Wrong.

The states have no authority to violate the civil rights of the American citizens who reside within the states; one does not forfeit his civil rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, nor are one's civil rights subject to 'majority rule.'

Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that, where as citizens of the United States one's inalienable rights are immune from attack by the states.

In this case the states sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, absent objective, documented evidence in support, and absent a proper legislative end – indeed, such measures were enacted only to disadvantage gay Americans based solely on who they are, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Marriage is not a civil right. And everyone can marry a member of the opposite sex. If that doesn't work for you because you love a member of your own sex then there are civil unions. If that ain't good enough too bad! no one gets everything they want in life. There is always give and take in everything. Grow up baby.

There was a time everyone could marry someone of their own race but that didn't protect the anti-miscegenation laws.

Before and after it was 1 male to 1 female.

And after same sex marriage bans are eliminated, it will be one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.

You need a valid reason for such restrictions to exist. And there are none in same sex marriage bans.

Or to gay brothers. But hetro sibling brother/sister.

Fun game, your turn

So you've completely abandoned the thread. When and if you want to discuss gay marriage or the USSC case, feel free to join us.

 

[Pop23]

Homosexuals have every right to marry that heterosexuals do. There is no discrimination at all. There has never been an application for a marriage license that asks you to list sexual preference.
Ergo it is not a 14thA issue at all. It is a 10thA issue. And the 10thA is very clear that such matters are for states to settle.

Says you. 44 of 46 federal courts have found that same sex marriage bans do discriminate against gays. As there's no reason for same sex marriage bans to exist. The restrictions are arbitrary and satisfy no requirement of a marriage. They serve no compelling state interest. They satisfy no valid legislative end. They don't even have a good reason.

And like interracial marriage bans before them, arbitrary discrimination in marriage isn't going to stand. And before you begin your song and dance about how race has nothing to do with it, the USSC has cited race based discrimination cases 4 times between Windsor v. US and Romer v. Evans when describing why you can't discriminate against gays.

Fathers marrying Sons is also arbitrary.

When a 'fathers marrying sons' case is being heard by the Supreme Court, lets talk about it. But Obergefell has none.

Nice dodge.

Laughing....talking about the topic of the OP is a 'dodge'?

This is a debate on gay marriage and the case before the USSC. IF you want to discuss something else, enjoy. I'll stick with the topic.

Oh, I see, so redefining marriage, and what that means to the future of the institution has nothing to do with the decision. And, by the way, the conflict it might create.

Got it.

Nice dodge

 

[Pop23]

Marriage is not a civil right. And everyone can marry a member of the opposite sex. If that doesn't work for you because you love a member of your own sex then there are civil unions. If that ain't good enough too bad! no one gets everything they want in life. There is always give and take in everything. Grow up baby.

There was a time everyone could marry someone of their own race but that didn't protect the anti-miscegenation laws.

Before and after it was 1 male to 1 female.

And after same sex marriage bans are eliminated, it will be one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.

You need a valid reason for such restrictions to exist. And there are none in same sex marriage bans.

Or to gay brothers. But hetro sibling brother/sister.

Fun game, your turn

So you've completely abandoned the thread. When and if you want to discuss gay marriage or the USSC case, feel free to join us.

You are free to place me on ignore at your option.

That would be you're right to opt out, just like gays opt out of traditional marriage.

It's ok, I will not question your decision.

 

[Skylar]

Says you. 44 of 46 federal courts have found that same sex marriage bans do discriminate against gays. As there's no reason for same sex marriage bans to exist. The restrictions are arbitrary and satisfy no requirement of a marriage. They serve no compelling state interest. They satisfy no valid legislative end. They don't even have a good reason.

And like interracial marriage bans before them, arbitrary discrimination in marriage isn't going to stand. And before you begin your song and dance about how race has nothing to do with it, the USSC has cited race based discrimination cases 4 times between Windsor v. US and Romer v. Evans when describing why you can't discriminate against gays.

Fathers marrying Sons is also arbitrary.

When a 'fathers marrying sons' case is being heard by the Supreme Court, lets talk about it. But Obergefell has none.

Nice dodge.

Laughing....talking about the topic of the OP is a 'dodge'?

This is a debate on gay marriage and the case before the USSC. IF you want to discuss something else, enjoy. I'll stick with the topic.

Oh, I see, so redefining marriage, and what that means to the future of the institution has nothing to do with the decision.

The decision is about same sex marriage. And you've completely abandoned any discussion of same sex marriage, fleeing from the entire topic.

Shrugs. Keep running. Its not like your refusal to discuss it will magically change the USSC's ruling on the matter.

 

[Skylar]

There was a time everyone could marry someone of their own race but that didn't protect the anti-miscegenation laws.

Before and after it was 1 male to 1 female.

And after same sex marriage bans are eliminated, it will be one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.

You need a valid reason for such restrictions to exist. And there are none in same sex marriage bans.

Or to gay brothers. But hetro sibling brother/sister.

Fun game, your turn

So you've completely abandoned the thread. When and if you want to discuss gay marriage or the USSC case, feel free to join us.

You are free to place me on ignore at your option.

That would be you're right to opt out, just like gays opt out of traditional marriage.

It's ok, I will not question your decision.

I'm free to discuss the topic of the thread: The USSC ruling on same sex marriage. You're free to abandon the topic of the thread and run from it like it were on fire.

As clearly this topic isn't working out too well for you.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's a states issue, the court and the feds will step back from this in the end. Everyone has the right to marry. No one is being discriminated against. If you want the right to marry the same sex you need to convince people in your state that you're right and hold a vote. SSM supporters just don't want to do the hard work. They want daddy federal government to do it for them but that is unconstitutional. PERIOD.

Wrong.

The states have no authority to violate the civil rights of the American citizens who reside within the states; one does not forfeit his civil rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, nor are one's civil rights subject to 'majority rule.'

Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that, where as citizens of the United States one's inalienable rights are immune from attack by the states.

In this case the states sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, absent objective, documented evidence in support, and absent a proper legislative end – indeed, such measures were enacted only to disadvantage gay Americans based solely on who they are, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Homosexuals have every right to marry that heterosexuals do. There is no discrimination at all. There has never been an application for a marriage license that asks you to list sexual preference.
Ergo it is not a 14thA issue at all. It is a 10thA issue. And the 10thA is very clear that such matters are for states to settle.

Yeah, exceptt opponents of SSM are losing in the courts because they can't defend their positions compliance with the 14th. You can play musical chairs with amendments it changes nothing.

Argument 2. Irrelevant here as USSC is considering it.

 

[Pop23]

Before and after it was 1 male to 1 female.

And after same sex marriage bans are eliminated, it will be one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.

You need a valid reason for such restrictions to exist. And there are none in same sex marriage bans.

Or to gay brothers. But hetro sibling brother/sister.

Fun game, your turn

So you've completely abandoned the thread. When and if you want to discuss gay marriage or the USSC case, feel free to join us.

You are free to place me on ignore at your option.

That would be you're right to opt out, just like gays opt out of traditional marriage.

It's ok, I will not question your decision.

I'm free to discuss the topic of the thread: The USSC ruling on same sex marriage. You're free to abandon the topic of the thread and run from it like it were on fire.

As clearly this topic isn't working out too well for you.

Oh, but it is, the conflict from my earlier post will have to be dealt with at some time.

valid reason to deny and blah, blah, blah

Obviously, two gay brothers marrying = no valid reason to deny

A hetro bro and sis = yep ya betcha.

Oh dear

 

[Skylar]

It's a states issue, the court and the feds will step back from this in the end. Everyone has the right to marry. No one is being discriminated against. If you want the right to marry the same sex you need to convince people in your state that you're right and hold a vote. SSM supporters just don't want to do the hard work. They want daddy federal government to do it for them but that is unconstitutional. PERIOD.

Wrong.

The states have no authority to violate the civil rights of the American citizens who reside within the states; one does not forfeit his civil rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, nor are one's civil rights subject to 'majority rule.'

Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that, where as citizens of the United States one's inalienable rights are immune from attack by the states.

In this case the states sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, absent objective, documented evidence in support, and absent a proper legislative end – indeed, such measures were enacted only to disadvantage gay Americans based solely on who they are, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Homosexuals have every right to marry that heterosexuals do. There is no discrimination at all. There has never been an application for a marriage license that asks you to list sexual preference.
Ergo it is not a 14thA issue at all. It is a 10thA issue. And the 10thA is very clear that such matters are for states to settle.

Yeah, exceptt opponents of SSM are losing in the courts because they can't defend their positions compliance with the 14th. You can play musical chairs with amendments it changes nothing.

Argument 2. Irrelevant here as USSC is considering it.

You say that no race based USSC ruling has relevance. The USSC has affirmed 4 different times that it does.

The USSC is a more credible source on the relevance of race based USSC rulings than you are. You can't get around that.

And once again, your argument goes 'poof'.

 

[Skylar]

And after same sex marriage bans are eliminated, it will be one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.

You need a valid reason for such restrictions to exist. And there are none in same sex marriage bans.

Or to gay brothers. But hetro sibling brother/sister.

Fun game, your turn

So you've completely abandoned the thread. When and if you want to discuss gay marriage or the USSC case, feel free to join us.

You are free to place me on ignore at your option.

That would be you're right to opt out, just like gays opt out of traditional marriage.

It's ok, I will not question your decision.

I'm free to discuss the topic of the thread: The USSC ruling on same sex marriage. You're free to abandon the topic of the thread and run from it like it were on fire.

As clearly this topic isn't working out too well for you.

Oh, but it is, the conflict from my earlier post will have to be dealt with at some time.

valid reason to deny and blah, blah, blah

Obviously, two gay brothers marrying = no valid reason to deny

A hetro bro and sis = yep ya betcha.

Oh dear

And which brothers or sisters are attempting to get married in the Obergefell? None at all.

You've abandoned any discussion of the topic of the thread. You finally muster the courage to pull that tail out from between your legs and join the discussion, I'll be here.

 

[RKMBrown]

Says you. 44 of 46 federal courts have found that same sex marriage bans do discriminate against gays. As there's no reason for same sex marriage bans to exist. The restrictions are arbitrary and satisfy no requirement of a marriage. They serve no compelling state interest. They satisfy no valid legislative end. They don't even have a good reason.

And like interracial marriage bans before them, arbitrary discrimination in marriage isn't going to stand. And before you begin your song and dance about how race has nothing to do with it, the USSC has cited race based discrimination cases 4 times between Windsor v. US and Romer v. Evans when describing why you can't discriminate against gays.

Fathers marrying Sons is also arbitrary.

When a 'fathers marrying sons' case is being heard by the Supreme Court, lets talk about it. But Obergefell has none.

Nice dodge.

Laughing....talking about the topic of the OP is a 'dodge'?

This is a debate on gay marriage and the case before the USSC. IF you want to discuss something else, enjoy. I'll stick with the topic.

Oh, I see, so redefining marriage, and what that means to the future of the institution has nothing to do with the decision. And, by the way, the conflict it might create.

Got it.

Nice dodge

how can they redefine the institution of marriage? Are you WEAK MINDED?

 

[RKMBrown]

And after same sex marriage bans are eliminated, it will be one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.

You need a valid reason for such restrictions to exist. And there are none in same sex marriage bans.

Or to gay brothers. But hetro sibling brother/sister.

Fun game, your turn

So you've completely abandoned the thread. When and if you want to discuss gay marriage or the USSC case, feel free to join us.

You are free to place me on ignore at your option.

That would be you're right to opt out, just like gays opt out of traditional marriage.

It's ok, I will not question your decision.

I'm free to discuss the topic of the thread: The USSC ruling on same sex marriage. You're free to abandon the topic of the thread and run from it like it were on fire.

As clearly this topic isn't working out too well for you.

Oh, but it is, the conflict from my earlier post will have to be dealt with at some time.

valid reason to deny and blah, blah, blah

Obviously, two gay brothers marrying = no valid reason to deny

A hetro bro and sis = yep ya betcha.

Oh dear

Did your marriage get destroyed when blacks intermarried with whites too?

 

[The Rabbi]

Or to gay brothers. But hetro sibling brother/sister.

Fun game, your turn

So you've completely abandoned the thread. When and if you want to discuss gay marriage or the USSC case, feel free to join us.

You are free to place me on ignore at your option.

That would be you're right to opt out, just like gays opt out of traditional marriage.

It's ok, I will not question your decision.

I'm free to discuss the topic of the thread: The USSC ruling on same sex marriage. You're free to abandon the topic of the thread and run from it like it were on fire.

As clearly this topic isn't working out too well for you.

Oh, but it is, the conflict from my earlier post will have to be dealt with at some time.

valid reason to deny and blah, blah, blah

Obviously, two gay brothers marrying = no valid reason to deny

A hetro bro and sis = yep ya betcha.

Oh dear

Did your marriage get destroyed when blacks intermarried with whites too?

Will your marriage get destroyed when "marriage" means "a financial arrangement open to any member of society"?