SCOTUS divided over SSM

[Luddly Neddite]

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 also no logical reason to not allow states to decide that from themselves so that marriage truly reflects the value of the people, not activist judges.

Civil rights are not up for a vote, and never should have been. You might as well allow them to define a state religion, and we don't. It's also not up for a vote.

Lifestyle choice is not a civil right.

Is your chosen religion a lifestyle choice?

Religion is protected. Gay butt sex isn't. You should read the Constitution sometime.

How about straight butt sex?

Do you really think I should have the right to say what you can do in bed with your consenting adult partner? Should I have a say in who you choose to marry?

Where, in the Constitution, does it say "... equal except gays, people of color, women ..."
or any of the others you phony christians hate and fear?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Lifestyle choice is not a civil right.

Is your chosen religion a lifestyle choice?

Religion is protected. Gay butt sex isn't. You should read the Constitution sometime.

It has nothing at all with what they do in bed. It has only to do with what happens at the country clerk's office.

And according to the 10th Amendment, that is categorically a state issue. Being queer isn't a civil right.

Being "straight" is a civil right?

Neither is. Even straight people can't marry whoever they want to.

 

[candycorn]

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 also no logical reason to not allow states to decide that from themselves so that marriage truly reflects the value of the people, not activist judges.

Sure there is.

If you're an employee who is managing a branch of a bank and you're up for a promotion that involves moving to a state where you and your partner will be breaking the law and/or whose marriage won't be recognized, you're being deprived of the 3L's by the government.

Amazing how you right wing shitballs love talking about how evil the government it right up until you want to use it to bless marriage.

I think that states should be deprived of any power to withhold recognition of any marriage, just like it is with drivers licenses. That's a fair compromise. But you faghadists don't want compromise, you want to have your way and fuck anyone who disagrees with you.

I've said the same thing you've said--2 years before you even showed up:;

I think it was Liability that had the best idea of all on this:

The State should get out of the marriage business. Make all "marriages" that are now on the books--hetero/homo--a civil union. If you want to get married, you get a certificate from your house of worship or your lodge or your local tavern or where ever. But in the eyes of the State; you form a civil union thus legally availing you and your spouse of the responsibilities and the benefits.

the State should be out of the marriage business. But while it is, you should be allowed to marry who you want since the union does not damage anyone outside of the union.

The state will never be out of the marriage business. That's nothing more than libertarian drivel. Marriage is a legal and financial institution as well as a social one and people themselves will never allow it to be otherwise. It's been that way throughout human history and the delusions of the libertarian Left cannot change it. So how about we stop proposing things that aren't even remotely possible?

So how about we just let people marry whom they love. Half the time in female/male relationships they end up splitting apart anyway and going through a divorce. Can gays really get it much worse than most heterosexual couples?

 

[candycorn]

Is your chosen religion a lifestyle choice?

Religion is protected. Gay butt sex isn't. You should read the Constitution sometime.

It has nothing at all with what they do in bed. It has only to do with what happens at the country clerk's office.

And according to the 10th Amendment, that is categorically a state issue. Being queer isn't a civil right.

Being "straight" is a civil right?

Neither is. Even straight people can't marry whoever they want to.

Lol

 

[paperview]

well if she does then they should the sue the Supreme court. they are making a mockery out of them as it is over all this

"Sue the Supreme Court."

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

There's also no logical reason to not allow states to decide that from themselves so that marriage truly reflects the value of the people, not activist judges.

Sure there is.

If you're an employee who is managing a branch of a bank and you're up for a promotion that involves moving to a state where you and your partner will be breaking the law and/or whose marriage won't be recognized, you're being deprived of the 3L's by the government.

Amazing how you right wing shitballs love talking about how evil the government it right up until you want to use it to bless marriage.

I think that states should be deprived of any power to withhold recognition of any marriage, just like it is with drivers licenses. That's a fair compromise. But you faghadists don't want compromise, you want to have your way and fuck anyone who disagrees with you.

I've said the same thing you've said--2 years before you even showed up:;

I think it was Liability that had the best idea of all on this:

The State should get out of the marriage business. Make all "marriages" that are now on the books--hetero/homo--a civil union. If you want to get married, you get a certificate from your house of worship or your lodge or your local tavern or where ever. But in the eyes of the State; you form a civil union thus legally availing you and your spouse of the responsibilities and the benefits.

the State should be out of the marriage business. But while it is, you should be allowed to marry who you want since the union does not damage anyone outside of the union.

The state will never be out of the marriage business. That's nothing more than libertarian drivel. Marriage is a legal and financial institution as well as a social one and people themselves will never allow it to be otherwise. It's been that way throughout human history and the delusions of the libertarian Left cannot change it. So how about we stop proposing things that aren't even remotely possible?

So how about we just let people marry whom they love. Half the time in female/male relationships they end up splitting apart anyway and going through a divorce. Can gays really get it much worse than most heterosexual couples?

Yes, they can destroy the lives of children far worse than any hetero couple.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

You really think pleasure is a bad thing?

You must live a pretty miserable life.

My straight marriage can withstand the oh so terrible threat of marriage equality and we regularly "seek pleasure" together. Marriages that are so weak, they'll fall apart if gays marry really should consider seeing a marriage counselor instead of blaming others for their problems.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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

Should be divided. Not much of a court if they're always all on the same side.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Sure there is.

If you're an employee who is managing a branch of a bank and you're up for a promotion that involves moving to a state where you and your partner will be breaking the law and/or whose marriage won't be recognized, you're being deprived of the 3L's by the government.

Amazing how you right wing shitballs love talking about how evil the government it right up until you want to use it to bless marriage.

I think that states should be deprived of any power to withhold recognition of any marriage, just like it is with drivers licenses. That's a fair compromise. But you faghadists don't want compromise, you want to have your way and fuck anyone who disagrees with you.

I've said the same thing you've said--2 years before you even showed up:;

I think it was Liability that had the best idea of all on this:

The State should get out of the marriage business. Make all "marriages" that are now on the books--hetero/homo--a civil union. If you want to get married, you get a certificate from your house of worship or your lodge or your local tavern or where ever. But in the eyes of the State; you form a civil union thus legally availing you and your spouse of the responsibilities and the benefits.

the State should be out of the marriage business. But while it is, you should be allowed to marry who you want since the union does not damage anyone outside of the union.

The state will never be out of the marriage business. That's nothing more than libertarian drivel. Marriage is a legal and financial institution as well as a social one and people themselves will never allow it to be otherwise. It's been that way throughout human history and the delusions of the libertarian Left cannot change it. So how about we stop proposing things that aren't even remotely possible?

So how about we just let people marry whom they love. Half the time in female/male relationships they end up splitting apart anyway and going through a divorce. Can gays really get it much worse than most heterosexual couples?

Yes, they can destroy the lives of children far worse than any hetero couple.

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?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Sure there is.

If you're an employee who is managing a branch of a bank and you're up for a promotion that involves moving to a state where you and your partner will be breaking the law and/or whose marriage won't be recognized, you're being deprived of the 3L's by the government.

Amazing how you right wing shitballs love talking about how evil the government it right up until you want to use it to bless marriage.

I think that states should be deprived of any power to withhold recognition of any marriage, just like it is with drivers licenses. That's a fair compromise. But you faghadists don't want compromise, you want to have your way and fuck anyone who disagrees with you.

I've said the same thing you've said--2 years before you even showed up:;

I think it was Liability that had the best idea of all on this:

The State should get out of the marriage business. Make all "marriages" that are now on the books--hetero/homo--a civil union. If you want to get married, you get a certificate from your house of worship or your lodge or your local tavern or where ever. But in the eyes of the State; you form a civil union thus legally availing you and your spouse of the responsibilities and the benefits.

the State should be out of the marriage business. But while it is, you should be allowed to marry who you want since the union does not damage anyone outside of the union.

The state will never be out of the marriage business. That's nothing more than libertarian drivel. Marriage is a legal and financial institution as well as a social one and people themselves will never allow it to be otherwise. It's been that way throughout human history and the delusions of the libertarian Left cannot change it. So how about we stop proposing things that aren't even remotely possible?

So how about we just let people marry whom they love. Half the time in female/male relationships they end up splitting apart anyway and going through a divorce. Can gays really get it much worse than most heterosexual couples?

Yes, they can destroy the lives of children far worse than any hetero couple.

Yeah, not worried:

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I think that states should be deprived of any power to withhold recognition of any marriage, just like it is with drivers licenses. That's a fair compromise. But you faghadists don't want compromise, you want to have your way and fuck anyone who disagrees with you.

I've said the same thing you've said--2 years before you even showed up:;

I think it was Liability that had the best idea of all on this:

The State should get out of the marriage business. Make all "marriages" that are now on the books--hetero/homo--a civil union. If you want to get married, you get a certificate from your house of worship or your lodge or your local tavern or where ever. But in the eyes of the State; you form a civil union thus legally availing you and your spouse of the responsibilities and the benefits.

the State should be out of the marriage business. But while it is, you should be allowed to marry who you want since the union does not damage anyone outside of the union.

The state will never be out of the marriage business. That's nothing more than libertarian drivel. Marriage is a legal and financial institution as well as a social one and people themselves will never allow it to be otherwise. It's been that way throughout human history and the delusions of the libertarian Left cannot change it. So how about we stop proposing things that aren't even remotely possible?

So how about we just let people marry whom they love. Half the time in female/male relationships they end up splitting apart anyway and going through a divorce. Can gays really get it much worse than most heterosexual couples?

Yes, they can destroy the lives of children far worse than any hetero couple.

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?

Easy, they fear, therefore hate, fags.

 

[rightwinger]

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 also no logical reason to not allow states to decide that from themselves so that marriage truly reflects the value of the people, not activist judges.

Civil rights are not up for a vote, and never should have been. You might as well allow them to define a state religion, and we don't. It's also not up for a vote.

Lifestyle choice is not a civil right.

Is your chosen religion a lifestyle choice?

this is not about religion, its about biology and anatomy.

We are talking about lifestyle choices

Is your religion a choice?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

well if she does then they should the sue the Supreme court. they are making a mockery out of them as it is over all this

"Sue the Supreme Court."

Stephanie as well as other ignorant phobes, have no clue what the SCOTUS actually is or does.

 

[Stephanie]

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.

Kagan lacks the integrity to recuse herself.

That's why Obama picked her. Neither he or Kagan has A LICK of integrity. and neither does these people in this thread blaming everything ON THE RIGHT. as if not one person on THE LEFT opposes homosexual marriage. they would need integrity to admit otherwise

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Kagan lacks the integrity to recuse herself.

Why should she recuse herself?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

There's also no logical reason to not allow states to decide that from themselves so that marriage truly reflects the value of the people, not activist judges.

Civil rights are not up for a vote, and never should have been. You might as well allow them to define a state religion, and we don't. It's also not up for a vote.

Lifestyle choice is not a civil right.

Is your chosen religion a lifestyle choice?

this is not about religion, its about biology and anatomy.

We are talking about lifestyle choices

Is your religion a choice?

And every morning, he wakes up and decides to go on being straight.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yet again all conservatives have are the same old ridiculous, wrong, and failed "arguments."

 

[Redfish]

There's also no logical reason to not allow states to decide that from themselves so that marriage truly reflects the value of the people, not activist judges.

Civil rights are not up for a vote, and never should have been. You might as well allow them to define a state religion, and we don't. It's also not up for a vote.

Lifestyle choice is not a civil right.

Is your chosen religion a lifestyle choice?

this is not about religion, its about biology and anatomy.

We are talking about lifestyle choices

Is your religion a choice?

People choose how to worship God, yes that is a choice.

To attempt to equate that with homosexual sexual activity is quite a stretch. Are you now saying that being gay is a choice? I thought you were born that way.

Is your logic train falling apart????

 

[Redfish]

Civil rights are not up for a vote, and never should have been. You might as well allow them to define a state religion, and we don't. It's also not up for a vote.

Lifestyle choice is not a civil right.

Is your chosen religion a lifestyle choice?

this is not about religion, its about biology and anatomy.

We are talking about lifestyle choices

Is your religion a choice?

And every morning, he wakes up and decides to go on being straight.

so you too are now saying that being gay is a choice, interesting.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Civil rights are not up for a vote, and never should have been. You might as well allow them to define a state religion, and we don't. It's also not up for a vote.

Lifestyle choice is not a civil right.

Is your chosen religion a lifestyle choice?

this is not about religion, its about biology and anatomy.

We are talking about lifestyle choices

Is your religion a choice?

And every morning, he wakes up and decides to go on being straight.

That straight lifestyle seems to be causing a lot of problems. Maybe we should let the states regulate it, for the safety of everyone.