SCOTUS divided over SSM

[RKMBrown]

Yeah those negroes should be put back in their place along with the fags huh? ROLLS EYES

You understgand that the equation of "gays=Negroes c.1960" is simply wrong for any number of reasons, right?

Civil rights irregardless of GENDER, SKIN COLOR, OR SEXUAL PREFERENCE. Get used to it.

= siblings

Yes even YOUR SISTER HAS CIVIL RIGHTS... DUH!!!

Strawman. No one said she didnt.
Does she have the right to marry her brother? Her sister?

I made a statement of fact, how is that a strawman? Are you retarded?

No, it's against the law for siblings to get married, DUH!!

 

[The Rabbi]

You understgand that the equation of "gays=Negroes c.1960" is simply wrong for any number of reasons, right?

Civil rights irregardless of GENDER, SKIN COLOR, OR SEXUAL PREFERENCE. Get used to it.

= siblings

Yes even YOUR SISTER HAS CIVIL RIGHTS... DUH!!!

Strawman. No one said she didnt.
Does she have the right to marry her brother? Her sister?

I made a statement of fact, how is that a strawman? Are you retarded?

No, it's against the law for siblings to get married, DUH!!

And soon it wont be. Get used to it.
You're not very bright. OK, I was being nice. You are downright stupid. Not because you disagree with me. But because you can't even grasp the contours of the debate, much less respond with anything resembling a reasoned argument.

 

[bodecea]

What's the difference between Same Sex Marriage (SSM) and Gay Marriage?

Seriously?

Yes. Enlighten me, what is the difference between Same Sex Marriage (SSM) and Gay Marriage?

There is no such thing as "gay marriage."

If you say that 3 times and click your heals you'll be back home in the 50s.

Please post the application for marriage license from any locality in the US that asks "sexual preference." Go aheah, I'll wait.

Actually, it is about gender, not sexually preference.

 

[RKMBrown]

Nope. Not kidding. Liberty for men to marry men and women to marry women, get used to it.

And sibling to marry sibling Right?

If not, why not?

Remember ( cuz I don't want Clayton, Fakey and WW getting all pissed off), there is no procreation qualification to obtain a marriage license.

Or are you gonna run again without answering simple questions?

No. Because it's against the law for siblings to marry siblings, ya weirdo! Duh!! Does someone need to explain to you why siblings can't marry siblings? Or are you from Tennessee? (No offense to fine Tennesseans who don't have sex with their parents and siblings.)

It was against the law for two men to marry too, duh. And I am a Tennessean, motormouth.

Well that explains alot. Yes, the law used to discriminate against gays. And soon it will not, get used to it.

And is discriminates against brothers marrying sisters. And Muhammed marrying 3 14yr olds. And soon it wont. Get used to it.

Provide a link to this push that is underway to allow incest and pedophilia. Is this your way of coming out? You are hoping to marry your sister if gays are allowed to marry?

 

[bodecea]

Nope. Not kidding. Liberty for men to marry men and women to marry women, get used to it.

And sibling to marry sibling Right?

If not, why not?

Remember ( cuz I don't want Clayton, Fakey and WW getting all pissed off), there is no procreation qualification to obtain a marriage license.

Or are you gonna run again without answering simple questions?

No. Because it's against the law for siblings to marry siblings, ya weirdo! Duh!! Does someone need to explain to you why siblings can't marry siblings? Or are you from Tennessee? (No offense to fine Tennesseans who don't have sex with their parents and siblings.)

It was against the law for two men to marry too, duh. And I am a Tennessean, motormouth.

Well that explains alot. Yes, the law used to discriminate against gays. And soon it will not, get used to it.

And is discriminates against brothers marrying sisters. And Muhammed marrying 3 14yr olds. And soon it wont. Get used to it.

You can work your way thru the legal system on those, just like we did on gay marriage.

 

[Skylar]

Civil rights irregardless of GENDER, SKIN COLOR, OR SEXUAL PREFERENCE. Get used to it.

= siblings

Yes even YOUR SISTER HAS CIVIL RIGHTS... DUH!!!

Strawman. No one said she didnt.
Does she have the right to marry her brother? Her sister?

I made a statement of fact, how is that a strawman? Are you retarded?

No, it's against the law for siblings to get married, DUH!!

And soon it wont be. Get used to it.
You're not very bright. OK, I was being nice. You are downright stupid. Not because you disagree with me. But because you can't even grasp the contours of the debate, much less respond with anything resembling a reasoned argument.

Explain the 'contours of debate' that make you a more reliable source on what Supreme Court cases are relevant to gay rights.......than the Supreme Court is.

Because from where I'm sitting, that's a straight line to silliness.

 

[RKMBrown]

Civil rights irregardless of GENDER, SKIN COLOR, OR SEXUAL PREFERENCE. Get used to it.

= siblings

Yes even YOUR SISTER HAS CIVIL RIGHTS... DUH!!!

Strawman. No one said she didnt.
Does she have the right to marry her brother? Her sister?

I made a statement of fact, how is that a strawman? Are you retarded?

No, it's against the law for siblings to get married, DUH!!

And soon it wont be. Get used to it.
You're not very bright. OK, I was being nice. You are downright stupid. Not because you disagree with me. But because you can't even grasp the contours of the debate, much less respond with anything resembling a reasoned argument.

ROFL argument in response to your absurd claim that gays getting married is the same as incest and pedophilia? WTF is wrong with you?

 

[RKMBrown]

= siblings

Yes even YOUR SISTER HAS CIVIL RIGHTS... DUH!!!

Strawman. No one said she didnt.
Does she have the right to marry her brother? Her sister?

I made a statement of fact, how is that a strawman? Are you retarded?

No, it's against the law for siblings to get married, DUH!!

And soon it wont be. Get used to it.
You're not very bright. OK, I was being nice. You are downright stupid. Not because you disagree with me. But because you can't even grasp the contours of the debate, much less respond with anything resembling a reasoned argument.

Explain the 'contours of debate' that make you a more reliable source on what Supreme Court cases are relevant to gay rights.......than the Supreme Court is.

Because from where I'm sitting, that's a straight line to silliness.

Rabbi's double dipped on his meds today.

 

[martybegan]

All the logic SSM supporters apply to SSM apply to plural marriage, but they know that one is less of a gimmie, so they deflect.

Nonsense. I support plural marriage and SSM. Yes the same logic applies to both. However, you are the one deflecting to it as a slippery slope argument.

by supporting both you actually PROVE the slippery slope argument.

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

Bullcrap. The left is only about the rights they think are acceptable, and forcing their morality on everyone else. You are the new Moral Majority, just as busy body, just as annoying, and now you added using courts to getting what you want.

Yeah- because it was the left who passed laws specifically to prohibit gay marriage....not Conservatives.

It was States that did it to define a contract that has meant the same thing since the start of the country. Some states went the other way, which is their right.

 

[RKMBrown]

Nonsense. I support plural marriage and SSM. Yes the same logic applies to both. However, you are the one deflecting to it as a slippery slope argument.

by supporting both you actually PROVE the slippery slope argument.

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

Bullcrap. The left is only about the rights they think are acceptable, and forcing their morality on everyone else. You are the new Moral Majority, just as busy body, just as annoying, and now you added using courts to getting what you want.

Yeah- because it was the left who passed laws specifically to prohibit gay marriage....not Conservatives.

It was States that did it to define a contract that has meant the same thing since the start of the country. Some states went the other way, which is their right.

Ayup... it was. And things change.

 

[martybegan]

All the logic SSM supporters apply to SSM apply to plural marriage, but they know that one is less of a gimmie, so they deflect.

Nonsense. I support plural marriage and SSM. Yes the same logic applies to both. However, you are the one deflecting to it as a slippery slope argument.

by supporting both you actually PROVE the slippery slope argument.

Nonsense. Banning plural marriage was the slippery slope to banning other liberties.. see how that works? Or is it that you don't mind slippery slopes that take liberties away, it's just going back up hill to regain liberty that you are against?

Sooner or later the people supporting this will decide it isn't enough to just get married, they need to get married in the church they want to,.

It hasn't happened in the last 50 years- no reason why it would suddenly happen now.

Churches have not ever been required to not discriminate- and never will- just a strawman paraded around by those who don't have a decent argument against gay marriage.

The SSM proponets will need another cause after this one, and they are a litigeous bunch. Just wait.

 

[martybegan]

by supporting both you actually PROVE the slippery slope argument.

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

Bullcrap. The left is only about the rights they think are acceptable, and forcing their morality on everyone else. You are the new Moral Majority, just as busy body, just as annoying, and now you added using courts to getting what you want.

Yeah- because it was the left who passed laws specifically to prohibit gay marriage....not Conservatives.

It was States that did it to define a contract that has meant the same thing since the start of the country. Some states went the other way, which is their right.

Ayup... it was. And things change.

if they change in this case it should be by the will of the people, not judicial fiat.

 

[martybegan]

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

Jim Crow was government using the force of law to withhold rights from a target group.

Our marriage laws use the force of law to withhold rights from a target group.

Our marriage laws provide certain legal protections in the form of an array of cash and prizes to married people. But those cash and prizes are withheld from one group of married people for no other reason than that group is hated.

"We've always oppressed these people" has been the excuse of every bigot for continuing the practice in the name of "tradition", whether that tradition be slavery or Jim Crow or anti-SSM.

Since no rational reason can be provided for withholding equal protection of the laws for this group, then that equal protection must be finally established. It is their right, and you cannot continue to vote away rights just because you have been allowed to do so until now. No more than you can vote in Jim Crow laws just because you were allowed to do so in the past.

Then create a separate contract for same sex people and don't call it marriage.

Why when marriage works well already and gays and lesbians have a right to it. Just like any other American.

'Separate but equal' doesn't have a very good historical record. As the reasons for the separation isn't to demonstrate equality. But the lack of it.

Oh wait, that was tried, and the SSM people want acceptance, not just equality.

Even many conservative states rejected your 'separate but equal' solution. Refusing to recognize civil unions from other states and refusing to allow them to be performed within their own.

And of course marriage itself would be equality.

The rational reason is that SSM was never considered when the original contract was written up, thus you have to change the contract the same way it was made, via legislative action.

What 'rational reason' are you referring to? And considered by whom? You're kinda doubling down on passive voice.

In this case separate but equal would be easy. The issue with it was that it would never be equal, but legally it would in this case.

But that isn't enough. The real goal is to basically force acceptance of this onto people, not equality. Its persecution, but since you can't stand religious people anyway, its A-OK.

 

[The Rabbi]

And sibling to marry sibling Right?

If not, why not?

Remember ( cuz I don't want Clayton, Fakey and WW getting all pissed off), there is no procreation qualification to obtain a marriage license.

Or are you gonna run again without answering simple questions?

No. Because it's against the law for siblings to marry siblings, ya weirdo! Duh!! Does someone need to explain to you why siblings can't marry siblings? Or are you from Tennessee? (No offense to fine Tennesseans who don't have sex with their parents and siblings.)

It was against the law for two men to marry too, duh. And I am a Tennessean, motormouth.

Well that explains alot. Yes, the law used to discriminate against gays. And soon it will not, get used to it.

And is discriminates against brothers marrying sisters. And Muhammed marrying 3 14yr olds. And soon it wont. Get used to it.

Provide a link to this push that is underway to allow incest and pedophilia. Is this your way of coming out? You are hoping to marry your sister if gays are allowed to marry?

whut?
NY State blesses incest marriage between uncle niece New York Post
http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1095&context=law_facpub

OK, so first you've tried to dispute the factual nature of the argument. Next you'll argue that what I posted is "no big deal" for some reason or other. Then you'll admit that incestuous marriage really is OK after all.

= siblings

Yes even YOUR SISTER HAS CIVIL RIGHTS... DUH!!!

Strawman. No one said she didnt.
Does she have the right to marry her brother? Her sister?

I made a statement of fact, how is that a strawman? Are you retarded?

No, it's against the law for siblings to get married, DUH!!

And soon it wont be. Get used to it.
You're not very bright. OK, I was being nice. You are downright stupid. Not because you disagree with me. But because you can't even grasp the contours of the debate, much less respond with anything resembling a reasoned argument.

ROFL argument in response to your absurd claim that gays getting married is the same as incest and pedophilia? WTF is wrong with you?

Another strawman. No one claimed they are the same thing. I claim that if you support one you inevitably must support both as the arguments are identical.

 

[RKMBrown]

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

Bullcrap. The left is only about the rights they think are acceptable, and forcing their morality on everyone else. You are the new Moral Majority, just as busy body, just as annoying, and now you added using courts to getting what you want.

Yeah- because it was the left who passed laws specifically to prohibit gay marriage....not Conservatives.

It was States that did it to define a contract that has meant the same thing since the start of the country. Some states went the other way, which is their right.

Ayup... it was. And things change.

if they change in this case it should be by the will of the people, not judicial fiat.

ROFL... dude marriage is already allowed in this country. It's not judicial fiat to say that gays have a right to liberty.

 

[The Rabbi]

Bullcrap. The left is only about the rights they think are acceptable, and forcing their morality on everyone else. You are the new Moral Majority, just as busy body, just as annoying, and now you added using courts to getting what you want.

Yeah- because it was the left who passed laws specifically to prohibit gay marriage....not Conservatives.

It was States that did it to define a contract that has meant the same thing since the start of the country. Some states went the other way, which is their right.

Ayup... it was. And things change.

if they change in this case it should be by the will of the people, not judicial fiat.

ROFL... dude marriage is already allowed in this country. It's not judicial fiat to say that gays have a right to liberty.

marriage=/liberty.
And in my state it is still not the law. So suck on it.

 

[Pop23]

"Liberty"?? You're kidding, right? LAst I checked gays had exactly the same amount of liberty as anyone else here. Maybe more actually.

Nope. Not kidding. Liberty for men to marry men and women to marry women, get used to it.

And sibling to marry sibling Right?

If not, why not?

Remember ( cuz I don't want Clayton, Fakey and WW getting all pissed off), there is no procreation qualification to obtain a marriage license.

Or are you gonna run again without answering simple questions?

RMKBRown wont run. He isnt that smart. He will instead repost the same shit he's posted a dozen times. Because he isnt smart enough to think of new material.

Why should I switch to the lies and bullshit you two spout, when the truth is simple?

"Liberty"?? You're kidding, right? LAst I checked gays had exactly the same amount of liberty as anyone else here. Maybe more actually.

Nope. Not kidding. Liberty for men to marry men and women to marry women, get used to it.

And sibling to marry sibling Right?

If not, why not?

Remember ( cuz I don't want Clayton, Fakey and WW getting all pissed off), there is no procreation qualification to obtain a marriage license.

Or are you gonna run again without answering simple questions?

RMKBRown wont run. He isnt that smart. He will instead repost the same shit he's posted a dozen times. Because he isnt smart enough to think of new material.

Why should I switch to the lies and bullshit you two spout, when the truth is simple?

The only thing "simple" here is you, simpleton.
You cannot defend the ban on incestuous marriage and advocate for same sex marriage. You cannot therefore defend ANY limitation on marriage whatsoever. Congratulations, you have destroyed marriage as an institution.

He thinks it's icky

 

[Pop23]

"Liberty"?? You're kidding, right? LAst I checked gays had exactly the same amount of liberty as anyone else here. Maybe more actually.

Nope. Not kidding. Liberty for men to marry men and women to marry women, get used to it.

And sibling to marry sibling Right?

If not, why not?

Remember ( cuz I don't want Clayton, Fakey and WW getting all pissed off), there is no procreation qualification to obtain a marriage license.

Or are you gonna run again without answering simple questions?

RMKBRown wont run. He isnt that smart. He will instead repost the same shit he's posted a dozen times. Because he isnt smart enough to think of new material.

Why should I switch to the lies and bullshit you two spout, when the truth is simple?

"Liberty"?? You're kidding, right? LAst I checked gays had exactly the same amount of liberty as anyone else here. Maybe more actually.

Nope. Not kidding. Liberty for men to marry men and women to marry women, get used to it.

And sibling to marry sibling Right?

If not, why not?

Remember ( cuz I don't want Clayton, Fakey and WW getting all pissed off), there is no procreation qualification to obtain a marriage license.

Or are you gonna run again without answering simple questions?

RMKBRown wont run. He isnt that smart. He will instead repost the same shit he's posted a dozen times. Because he isnt smart enough to think of new material.

Why should I switch to the lies and bullshit you two spout, when the truth is simple?

The only thing "simple" here is you, simpleton.
You cannot defend the ban on incestuous marriage and advocate for same sex marriage. You cannot therefore defend ANY limitation on marriage whatsoever. Congratulations, you have destroyed marriage as an institution.

Can you imagine how rich that first incestuous couple will be just off of florist lawsuits!!!!

 

[martybegan]

Bullcrap. The left is only about the rights they think are acceptable, and forcing their morality on everyone else. You are the new Moral Majority, just as busy body, just as annoying, and now you added using courts to getting what you want.

Yeah- because it was the left who passed laws specifically to prohibit gay marriage....not Conservatives.

It was States that did it to define a contract that has meant the same thing since the start of the country. Some states went the other way, which is their right.

Ayup... it was. And things change.

if they change in this case it should be by the will of the people, not judicial fiat.

ROFL... dude marriage is already allowed in this country. It's not judicial fiat to say that gays have a right to liberty.

They have a right to liberty, a right to call their relationship a marriage, but no legal right to it unless a State changes it Marriage contract legislatively.

 

[RKMBrown]

No. Because it's against the law for siblings to marry siblings, ya weirdo! Duh!! Does someone need to explain to you why siblings can't marry siblings? Or are you from Tennessee? (No offense to fine Tennesseans who don't have sex with their parents and siblings.)

It was against the law for two men to marry too, duh. And I am a Tennessean, motormouth.

Well that explains alot. Yes, the law used to discriminate against gays. And soon it will not, get used to it.

And is discriminates against brothers marrying sisters. And Muhammed marrying 3 14yr olds. And soon it wont. Get used to it.

Provide a link to this push that is underway to allow incest and pedophilia. Is this your way of coming out? You are hoping to marry your sister if gays are allowed to marry?

whut?
NY State blesses incest marriage between uncle niece New York Post
http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1095&context=law_facpub

OK, so first you've tried to dispute the factual nature of the argument. Next you'll argue that what I posted is "no big deal" for some reason or other. Then you'll admit that incestuous marriage really is OK after all.

Yes even YOUR SISTER HAS CIVIL RIGHTS... DUH!!!

Strawman. No one said she didnt.
Does she have the right to marry her brother? Her sister?

I made a statement of fact, how is that a strawman? Are you retarded?

No, it's against the law for siblings to get married, DUH!!

And soon it wont be. Get used to it.
You're not very bright. OK, I was being nice. You are downright stupid. Not because you disagree with me. But because you can't even grasp the contours of the debate, much less respond with anything resembling a reasoned argument.

ROFL argument in response to your absurd claim that gays getting married is the same as incest and pedophilia? WTF is wrong with you?

Another strawman. No one claimed they are the same thing. I claim that if you support one you inevitably must support both as the arguments are identical.

You're a lying POS. And your link is talking about cousins not incest, ya dumb ass, at least read a link before you post it.