SCOTUS divided over SSM

[RKMBrown]

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.

Not for long, ya homophobic piece of shit.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

That is correct. The state will have to adhere to the people who decide whether laws are constitutional or not. Stating that a law is unconstitutional is not judicial fiat.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

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.

Wow. You are one reallyu stupid fucking dishonest piece of shit. I can't even continue if you're just going to lie.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

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.

Wow. You are one reallyu stupid fucking dishonest piece of shit. I can't even continue if you're just going to lie.

You have to read past the TITLES you dumb fuck.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Obviously not, as many states don't recognize or allow them. And if it was genuinely 'equal' in every way, why would we bother? Simply recognizing same sex unions as marriage is far simpler.

Your claims are not only historically inaccurate. They're completely unnecessary.

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

Its equal if we recognize it as marriage. 50 of 50 States recognize marriage. Many don't recognize civil unions. So your suggestion is both unequal AND uselessly complicated.

Its simply not the worth the effort.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

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.

Wow. You are one reallyu stupid fucking dishonest piece of shit. I can't even continue if you're just going to lie.

You have to read past the TITLES you dumb fuck.

Yeah whatever. SUre, dude. You won. You're a stud. You're sooooo smart no one can match you. Whatever.
Now get the fuck out of here.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

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.

Wow. You are one reallyu stupid fucking dishonest piece of shit. I can't even continue if you're just going to lie.

You have to read past the TITLES you dumb fuck.

Yeah whatever. SUre, dude. You won. You're a stud. You're sooooo smart no one can match you. Whatever.
Now get the fuck out of here.

Wow...you sound angry and frustrated. Losing does that.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

I have a feeling that the SCOTUS, based on precedent, will disagree.

 

[Pop23]

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.

I have a feeling that the SCOTUS, based on precedent, will disagree.

Indeed, and siblings will use the new precedent to engage in govermentally sanctioned matrimonial bliss.

The law of unintended consequences is absolute.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.
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.

Wow. You are one reallyu stupid fucking dishonest piece of shit. I can't even continue if you're just going to lie.

You have to read past the TITLES you dumb fuck.

Yeah whatever. SUre, dude. You won. You're a stud. You're sooooo smart no one can match you. Whatever.
Now get the fuck out of here.

Wow...you sound angry and frustrated. Losing does that.

Yeah, whatever. You and your pal RMK sound stupid and clueless. Probbaly with good reason.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Wow. You are one reallyu stupid fucking dishonest piece of shit. I can't even continue if you're just going to lie.

You have to read past the TITLES you dumb fuck.

Yeah whatever. SUre, dude. You won. You're a stud. You're sooooo smart no one can match you. Whatever.
Now get the fuck out of here.

Wow...you sound angry and frustrated. Losing does that.

Yeah, whatever. You and your pal RMK sound stupid and clueless. Probbaly with good reason.

Me and my pal RMK have logic and precedent...you have a tantrum.

 

[Pop23]

Wow. You are one reallyu stupid fucking dishonest piece of shit. I can't even continue if you're just going to lie.

You have to read past the TITLES you dumb fuck.

Yeah whatever. SUre, dude. You won. You're a stud. You're sooooo smart no one can match you. Whatever.
Now get the fuck out of here.

Wow...you sound angry and frustrated. Losing does that.

Yeah, whatever. You and your pal RMK sound stupid and clueless. Probbaly with good reason.

Me and my pal RMK have logic and precedent...you have a tantrum.

And logic combined with precedence makes sibling marriage innevitable.

And we have you, RMK and the rest of your pals to thank for that lovely future.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.
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.

Wow. You are one reallyu stupid fucking dishonest piece of shit. I can't even continue if you're just going to lie.

You have to read past the TITLES you dumb fuck.

Yeah whatever. SUre, dude. You won. You're a stud. You're sooooo smart no one can match you. Whatever.
Now get the fuck out of here.

Wow...you sound angry and frustrated. Losing does that.

Yeah, whatever. You and your pal RMK sound stupid and clueless. Probbaly with good reason.

 

[Seawytch]

You have to read past the TITLES you dumb fuck.

Yeah whatever. SUre, dude. You won. You're a stud. You're sooooo smart no one can match you. Whatever.
Now get the fuck out of here.

Wow...you sound angry and frustrated. Losing does that.

Yeah, whatever. You and your pal RMK sound stupid and clueless. Probbaly with good reason.

Me and my pal RMK have logic and precedent...you have a tantrum.

And logic combined with precedence makes sibling marriage innevitable.

And we have you, RMK and the rest of your pals to thank for that lovely future.

I realize that's what you want, but it's not gonna happen.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Wow. You are one reallyu stupid fucking dishonest piece of shit. I can't even continue if you're just going to lie.

You have to read past the TITLES you dumb fuck.

Yeah whatever. SUre, dude. You won. You're a stud. You're sooooo smart no one can match you. Whatever.
Now get the fuck out of here.

Wow...you sound angry and frustrated. Losing does that.

Yeah, whatever. You and your pal RMK sound stupid and clueless. Probbaly with good reason.

Repeating yourself? Alzheimer's or dementia?

 

[The Rabbi]

Wow. You are one reallyu stupid fucking dishonest piece of shit. I can't even continue if you're just going to lie.

You have to read past the TITLES you dumb fuck.

Yeah whatever. SUre, dude. You won. You're a stud. You're sooooo smart no one can match you. Whatever.
Now get the fuck out of here.

Wow...you sound angry and frustrated. Losing does that.

Yeah, whatever. You and your pal RMK sound stupid and clueless. Probbaly with good reason.

Me and my pal RMK have logic and precedent...you have a tantrum.

You have neither. You have ignorance and stupidity. In abundance.

 

[bodecea]

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.

I have a feeling that the SCOTUS, based on precedent, will disagree.

Indeed, and siblings will use the new precedent to engage in govermentally sanctioned matrimonial bliss.

The law of unintended consequences is absolute.

You need to build your legal case for sibling marriage, work on it like gays worked for years building our case. Good luck to you and yours.

 

[Pop23]

Yeah whatever. SUre, dude. You won. You're a stud. You're sooooo smart no one can match you. Whatever.
Now get the fuck out of here.

Wow...you sound angry and frustrated. Losing does that.

Yeah, whatever. You and your pal RMK sound stupid and clueless. Probbaly with good reason.

Me and my pal RMK have logic and precedent...you have a tantrum.

And logic combined with precedence makes sibling marriage innevitable.

And we have you, RMK and the rest of your pals to thank for that lovely future.

I realize that's what you want, but it's not gonna happen.

No, that's not what I want, it is however what MUST now happen. The arguments YOU CREATED work equally well.

The baby's going out with the bath water.

Congrats

 

[Pop23]

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.

I have a feeling that the SCOTUS, based on precedent, will disagree.

Indeed, and siblings will use the new precedent to engage in govermentally sanctioned matrimonial bliss.

The law of unintended consequences is absolute.

You need to build your legal case for sibling marriage, work on it like gays worked for years building our case. Good luck to you and yours.

It is your arguments. None more are needed.

 

[bodecea]

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.

I have a feeling that the SCOTUS, based on precedent, will disagree.

Indeed, and siblings will use the new precedent to engage in govermentally sanctioned matrimonial bliss.

The law of unintended consequences is absolute.

You need to build your legal case for sibling marriage, work on it like gays worked for years building our case. Good luck to you and yours.

It is your arguments. None more are needed.

Sorry, but it is not. It is yours and you have to do your legal legwork just like we have done for the last few decades. Good luck to you and yours.