SCOTUS divided over SSM

[Pop23]

Potential when the partners are both the same sex????

Really JOE???

Please, be so kind to explain this cuz, for more than a year I've been claiming that. (Clears his throat).........

Opposite gender coupling has made each and every baby ever born.

So Joe, name the child created by same sex coupling?

I think you are a little confused.

We don't let siblings marry because they might produce genetically damaged children who will vote Republican and shit.

Gays aren't going to produce kids. Oh, they could use surrogates and adoption and artificial insemination.

How do same sex siblings produce defective children Joe?

You smoking that whacky tobacky?

 

[Seawytch]

Potential when the partners are both the same sex????

Really JOE???

Please, be so kind to explain this cuz, for more than a year I've been claiming that. (Clears his throat).........

Opposite gender coupling has made each and every baby ever born.

So Joe, name the child created by same sex coupling?

I think you are a little confused.

We don't let siblings marry because they might produce genetically damaged children who will vote Republican and shit.

Gays aren't going to produce kids. Oh, they could use surrogates and adoption and artificial insemination.

How do same sex siblings produce defective children Joe?

You smoking that whacky tobacky?

So Pop, which country allows sibling marriages as a result of their having same sex marriage? Denmark has had them since 1989. How slippery is this slope of yours, Pops? How many years do we have to wait for your little slippery slope wet dream?

And explain to us how this it will be the gays that "open the door" to the sibling marriages you're dreaming about since it wasn't the gays that established that marriage was a fundamental right? Shouldn't you blame it on the Lovings?

 

[martybegan]

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.

I have a feeling we are getting the "nobody wins" result. States cannot be forced to change the marriage contract on SSM, but have to recognize duly issued marriage contracts from other States.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

I have a feeling we are getting the "nobody wins" result. States cannot be forced to change the marriage contract on SSM, but have to recognize duly issued marriage contracts from other States.

Funny, that would be a win to all the married gays like me. Gays would be able to live anywhere in the United States and have their civil marriage legally recognized. Alabama might consider itself a loser in that case, but gays will consider it a big win.

Still, I'm going 7-3 for FF&C but 5-4 in favor of striking down all anti gay marriage laws.

Wager anyone? Siggies or avatars only.

 

[martybegan]

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.

I have a feeling we are getting the "nobody wins" result. States cannot be forced to change the marriage contract on SSM, but have to recognize duly issued marriage contracts from other States.

Funny, that would be a win to all the married gays like me. Gays would be able to live anywhere in the United States and have their civil marriage legally recognized. Alabama might consider itself a loser in that case, but gays will consider it a big win.

Still, I'm going 7-3 for FF&C but 5-4 in favor of striking down all anti gay marriage laws.

Wager anyone? Siggies or avatars only.

I don't bet because usually I am a freaking mush, but I say 7-2 FF&C (you were off by one) and 6-3 in favor of states being able to set their own marriage contracts (Breyer switches sides because of the FF&C win).

 

[Seawytch]

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.

I have a feeling we are getting the "nobody wins" result. States cannot be forced to change the marriage contract on SSM, but have to recognize duly issued marriage contracts from other States.

Funny, that would be a win to all the married gays like me. Gays would be able to live anywhere in the United States and have their civil marriage legally recognized. Alabama might consider itself a loser in that case, but gays will consider it a big win.

Still, I'm going 7-3 for FF&C but 5-4 in favor of striking down all anti gay marriage laws.

Wager anyone? Siggies or avatars only.

I don't bet because usually I am a freaking mush, but I say 7-2 FF&C (you were off by one) and 6-3 in favor of states being able to set their own marriage contracts (Breyer switches sides because of the FF&C win).

Thanks...typing in the dark...

 

[JoeB131]

I have a feeling we are getting the "nobody wins" result. States cannot be forced to change the marriage contract on SSM, but have to recognize duly issued marriage contracts from other States.

I think you are wishing for a little bit of a peg to hang your homophobia on.

6-3, the court rules that anti-gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. Republicans want this subject to go away. they don't want Jeb Bush to have to talk about this next year.

 

[RKMBrown]

JOE: ain't you heard.

There IS NO PROCREATION requirement in marriage.

And may I add, two male siblings can't make them there babies.

Get with it JOE. Or do you just think it's icky?

There's no requirement, but there is a potential. So that's why it's illegal.

Potential when the partners are both the same sex????

Really JOE???

Please, be so kind to explain this cuz, for more than a year I've been claiming that. (Clears his throat).........

Opposite gender coupling has made each and every baby ever born.

So Joe, name the child created by same sex coupling?

^ retard thinks women can't get pregnant.

 

[RKMBrown]

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."

There is just marriage- whether by two gays or two straights.

And soon, two siblings.

^ dumb ass is fighting for marriage between siblings.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't bet because usually I am a freaking mush, but I say 7-2 FF&C (you were off by one) and 6-3 in favor of states being able to set their own marriage contracts (Breyer switches sides because of the FF&C win).

wishful thinking on your part. Letting States set their own marriage contracts would invalidate every state that has gotten SSM by judicial fiat, and then call into question all the marriage licenses issued. That would be chaos.

My guess is that it will be 6-3 on both issues, because Roberts will not want to go down in history as a bigot.

 

[martybegan]

I have a feeling we are getting the "nobody wins" result. States cannot be forced to change the marriage contract on SSM, but have to recognize duly issued marriage contracts from other States.

I think you are wishing for a little bit of a peg to hang your homophobia on.

6-3, the court rules that anti-gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. Republicans want this subject to go away. they don't want Jeb Bush to have to talk about this next year.

Again.... How is it homophobia when I have no issue with legislatures changing the marriage contract, and would vote for it in a referendum if given the chance? My arguments are on process, not results, so stop using your one size fits all "he hatez teh gayes" logic.

 

[martybegan]

I don't bet because usually I am a freaking mush, but I say 7-2 FF&C (you were off by one) and 6-3 in favor of states being able to set their own marriage contracts (Breyer switches sides because of the FF&C win).

wishful thinking on your part. Letting States set their own marriage contracts would invalidate every state that has gotten SSM by judicial fiat, and then call into question all the marriage licenses issued. That would be chaos.

My guess is that it will be 6-3 on both issues, because Roberts will not want to go down in history as a bigot.

Not really, as all those people have to do is go to another State that does issue them as a "do-over"

And if they vote on forcing all states to Accept SSM, they don't have to decide on FFC.

 

[RKMBrown]

I have a feeling we are getting the "nobody wins" result. States cannot be forced to change the marriage contract on SSM, but have to recognize duly issued marriage contracts from other States.

I think you are wishing for a little bit of a peg to hang your homophobia on.

6-3, the court rules that anti-gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. Republicans want this subject to go away. they don't want Jeb Bush to have to talk about this next year.

Again.... How is it homophobia when I have no issue with legislatures changing the marriage contract, and would vote for it in a referendum if given the chance? My arguments are on process, not results, so stop using your one size fits all "he hatez teh gayes" logic.

Because the right to life should not be a on a state by state basis.

 

[JoeB131]

Again.... How is it homophobia when I have no issue with legislatures changing the marriage contract, and would vote for it in a referendum if given the chance? My arguments are on process, not results, so stop using your one size fits all "he hatez teh gayes" logic.

Yes, you are totally against judicial activism unless it's Heller striking down gun laws people voted on or Citizen's United striking down campaign finance laws people voted on.

But those Homos better not get a favorable ruling!

 

[JoeB131]

Not really, as all those people have to do is go to another State that does issue them as a "do-over"

And if they vote on forcing all states to Accept SSM, they don't have to decide on FFC.

Well, they probably will for bookkeeping purposes, and gays shouldn't have to go to another state after they paid for a license in their own.

The reality, though, is the Court is going to legalize gay marriage for the whole country, for no other reason than the GOP wants this issue to go away.

 

[martybegan]

I have a feeling we are getting the "nobody wins" result. States cannot be forced to change the marriage contract on SSM, but have to recognize duly issued marriage contracts from other States.

I think you are wishing for a little bit of a peg to hang your homophobia on.

6-3, the court rules that anti-gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. Republicans want this subject to go away. they don't want Jeb Bush to have to talk about this next year.

Again.... How is it homophobia when I have no issue with legislatures changing the marriage contract, and would vote for it in a referendum if given the chance? My arguments are on process, not results, so stop using your one size fits all "he hatez teh gayes" logic.

Because the right to life should not be a on a state by state basis.

Federalism disagrees with you on this.

 

[martybegan]

Not really, as all those people have to do is go to another State that does issue them as a "do-over"

And if they vote on forcing all states to Accept SSM, they don't have to decide on FFC.

Well, they probably will for bookkeeping purposes, and gays shouldn't have to go to another state after they paid for a license in their own.

The reality, though, is the Court is going to legalize gay marriage for the whole country, for no other reason than the GOP wants this issue to go away.

Just like Roe V Wade made abortion go away?

The issue is once SSM advocates win on this, they go hard for the next group of targets, which is anyone who doesn't want to play along. So an increase in PA prosecutions, coupled with attempts to screw over religious institutions will follow.

 

[RKMBrown]

I have a feeling we are getting the "nobody wins" result. States cannot be forced to change the marriage contract on SSM, but have to recognize duly issued marriage contracts from other States.

I think you are wishing for a little bit of a peg to hang your homophobia on.

6-3, the court rules that anti-gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. Republicans want this subject to go away. they don't want Jeb Bush to have to talk about this next year.

Again.... How is it homophobia when I have no issue with legislatures changing the marriage contract, and would vote for it in a referendum if given the chance? My arguments are on process, not results, so stop using your one size fits all "he hatez teh gayes" logic.

Because the right to life should not be a on a state by state basis.

Federalism disagrees with you on this.

It's only been one day and you've forgotten the 14th amendment again.

 

[martybegan]

I have a feeling we are getting the "nobody wins" result. States cannot be forced to change the marriage contract on SSM, but have to recognize duly issued marriage contracts from other States.

I think you are wishing for a little bit of a peg to hang your homophobia on.

6-3, the court rules that anti-gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. Republicans want this subject to go away. they don't want Jeb Bush to have to talk about this next year.

Again.... How is it homophobia when I have no issue with legislatures changing the marriage contract, and would vote for it in a referendum if given the chance? My arguments are on process, not results, so stop using your one size fits all "he hatez teh gayes" logic.

Because the right to life should not be a on a state by state basis.

Federalism disagrees with you on this.

It's only been one day and you've forgotten the 14th amendment again.

I know it, the problem is your definition of "equal"

 

[RKMBrown]

I think you are wishing for a little bit of a peg to hang your homophobia on.

6-3, the court rules that anti-gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. Republicans want this subject to go away. they don't want Jeb Bush to have to talk about this next year.

Again.... How is it homophobia when I have no issue with legislatures changing the marriage contract, and would vote for it in a referendum if given the chance? My arguments are on process, not results, so stop using your one size fits all "he hatez teh gayes" logic.

Because the right to life should not be a on a state by state basis.

Federalism disagrees with you on this.

It's only been one day and you've forgotten the 14th amendment again.

I know it, the problem is your definition of "equal"

Huh?