SCOTUS divided over SSM

[martybegan]

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?

That you consider SSM the same thing as Opposite sex marriage. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

That you consider SSM the same thing as Opposite sex marriage. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

The above statement put into the way back machine:

That you consider interracial marriage the same thing as white marriages. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

 

[JoeB131]

Just like Roe V Wade made abortion go away?

No, the Republicans have done a great job keeping the religious stupids upset about that, talking big and doing nothing.

They won't have as much luck with this.

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.

You talk like that's a bad thing...

Screwing over religious assholes, that's music to my ears, baby.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Already there. This will add fuel to that movement. The gov't already admitted that if the court mandates SSM then religious institutions will be squarely within the sights of the faghaddis. Which is part of the strategy anyway.
No the Court will decide that power comes from the consent of the governed and states have the power to set their own criteria. Nor do states have the power to impose their standards on other states. That is the Constitutional decision.

 

[martybegan]

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?

That you consider SSM the same thing as Opposite sex marriage. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

The above statement put into the way back machine:

That you consider interracial marriage the same thing as white marriages. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

no matter how much you try to make it the same, race and sexual orientation are not the same. different tribes intermarried in the past, marriages between ethnic groups at the royal level were common as methods diplomacy, and the Brits and especially Spaniards had no issues interbreeding with the locals during colonialism (except for Americans who got a bug up their asses due to extended slavery).

 

[martybegan]

Just like Roe V Wade made abortion go away?

No, the Republicans have done a great job keeping the religious stupids upset about that, talking big and doing nothing.

They won't have as much luck with this.

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.

You talk like that's a bad thing...

Screwing over religious assholes, that's music to my ears, baby.

And this is why, if SSM is forced on all States, that a backlash will occur, once Americans see what starts to happen to people that don't toe the line.

Americans like the idea of equality, but hate bullies, and Gay rights advocates are more and more becoming the bullies.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

That you consider SSM the same thing as Opposite sex marriage. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

The above statement put into the way back machine:

That you consider interracial marriage the same thing as white marriages. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

no matter how much you try to make it the same, race and sexual orientation are not the same. different tribes intermarried in the past, marriages between ethnic groups at the royal level were common as methods diplomacy, and the Brits and especially Spaniards had no issues interbreeding with the locals during colonialism (except for Americans who got a bug up their asses due to extended slavery).

No matter how much you all try the "race and orientation aren't the same"...the bigotry and the discrimination DO remain the exact same...and will have the same end result...the marginalization of the bigots.

 

[martybegan]

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

Huh?

That you consider SSM the same thing as Opposite sex marriage. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

The above statement put into the way back machine:

That you consider interracial marriage the same thing as white marriages. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

no matter how much you try to make it the same, race and sexual orientation are not the same. different tribes intermarried in the past, marriages between ethnic groups at the royal level were common as methods diplomacy, and the Brits and especially Spaniards had no issues interbreeding with the locals during colonialism (except for Americans who got a bug up their asses due to extended slavery).

No matter how much you all try the "race and orientation aren't the same"...the bigotry and the discrimination DO remain the exact same...and will have the same end result...the marginalization of the bigots.

by force if necessary, right? You don't even realize you are a bigot yourself when it comes to people of faith.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

That you consider SSM the same thing as Opposite sex marriage. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

The above statement put into the way back machine:

That you consider interracial marriage the same thing as white marriages. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

no matter how much you try to make it the same, race and sexual orientation are not the same. different tribes intermarried in the past, marriages between ethnic groups at the royal level were common as methods diplomacy, and the Brits and especially Spaniards had no issues interbreeding with the locals during colonialism (except for Americans who got a bug up their asses due to extended slavery).

There are 2 and only 2 arguments for SSM:
1) Gays are really Negroes c.1960
2) We've won lots of court cases until now.
Both are fallacies. But it's all they've got.

 

[The Rabbi]

Huh?

That you consider SSM the same thing as Opposite sex marriage. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

The above statement put into the way back machine:

That you consider interracial marriage the same thing as white marriages. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

no matter how much you try to make it the same, race and sexual orientation are not the same. different tribes intermarried in the past, marriages between ethnic groups at the royal level were common as methods diplomacy, and the Brits and especially Spaniards had no issues interbreeding with the locals during colonialism (except for Americans who got a bug up their asses due to extended slavery).

No matter how much you all try the "race and orientation aren't the same"...the bigotry and the discrimination DO remain the exact same...and will have the same end result...the marginalization of the bigots.

by force if necessary, right? You don't even realize you are a bigot yourself when it comes to people of faith.

Gays are the biggest most intolerant bigots out there. They will virtually lynch anyone who disagrees with them. They are the faghaddis of the modern scene.

 

[danielpalos]

Just like Roe V Wade made abortion go away?

No, the Republicans have done a great job keeping the religious stupids upset about that, talking big and doing nothing.

They won't have as much luck with this.

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.

You talk like that's a bad thing...

Screwing over religious assholes, that's music to my ears, baby.

And this is why, if SSM is forced on all States, that a backlash will occur, once Americans see what starts to happen to people that don't toe the line.

Americans like the idea of equality, but hate bullies, and Gay rights advocates are more and more becoming the bullies.

that would require actual morals from the Right; they may not be up to it.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

That you consider SSM the same thing as Opposite sex marriage. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

Where did I say SSM is the same thing as Hetero sexual marriage? Please cite.

Of course it's different, duh! The question isn't whether it's different or not. The question is whether or not the states can "constitutionally" discriminate against the life of gays because of this difference.

 

[RKMBrown]

Just like Roe V Wade made abortion go away?

No, the Republicans have done a great job keeping the religious stupids upset about that, talking big and doing nothing.

They won't have as much luck with this.

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.

You talk like that's a bad thing...

Screwing over religious assholes, that's music to my ears, baby.

And this is why, if SSM is forced on all States, that a backlash will occur, once Americans see what starts to happen to people that don't toe the line.

Americans like the idea of equality, but hate bullies, and Gay rights advocates are more and more becoming the bullies.

that would require actual morals from the Right; they may not be up to it.

Or maybe they will be up to it.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

Huh?

That you consider SSM the same thing as Opposite sex marriage. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

The above statement put into the way back machine:

That you consider interracial marriage the same thing as white marriages. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

no matter how much you try to make it the same, race and sexual orientation are not the same. different tribes intermarried in the past, marriages between ethnic groups at the royal level were common as methods diplomacy, and the Brits and especially Spaniards had no issues interbreeding with the locals during colonialism (except for Americans who got a bug up their asses due to extended slavery).

There are 2 and only 2 arguments for SSM:
1) Gays are really Negroes c.1960
2) We've won lots of court cases until now.
Both are fallacies. But it's all they've got.

Idiot - 1) Rabbi.

 

[Silhouette]

Of course it's different, duh! The question isn't whether it's different or not. The question is whether or not the states can "constitutionally" discriminate against the life of gays because of this difference.

Yes, on behalf of their good reasons to incentivize boys with fathers and girls with mothers. ie: states have the right to maintain their description (not a ban) of marriage for the most important people in it: their future citizens (children) and the formative environment studies know is best for them: to have their gender represented daily as a role model. Otherwise they grow up maladjusted and this costs the states money. Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Next easy question to answer..?

 

[RKMBrown]

Of course it's different, duh! The question isn't whether it's different or not. The question is whether or not the states can "constitutionally" discriminate against the life of gays because of this difference.

Yes, on behalf of their good reasons to incentivize boys with fathers and girls with mothers. ie: states have the right to maintain their description (not a ban) of marriage for the most important people in it: their future citizens (children) and the formative environment studies know is best for them: to have their gender represented daily as a role model. Otherwise they grow up maladjusted and this costs the states money. Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Next easy question to answer..?

A description of marriage in a book is not the same as a ban on gay marriages. Two different issues.

 

[The Rabbi]

Huh?

That you consider SSM the same thing as Opposite sex marriage. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

The above statement put into the way back machine:

That you consider interracial marriage the same thing as white marriages. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

no matter how much you try to make it the same, race and sexual orientation are not the same. different tribes intermarried in the past, marriages between ethnic groups at the royal level were common as methods diplomacy, and the Brits and especially Spaniards had no issues interbreeding with the locals during colonialism (except for Americans who got a bug up their asses due to extended slavery).

There are 2 and only 2 arguments for SSM:
1) Gays are really Negroes c.1960
2) We've won lots of court cases until now.
Both are fallacies. But it's all they've got.

Idiot - 1) Rabbi.

Translation: Rabbi pwns me every single time.

 

[bodecea]

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?

That you consider SSM the same thing as Opposite sex marriage. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

The above statement put into the way back machine:

That you consider interracial marriage the same thing as white marriages. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

no matter how much you try to make it the same, race and sexual orientation are not the same. different tribes intermarried in the past, marriages between ethnic groups at the royal level were common as methods diplomacy, and the Brits and especially Spaniards had no issues interbreeding with the locals during colonialism (except for Americans who got a bug up their asses due to extended slavery).

One thing you say is correct "race and sexual orientation are not the same"...but civil rights for American citizens SHOULD be the same, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, handicap. You are simply trying to do down the same road that those against women's civil rights did in the late 70s.....making a fail argument that race and gender are not the same, therefore women do not get the same civil rights minorities have.

 

[danielpalos]

Just like Roe V Wade made abortion go away?

No, the Republicans have done a great job keeping the religious stupids upset about that, talking big and doing nothing.

They won't have as much luck with this.

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.

You talk like that's a bad thing...

Screwing over religious assholes, that's music to my ears, baby.

And this is why, if SSM is forced on all States, that a backlash will occur, once Americans see what starts to happen to people that don't toe the line.

Americans like the idea of equality, but hate bullies, and Gay rights advocates are more and more becoming the bullies.

that would require actual morals from the Right; they may not be up to it.

Or maybe they will be up to it.

it may require actual morals.

 

[mdk]

Of course it's different, duh! The question isn't whether it's different or not. The question is whether or not the states can "constitutionally" discriminate against the life of gays because of this difference.

Yes, on behalf of their good reasons to incentivize boys with fathers and girls with mothers. ie: states have the right to maintain their description (not a ban) of marriage for the most important people in it: their future citizens (children) and the formative environment studies know is best for them: to have their gender represented daily as a role model. Otherwise they grow up maladjusted and this costs the states money. Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Next easy question to answer..?

I love that you are still peddling the Prince's Trust Study despite the fact that it does not support any of your wilds claims. Watching you beat that dead horse is comical though.