SCOTUS divided over SSM

[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.

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

What BS.

For years and years, homosexuals were actually bullied- and attacked- and murdered- for the 'crime' of being gay.

Laws were passed to deny them employment- laws were passed to make sex for them illegal. Police routinely harrased them. Gay men were regularly targeted for assault and police ignored the crimes.

Americans didn't hate those bullies.

More recently there have been cases of homosexuals actually standing up for their legal rights- and advocating boycotts against individuals and business's that they disagree with.

Just as American Conservatives and Christian groups continue to do to this day.

What you call bullying is nothing compared to what has happened to homosexuals- and is exactly what is being done by the homophobic bigots to homosexuals to this day.

And Americans are not 'hating' those bullies now either.

Standing up for your legal rights is not bullying.

Even when its homosexuals standing up for their rights.

Hate? Nah I pity them.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Translation: Rabbi is delusional.

LOL! Says the guy who repeats the same failed points over and over and when that doesnt work resorts to insults.

ROFL says the racist bigot POS.

Oh go fuck yourself, asshole. You've got nothing

 

[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.

Actually, after reading the transcripts of the oral arguments- I suspect it will be all or nothing- if the Court doesn't find for gay marriage, they will not require states to recognize marriage from other states.

The only appropriate ruling based on the Constitution is that gay marriage is not addressed, so they have no basis to rule anything. Take it up with the legislature. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS isn't big on ruling based on the actual law, they prefer to make it

There was some feeling during the discussion that they were exceeding their authority on this one. I hope that becomes the dominant opinion.
While I oppose gay marriage as bad policy I recognize that states can enact bad policy if they want. Too bad the gay marriage proponents dont want to extend that freedom to others.

The 'freedom' to strip others of rights?

The conservative conception of 'freedom' continues to leave a brown streak on the bowl as it swirls downward.

There is no stripping anyone of rights, except stripping voters of the right to decide policy questions. Which is what you want, shit-stain.

ROFL Rabbi wants the right to shit stain all over small minority groups... why? Because he's a POS racist bigot, that's why.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

People of faith have nothing to do with civil marriage. The same people of faith had the same problems with interracial marriage. It's irrelevant how "people of faith" feel about me marrying.

 

[RKMBrown]

Idiot - 1) Rabbi.

Translation: Rabbi pwns me every single time.

Translation: Rabbi is delusional.

LOL! Says the guy who repeats the same failed points over and over and when that doesnt work resorts to insults.

ROFL says the racist bigot POS.

Oh go fuck yourself, asshole. You've got nothing

I've got your balls in a vise.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Given your posting history, you're in no position to call anyone stupid or clueless.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

People of faith have nothing to do with civil marriage. The same people of faith had the same problems with interracial marriage. It's irrelevant how "people of faith" feel about me marrying.

Ayup... a civil marriage is not the same as religious marriage. A catholic marriage is not a jewish marriage. The Church does not hold power over civil rights in this country.

 

[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).

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.

gender and orientation are not the same either.

and considering every victory on your side seems to just embolden you to go after private citizens who disagree with you, forgive me if I don't seem to trust you on any of this.

 

[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.

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.

The whole crux of the 14th amendment argument is equal protection under the law. If they are not equal, then the whole 14th amendment argument goes away.

 

[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.

Actually, after reading the transcripts of the oral arguments- I suspect it will be all or nothing- if the Court doesn't find for gay marriage, they will not require states to recognize marriage from other states.

To me the transcript makes me think Full faith and credit is a done deal, remember Justices read all the relevant documents well prior to oral arguments. Their lack of interest in the FFC question leads me to think that one is a done deal.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

gender and orientation are not the same either.

They aren't being compared. Bigots and discrimination are. Those are the same.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Wrong.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence that invalidates measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law applies only to government, not churches or other religious organizations.

 

[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.

Actually that is incorrect- the Netherlands- which I consider a civilized country- has recognized SSM since 2001.

A total of 16 countries around the world recognize SSM.

Recent- yes- but recent is precedent also.

and how did they do it? By court order or legislatively?


I'll answer it for you, legislatively.

 

[martybegan]

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.

gender and orientation are not the same either.

They aren't being compared. Bigots and discrimination are. Those are the same.

Yes, they are. you are trying to lump a lifestyle onto issues regarding race and gender.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Wrong.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence that invalidates measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law applies only to government, not churches or other religious organizations.

Bullshit. Your next step is basically forcing acceptance onto everyone, or destroying the lives of those who don't agree with you. We have seen the start of it already.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

The whole crux of the 14th amendment argument is equal protection under the law. If they are not equal, then the whole 14th amendment argument goes away.

ROFL Equal protection of ALL CITIZENS BLACK, WHITE, GAY, ... Equal protection does not mean if you are heterosexual or if you are white.

 

[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.

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

What BS.

For years and years, homosexuals were actually bullied- and attacked- and murdered- for the 'crime' of being gay.

Laws were passed to deny them employment- laws were passed to make sex for them illegal. Police routinely harrased them. Gay men were regularly targeted for assault and police ignored the crimes.

Americans didn't hate those bullies.

More recently there have been cases of homosexuals actually standing up for their legal rights- and advocating boycotts against individuals and business's that they disagree with.

Just as American Conservatives and Christian groups continue to do to this day.

What you call bullying is nothing compared to what has happened to homosexuals- and is exactly what is being done by the homophobic bigots to homosexuals to this day.

And Americans are not 'hating' those bullies now either.

Standing up for your legal rights is not bullying.

Even when its homosexuals standing up for their rights.

So basically you are all for "payback's a bitch?"

Go cry me a river.....

 

[Syriusly]

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.

As opposed to those who literally lynch people? Worse than those eh?

For every action that you point to- that you consider to be 'intolerance' by gays- I can point to multiple instances of homophobic bigots like yourself doing worse.

Here lets start:

Homophobes like yourself have promoted banning homosexuals from employment in teaching:

Linda Harvey Gays should be banned from teaching jobs that involve children LGBTQ Nation
“Kids should not be put in the confusing position of having a teacher they like and respect in many ways who’s also known to be practicing homosexual behavior. Of course that’s where many of our children in public schools today find themselves because the National Education Association not only allows but applauds and defends openly homosexuality and even transvestite teachers …”

“The fact is that no homosexuality

 

[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.

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.

The whole crux of the 14th amendment argument is equal protection under the law. If they are not equal, then the whole 14th amendment argument goes away.

ROFL Equal protection of ALL CITIZENS BLACK, WHITE, GAY, ... Equal protection does not mean if you are heterosexual or if you are white.

Equal protection under the law, the law is a marriage contract, so if you want to use the 14th to extended it to gay couples, SSM and OSM have to be equal.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

gender and orientation are not the same either.

and considering every victory on your side seems to just embolden you to go after private citizens who disagree with you, forgive me if I don't seem to trust you on any of this.

No one said they were.

But both are nonetheless entitled to Constitutional protections, immune from attack by the state.