SCOTUS: states cannot ban same sex marriage

[hazlnut]

The marriage issue is a Trojan Horse.

What this ruling really means is that the Government has expanded the roles of people who will be eligible for entitlements.

All the Debt Serfs and Tax Donkeys must support the Democrat Identity Politics Coalition.

And I say this as someone who doesn't care who marries whom. Marriage shouldn't be the government's business. Entitlements connected with Marriage drag the government into the bedroom. Why the Left wants this intrusion is quite laughable.

I've posted in another thread:
snip:

15 Reasons ‘Marriage Equality’ Is About Neither Marriage Nor Equality
Don't fall for the 'marriage equality' sales pitch. It's a deception.
By Stella Morabito


By Stella Morabito
June 26, 2015








Same-sex marriage is a notion that contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. I doubt many have thought this through, with the ironic exception of the elites who have been pushing the agenda the hardest.

Most people are weary of it all and going along to get along, especially since dissent has become such a socially expensive proposition, almost overnight. That in itself should deeply concern anyone who values freedom of expression.


Sure, true believers scattered across the land really do think the entire project ends with allowing same-sex couples to marry. Most persist in the blind faith that a federal ban on the standard definition of marriage will have no negative effect on family autonomy and privacy. That’s a pipe dream.

The same-sex marriage agenda is more like a magic bullet with a trajectory that will abolish civil marriage for everyone, and in doing so, will embed central planning into American life. And that, my friends, is the whole point of it. Along with Obamacare, net neutrality, and Common Core, genderless marriage is a blueprint for regulating life, particularly family life.

The Rainbow’s Arc
Unintended consequences usually come about when we are ignorant or maybe lazy about a course of action. But we usually crash land after following an arc of logic, which in this case has gone largely undiscerned and unaddressed in the public square.

Americans are in a fog about how marriage equality will lead to more central planning and thought policing. This is partly because the media and Hollywood only provide slogans to regurgitate while academics and judges push politically correct speech codes to obey.

Let’s explore the fallout of that arc of faulty logic. Included below are some 15 of the gaping holes in the “marriage equality” reasoning that Americans have not thought through.

1. The Kids Are Not All Right

all of it here:
15 Reasons Marriage Equality Is About Neither

 

[Moonglow]

If you can't discriminate against same sex marriages, then you can't discriminate based on species. Liberals wave Equality flags in jubilant celebration.

How will you get your goat to say I do?

 

[Stephanie]

Sister, Dad, Mom, Son, Brother, Twin

All fair game

remember how they put down polygamy?

 

[PratchettFan]

ruled 5-4 !!!

Watch heads explode!!

Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage Nationwide

Guess what now a state has to reckonize your union.... Congrats... Fucking shame you had to piss on MY FREEDOMS to get it.

Such anger

The puzzling thing is why the fuck are you not angry? The SCOTUS just pissed on the constitution twice in a week...Homosexual marriage delusion was going to happen no matter what but they allowed their stupid asses to be used to further destroy our country.

Guess what now a state has to recognize your union.... Congrats... Fucking shame you had to piss on MY FREEDOMS to get it.

What freedom have you lost with this court ruling?

My bet you can not name one but I will give you the chance to point out the suppose freedom you lost in this ruling...

My individual freedom of choice and religion. Also my states right to make its own decisions.... Fucking shame you are too ignorant to understand.

You are free to choose to attend the Westboro Baptist Church or others like it.

Your state can elect to ignore the SC decision and not recognize SSM. The consequences will be severe, but that is the price of principles.

Speaking of Westboro Church, have they gone ballistic yet?

How would you tell?

 

[rightwinger]

Closer than I thought it would be

Did Scalia throw a hissy fit again?

I wonder if he made up some more words.

Can he top...Applesauce?

 

[boedicca]

I bet this guy will now assert his right to marry another leoopard.

 

[G.T.]

Add thinking goats can consent to legal contracts to Stephanie 's long list of retardation symptoms.

Steph, you know if we polled every person on the entire board right now as to.who is the dumbest poster, you win it in a landslide right?

You are being deliberately ignorant or just stupid, take your pick. Libtards have been advancing animal rights and equality for decades now, even giving human rights to animals.

Who are you to say that an animal that is taught to give signals can never give consent? Bahbah can stamp her hooves once for yes, twice for no. By libtard reasoning it can in fact be done.

Oh wow....

Another unhinged conservatard meltsdown!! Lol


Today is awesome.....an easier day than most to weed out the morons you should never attempt to take seriously, for the future

 

[Statistikhengst]

Congrats OP, now you can finally get married.

Can I be your best man?

Not interested. I'm into women, but I do support equality and fair play.

Are your arguments so pathetically weak that you have to concentrate on me as a person instead of debating the actual topic?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[WinterBorn]

No surprise, I fully expected this decision, and that it would be pretty split.
Doesn't change anything in my life, I still define a marriage as the joining of two persons of the opposite sex, and I will not personally recognize anything else as a marriage.

I doubt that many gay married couples will lose a lot of sleep over you not recognizing their union.

 

[Bonzi]

You did draw that comparison. I have read similar posts by you in the past. You want to back off now, fine. I am sure the floodgates argument was made 50 years ago when Loving was decided. It was ignorant then and remains an ignorant argument. What I see is you claiming that because gay people are now allowed to enter into committed relationships, the country will suffer. That is hate in its most basic form

I didn't draw the comparison in my post, however, I will say, unnatural and immoral sexual relations are what they are..... you can say my belief is hate but I can say your belief is hate as well -

Ignorance goes both ways, and just because you "say so" doesn't make it so. This is such a lame tactic used all the time.. people can see if from a mile away.....

When the country does suffer (and it is already) it won't seem so hateful...but then again the world is going down in a downward spiral, and people will cling to their erroneous beliefs as they go down the tubes.

I won't back off or stop - I'm not sure why you thought I wanted to or would....

 

[thanatos144]

So who is surprised this court who consistently pisses on the constitution pisses on it once more? Not me. Now all you homosexuals can now start doing what your progressives masters want of you and start suing churches and kill more freedoms..... Fucking retards.

Care for a Con-federate flag crying towel?

I am not democrat stupid so why the fuck would I cry into their flag?

You aren't very bright are you. The Con-federates were not Democrats...educate yourself with a map of the 1860 election...the Democrats did not win ONE, not ONE single, Southern state that then seceded. Not one.

If you are going to be the useful idiot tool for the democrat party learn its history moron.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Posting this now for the third thread

snip:
15 Reasons ‘Marriage Equality’ Is About Neither Marriage Nor Equality
Don't fall for the 'marriage equality' sales pitch. It's a deception.
By Stella Morabito


By Stella Morabito
June 26, 2015







Same-sex marriage is a notion that contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. I doubt many have thought this through, with the ironic exception of the elites who have been pushing the agenda the hardest.

Most people are weary of it all and going along to get along, especially since dissent has become such a socially expensive proposition, almost overnight. That in itself should deeply concern anyone who values freedom of expression.


Sure, true believers scattered across the land really do think the entire project ends with allowing same-sex couples to marry. Most persist in the blind faith that a federal ban on the standard definition of marriage will have no negative effect on family autonomy and privacy. That’s a pipe dream.

The same-sex marriage agenda is more like a magic bullet with a trajectory that will abolish civil marriage for everyone, and in doing so, will embed central planning into American life. And that, my friends, is the whole point of it. Along with Obamacare, net neutrality, and Common Core, genderless marriage is a blueprint for regulating life, particularly family life.

The Rainbow’s Arc
Unintended consequences usually come about when we are ignorant or maybe lazy about a course of action. But we usually crash land after following an arc of logic, which in this case has gone largely undiscerned and unaddressed in the public square.

Americans are in a fog about how marriage equality will lead to more central planning and thought policing. This is partly because the media and Hollywood only provide slogans to regurgitate while academics and judges push politically correct speech codes to obey.

Let’s explore the fallout of that arc of faulty logic. Included below are some 15 of the gaping holes in the “marriage equality” reasoning that Americans have not thought through.

all of it here:
15 Reasons Marriage Equality Is About Neither

Put the bong down. Step away. Breathe some normal air. Relax.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[EverCurious]

Its not like the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on other shit. Hell slavery was abolished against states wishes too. There's been a slew of crap that the Federal Gov. has "forced" upon the states since the very beginning. No more "constitutional state's right's" have been lost here, than in any other thing that came up. That's what the SCOUS does; decides shit like this...

It also ruled that slaves were property.

Yep:

"In Dred Scott v. Sandford (argued 1856 -- decided 1857), the Supreme Court ruled that Americans of African descent, whether free or slave, were not American citizens and could not sue in federal court. The Court also ruled that Congress lacked power to ban slavery in the U.S. territories. Finally, the Court declared that the rights of slaveowners were constitutionally protected by the Fifth Amendment because slaves were categorized as property." ~ The Supreme Court . The First Hundred Years . Landmark Cases . Dred Scott v. Sandford 1857 PBS

Which prompted the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments in 1865, directly overturning their decision as not inline with "we the peoples" opinion.

If anti-SSM folks think ya'll have the peeps, feel free to go for a constitutional amendment to overturn this SCOUS decision.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

No surprise, I fully expected this decision, and that it would be pretty split.
Doesn't change anything in my life, I still define a marriage as the joining of two persons of the opposite sex, and I will not personally recognize anything else as a marriage.

I doubt that many gay married couples will lose a lot of sleep over you not recognizing their union.

I know, I just agreed with that.

 

[rightwinger]

You did draw that comparison. I have read similar posts by you in the past. You want to back off now, fine. I am sure the floodgates argument was made 50 years ago when Loving was decided. It was ignorant then and remains an ignorant argument. What I see is you claiming that because gay people are now allowed to enter into committed relationships, the country will suffer. That is hate in its most basic form

I didn't draw the comparison in my post, however, I will say, unnatural and immoral sexual relations are what they are..... you can say my belief is hate but I can say your belief is hate as well -

Ignorance goes both ways, and just because you "say so" doesn't make it so. This is such a lame tactic used all the time.. people can see if from a mile away.....

When the country does suffer (and it is already) it won't seem so hateful...but then again the world is going down in a downward spiral, and people will cling to their erroneous beliefs as they go down the tubes.

I won't back off or stop - I'm not sure why you thought I wanted to or would....

How are you suffering?

 

[Vandalshandle]

...and now, Richard Simmons will no longer have to live in sin.....

 

[jillian]

Links to be found at all major news outlets. Would be interesting to read all 9 decisions.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

this is the only decision you need

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions

5-4 decision, authored by Justice Kennedy. Represents a TECHTONIC shift in juristic thinking in the USA.

In, 2004, incumbent Pres. Bush ran on a platform advocating a constitutional amendment to ban SSM. Now, such an amendment would be a very, very heavy lift.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

i don't think it reflects a shift in judicial thinking... i think it represents a shift in societal thinking.

based on loving v virginia, this is the decision which the court had to issue

 

[thanatos144]

Its not like the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on other shit. Hell slavery was abolished against states wishes too. There's been a slew of crap that the Federal Gov. has "forced" upon the states since the very beginning. No more "constitutional state's right's" have been lost here, than in any other thing that came up. That's what the SCOUS does; decides shit like this...

It also ruled that slaves were property.

Yep:

"In Dred Scott v. Sandford (argued 1856 -- decided 1857), the Supreme Court ruled that Americans of African descent, whether free or slave, were not American citizens and could not sue in federal court. The Court also ruled that Congress lacked power to ban slavery in the U.S. territories. Finally, the Court declared that the rights of slaveowners were constitutionally protected by the Fifth Amendment because slaves were categorized as property." ~ The Supreme Court . The First Hundred Years . Landmark Cases . Dred Scott v. Sandford 1857 PBS

Which prompted the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments in 1865, directly overturning their decision as not inline with "we the peoples" opinion.

If anti-SSM folks think ya'll have the peeps, feel free to go for a constitutional amendment to overturn this SCOUS decision.

I never cared if homosexuals got that piece of paper. I cared about how they went about it. This was the most stupid way. They fucked state rights and their own choices to get something they would have got eventually anyway.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Breaking news.

Links later, am traveling.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Nutter heads are exploding all over the country.

Quite possibly.

Pacific Trade Pact
Obamacare
Gay Marriage
Confederate battle flag under heavy scrutiny.

All in one week.

BOOM!

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Don't forget the catastrophic natural disasters coming soon to a neighborhood near you. The writing on the wall has been visible the past 6 1/2 years and will now be etched in flaming letters. God help this sick, sorry, depraved country. I pray that Sodom and Gomorrah be visited upon this nation with the harhest punishment. I'm ready to go.

Read to go? Don't let anyone stop you, you should go be happy.

 

[IsaacNewton]

MUST watching the next few days.

The 700 Club with Pat Robertson, and the John Hagee show.

You are going to see meltdown as it is meant to be. Don't forget the popcorn.