SCOTUS: states cannot ban same sex marriage

[DigitalDrifter]

This is really gonna unite the country!

Honestly though, it would have remained fragmented regardless of which way they decided.

We all need to come to the realization, that the days of a united America are over.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

Which was their right.

 

[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.

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.

How did they fuck states rights? I'm not seeing it. Either way though, if its that big a deal for the 13 states who don't have SSM then they should get together and put up an amendment.

 

[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.

Which was their right.

No actually it isn't a right to marry it is a privilege.

 

[PratchettFan]

This is really gonna unite the country!

Honestly though, it would have remained fragmented regardless of which way they decided.

We all need to come to the realization, that the days of a united America is over.

What made you think they had ever started?

 

[hortysir]

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

Saul would be proud

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

ruled 5-4 !!!

Watch heads explode!!

Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage Nationwide

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

What freedoms of yours got "pissed on"? The freedom to be a jack wagon? You've still got that.

The freedom the shape my own state government... But dont worry at least you get the illusion that people will see you are truly;y married.... Fucking gullible idiot.

So you lost nothing!

You do not have the right to discriminate, and the court has ruled against those like you.

 

[hazlnut]

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.

 

[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.

How did they fuck states rights? I'm not seeing it. Either way though, if its that big a deal for the 13 states who don't have SSM then they should get together and put up an amendment.

So it was all 50 states the decided to give this paper to you homosexuals?

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

Which was their right.

No actually it isn't a right to marry it is a privilege.

It was their right to petition the courts for relief. That is the right of every American citizen.

 

[hortysir]

Sister, Dad, Mom, Son, Brother, Twin

All fair game

It a not up to you what a dad and a legal aged daughter do in the privacy of the bedroom.
You can't say their love isn't real.
They have just as much right to marry as you do

 

[RosieS]

Decision based on the Fourteenth Amendment.

Awesome day for civil rights in America.

The male choir singing "America the Beautiful" on the SCOTUS steps sounded terrific!

Regards from Rosie

 

[boedicca]

I'm so relieved that Men no longer have to resort to just Staring At Goats.

The Men Who Stare at Goats 2009 - IMDb

 

[Statistikhengst]

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

Hey, thanks for the links.

And you may be right about juristic vs societal thinking.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[hazlnut]

Sister, Dad, Mom, Son, Brother, Twin

All fair game

It a not up to you what a dad and a legal aged daughter do in the privacy of the bedroom.
You can't say their love isn't real.
They have just as much right to marry as you do

Why let the law stop your love?

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Can't wait to see their next protest

 

[bodecea]

So how many of you homosexuals actually think this piece of paper changes what we all know marriage to be???? LMAO You all surrendered your 10th amendments for a illusion .

SSM is an illusion

Just as much as YOUR marriage is an illusion.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

Hossfly is a good man with a big heart. I respect his right to his opinion, an opinion I do not share in this case.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Stephanie]

I'm so relieved that Men no longer have to resort to just Staring At Goats.

The Men Who Stare at Goats 2009 - IMDb

 

[paddymurphy]

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....

I don't care whether you back off or not. You do not matter. Folks who think like you do not matter. It is done. Marriage equality is the law and will remain the law. Soon, gay people will be protected from bigots like you firing them, or refusing to rent to them or refusing service to them. And you cannot do a damn thing about it. Except, spread your hate here.