State Nullification on Gay Marriage!

[bripat9643]

And the far left reached in to show that the far left believes a non-opinion and non-ruling is a ruling!

You say that the USSC didn't reject the appeal of 5 different states and preserve the lower court rulings overturning gay marriage bans. Alas, history doesn't change just because you deny reality:

The Supreme Court on Monday turned away appeals from five states looking to prohibit gay marriage, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in those states and likely others -- but also leaving the issue unresolved nationally.

The justices rejected appeals from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. The court's order immediately ends delays on gay marriage in those states.

Supreme Court paves way for gay marriage in several states leaves issue unresolved nationally Fox News

Get used to the idea. It happened. Gay marriage is valid in 30 of 50 states. And you pretending otherwise doesn't change a thing.

We are fully aware of the fact that unelected federal judges are ramming this down our throats

Um, no federal judges are elected. They never have been. They are appointed by design. Exactly as the founders intended.

Are they elected or are they appointed? You can't seem to make up your mind. The rest of your blather about "gay marriage" is equally incoherent.

And national support for gay marriage leads opposition by about 12 points. Rulings by the courts to protect rights, rights the people solidly support is hardly 'ramming it down our throats'. ANd that's assuming the people can arbitrarily vote away rights.

Gay marriage lost in the only poll that counts. It's called an "election." Federal judges are overturning election results. Obama's popularity is down to 40%. Does that mean we can ignore what all the judges he has appointed rule? According to your logic we can.

Which, of course, they can't. They need a very good reason. And there is no good reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.

Check the Constitution. You won't find marriage listed as a right.

Obama came out in support of same sex marriage BEFORE he was re-elected. Is that election you're talking about?

More than 30 states voted to make so-called "gay marriage" illegal. Those are the elections I'm talking about.

 

[bripat9643]

Only a moron would claim there is "no substantive difference" between marriage and the oxymoron called "gay marriage." Only a moron believes the ability to procreate isn't "substantive." The rest of your post is equally idiotic.

Then show us one state that requires children for a marriage to be valid. Show us one state that requires the ability to have children for a marriage to be valid.

I'll end the suspense for you: there isn't one. The 'procreation' standard is one that NO marriage is held to. Why the would we make up a standard that is applied to no one. Then apply it to gays exclusively for the sole purpose of excluding them from marriage?

It makes no sense. Or to use your idiom so its easier for you comprehend, what moron would think that's a good idea?

Whether a state requires it is irrelevant. Procreation is the reason marriage exists, not so a couple of fuck buddies can get government benefits.

 

[Skylar]

More than 30 states voted to make so-called "gay marriage" illegal. Those are the elections I'm talking about.

And States can't vote away individual rights without a good reason. You're literally arguing for the tyranny of the majority, where the rights of minorities can be voted away with a simple majority. In your imagination, is there ANY check to this power? Any right that the majority can't strip from the minority with 50% +1?

You don't seem to get how our system works. Rights are not up for a vote. If you're going to deny rights, you need a very, very good reason. Its called the 'Strict Scrutiny' rule. And gay marriage opponents have failed it so ineptly, so comically and so consistently that they can't even meet the much lower 'rational rule' in trying to justify such bans.

Worse, you're 'procreation standard' is one applied to NO ONE. No straight couple has their marriage invalidated because they have no kids. No straight couple has their marriage invalidated because they can't have kids. No one is required to have kids or be able to have them. Why then would we exclude gays because they don't meet a standard that doesn't exist and is applied to no one?

Whether a state requires it is irrelevant.

Its obviously relevant if its your basis for denying fundamental civil rights. As why would we deny gays the right to marry for failing to meet a standard that applies to NO ONE. And then even more ineptly, apply it ONLY to gays. And then in a last spasm of WTF, use this made up standard that applies to no one to exclude gays from marriage.

Are you starting to see why the record of failure for gay marraige opponents is essentially perfect? They can demonstrate NO rational reason for denying rights, no compelling state interest, and can't even see the "Strict Scrutiny' rule from where they're standing. For Colorado alone, every single federal court, every district court, every appelant court, without exception, ruled in favor of gay marriage for this very reason.

As the bans are clearly unconstitutional. And rights cannot be voted away with a damn good reason. Which gay marriage opponents simply don't have.

 

[Kosh]

More than 30 states voted to make so-called "gay marriage" illegal. Those are the elections I'm talking about.

And States can't vote away individual rights without a good reason. You're literally arguing for the tyranny of the majority, where the rights of minorities can be voted away with a simple majority. In your imagination, is there ANY check to this power? Any right that the majority can't strip from the minority with 50% +1?

You don't seem to get how our system works. Rights are not up for a vote. If you're going to deny rights, you need a very, very good reason. Its called the 'Strict Scrutiny' rule. And gay marriage opponents have failed it so ineptly, so comically and so consistently that they can't even meet the much lower 'rational rule' in trying to justify such bans.

Worse, you're 'procreation standard' is one applied to NO ONE. No straight couple has their marriage invalidated because they have no kids. No straight couple has their marriage invalidated because they can't have kids. No one is required to have kids or be able to have them. Why then would we exclude gays because they don't meet a standard that doesn't exist and is applied to no one?

Whether a state requires it is irrelevant.

Its obviously relevant if its your basis for denying fundamental civil rights. As why would we deny gays the right to marry for failing to meet a standard that applies to NO ONE. And then even more ineptly, apply it ONLY to gays. And then in a last spasm of WTF, use this made up standard that applies to no one to exclude gays from marriage.

Are you starting to see why the record of failure for gay marraige opponents is essentially perfect? They can demonstrate NO rational reason for denying rights, no compelling state interest, and can't even see the "Strict Scrutiny' rule from where they're standing. For Colorado alone, every single federal court, every district court, every appelant court, without exception, ruled in favor of gay marriage for this very reason.

As the bans are clearly unconstitutional. And rights cannot be voted away with a damn good reason. Which gay marriage opponents simply don't have.

"Marriage" is not a "right"..

But then again I see all the far left keywords in that post again.

Everything could be considered a "right" if presented a certain way. However claiming something is a "right" does not make it so.

 

[Skylar]

"Marriage" is not a "right"..

Says you, and you're nobody. The SCOTUS has ruled marriage is a right. Ending any legal debate on the topic. As you define nothing, you adjudicate nothing, you rule on nothing.

While the rulings of the SCOTUS create binding precedent.

So its you citing you. And me citing the Supreme Court. Our sources are not equal.

 

[Kosh]

"Marriage" is not a "right"..

Says you, and you're nobody. The SCOTUS has ruled marriage is a right. Ending any legal debate on the topic. As you define nothing, you adjudicate nothing, you rule on nothing.

While the rulings of the SCOTUS create binding precedent.

So its you citing you. And me citing the Supreme Court. Our sources are not equal.

Yes I know the non-opinion and non-ruling as a ruling bit.

I know that is in the far left programming.

"Marriage" is not a "right".

But then again the far left believes voting for president is a "right".

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You say that the USSC didn't reject the appeal of 5 different states and preserve the lower court rulings overturning gay marriage bans. Alas, history doesn't change just because you deny reality:

Get used to the idea. It happened. Gay marriage is valid in 30 of 50 states. And you pretending otherwise doesn't change a thing.

We are fully aware of the fact that unelected federal judges are ramming this down our throats

Um, no federal judges are elected. They never have been. They are appointed by design. Exactly as the founders intended.

Are they elected or are they appointed? You can't seem to make up your mind. The rest of your blather about "gay marriage" is equally incoherent.

And national support for gay marriage leads opposition by about 12 points. Rulings by the courts to protect rights, rights the people solidly support is hardly 'ramming it down our throats'. ANd that's assuming the people can arbitrarily vote away rights.

Gay marriage lost in the only poll that counts. It's called an "election." Federal judges are overturning election results. Obama's popularity is down to 40%. Does that mean we can ignore what all the judges he has appointed rule? According to your logic we can.

Which, of course, they can't. They need a very good reason. And there is no good reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.

Check the Constitution. You won't find marriage listed as a right.

Obama came out in support of same sex marriage BEFORE he was re-elected. Is that election you're talking about?

More than 30 states voted to make so-called "gay marriage" illegal. Those are the elections I'm talking about.

And those same people will remember how their vote was trampled on and keep in mind of those who support gay marriage in the next election. Kind of reminds me of the time Clinton signed the assault weapon ban and the democrats had their ass handed to them in the next mid term election after that..

 

[Skylar]

Yes I know the non-opinion and non-ruling as a ruling bit.

You're STILL denying that the USSC refused the appeal of 5 different states that had their gay marriage bans overturnred? C'mon...really?

The Supreme Court on Monday turned away appeals from five states looking to prohibit gay marriage, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in those states and likely others -- but also leaving the issue unresolved nationally.

The justices rejected appeals from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. The court's order immediately ends delays on gay marriage in those states.

Supreme Court paves way for gay marriage in several states leaves issue unresolved nationally Fox News

You're still insisting this never happened? That Fox News is lying ? How about Reuters:

he U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to decide once and for all whether states can ban gay marriage, a surprising move that will allow gay men and women to get married in five additional states, with more likely to follow quickly.

On the first day of its new term, the high court without comment rejected appeals in cases involving five states - Virginia, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin and Indiana - that had prohibited gay marriage, leaving intact lower-court rulings striking down those bans.

Supreme Court dodges gay marriage allowing weddings in five more states Reuters

ANd still you won't admit that the USSC preserved EVERY lower court ruling overruling gay marriage bans. Its not like the law changes because you deny it ever happened. How about AP

By MARK SHERMAN Associated Press

The Supreme Court unexpectedly cleared the way Monday for a dramatic expansion of gay marriage in the United States and may have signaled that it's only a matter of time before same-sex couples can marry in all 50 states.
Rejecting appeals from five states seeking to preserve their bans, the Supreme Court effectively made such marriages legal in 30 states, up from 19 and the District of Columbia, taking in every region of the country.

Challenges are pending in the other 20 states.

Almost immediately, exuberant couples began receiving marriage licenses previously denied to them. "This is the dream day," said Sharon Baldwin, a plaintiff in a challenge to Oklahoma's ban, as she and her partner got their license in the Tulsa County Clerk's Office.

Directly affected by Monday's orders were Wisconsin, Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah and Virginia. Officials in those states had appealed lower court rulings in an effort to preserve their bans. Couples in six other states — Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming — should be able to get married in short order since those states would be bound by the same appellate rulings that have been on hold.

But AP's lying too, huh? You still deny it ever happened?

Laughing.....so, um, how's that working out for you?[/quote]

 

[Skylar]

And those same people will remember how their vote was trampled on and keep in mind of those who support gay marriage in the next election. Kind of reminds me of the time Clinton signed the assault weapon ban and the democrats had their ass handed to them in the next mid term election after that..

You do realize that the electorate solidly supports gay marriage, yes? That in both Colorado and Wisconsin, gay marriage support outpaces opposition by about 14 points. With the national support for gay marriage about 12 points higher than opposition?

Its almost like conservatives aim to be on the wrong side of history of virtually every issue.

 

[Kosh]

Yes I know the non-opinion and non-ruling as a ruling bit.

You're STILL denying that the USSC refused the appeal of 5 different states that had their gay marriage bans overturnred? C'mon...really?

The Supreme Court on Monday turned away appeals from five states looking to prohibit gay marriage, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in those states and likely others -- but also leaving the issue unresolved nationally.

The justices rejected appeals from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. The court's order immediately ends delays on gay marriage in those states.

Supreme Court paves way for gay marriage in several states leaves issue unresolved nationally Fox News

You're still insisting this never happened? That Fox News is lying ? How about Reuters:

he U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to decide once and for all whether states can ban gay marriage, a surprising move that will allow gay men and women to get married in five additional states, with more likely to follow quickly.

On the first day of its new term, the high court without comment rejected appeals in cases involving five states - Virginia, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin and Indiana - that had prohibited gay marriage, leaving intact lower-court rulings striking down those bans.

Supreme Court dodges gay marriage allowing weddings in five more states Reuters

ANd still you won't admit that the USSC preserved EVERY lower court ruling overruling gay marriage bans. Its not like the law changes because you deny it ever happened. How about AP

By MARK SHERMAN Associated Press

The Supreme Court unexpectedly cleared the way Monday for a dramatic expansion of gay marriage in the United States and may have signaled that it's only a matter of time before same-sex couples can marry in all 50 states.
Rejecting appeals from five states seeking to preserve their bans, the Supreme Court effectively made such marriages legal in 30 states, up from 19 and the District of Columbia, taking in every region of the country.

Challenges are pending in the other 20 states.

Almost immediately, exuberant couples began receiving marriage licenses previously denied to them. "This is the dream day," said Sharon Baldwin, a plaintiff in a challenge to Oklahoma's ban, as she and her partner got their license in the Tulsa County Clerk's Office.

Directly affected by Monday's orders were Wisconsin, Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah and Virginia. Officials in those states had appealed lower court rulings in an effort to preserve their bans. Couples in six other states — Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming — should be able to get married in short order since those states would be bound by the same appellate rulings that have been on hold.

But AP's lying too, huh? You still deny it ever happened?

Laughing.....so, um, how's that working out for you?

[/QUOTE]

Once again the far left will spin, deflect and distort to suit their revenge agenda.

Yes the far left AP and once again thanks for showing that FOX is more balanced than the far left blog sites.

Then again still waiting on that post that contains all these "rights" that gays get just for being "Married". You know the underlying basis for the entire "Marriage" revenge thingy..

 

[Kosh]

And those same people will remember how their vote was trampled on and keep in mind of those who support gay marriage in the next election. Kind of reminds me of the time Clinton signed the assault weapon ban and the democrats had their ass handed to them in the next mid term election after that..

You do realize that the electorate solidly supports gay marriage, yes? That in both Colorado and Wisconsin, gay marriage support outpaces opposition by about 14 points. With the national support for gay marriage about 12 points higher than opposition?

Its almost like conservatives aim to be on the wrong side of history of virtually every issue.

Then if that were the case the far left would not be celebrating a non-opinion, non-ruling as a ruling.

So which is it?

 

[Skylar]

Once again the far left will spin, deflect and distort to suit their revenge agenda.

How are equal protection under the law 'revenge'? And who, pray tell' is it revenge against? Its not like anyone loses any rights because gays and lesbians are allowed to marry under the law.

 

[Skylar]

Then if that were the case the far left would not be celebrating a non-opinion, non-ruling as a ruling.

So which is it?

Are you still denouncing Gallup as 'far left' when it showed support for gay marriage outpaced opposition by 12 points? Are you still ignoring Pew polling, Bloomberg polling, CBS polling, even when they're from your own source 'Polling Report. com'.....when they all showed between 12 and 16 point spreads favoring support for gay marriage?

Are you still intent on ignoring your *own sources*?

I mean, how big is this 'far left' conspiracy you've dreamed up?

 

[Kosh]

Once again the far left will spin, deflect and distort to suit their revenge agenda.

How are equal protection under the law 'revenge'? And who, pray tell' is it revenge against? Its not like anyone loses any rights because gays and lesbians are allowed to marry under the law.

What "rights" do gays not have because they are not "Married"?

 

[Kosh]

Then if that were the case the far left would not be celebrating a non-opinion, non-ruling as a ruling.

So which is it?

Are you still denouncing Gallup as 'far left' when it showed support for gay marriage outpaced opposition by 12 points? Are you still ignoring Pew polling, Bloomberg polling, CBS polling, even when they're from your own source 'Polling Report. com'.....when they all showed between 12 and 16 point spreads favoring support for gay marriage?

Are you still intent on ignoring your *own sources*?

I mean, how big is this 'far left' conspiracy you've dreamed up?

I never posted the Gallup poll, you did and claimed it was the only valid poll. That is how all this started..

 

[Skylar]

I never posted the Gallup poll, you did and claimed it was the only valid poll. That is how all this started..

Do you deny dismissing Gallup as 'far left'? I mean, I can quote you if you'd like. It would be embarrassing for you. But I'd be more than happy to remind you. Just deny dismissing the Gallup poll.

Laughing....I double dog dare you.

And the polls from Polling Report.com.....the one's that you said were good? You ignored every single one of those too. Ignoring your own sources. That was quite the clusterfuck. But there's nothing you won't ignore to continue to cling to what you want to believe.

 

[Pop23]

Yes they have! Especially you!

Nope. You're refuting claims no one has made. What has been claimed (and affirmed by the federal judiciary about 2 dozen times) is that denying legal recognition of the marriages of gays and lesbians is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, as there is no valid reason for such a denial of rights.

And marriage is a legally recognized and legally protected right, affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Nope they have been made.

and "Marriage" is not a "right". because an individual can take away said "right" just by telling you they are done with you.

Your point is correct. Marriage is not a right.

Marriage becomes a rights issue when states recognize it under the law as a civil union. Once that happens, residents of that state are entitled to their constitutional right of equal protection under the law.

Nope. You're refuting claims no one has made. What has been claimed (and affirmed by the federal judiciary about 2 dozen times) is that denying legal recognition of the marriages of gays and lesbians is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, as there is no valid reason for such a denial of rights.

And marriage is a legally recognized and legally protected right, affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Nope they have been made.

and "Marriage" is not a "right". because an individual can take away said "right" just by telling you they are done with you.

Your point is correct. Marriage is not a right.

Marriage becomes a rights issue when states recognize it under the law as a civil union. Once that happens, residents of that state are entitled to their constitutional right of equal protection under the law.

residents of that state are entitled to their constitutional right of equal protection under the law.

each person has a privilege to get married

as defined by the state

Whatever that is supposed to mean. You can't constitutionally recognize opposite sex marriage and not same sex marriage - that is unconstitutional - because the two are sufficiently similar to fall under the right of equal protection.

They're no where close to being the same

 

[Pop23]

Yes I know the non-opinion and non-ruling as a ruling bit.

You're STILL denying that the USSC refused the appeal of 5 different states that had their gay marriage bans overturnred? C'mon...really?

The Supreme Court on Monday turned away appeals from five states looking to prohibit gay marriage, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in those states and likely others -- but also leaving the issue unresolved nationally.

The justices rejected appeals from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. The court's order immediately ends delays on gay marriage in those states.

Supreme Court paves way for gay marriage in several states leaves issue unresolved nationally Fox News

You're still insisting this never happened? That Fox News is lying ? How about Reuters:

he U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to decide once and for all whether states can ban gay marriage, a surprising move that will allow gay men and women to get married in five additional states, with more likely to follow quickly.

On the first day of its new term, the high court without comment rejected appeals in cases involving five states - Virginia, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin and Indiana - that had prohibited gay marriage, leaving intact lower-court rulings striking down those bans.

Supreme Court dodges gay marriage allowing weddings in five more states Reuters

ANd still you won't admit that the USSC preserved EVERY lower court ruling overruling gay marriage bans. Its not like the law changes because you deny it ever happened. How about AP

By MARK SHERMAN Associated Press

The Supreme Court unexpectedly cleared the way Monday for a dramatic expansion of gay marriage in the United States and may have signaled that it's only a matter of time before same-sex couples can marry in all 50 states.
Rejecting appeals from five states seeking to preserve their bans, the Supreme Court effectively made such marriages legal in 30 states, up from 19 and the District of Columbia, taking in every region of the country.

Challenges are pending in the other 20 states.

Almost immediately, exuberant couples began receiving marriage licenses previously denied to them. "This is the dream day," said Sharon Baldwin, a plaintiff in a challenge to Oklahoma's ban, as she and her partner got their license in the Tulsa County Clerk's Office.

Directly affected by Monday's orders were Wisconsin, Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah and Virginia. Officials in those states had appealed lower court rulings in an effort to preserve their bans. Couples in six other states — Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming — should be able to get married in short order since those states would be bound by the same appellate rulings that have been on hold.

But AP's lying too, huh? You still deny it ever happened?

Laughing.....so, um, how's that working out for you?

[/QUOTE]

Enablers enable, that's what they do.

And the delusional that require an enabler come up with crazy arguments like......

The two groups are so closely related......

Proof enough of the delusion is the fact that only opposite sex coupling creates human life. THAT'S AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

 

[Silhouette]

You do realize that the electorate solidly supports gay marriage, yes? That in both Colorado and Wisconsin, gay marriage support outpaces opposition by about 14 points. With the national support for gay marriage about 12 points higher than opposition?

Its almost like conservatives aim to be on the wrong side of history of virtually every issue.

Really? Then why did all the states except 3 vote to keep marriage only between a man and a woman? And why does the poll on this thread reflect a staunch refusal to solidly back gay marriage all the way...running at 82% and climbing?...And is one of the most popular polls in USMB history? Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 163 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And what were those million "likes" in less than 24 hours on Facebook's "Boycott A&E" page supporting Phil Robertson's opposition to gay marriage?

And why did crowds clog Chic-Fil-a until all the food was sold out...standing in line for hours in the hot sun just to be told "sorry, there's no more food"...in support of that CEO saying he didn't support gay marriage?

 

[Skylar]

Proof enough of the delusion is the fact that only opposite sex coupling creates human life. THAT'S AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

No state requires a child for a marriage to be valid. No state requires the ability to have children for a marriage to be valid. How then is gay and lesbians couples failure to meet a standard that applies to NO ONE an excuse to exclude them from marriage?