Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage bans

[thanatos144]

This issue is a canard. It is a ruse to used to usurp more power from us the people. Homosexuals who support such actions are damn fools for giving up there own power for something as small as the illusion that people will think them normal. Why do so many ignorantly give up thier power for selfish childish reasons?

You mean why should people give up the right of people like you to treat them like shit?

Frankly, I have to ask, why does gay marriage effect your life at all.

Look facist the truth is if the people in certain states wanted homosexual marriage it woud have won in the election. It didnt. Forcing it on those who dont want it is not how this country is founded. Now like all tragic abuses of power little fasict fucks like you use this to make a less free country. Trust me brown shirt when your socialist paradise comes about your stupid ass will be living in abject poverty hoping the overseers dont kill you because your not bowing deep enough.

 

[OKTexas]

[

I think you are delusional.

The Supreme Court punted in 2013 on this issue, but it was pretty clear from their statements that they were inclined to uphold marriage equality if push came to shove.

Now gay marriage is the law in 36 states. Generally, the court doesn't buck the tide of public opinion.

Most of those states have faghadist marriage because of court orders, if the supremes vote the right way and leave marriage to the states those orders will be nullified.

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

Kennedy was the deciding vote in favor of gays in Lawrence vs. Texas, (which overturned the remaining Sodomy laws) Romner vs Evans (Which found gays were entitled to protection under the equal protection clause) Hollingsworth vs. Perry (which struck down Prop H8 In California) and US v. Windsor (which struck down DOMA).

Do you really, really think he's going to say, "Whoa, I'm going to totally invalidate hundreds of thousands of gay marriages" now?[/QUOTE]

They only struck down a narrow portion of DOMA, not all of it.

 

[OKTexas]

Most everywhere gay marriage was put up to a vote it has been defeated, even in liberal California. A society has a right to decide what is or is not acceptable social norms. Gays have had the right and have been getting married for ever under the traditional definition. So there was no discrimination. There are only two genders, male and female, gays were always afforded the rights of their gender. Now they want to be treated special because of a lifestyle choice and most Americans aren't buying it. Call it anything you want, I call it reality.

Guy, you haven't won any recent victories on this issue in a decade. The only reason Prop Hate won is because the Mormons lied their asses off as to what the implications were.

We'll see in June, won't we?

 

[JoeB131]

Look facist the truth is if the people in certain states wanted homosexual marriage it woud have won in the election. It didnt. Forcing it on those who dont want it is not how this country is founded. Now like all tragic abuses of power little fasict fucks like you use this to make a less free country. Trust me brown shirt when your socialist paradise comes about your stupid ass will be living in abject poverty hoping the overseers dont kill you because your not bowing deep enough.

In certain states, the people wanted to prevent black men from marrying white women. The Courts said that was a violation of the rights of interracial couples.

Sorry, guy, the thing is, gay marriage has no effect on your life, other than maybe your open bigotry is becoming less acceptable.

 

[JoeB131]

[

We'll see in June, won't we?

Yes, we will see them rule for gay marriage in the entire country.

You see, here's the thing. Nobody in 2014 made gay marriage a part of their platform. The Republican Party really, really, really wants this issue to go away. They don't want be talking about it in 2016.

 

[JoeB131]

They only struck down a narrow portion of DOMA, not all of it.

only a narrow part of it was at issue. The rest of it goes down in June.

Really, the problem with DOMA was that it was unconstitutional when it was passed, and everyone knew it was. The "Full Faith and Credit" clause clearly states that if one state sanctions a marriage, all of the others have to recognize it. That's why your drive through wedding in Las Vegas after a night of drinking is considered legal in all 49 states.

 

[thanatos144]

Look facist the truth is if the people in certain states wanted homosexual marriage it woud have won in the election. It didnt. Forcing it on those who dont want it is not how this country is founded. Now like all tragic abuses of power little fasict fucks like you use this to make a less free country. Trust me brown shirt when your socialist paradise comes about your stupid ass will be living in abject poverty hoping the overseers dont kill you because your not bowing deep enough.

In certain states, the people wanted to prevent black men from marrying white women. The Courts said that was a violation of the rights of interracial couples.

Sorry, guy, the thing is, gay marriage has no effect on your life, other than maybe your open bigotry is becoming less acceptable.

There is the desperate ploy of the traitorous socialist. Just because you dont agree with handing over your individual and state rights you are a racist. Hey joe do me a favour and take your bigotry and shove it

 

[OKTexas]

They only struck down a narrow portion of DOMA, not all of it.

only a narrow part of it was at issue. The rest of it goes down in June.

Really, the problem with DOMA was that it was unconstitutional when it was passed, and everyone knew it was. The "Full Faith and Credit" clause clearly states that if one state sanctions a marriage, all of the others have to recognize it. That's why your drive through wedding in Las Vegas after a night of drinking is considered legal in all 49 states.

So I guess you would agree that if a state sanctions concealed carry of a handgun all other states have to recognize it. Let's see how fast you back track that argument.

 

[WorldWatcher]

We'll see in June, won't we?

Yes, we'll have an answer in June but either way SSCM is coming.

1. If the SCOTUS upholds such bans it won't change the fact that there will still be Same-sex Civil Marriage in this country as the ruling will have no impact on States that approved it either through ballot, legislative, or State Supreme Court action. There will still be 12 States with SSCM and those Civil Marriages will still be recognized at the Federal level. And to focus will be turned to State-by-State repeal of discriminatory law.

2. If the SCOTUS overturns such bans they SSCM becomes legal in the remaining 14 States.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

They only struck down a narrow portion of DOMA, not all of it.

only a narrow part of it was at issue. The rest of it goes down in June.

Really, the problem with DOMA was that it was unconstitutional when it was passed, and everyone knew it was. The "Full Faith and Credit" clause clearly states that if one state sanctions a marriage, all of the others have to recognize it. That's why your drive through wedding in Las Vegas after a night of drinking is considered legal in all 49 states.

So I guess you would agree that if a state sanctions concealed carry of a handgun all other states have to recognize it. Let's see how fast you back track that argument.

If a State recognizes CC permits from another State or doesn't recognize any - that isn't an issue.

On the other hand if a State based recognition on the gender of the permit saying we will honor CC permits for men but not for women - then that would be a problem.


>>>>

 

[OKTexas]

They only struck down a narrow portion of DOMA, not all of it.

only a narrow part of it was at issue. The rest of it goes down in June.

Really, the problem with DOMA was that it was unconstitutional when it was passed, and everyone knew it was. The "Full Faith and Credit" clause clearly states that if one state sanctions a marriage, all of the others have to recognize it. That's why your drive through wedding in Las Vegas after a night of drinking is considered legal in all 49 states.

So I guess you would agree that if a state sanctions concealed carry of a handgun all other states have to recognize it. Let's see how fast you back track that argument.

If a State recognizes CC permits from another State or doesn't recognize any - that isn't an issue.

On the other hand if a State based recognition on the gender of the permit saying we will honor CC permits for men but not for women - then that would be a problem.


>>>>

Both are State issued licenses how can one be treated differently than the other? Using your theory one state could refuse to recognize a drivers license from other states.

 

[JoeB131]

There is the desperate ploy of the traitorous socialist. Just because you dont agree with handing over your individual and state rights you are a racist. Hey joe do me a favour and take your bigotry and shove it

Hey, guy, the whole "State's Rights" was the cry of the racists all the way up until the 1960's. They kind of gave the whole "State's Rights" thing a bad name.

first, no "individual" right is being lost. No one is ever going to make you have a gay marriage if you don't swing that way. (Although it has been established that most homophobic men are latent gays).

Second, the "State" doesn't have a right to tell people what their relationships should be.

 

[JoeB131]

We'll see in June, won't we?

Yes, we'll have an answer in June but either way SSCM is coming.

1. If the SCOTUS upholds such bans it won't change the fact that there will still be Same-sex Civil Marriage in this country as the ruling will have no impact on States that approved it either through ballot, legislative, or State Supreme Court action. There will still be 12 States with SSCM and those Civil Marriages will still be recognized at the Federal level. And to focus will be turned to State-by-State repeal of discriminatory law.

2. If the SCOTUS overturns such bans they SSCM becomes legal in the remaining 14 States.


>>>>

Good point. The thing is, the courts ruling in favor of SSCM would actually be the path of least resistance.

 

[JoeB131]

So I guess you would agree that if a state sanctions concealed carry of a handgun all other states have to recognize it. Let's see how fast you back track that argument.

Well, no, because that's a permit, not a license. Just like my Wisconsin Fishing Permit doesn't allow me to fish in IL.

 

[thanatos144]

There is the desperate ploy of the traitorous socialist. Just because you dont agree with handing over your individual and state rights you are a racist. Hey joe do me a favour and take your bigotry and shove it

Hey, guy, the whole "State's Rights" was the cry of the racists all the way up until the 1960's. They kind of gave the whole "State's Rights" thing a bad name.

first, no "individual" right is being lost. No one is ever going to make you have a gay marriage if you don't swing that way. (Although it has been established that most homophobic men are latent gays).

Second, the "State" doesn't have a right to tell people what their relationships should be.

Bullshit. That was democrats being the racists they are.

 

[OKTexas]

So I guess you would agree that if a state sanctions concealed carry of a handgun all other states have to recognize it. Let's see how fast you back track that argument.

Well, no, because that's a permit, not a license. Just like my Wisconsin Fishing Permit doesn't allow me to fish in IL.

Wrong answer, I have a Texas Concealed Handgun License. It says it is a license right on the card just like my drivers license says it is a license. Care to try again?

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong answer, I have a Texas Concealed Handgun License. It says it is a license right on the card just like my drivers license says it is a license. Care to try again?

Well, you can call it whatever you want. My fishing license in Wisconsin says "License" on it, too. But I'm not allowed to fish in Illinois with it.

 

[Silhouette]

Hey, guy, the whole "State's Rights" was the cry of the racists all the way up until the 1960's. They kind of gave the whole "State's Rights" thing a bad name. first, no "individual" right is being lost. No one is ever going to make you have a gay marriage if you don't swing that way. (Although it has been established that most homophobic men are latent gays). Second, the "State" doesn't have a right to tell people what their relationships should be.

Meanwhile kids will be guaranteed the lack of the complimentary gender as a parental role model in "gay marriage" 100% of the time. That should bother you unless you believe kids have no place in the discussion of removing rights from the states to regulate which lifestyles may marry (you know, as opposed to a race of people)

Gay marriage from a child-development point of view offers no different of a formative enviroment structure than single parent homes. One gender is always missing. And that gender may be the child's own and source of self-reflection and esteem.

 

[OKTexas]

Wrong answer, I have a Texas Concealed Handgun License. It says it is a license right on the card just like my drivers license says it is a license. Care to try again?

Well, you can call it whatever you want. My fishing license in Wisconsin says "License" on it, too. But I'm not allowed to fish in Illinois with it.

So States can chose to treat any license from another State the same way including marriage license, you can't have it both ways.

 

[thanatos144]

Hey, guy, the whole "State's Rights" was the cry of the racists all the way up until the 1960's. They kind of gave the whole "State's Rights" thing a bad name. first, no "individual" right is being lost. No one is ever going to make you have a gay marriage if you don't swing that way. (Although it has been established that most homophobic men are latent gays). Second, the "State" doesn't have a right to tell people what their relationships should be.

Meanwhile kids will be guaranteed the lack of the complimentary gender as a parental role model in "gay marriage" 100% of the time. That should bother you unless you believe kids have no place in the discussion of removing rights from the states to regulate which lifestyles may marry (you know, as opposed to a race of people)

Gay marriage from a child-development point of view offers no different of a formative enviroment structure than single parent homes. One gender is always missing. And that gender may be the child's own and source of self-reflection and esteem.

Joe doesnt think kids are human