A Shortcut to Nixing The Gay Marriage Decision: Subtract Two Votes

[Silhouette]

Like I said, the equivalent would be a matter yet to be Heard to determine whether or not the fed should preside over states' rights on allowing or not a portion of the Keystone Pipeline easement through the states that do not want it...and having Scalia or Thomas in a photo op while that question was pending in a STATE THAT ALREADY ALLOWED AN EASMENT THROUGH THEIR LAND, with a shovel breaking ground for the Keystone Pipeline. The effect is the same. The overt and arrogant message to any state opposing the easement as one of the parties to the pending lawsuit would be from said Justices "we are prejudiced against your position, we (the fed with the last power to say so) approve in whole of the Keystone Pipeline"

In your analogy, Scalia and Thomas would be on the board of directors for the Keystone Pipeline for the last 40 years...As Scalia and Thomas have been part of a hetero marriage for that long. If officiating a wedding for a few minutes creates a bias, then certainly participating in a marriage for 40 years wouuld create a bias orders of magnitude more severe....Yet you give Scalia and Thomas a pass. Demonstrating even you don't buy your bullshit 'reasoning'. You're merely looking for an excuse to sooth the cognitive dissonance between what you thought was going to happen....and what actually did..

Scalia and Thomas would be completely innocent in that when they were married there was no question at all pending in the federal appeal system on a new redaction to marriage's base physical structure: man/woman. What Ginsburg and Kagan did was not an act of innocence. It was an act of knowing arrogance. They KNEW AT THE TIME they presided as fed entities over a state's gay wedding that that exact question of law was pending in the appeal's system. Their knowledge and consummate arrogance proved out their bias. There is no way of knowing whether or not Scalia and Thomas' innocent marriages would cloud their objective abilities to consider the revision to the word "marriage".

The equivalent to what you're alleging in Thomas and Scalia would require them to be filmed in public carrying "no gay marriage" signs in a Christian protest march. That is the par equivlaent to what Kagan and Ginsburg did.

Timing is everything. The question was pending while bias was knowingly displayed. Kagan and Ginsburg must withdraw their votes or step down according to Massey Coal 2009.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Like I said, the equivalent would be a matter yet to be Heard to determine whether or not the fed should preside over states' rights on allowing or not a portion of the Keystone Pipeline easement through the states that do not want it...and having Scalia or Thomas in a photo op while that question was pending in a STATE THAT ALREADY ALLOWED AN EASMENT THROUGH THEIR LAND, with a shovel breaking ground for the Keystone Pipeline. The effect is the same. The overt and arrogant message to any state opposing the easement as one of the parties to the pending lawsuit would be from said Justices "we are prejudiced against your position, we (the fed with the last power to say so) approve in whole of the Keystone Pipeline"

In your analogy, Scalia and Thomas would be on the board of directors for the Keystone Pipeline for the last 40 years...As Scalia and Thomas have been part of a hetero marriage for that long. If officiating a wedding for a few minutes creates a bias, then certainly participating in a marriage for 40 years wouuld create a bias orders of magnitude more severe....Yet you give Scalia and Thomas a pass. Demonstrating even you don't buy your bullshit 'reasoning'. You're merely looking for an excuse to sooth the cognitive dissonance between what you thought was going to happen....and what actually did..

Scalia and Thomas would be completely innocent in that when they were married there was no question at all pending in the federal appeal system on a new redaction to marriage's base physical structure: man/woman. What Ginsburg and Kagan did was not an act of innocence. It was an act of knowing arrogance. They KNEW AT THE TIME they presided as fed entities over a state's gay wedding that that exact question of law was pending in the appeal's system. Their knowledge and consummate arrogance proved out their bias. There is no way of knowing whether or not Scalia and Thomas' innocent marriages would cloud their objective abilities to consider the revision to the word "marriage".

The equivalent to what you're alleging in Thomas and Scalia would require them to be filmed in public carrying "no gay marriage" signs in a Christian protest march. That is the par equivlaent to what Kagan and Ginsburg did.

Timing is everything. The question was pending while bias was knowingly displayed. Kagan and Ginsburg must withdraw their votes or step down according to Massey Coal 2009.

They don't, and they won't.

And you will simply just keep repeating it as fact, forever. It's not like we don't know how this goes by now.

 

[mdk]

Like I said, the equivalent would be a matter yet to be Heard to determine whether or not the fed should preside over states' rights on allowing or not a portion of the Keystone Pipeline easement through the states that do not want it...and having Scalia or Thomas in a photo op while that question was pending in a STATE THAT ALREADY ALLOWED AN EASMENT THROUGH THEIR LAND, with a shovel breaking ground for the Keystone Pipeline. The effect is the same. The overt and arrogant message to any state opposing the easement as one of the parties to the pending lawsuit would be from said Justices "we are prejudiced against your position, we (the fed with the last power to say so) approve in whole of the Keystone Pipeline"

In your analogy, Scalia and Thomas would be on the board of directors for the Keystone Pipeline for the last 40 years...As Scalia and Thomas have been part of a hetero marriage for that long. If officiating a wedding for a few minutes creates a bias, then certainly participating in a marriage for 40 years wouuld create a bias orders of magnitude more severe....Yet you give Scalia and Thomas a pass. Demonstrating even you don't buy your bullshit 'reasoning'. You're merely looking for an excuse to sooth the cognitive dissonance between what you thought was going to happen....and what actually did..

Scalia and Thomas would be completely innocent in that when they were married there was no question at all pending in the federal appeal system on a new redaction to marriage's base physical structure: man/woman. What Ginsburg and Kagan did was not an act of innocence. It was an act of knowing arrogance. They KNEW AT THE TIME they presided as fed entities over a state's gay wedding that that exact question of law was pending in the appeal's system. Their knowledge and consummate arrogance proved out their bias. There is no way of knowing whether or not Scalia and Thomas' innocent marriages would cloud their objective abilities to consider the revision to the word "marriage".

The equivalent to what you're alleging in Thomas and Scalia would require them to be filmed in public carrying "no gay marriage" signs in a Christian protest march. That is the par equivlaent to what Kagan and Ginsburg did.

Timing is everything. The question was pending while bias was knowingly displayed. Kagan and Ginsburg must withdraw their votes or step down according to Massey Coal 2009.

Yes, a bias you can't demonstrate or even prove. Your imagination doesn't dictate law. You would be wise to remember that.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Scalia and Thomas would be completely innocent in that when they were married there was no question at all pending in the federal appeal system...

Good.

Since there was no question pending in the federal appeals system as to whether a cognizant jurisdiction (State or DC) could say "Yes" to same sex Civil Marriage. Both Maryland and DC had already said "Yes" on the question of SSCM.

The question before the SCOTUS was, "Could States Constitutionally say 'No' to SSCM". Performing a Civil Marriage in a jurisdiction where the answer was already "Yes" is not, nor was, a problem.


>>>>

 

[JoeB131]

1.) Will they sue religious churches for choosing not to perform wedding just like the cake baker choose not to back a cake? Setting up a showdown of a no win situation for our country to chose 1 right over another when they are equally protected.

No, there is no chance of that happening.

A church is not a Public Accommodation. A Church is exclusive to the members and can hold said members to being in good graces before dispensing services. (For instance, my brother's Catholic Church wouldn't baptize my niece initially because he wasn't married to the girl's mother. )

So there really isn't an issue here.

Unlike bakeries and photographers, which ARE public accommodations.

 

[Silhouette]

1.) Will they sue religious churches for choosing not to perform wedding just like the cake baker choose not to back a cake? Setting up a showdown of a no win situation for our country to chose 1 right over another when they are equally protected.

No, there is no chance of that happening...A church is not a Public Accommodation. A Church is exclusive to the members and can hold said members to being in good graces before dispensing services. (For instance, my brother's Catholic Church wouldn't baptize my niece initially because he wasn't married to the girl's mother. )...So there really isn't an issue here....Unlike bakeries and photographers, which ARE public accommodations.

For the purposes of clarity, will you two define the word "church" as somehow separate from individual Christians as to their 1st Amendment rights?

Thanks! (It will help the US Supreme Court later to have that clarification... ) P.S.: I think the 1st Amendment's intent is about freedom of RELIGION; not freedom of "church"..

And if you would, your thoughts on the flagrant pre-Hearing display of bias exhibited by Justices Kagan and Ginsburg?

 

[Judicial review]

1.) Will they sue religious churches for choosing not to perform wedding just like the cake baker choose not to back a cake? Setting up a showdown of a no win situation for our country to chose 1 right over another when they are equally protected.

No, there is no chance of that happening...A church is not a Public Accommodation. A Church is exclusive to the members and can hold said members to being in good graces before dispensing services. (For instance, my brother's Catholic Church wouldn't baptize my niece initially because he wasn't married to the girl's mother. )...So there really isn't an issue here....Unlike bakeries and photographers, which ARE public accommodations.

For the purposes of clarity, will you two define the word "church" as somehow separate from individual Christians as to their 1st Amendment rights?

Thanks! (It will help the US Supreme Court later to have that clarification... ) P.S.: I think the 1st Amendment's intent is about freedom of RELIGION; not freedom of "church"..

And if you would, your thoughts on the flagrant pre-Hearing display of bias exhibited by Justices Kagan and Ginsburg?

Actually it's freedom of non profits right to cause which happens to be practicing religion. You take away their right to nonprofit status for not marrying them, then you eliminating them as an organization or their right to organize. That's what i suspect will happen first. Some nuts will sue them not knowing what they are suing for.

Then when a pastor who isn't apart of a church decides to not marry someone they will sue him individually and that is an attack on ones right to practice their religion without fears of persecution. This is the end of freedom of religion. This is what the SC just opened itself up to.

As for the two justices they had an obligation to step down, but under the current rules they didn't have to by law. However, they showed their biasedness by not doing so.

 

[Skylar]

Like I said, the equivalent would be a matter yet to be Heard to determine whether or not the fed should preside over states' rights on allowing or not a portion of the Keystone Pipeline easement through the states that do not want it...and having Scalia or Thomas in a photo op while that question was pending in a STATE THAT ALREADY ALLOWED AN EASMENT THROUGH THEIR LAND, with a shovel breaking ground for the Keystone Pipeline. The effect is the same. The overt and arrogant message to any state opposing the easement as one of the parties to the pending lawsuit would be from said Justices "we are prejudiced against your position, we (the fed with the last power to say so) approve in whole of the Keystone Pipeline"

In your analogy, Scalia and Thomas would be on the board of directors for the Keystone Pipeline for the last 40 years...As Scalia and Thomas have been part of a hetero marriage for that long. If officiating a wedding for a few minutes creates a bias, then certainly participating in a marriage for 40 years wouuld create a bias orders of magnitude more severe....Yet you give Scalia and Thomas a pass. Demonstrating even you don't buy your bullshit 'reasoning'. You're merely looking for an excuse to sooth the cognitive dissonance between what you thought was going to happen....and what actually did..

Scalia and Thomas would be completely innocent in that when they were married there was no question at all pending in the federal appeal system on a new redaction to marriage's base physical structure: man/woman.

Nonsense. Using your own logic, it clearly demonstrates an undeniable bias toward heterosexual marriage. As they're both participating in one. If officiating a same sex union for a couple of minutes creates a level of bias that requires impeachment, then surely participating in a marriage for decades creates something orders and orders of magnitude more severe.

Yet you ignore Scalia and Thomas. Demonstrating that even you don't believe your bullshit. If you're going to dismiss your own logic the moment its inconvenient to your argument, surely you'll understand why we don't take it seriously.

What Ginsburg and Kagan did was not an act of innocence. It was an act of knowing arrogance. They KNEW AT THE TIME they presided as fed entities over a state's gay wedding that that exact question of law was pending in the appeal's system.

There was no unsettled legal question regarding any same sex marriage in Maryland or DC. As the Windsor decision had already settled the issue, recognizing the State's authority to authorized same sex marriage. Which both Maryland and DC already had.

The Windsor decision destroyed your entire argument. As Kagan and Ginsberg's actions did nothing but reaffirm the findings in Windsor. The actions of both justices was perfectly in line with existing precedent.

And showing a bias toward precedent is exactly what a justice is suppposed to do. Its the entire basis of stare decisis.

 

[Skylar]

1.) Will they sue religious churches for choosing not to perform wedding just like the cake baker choose not to back a cake? Setting up a showdown of a no win situation for our country to chose 1 right over another when they are equally protected.

No, there is no chance of that happening...A church is not a Public Accommodation. A Church is exclusive to the members and can hold said members to being in good graces before dispensing services. (For instance, my brother's Catholic Church wouldn't baptize my niece initially because he wasn't married to the girl's mother. )...So there really isn't an issue here....Unlike bakeries and photographers, which ARE public accommodations.

For the purposes of clarity, will you two define the word "church" as somehow separate from individual Christians as to their 1st Amendment rights?

Thanks! (It will help the US Supreme Court later to have that clarification... ) P.S.: I think the 1st Amendment's intent is about freedom of RELIGION; not freedom of "church"..

And if you would, your thoughts on the flagrant pre-Hearing display of bias exhibited by Justices Kagan and Ginsburg?

Actually it's freedom of non profits right to cause which happens to be practicing religion. You take away their right to nonprofit status for not marrying them, then you eliminating them as an organization or their right to organize. That's what i suspect will happen first. Some nuts will sue them not knowing what they are suing for.

There's no 'right to non-profit status'.

 

[Skylar]

1.) Will they sue religious churches for choosing not to perform wedding just like the cake baker choose not to back a cake? Setting up a showdown of a no win situation for our country to chose 1 right over another when they are equally protected.

No, there is no chance of that happening...A church is not a Public Accommodation. A Church is exclusive to the members and can hold said members to being in good graces before dispensing services. (For instance, my brother's Catholic Church wouldn't baptize my niece initially because he wasn't married to the girl's mother. )...So there really isn't an issue here....Unlike bakeries and photographers, which ARE public accommodations.

For the purposes of clarity, will you two define the word "church" as somehow separate from individual Christians as to their 1st Amendment rights?

For the purpose of clarity, you recognize that a church and an individual Christian aren't the same thing. You can tell....but how the individual Christian has to pay taxes. While the church doesn't.

If a church and an individual Christian were the same thing....than anyone molested by a catholic priest could sue any Catholic for damages.

Alas, your argument breaks on the actual law. As it recognizes that a church and an individual aren't the same. Even if you can't.

 

[JoeB131]

For the purposes of clarity, will you two define the word "church" as somehow separate from individual Christians as to their 1st Amendment rights?

Not an issue. Individual Christians can still personally believe that their Imaginary Friend In the Sky still hates the gay stuff all they want.

But if they own a Bakery, a photography Studio, or a florist, those places are considered "Public Accommodations " and they can no more refuse service to gays than they can to blacks or Jews.

Thanks! (It will help the US Supreme Court later to have that clarification... ) P.S.: I think the 1st Amendment's intent is about freedom of RELIGION; not freedom of "church"..

Uh, no, there's really not an issue here, since no 'individual right' to hate based on religion is at issue.

If your religious convictions say you can't bake a cake for a gay wedding, then you have a remedy. Get out of the wedding cake business.

And if you would, your thoughts on the flagrant pre-Hearing display of bias exhibited by Justices Kagan and Ginsburg?

There wasn't any than there was a bias of being religious assholes by Scalia and Thomas.

Personally, I'd like to expunge anyone who believe in Talking Snakes from SCOTUS because they are clearly too stupid to handle complex legal questions.

 

[Dragonlady]

I would like to point out that there are Christian churches which perform gay weddings. There is a gay Christian church in Toronto.

Individual congregations of some Christian sects have the right to vote on this issue and make their own choice and I think that some churches are facing pressure from congregations who wish to perform gay marriages.

I'm sure there are some here who will say these aren't "true Christian" churches but they are. I would venture to say that these churches are truer to Jesus' teachings than the hate mongering fundamentalist sects so opposed to rights for women and gays.

 

[Silhouette]

I would like to point out that there are Christian churches which perform gay weddings. There is a gay Christian church in Toronto...Individual congregations of some Christian sects have the right to vote on this issue and make their own choice and I think that some churches are facing pressure from congregations who wish to perform gay marriages...I'm sure there are some here who will say these aren't "true Christian" churches but they are. I would venture to say that these churches are truer to Jesus' teachings than the hate mongering fundamentalist sects so opposed to rights for women and gays.

The thieving meth lab guy down the street can also call himself a Christian. If a Christian sect is not practicing reverence to the warnings of mortal sin in the Bible like Jude 1 which forbids them to aid the spread of the homosexual culture, then they are not Christian no matter what they call themselves.

This has been a longstanding problem and one I think that caused quite a stir when the first protestant group broke away from the Roman Catholic Church. The elders saw this exact thing coming: non-Christians calling themselves Christians and selling a false bill of goods to sinners so that sinners would never actually abide by the true words of God.

Neo-quasi-christian cult/sects are not a good resource to cite when arguing the inflexible words and warnings in Jude 1. You don't "vote" on what parts of the New Testament "Jesus really meant, and which he wasn't really serious about (despite their dire warnings)"!!

I'd imagine the worst and hottest fires of hell would be reserved for those preachers who knowingly disobeyed and led many people astray by professing to be the "voice of God" by falsely representing the warnings in Jude 1 and thereby influencing a whole flock away from the voice of God. I think they're digging a basement out below level 7 in the pit for those particular wilfull heretics..

The Christian God absolutely does preach "hate". To hate the sin but not the sinner. Were you just born yesterday or something? That's why Jude 1 says to have compassion with individual homosexuals "making a difference" but to the attempts of "it" to spread as a culture? A Christian is taught to hate that. Because that is the sin.

 

[Dragonlady]

The churches are not "quasi-Christian" sects, they include The United Church of Canada, the largest Protestant denomination in Canada.

UCC is about as mainstream as it gets. And it's certainly larger than the supposedly Christian sects in the U.S. which consider baking a cake for a gay wedding, sinful.

Interesting that you have to cite the more obscure Gospels to find references to buttress your bigotry towards gays, ignoring His preaching that what you do to the least of His flock, you do to Him.

I note that none of the anti-gay messages in the New Testament come from Jesus, but rather from others. And that God, who certainly put adultery, lying and even coveting in the 10 Commandments, but nothing about the abomination of gay sex.

God made people gay and He did so for a reason. I don't believe He meant for gay people, or anyone, for that matter, to go his or her whole life without the comfort of a loving partner.

You're free to believe what you will and come Judgement Day, I'll take my chances.

 

[JoeB131]

The thieving meth lab guy down the street can also call himself a Christian. If a Christian sect is not practicing reverence to the warnings of mortal sin in the Bible like Jude 1 which forbids them to aid the spread of the homosexual culture, then they are not Christian no matter what they call themselves.

Why limit ourselves to that? Let's look at some other Bible Rules that most churches are ignoring.

"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." -- Deuteronomy 22:5

Okay, all those women who wear pants- YOUR OUTTA HERE!!!

"Women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array." -- 1 Timothy 2:9

Hey, and how about those women who want to write their own vows!

1 Corinthians 14:34-36
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Shit, that sucks.

Hey how about those women who have some silly modern feminist ideal of being equals.

Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

 

[Silhouette]

The churches are not "quasi-Christian" sects, they include The United Church of Canada, the largest Protestant denomination in Canada.

UCC is about as mainstream as it gets. And it's certainly larger than the supposedly Christian sects in the U.S. which consider baking a cake for a gay wedding, sinful.

Interesting that you have to cite the more obscure Gospels...

Let's see...who is bigger with more influence, the Vatican or the UCC?

So, next up is the cult of LGBT telling Christians which of the New Testament Gospels to pay attention to and which to ignore; or else punishable by law?

Jude was Jesus's personal servant, daily companion, friend and close confidant. Jude's first passage is about how God will punish Christians who fail to stop the spread of any homosexual cultural invasion. Marriage is the hub of any culture.

No...no. This is loggerhead time. Not some obscure passage about eating pork in the Old Testament. This is Jesus's right hand man in the New Testament warning Christians of eternal damnation should they fail to heed the warnings in Jude 1. It's a mortal sin. Soon the Pope will make an official annoucement to catholics. In fact, I'm suprised the Vatican hasn't done so already. There are so many people disgusted and shocked by this imposition of a cult upon Faith's values and democracy itself, that you'd think if they ever wanted to recruit more catholics, they'd strike while the iron is hot.

We'll see. Gonna be a long, hot Summer...

Returning to the topic, if the Ruling on Friday were reversed and the states won the right to define marriage 5-4 for the sake of the best interest of its most important components (children) and let's say Scalia and Thomas had been photographed in a Christian picket line protesting gay marriage in all 50 states at a demonstration in DC last year, would gays be calling for their recusal and withdrawel of votes?

I think the answer would probably be yes. Don't you?

 

[Silhouette]

Well?...

.... if the Ruling on Friday were reversed and the states won the right to define marriage 5-4 for the sake of the best interest of its most important components (children) and let's say Scalia and Thomas had been photographed in a Christian picket line protesting gay marriage in all 50 states at a demonstration in DC last year, would gays be calling for their recusal and withdrawel of votes?

I think the answer would probably be yes. Don't you?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Well?...

.... if the Ruling on Friday were reversed and the states won the right to define marriage 5-4 for the sake of the best interest of its most important components (children) and let's say Scalia and Thomas had been photographed in a Christian picket line protesting gay marriage in all 50 states at a demonstration in DC last year, would gays be calling for their recusal and withdrawel of votes?

I think the answer would probably be yes. Don't you?

People can call for Jesus to return but it matters not a damn. The issue is over and done.

 

[Silhouette]

Well?...

.... if the Ruling on Friday were reversed and the states won the right to define marriage 5-4 for the sake of the best interest of its most important components (children) and let's say Scalia and Thomas had been photographed in a Christian picket line protesting gay marriage in all 50 states at a demonstration in DC last year, would gays be calling for their recusal and withdrawel of votes?

I think the answer would probably be yes. Don't you?

People can call for Jesus to return but it matters not a damn. The issue is over and done.

1. You didn't answer the question (shocker) "Would the LGBT cult call for Scalia and Thomas' recusal/revoking votes if they had done the scenario I described?"...and

2. You've heard of the lawsuits by the cult of LGBT against Christians going upwards right? You think the Court won't take freedom of religion seriously enough to hear them?

 

[Skylar]

I would like to point out that there are Christian churches which perform gay weddings. There is a gay Christian church in Toronto...Individual congregations of some Christian sects have the right to vote on this issue and make their own choice and I think that some churches are facing pressure from congregations who wish to perform gay marriages...I'm sure there are some here who will say these aren't "true Christian" churches but they are. I would venture to say that these churches are truer to Jesus' teachings than the hate mongering fundamentalist sects so opposed to rights for women and gays.

The thieving meth lab guy down the street can also call himself a Christian. If a Christian sect is not practicing reverence to the warnings of mortal sin in the Bible like Jude 1 which forbids them to aid the spread of the homosexual culture, then they are not Christian no matter what they call themselves.

You...you realize that you don't get to define who is a Christian and who isn't, right?

This has been a longstanding problem and one I think that caused quite a stir when the first protestant group broke away from the Roman Catholic Church. The elders saw this exact thing coming: non-Christians calling themselves Christians and selling a false bill of goods to sinners so that sinners would never actually abide by the true words of God.

Roman Catholics don't get to define who is a Christian either. You don't seem to get how religion works.