Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You say the Loving decision is irrelevant.

It is irrelevant where the issue is Sexual Deviants demanding to interject people of the same gender, into an institution which exists as an extension of the Human Physiological Standard.

Because Loving heard argument set upon RACE... Wherein the Court determined that a Male of ANY Race, was legally entitled to marry a Female of any race; which affirmed the Human Physiological Standard of Marriage.

And... you should know. Roberts gave obama his healthcare scam... which means that you idiots are FUCKED.

Be sure you're here tomorrow, when the SCOTUS returns to AGAIN uphold the Human Physiological Standard intrinsic to Marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

You say the Loving decision is irrelevant.

Because Loving heard argument set upon RACE... Wherein the Court determined that a Male of ANY Race, was legally entitled to marry a Female of any race; which affirmed the Human Physiological Standard of Marriage..

You are deluded- the court never found any such thing.

 

[Seawytch]

You say the Loving decision is irrelevant.

Because Loving heard argument set upon RACE... Wherein the Court determined that a Male of ANY Race, was legally entitled to marry a Female of any race; which affirmed the Human Physiological Standard of Marriage..

You are deluded- the court never found any such thing.

You could have stopped at "you're deluded". It's pretty much a given in Keyes case. Can't wait for the meltdown.

 

[Syriusly]

You say the Loving decision is irrelevant.

Because Loving heard argument set upon RACE... Wherein the Court determined that a Male of ANY Race, was legally entitled to marry a Female of any race; which affirmed the Human Physiological Standard of Marriage..

You are deluded- the court never found any such thing.

You could have stopped at "you're deluded". It's pretty much a given in Keyes case. Can't wait for the meltdown.

Keys is going to be waving his walker in a threatening fashion at everyone in the home when the decision comes out.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You say the Loving decision is irrelevant.

Because Loving heard argument set upon RACE... Wherein the Court determined that a Male of ANY Race, was legally entitled to marry a Female of any race; which affirmed the Human Physiological Standard of Marriage..

You are deluded- the court never found any such thing.

You could have stopped at "you're deluded". It's pretty much a given in Keyes case. Can't wait for the meltdown.

MAN!

The default concessions are comin' steady now.

I think the cult's figured out that the SCOTUS gave up the obamaScare racket, and will be gropin' to take back some credibility by rinsing the pretense of marriage from those '37' States... returning the issue forever, back to the States, where it belongs.

Which is only reasonable, given that one State cannot obligate other states to accept contracts which are otherwise illegal in those states, which is what the Cult is demanding: "We're here, we queer, tolerate us or ELSE!".

And part and parcel of that, is they intend to hide behind the black robes of mommy jurist.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You say the Loving decision is irrelevant.

Because Loving heard argument set upon RACE... Wherein the Court determined that a Male of ANY Race, was legally entitled to marry a Female of any race; which affirmed the Human Physiological Standard of Marriage..

You are deluded- the court never found any such thing.

You could have stopped at "you're deluded". It's pretty much a given in Keyes case. Can't wait for the meltdown.

Keys is going to be waving his walker in a threatening fashion at everyone in the home when the decision comes out.

Oh I will probably breath a big sigh of relief.

Roberts is a douche, but he's not suicidal.

obama sold you clowns down the river for his legacy bill... Roberts took the hit on obamascare and tomorrow he gets back a fair bit of that line, reelin' back in a fair bit of his credibility, by throwing you people under the collective bus.

I base that upon the SCOTUS Watch having not reported that Roberts is missing in action, while Scalia is otherwise inexplicably locked in his office, as noxious fumes of Clorox fills the halls.

 

[Redfish]

So rather than admit that you are wrong you claim that my questions are too complex for you to respond to.

But since you like minority rule, I suggest north korea or Iran as places that you might like.

No dumb ass. I'm saying your questions are fucking stupid. First question... "Was the constitution ratified by majority vote?" what vote? what majority? What do you think majority vote meant at the time of the ratification. What the fuck do you mean by majority vote? Your fucking question is fucking meaningless. Yes it was ratified by the groups that were required to ratify it. No the SCOTUS DID NOT VOTE ON IT NOR DID THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE STATES THAT JOINED UP.

Are you from Iran? or Korea?

its not really very complicated, but I guess your left wing bias blocks rational thinking.

If you don't know how our constitution was ratified then you are not qualified to participate in this discussion because you are posting from ignorance.

go do some study and then come back when you can make sense.

rofl I know how it was ratified... AND YOU'RE QUESTION IS RETARDED.

then tell us, was the constitution ratified by a majority vote in each state? yes or no.

Your question still makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. You have not said what the hell you mean by majority vote. Do you mean by the majority of elected representatives? Do you mean by the majority of people of the state? Do you mean by majority of citizens of the state? Do you mean by 51% majority? Do you mean by 2/3 majority? Your question still makes absolutely NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. You have this concept in your head for what you want to ask that you can't translate to a proper question. We can't read your mind. Please learn to write with some level of clarity.

Damn, you are one stupid redneck. a majority elects representatives, a majority of representatives make laws. constitutional amendments were ratified by a super majority of the states (2/3). The 14th amendment was put in force by a majority vote. Minority rights were made law by majority votes.

The alternative would be making law by minority votes-----------is that what you think happened?

 

[Redfish]

The BEHAVIOR of interracial marriage was banned.

The issue in Loving is RACE: Race is NOT BEHAVIOR...

Loving was about interracial marriage. And interracial marriage is a behavior.

interracial marriage partners (man and woman) BEHAVE like same race men and women. ]

there is no analogy to a gay marriage in Loving.

The BEHAVIOR of marrying a person of a different race was regulated by the State, that was overturned by Loving.


>>>>

yes, but that has nothing to do with same sex marriage, or man/dog marriage, or sibling marriage, or parent/child marriage, or group marriage. Loving was a ruling on interracial marriage between one man and one woman.

 

[Spinster]

No Interracial Marriage is NOT behavior.

Sure it is.

So then Marriage was outlawed in Loving?

Nope. Laws criminalizing the behavior of interracial marriage are outlaws. As are laws that fail to recognize the marriages of interracial couples.

How did this thread shift from gay/lesbian marriage to one of interracial marriage, I'd like to know. Reading this complete change from one post to another made me think I'd maybe had a stroke or something, but no, it really did occur.

It didn't shift. Accurate comparison are made between prohibitions on interracial and same sex marriages.

Not getting into a pissing contest over this, but, yes, it did shift. And, no, accurate comparisons can't be made between interracial and same sex marriages. They are diametrically opposed, interracials can and the other is ill equipped with the same "stuff". Duh!!!

 

[Skylar]

Because Loving heard argument set upon RACE... Wherein the Court determined that a Male of ANY Race, was legally entitled to marry a Female of any race; which affirmed the Human Physiological Standard of Marriage.

The court never mentions the 'human psychological standard of marriage' in the Loving Decision. You've never read Loving. You're just making this shit up as you go along. And your relativism and imagination are irrelevant to the outcome of any ruling.

Be sure you're here tomorrow, when the SCOTUS returns to AGAIN uphold the Human Physiological Standard intrinsic to Marriage.

You do realize that in Windsor.....they overturned same sex marriage bans, yes?

You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, do you?

 

[Skylar]

You say the Loving decision is irrelevant.

Because Loving heard argument set upon RACE... Wherein the Court determined that a Male of ANY Race, was legally entitled to marry a Female of any race; which affirmed the Human Physiological Standard of Marriage..

You are deluded- the court never found any such thing.

Nope. He's just hallucinating his own Loving decision. And then insisting that if he can imagine it, it must be reality.

Keyes is, without a doubt, the most hopelessly relativistic poster on this board.

 

[Skylar]

You say the Loving decision is irrelevant.

Because Loving heard argument set upon RACE... Wherein the Court determined that a Male of ANY Race, was legally entitled to marry a Female of any race; which affirmed the Human Physiological Standard of Marriage..

You are deluded- the court never found any such thing.

You could have stopped at "you're deluded". It's pretty much a given in Keyes case. Can't wait for the meltdown.

Keys is going to be waving his walker in a threatening fashion at everyone in the home when the decision comes out.

Oh I will probably breath a big sigh of relief.

Roberts is a douche, but he's not suicidal.

obama sold you clowns down the river for his legacy bill... Roberts took the hit on obamascare and tomorrow he gets back a fair bit of that line, reelin' back in a fair bit of his credibility, by throwing you people under the collective bus.

I'd say there's a 50-50 chance of a 6-3 ruling on Obergefell. With Roberts siding with the Liberal wing and Kennedy in defense of gay marriage. I'd say there's even a chance at a 7 to 2 ruling. Which is at least the margin in every denial of cert by the court when preserving lower court rulings that overturned same sex marriage bans.

 

[RKMBrown]

No dumb ass. I'm saying your questions are fucking stupid. First question... "Was the constitution ratified by majority vote?" what vote? what majority? What do you think majority vote meant at the time of the ratification. What the fuck do you mean by majority vote? Your fucking question is fucking meaningless. Yes it was ratified by the groups that were required to ratify it. No the SCOTUS DID NOT VOTE ON IT NOR DID THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE STATES THAT JOINED UP.

Are you from Iran? or Korea?

its not really very complicated, but I guess your left wing bias blocks rational thinking.

If you don't know how our constitution was ratified then you are not qualified to participate in this discussion because you are posting from ignorance.

go do some study and then come back when you can make sense.

rofl I know how it was ratified... AND YOU'RE QUESTION IS RETARDED.

then tell us, was the constitution ratified by a majority vote in each state? yes or no.

Your question still makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. You have not said what the hell you mean by majority vote. Do you mean by the majority of elected representatives? Do you mean by the majority of people of the state? Do you mean by majority of citizens of the state? Do you mean by 51% majority? Do you mean by 2/3 majority? Your question still makes absolutely NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. You have this concept in your head for what you want to ask that you can't translate to a proper question. We can't read your mind. Please learn to write with some level of clarity.

Damn, you are one stupid redneck. a majority elects representatives, a majority of representatives make laws. constitutional amendments were ratified by a super majority of the states (2/3). The 14th amendment was put in force by a majority vote. Minority rights were made law by majority votes.

The alternative would be making law by minority votes-----------is that what you think happened?

You're a moron. Each person in this country is a single vote, a minority. That single vote is not the majority. Each person in this country has the same rights. Rights were not made by ANYONE OR ANY LAWS IN THIS COUNTRY YOU DUMB ASS. You can only take away rights THROUGH ACTS OF FORCE. You can't make rights ya moron.

And no the 14th was not put in force by majority vote. It was put in force via cannon fire and threat of death.

 

[Syriusly]

You say the Loving decision is irrelevant.

Because Loving heard argument set upon RACE... Wherein the Court determined that a Male of ANY Race, was legally entitled to marry a Female of any race; which affirmed the Human Physiological Standard of Marriage..

You are deluded- the court never found any such thing.

You could have stopped at "you're deluded". It's pretty much a given in Keyes case. Can't wait for the meltdown.

Keys is going to be waving his walker in a threatening fashion at everyone in the home when the decision comes out.

Oh I will probably breath a big sigh of relief.

Roberts is a douche, but he's not suicidal.

obama sold you clowns down the river for his legacy bill... Roberts took the hit on obamascare and tomorrow he gets back a fair bit of that line, reelin' back in a fair bit of his credibility, by throwing you people under the collective bus.

I base that upon the SCOTUS Watch having not reported that Roberts is missing in action, while Scalia is otherwise inexplicably locked in his office, as noxious fumes of Clorox fills the halls.

Keys right this moment is waving his walker and threatening the staff with his sippy cup.

 

[Skylar]

You say the Loving decision is irrelevant.

Because Loving heard argument set upon RACE... Wherein the Court determined that a Male of ANY Race, was legally entitled to marry a Female of any race; which affirmed the Human Physiological Standard of Marriage..

You are deluded- the court never found any such thing.

You could have stopped at "you're deluded". It's pretty much a given in Keyes case. Can't wait for the meltdown.

MAN!

The default concessions are comin' steady now.

I think the cult's figured out that the SCOTUS gave up the obamaScare racket, and will be gropin' to take back some credibility by rinsing the pretense of marriage from those '37' States... returning the issue forever, back to the States, where it belongs.

Turns out.....you were deluded.

 

[Syriusly]

Because Loving heard argument set upon RACE... Wherein the Court determined that a Male of ANY Race, was legally entitled to marry a Female of any race; which affirmed the Human Physiological Standard of Marriage..

You are deluded- the court never found any such thing.

You could have stopped at "you're deluded". It's pretty much a given in Keyes case. Can't wait for the meltdown.

Keys is going to be waving his walker in a threatening fashion at everyone in the home when the decision comes out.

Oh I will probably breath a big sigh of relief.

Roberts is a douche, but he's not suicidal.

obama sold you clowns down the river for his legacy bill... Roberts took the hit on obamascare and tomorrow he gets back a fair bit of that line, reelin' back in a fair bit of his credibility, by throwing you people under the collective bus.

I'd say there's a 50-50 chance of a 6-3 ruling on Obergefell. With Roberts siding with the Liberal wing and Kennedy in defense of gay marriage. I'd say there's even a chance at a 7 to 2 ruling. Which is at least the margin in every denial of cert by the court when preserving lower court rulings that overturned same sex marriage bans.

I was hoping Roberts would be in the majority, but I am fine with a 5:4 win.

 

[Skylar]

No, its the results of you making factually inaccurate statements...

So this thread is the result of lil' old ME?

The shift to the Loving Decision this time around certainly was. As you misquoted it. Giving us a bullshit basis, an imaginary foundation, and citing passages that didn't exist.

And those with vastly more command of the topic corrected you.

Oh, and for the record: the Obergefell decision predictably cited the Loving decision as part of its ruling. In fact, the legal precedent of the 1st of 4 principles upon which gay marriage is recognized.

Exactly as I said they would.

 

[Skylar]

You are deluded- the court never found any such thing.

You could have stopped at "you're deluded". It's pretty much a given in Keyes case. Can't wait for the meltdown.

Keys is going to be waving his walker in a threatening fashion at everyone in the home when the decision comes out.

Oh I will probably breath a big sigh of relief.

Roberts is a douche, but he's not suicidal.

obama sold you clowns down the river for his legacy bill... Roberts took the hit on obamascare and tomorrow he gets back a fair bit of that line, reelin' back in a fair bit of his credibility, by throwing you people under the collective bus.

I'd say there's a 50-50 chance of a 6-3 ruling on Obergefell. With Roberts siding with the Liberal wing and Kennedy in defense of gay marriage. I'd say there's even a chance at a 7 to 2 ruling. Which is at least the margin in every denial of cert by the court when preserving lower court rulings that overturned same sex marriage bans.

I was hoping Roberts would be in the majority, but I am fine with a 5:4 win.

I thought it was possible. The man does prioritize legacy. And he just wrote his. That dissent will be what he's remembered for.

 

[Syriusly]

Sure it is.

So then Marriage was outlawed in Loving?

Nope. Laws criminalizing the behavior of interracial marriage are outlaws. As are laws that fail to recognize the marriages of interracial couples.

How did this thread shift from gay/lesbian marriage to one of interracial marriage, I'd like to know. Reading this complete change from one post to another made me think I'd maybe had a stroke or something, but no, it really did occur.

It didn't shift. Accurate comparison are made between prohibitions on interracial and same sex marriages.

Not getting into a pissing contest over this, but, yes, it did shift. And, no, accurate comparisons can't be made between interracial and same sex marriages. They are diametrically opposed, interracials can and the other is ill equipped with the same "stuff". Duh!!!

Actually we can make accurate comparisons.

When Loving v. Virginia was decided, the majority of Americans opposed mixed race marriage bans- not just the majority of Virginians- the majority of Americans. It took over 20 years before the majority of Americans approved of mixed race marriages.

Today's decision though- the majority of Americans have switched from opposing gay marriage to supporting it by the time this decision was reached.

So in a way you are right- there is no comparison- today's court decision actually reflects the opinion of the majority of Americans, whereas Loving v. Virginia went against it.

 

[Syriusly]

The BEHAVIOR of interracial marriage was banned.

The issue in Loving is RACE: Race is NOT BEHAVIOR...

Loving was about interracial marriage. And interracial marriage is a behavior.

interracial marriage partners (man and woman) BEHAVE like same race men and women. ]

there is no analogy to a gay marriage in Loving.

The BEHAVIOR of marrying a person of a different race was regulated by the State, that was overturned by Loving.


>>>>

yes, but that has nothing to do with same sex marriage, or man/dog marriage, or sibling marriage, or parent/child marriage, or group marriage. Loving was a ruling on interracial marriage between one man and one woman.

Loving was the court over-riding a State's marriage laws, in defiance of the majority opinion, to support the individuals right to marriage.

And guess what- today's court decided the same thing- except the majority of Americans now support gay marriage.