Judge strikes down Arkansas's Gay Marriage Ban

[PaintMyHouse]

So much for that old "will of the people" deal.

Your input is not required. TY...

 

[Noomi]

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/judge-strikes-down-arkansas-gay-marriage-ban-state-220917700.html

State number 8 on the list of appeal court decisions in favor of gay marriage. That's pretty heavy momentum for gay marriage. I don't see how it's remotely possibly for the SCOTUS to turn down national gay marriage at this point.

Utah
Oklahoma
Texas
Kentucky
Virginia
Ohio
Michigan
and now Arkansas

Excellent.

 

[DriftingSand]

So much for that old "will of the people" deal.

Who needs a government for the people and by the people when we have Obama, Holder, and a handful of activist, gay judges in absolute control? Screw the people!

 

[DriftingSand]

So much for that old "will of the people" deal.

Your input is not required. TY...

And yours is? NTY

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So much for that old "will of the people" deal.

Who needs a government for the people and by the people when we have Obama, Holder, and a handful of activist, gay judges in absolute control? Screw the people!

It wouldn't matter if Hitler, Stalin, and Satan were in charge, the equal rights of others don't require your approval before they become law.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So much for that old "will of the people" deal.

Your input is not required. TY...

And yours is? NTY

Nope. See the problem now?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/judge-strikes-down-arkansas-gay-marriage-ban-state-220917700.html

State number 8 on the list of appeal court decisions in favor of gay marriage. That's pretty heavy momentum for gay marriage. I don't see how it's remotely possibly for the SCOTUS to turn down national gay marriage at this point.

Utah
Oklahoma
Texas
Kentucky
Virginia
Ohio
Michigan
and now Arkansas

Excellent.

Cookin' with gas now. The US becomes somewhat like it should be, eventually.

 

[DriftingSand]

So much for that old "will of the people" deal.

Who needs a government for the people and by the people when we have Obama, Holder, and a handful of activist, gay judges in absolute control? Screw the people!

It wouldn't matter if Hitler, Stalin, and Satan were in charge, the equal rights of others don't require your approval before they become law.

So you would be first in line to give special rights to NAMBLA or to a father who wants to marry his consenting daughter? C'mon ... no moral standards allowed. Just rights.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Who needs a government for the people and by the people when we have Obama, Holder, and a handful of activist, gay judges in absolute control? Screw the people!

It wouldn't matter if Hitler, Stalin, and Satan were in charge, the equal rights of others don't require your approval before they become law.

So you would be first in line to give special rights to NAMBLA or to a father who wants to marry his consenting daughter? C'mon ... no moral standards allowed. Just rights.

Equality before the law is not special.

And the choices of others doesn't require your moral stamp of approval.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Who needs a government for the people and by the people when we have Obama, Holder, and a handful of activist, gay judges in absolute control? Screw the people!

It wouldn't matter if Hitler, Stalin, and Satan were in charge, the equal rights of others don't require your approval before they become law.

So you would be first in line to give special rights to NAMBLA or to a father who wants to marry his consenting daughter? C'mon ... no moral standards allowed. Just rights.

Same-sex couples aren’t seeking ‘special rights,’ only the acknowledgement by the state of the rights they’ve always possessed, as is the case with every American.

And the issue has nothing to do with ‘giving rights to NAMBLA or to a father who wants to marry his daughter,’ the notion is ignorant demagoguery.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/judge-strikes-down-arkansas-gay-marriage-ban-state-220917700.html

State number 8 on the list of appeal court decisions in favor of gay marriage. That's pretty heavy momentum for gay marriage. I don't see how it's remotely possibly for the SCOTUS to turn down national gay marriage at this point.

Utah
Oklahoma
Texas
Kentucky
Virginia
Ohio
Michigan
and now Arkansas

What the SCOTUS needs to do is recognize States's Rights concerning this issue and overturn the decisions of the gay, Federal activists that disregarded the will and vote of the People. The People, that is, who literally voted in a Democratic manner. The will of the one should not overrule the will of the many where the results of an honest and legal vote expressed the will of the people of those States.

Interesting the hypocrisy of conservatives when you and others on the right abandon the ‘will of the people’ rhetoric after a state bans ‘assault weapons.’

 

[DriftingSand]

It wouldn't matter if Hitler, Stalin, and Satan were in charge, the equal rights of others don't require your approval before they become law.

So you would be first in line to give special rights to NAMBLA or to a father who wants to marry his consenting daughter? C'mon ... no moral standards allowed. Just rights.

Equality before the law is not special.

And the choices of others doesn't require your moral stamp of approval.

But many of your leftist friends believe that a society has a right to define morality. The States have spoken! You still didn't answer my question though. Would you give your "stamp of approval" to giving NAMBLA members the "right" to marry "consenting" boys? How about a consenting father and daughter who wish to marry? Yea or nay?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

State number 8 on the list of appeal court decisions in favor of gay marriage. That's pretty heavy momentum for gay marriage. I don't see how it's remotely possibly for the SCOTUS to turn down national gay marriage at this point.

Utah
Oklahoma
Texas
Kentucky
Virginia
Ohio
Michigan
and now Arkansas

What the SCOTUS needs to do is recognize States's Rights concerning this issue and overturn the decisions of the gay, Federal activists that disregarded the will and vote of the People. The People, that is, who literally voted in a Democratic manner. The will of the one should not overrule the will of the many where the results of an honest and legal vote expressed the will of the people of those States.

Interesting the hypocrisy of conservatives when you and others on the right abandon the ‘will of the people’ rhetoric after a state bans ‘assault weapons.’

I cannot lay my finger on the provision in the BoR which protects the supposed right to a state issued marriage license.

For someone who blows so hard, you really aren't all that bright.

 

[Seawytch]

Nobody is oppressing anyone. Nobody is hating.

Quit yer whining.

Then why deny them the right to marry who they love?

Because it is not a right and it is not about love.

Yes, it is a right:

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right

And, yes, in most cases it is about love, but even if it wasn't, how many straight marriages aren't about love?

Why are you progressives such suckers for disingenuous sob stories?

And what disingenuous sob stories would those be? Like the woman who was told she couldn't be buried next to her legal spouse? By all means, explain the disingenuous nature of that "sob story".

 

[Seawytch]

The faggots around here know how to keep their cock sucking mouths shut. I'd really hate to be a fag in this state when the sun goes down. The courts ruling is inconsequential to the throw down that is eventually coming.

That's a seriously disgusting statement

Homosexuality is a seriously disgusting act.

Then I recommend you stop thinking about it and NEVER do it.

 

[DriftingSand]

It wouldn't matter if Hitler, Stalin, and Satan were in charge, the equal rights of others don't require your approval before they become law.

So you would be first in line to give special rights to NAMBLA or to a father who wants to marry his consenting daughter? C'mon ... no moral standards allowed. Just rights.

Same-sex couples aren’t seeking ‘special rights,’ only the acknowledgement by the state of the rights they’ve always possessed, as is the case with every American.

And the issue has nothing to do with ‘giving rights to NAMBLA or to a father who wants to marry his daughter,’ the notion is ignorant demagoguery.

And yet you, too, fail to answer the question. Does a father have a right to marry his consenting daughter? Does a 60 year old man have the right to marry a consenting 16 year old boy (with his parents' approval)? Does an adult man have the right to marry 5 other consenting, adult men and 2 consenting adult women? It's a simple question (group of questions). Do they have the "right" to marry who they want or not? If your answer is NO to any of the above questions then from whence do you draw your moral basis?

 

[Seawytch]

So you would be first in line to give special rights to NAMBLA or to a father who wants to marry his consenting daughter? C'mon ... no moral standards allowed. Just rights.

Same-sex couples aren’t seeking ‘special rights,’ only the acknowledgement by the state of the rights they’ve always possessed, as is the case with every American.

And the issue has nothing to do with ‘giving rights to NAMBLA or to a father who wants to marry his daughter,’ the notion is ignorant demagoguery.

And yet you, too, fail to answer the question. Does a father have a right to marry his consenting daughter? Does a 60 year old man have the right to marry a consenting 16 year old boy (with his parents' approval)? Does an adult man have the right to marry 5 other consenting, adult men and 2 consenting adult women? It's a simple question (group of questions). Do they have the "right" to marry who they want or not? If your answer is NO to any of the above questions then from whence do you draw your moral basis?

Incest is illegal, so the answer to your first Slippery Slope fallacy is no. To your 2nd question, substitute 16 year old boy with girl and answer your own question. 3rd Slipper Slope fallacy is also no. Polygamy is illegal.

 

[Plasmaball]

Then you never again have the right to consider America a "democracy." Why vote at all?

En you have to admit you dont understand our laws

See post above. Then admit that YOU don't understand our laws. Where in the Constitution is there a special provision for mentally (spiritually) ill, homosexuals?

well captain in america you cant vote to strip people of rights. Since you and others seem to have an issue with this fact, you think the judges are being activist. Scotus's recent ruling already paved the way for gay marriage rights. These judges are just following the law set.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Then you never again have the right to consider America a "democracy." Why vote at all?

En you have to admit you dont understand our laws

See post above. Then admit that YOU don't understand our laws. Where in the Constitution is there a special provision for mentally (spiritually) ill, homosexuals?

Not only are you ignorant of the law, but you’re ignorant as to the issue itself.

Gay Americans manifest a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, as guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments; this includes the right to self-determination and equal protection of the law absent interference by the state, including the right to access marriage law.

 

[Silhouette]

well captain in america you cant vote to strip people of rights. Since you and others seem to have an issue with this fact, you think the judges are being activist. Scotus's recent ruling already paved the way for gay marriage rights. These judges are just following the law set.

You can't judge to strip people of their rights if the US Supreme Court's most recent interpretation of the issue at hand [gay marriage] was Upheld in Windsor last Summer to be the "unquestioned authority" of the separate states, retroactive to the founding of the country "in the way the Framers of the Constitution iintended". The highest Court in our nation ruled last Summer that an individual state's broad consensus [that will be the default when challenged] is what decides if gays or polygamists, incest etc. can marry in a given area.

You might want to read Windsor instead of acting like it was found in the favor of judicial activism overriding state law.

Read it. It says the opposite of what you think it does. http://www.scribd.com/doc/150138202/United-States-v-Windsor [pages 12-20 of the Opinion should illuminate their position for you on state's consensus & gay marriage]