Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

[Luissa]

Who gets to define "normal," anyways?

But that's for another thread...

PI does..

So I guess being a hateful lunatic is normal these days

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Whoever Obama nominates is going to move the court to the right, since nobody will be as Liberal as Stevens.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The Constitution may not recognise the rights of gays to marry, but the Declaration of Independance certainly does:

"...with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

If you're gay not being able to marry is a violation of both your liberty and your persuit of happiness.

Using that logic if you are a pedophile not having the right to sex with children is also a violation of the Declaration of Independence.

Pedophilia is criminal-assault.

The only assault Gay people are guilty of, is the arousal they (indirectly) inspire, within you folks who're afraid of them.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

Baptist Press - Nominee Kagan has record supporting gay causes - News with a Christian Perspective

Well...

She gonna Vote that way on the Bench?

No. What this means is she knows it's not, but given the chance to vote on a constitutional amendment to make it a right, she'll vote yes.

She a fucking fag lover and enabler, and since OWEbama nominated her, that kind of makes me wonder now if that story of the limo driver sucking him off in the back seat is true.

Easy, there!!

You're gonna end-up gettin' RetiredGySgt as excited as you are, presently.

​

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Who gets to define "normal," anyways?

But that's for another thread...

It's not that difficult... Nature defines it... Innees mate with outees... except where the species is stressed and procreation is being discouraged.

Again... note that where the goal is to reduce the population (Regression...) Homosexuality is promoted... Isn't it hysterical that the Progressives always seem to be promoting Regression?

 

[Oscar Wao]

Who gets to define "normal," anyways?

But that's for another thread...

PI does..

So I guess being a hateful lunatic is normal these days

Oh, BTW, Dora is TOTALLY an illegal immigrant.

 

[Oscar Wao]

Who gets to define "normal," anyways?

But that's for another thread...

It's not that difficult... Nature defines it... Innees mate with outees... except where the species is stressed and procreation is being discouraged.

Again... note that where the goal is to reduce the population (Regression...) Homosexuality is promoted... Isn't it hysterical that the Progressives always seem to be promoting Regression?

Not EVERYBODY reproduces.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The Constitution may not recognise the rights of gays to marry, but the Declaration of Independance certainly does:

"...with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

If you're gay not being able to marry is a violation of both your liberty and your persuit of happiness.

Using that logic if you are a pedophile not having the right to sex with children is also a violation of the Declaration of Independence.

Pedophilia is criminal-assault.​

The only assault Gay people are guilty of, is the arousal they (indirectly) inspire, within you folks who're afraid of them.​

​

Oh So we're citin' LAW?

Well Homosexuality is Sodomy...

Now you come back and say that Sodomy laws have been deemed unconstitutional...

So I can ask you how that effects you're argument regarding Pedophilia being Criminal Sexual Assualt? As is nearly always the case, you people can't seem to resist trying to argue out both sides of your mouth.

Changing the Law doesn't change anything... Just as is the case with Homosexuality and abortion, polygamy and pedophilia will remain wrong... OKA: immoral, even after the milti-spouse and child molesting pervs follow the homos and have their respective kink 'legalized.'

 

[Mr. Shaman]

So if same sex marriage isn't a constitutional right, why do so many conservatives feel the need to pass a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT defining marriage?

You kiddin'??????

"conservatives" are DEATHLY-afraid that one more group (Gays) is attempting to take "conservatives'" country, from them. Somehow, Gay-marriage is the ultimate tipping-point.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ANrvQC4wIk]YouTube - Lewis Black - Queers[/ame]​

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Who gets to define "normal," anyways?

But that's for another thread...

It's not that difficult... Nature defines it... Innees mate with outees... except where the species is stressed and procreation is being discouraged.

Again... note that where the goal is to reduce the population (Regression...) Homosexuality is promoted... Isn't it hysterical that the Progressives always seem to be promoting Regression?

Not EVERYBODY reproduces.

SALE ON POTATOES AT PUBLIX!

So now that we've shared a couple of irrelevancies... did ya actually want to address the argument?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[. the appeal court isn't saying that gay marriage is not right because of tradition or popular opinion.

That argument is made all the time by anti-gay marriage types.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Being a good judge is being able to put your personal feelings aside and fairly interpret the law. To listen to argument which go against your beliefs and evaluate them based on logic and law is what we should be looking.

Ah, if this were only true. But it isn't. No one, not even a Supreme Court justice, is immune from their own personal feelings, beliefs, prejudices and biases. No one.

Yeah....that'd be the down-side, of (actual) experience at the application of Law.

​

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So if same sex marriage isn't a constitutional right, why do so many conservatives feel the need to pass a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT defining marriage?

You kiddin'??????​

"conservatives" are DEATHLY-afraid that one more group (Gays) is attempting to take "conservatives'" country, from them. Somehow, Gay-marriage is the ultimate tipping-point.​

ROFLMNAO...

​

Homosexuality is a natural reaction of the species to stress... It's nature's way of culling the herd... Next in line is mass murder and cannibalism... Ironically, studies show that it's the fags that are the first to be whacked and consumed.​

Now with regard to the fear farce... We fear nature and with regard to queers, we're just thankful that our genetic material hasn't been selected for deletion... and we're pretty sure that it's a BAD IDEA to raise that status to 'PREFERRED'.

​

 

[Oscar Wao]

Who gets to define "normal," anyways?

But that's for another thread...

It's not that difficult... Nature defines it... Innees mate with outees... except where the species is stressed and procreation is being discouraged.

Again... note that where the goal is to reduce the population (Regression...) Homosexuality is promoted... Isn't it hysterical that the Progressives always seem to be promoting Regression?

There are real ways in which there are population reduction methods. Homosexuality being "normalized" (normal is relative concept) is just barely a part of it.

Google Agenda 21, as well as all of that "overpopulation" stuff, etc. That's what you need to look out for.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As every one of these sorts of threads demonstrates, if it goes on long enough, there is simply no compelling state interest in discriminating against those of the same sex marrying.
Presumably, in a democracy with a constitution designed to protect freedom, liberty, and equal rights, if the state cannot demonstrate a compelling interest in discriminating against gays in this instance, then the state should not allow it.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Who gets to define "normal," anyways?

But that's for another thread...

It's not that difficult... Nature defines it... Innees mate with outees... except where the species is stressed and procreation is being discouraged.

Again... note that where the goal is to reduce the population (Regression...) Homosexuality is promoted... Isn't it hysterical that the Progressives always seem to be promoting Regression?

Yeah....that's who's responsible.

 

[JBeukema]

The Constitution may not recognise the rights of gays to marry, but the Declaration of Independance certainly does:

"...with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

If you're gay not being able to marry is a violation of both your liberty and your persuit of happiness.

Using that logic if you are a pedophile not having the right to sex with children is also a violation of the Declaration of Independence.

DiamondDave (05-11-2010), Wicked Jester (Yesterday)


So that's three who can't tell the difference between two adults entering into a legal contract and sexual exploitation of a child who's not even old enough to consent

I think it's safe to say there's not need to bother reading any more of their posts

 

[antagon]

Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation.

Using that reasoning, not only must you deny same-sex couples ...

that reasoning need only support the contention that the heterosexual definition of marriage is not necessarily malicious.

Not to mention that the very concept of basing the right to enter into a legal contract [a contract that is already recognized as a standard form of contract] based on whether one can reproduce is unconstitutional and immoral from the outset.

not a contract, silly. a licensed marriage. clearly mutually exclusive. perhaps rather than criticizing its hyperbole, you can appreciate the implications of this argument: were marriage such an unqualified contract, can the same 9y/o get married? can brother and sister?

if a judgment can't be made that the definition was motivated by hate, can the the effects stand alone?

Yes. Another precedent involving race was the Chinese Laundry Case [Yick Wo v. Hopkins] which that determined that law which is not discriminatory on its service can be unconstitutional if it is discriminatory in practice. It follows, then, that a law which is discretionary in practice is unconstitutional even if it was not so intended.

i retreat to the necessity for standing. yick wo was jailed and fined.

To compare entering a legal contract of marriage to risking one's life by running into a freeway is dishonest at best and warrants no so serious consideration. You've lost standing and credibility with comment.


The only qualifications to enter into legal contract are

-to be of legal age to do so (or have the sponsorship of a guardian)

-to be of sound mind, understanding the nature of the contract and not being judged legally incompetent

i put reduction of the issue of marriage licenses to some kind of contract issue on par with my suicide metaphor with regard to honesty... if we need to engage in judgment of argumentation over argument at all.

get denied a license because you dont put a male in the husband slot and a female in the wife spot on the application, you've filled out the application wrong,

Which takes us right back to the unconstitutional discrimination in recognizing legal contracts entered into by free and competent persons based on race, sex, national origin, etc.

or don't qualify to apply, like a nine-year-old on a drivers license app.

You're comparing a 32-year-old woman entering into a contract with another 32-year-old woman to a nine-year-old child operating a deadly machine? I beleive the phrase is 'jumped the shark.

Twice now you have resulted to absurd non sequitur. I'm beginning to question whether you're capable of discussing this matter in a mature, intelligent, and honest manner.

i'm attempting to discuss this with the sort of care needed to conserve the effects of precedent - just like the court would so consider. that requires an assessment of slippery-slope implications for other qualifications to marriage licenses, or other licenses altogether.

as to non sequitur. driving requires a license, one which precludes tykes. so does marriage. someone made a non sequitur about contracts. a core argument, too, not a supporting metaphor.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Who gets to define "normal," anyways?

But that's for another thread...

It's not that difficult... Nature defines it... Innees mate with outees... except where the species is stressed and procreation is being discouraged.

Again... note that where the goal is to reduce the population (Regression...) Homosexuality is promoted... Isn't it hysterical that the Progressives always seem to be promoting Regression?

Not EVERYBODY reproduces.

.....And, no one's doing back-flips, in-support of all-o'-the-ones that are!!​

 

[NYcarbineer]

So if same sex marriage isn't a constitutional right, why do so many conservatives feel the need to pass a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT defining marriage?

You kiddin'??????​

"conservatives" are DEATHLY-afraid that one more group (Gays) is attempting to take "conservatives'" country, from them. Somehow, Gay-marriage is the ultimate tipping-point.​

ROFLMNAO...

​

Homosexuality is a natural reaction of the species to stress... It's nature's way of culling the herd... Next in line is mass murder and cannibalism... Ironically, studies show that it's the fags that are the first to be whacked and consumed.​

Now with regard to the fear farce... We fear nature and with regard to queers, we're just thankful that our genetic material hasn't been selected for deletion... and we're pretty sure that it's a BAD IDEA to raise that status to 'PREFERRED'.

​

Now there's a new one,

the justification for discriminating against gays: because it's just like mass murder and cannibalism (and of course all civilized societies accept those practices as part of natural law).

Can we get the Republican Party to put that in its platform?