Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Charming sentiments.Alas, the courts don't give a fiddler's fuck about your pseudo-legal 'requirement' of gays. The courts have had no problem figuring out who gays are. Just look at Romer v. Evans....almost 20 years ago.
For that matter, Windor itself could be cited in this Monday's coming release of the Decision on the marriage part of this debate. 56 times it avered the choice to say yes or no to gay marriage was, is and always has been up to the states. If they decide differently, it would be a de facto overturning of the merits of Windsor 2013. The hinge of that case was whether or not a state had a right to ratify and apply all the perks of gay marriage or not..
For that matter, Windor itself could be cited in this Monday's coming release of the Decision on the marriage part of this debate. 56 times it avered the choice to say yes or no to gay marriage was, is and always has been up to the states. If they decide differently, it would be a de facto overturning of the merits of Windsor 2013. The hinge of that case was whether or not a state had a right to ratify and apply all the perks of gay marriage or not..
For other readers, since Sil ignores the true wording and meaning of Windsor...
No it doesn't, and as the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court pointed out in the Windsor documents:
"But while I disagree with the result to which the major-ity’s analysis leads it in this case, I think it more important to point out that its analysis leads no further. The Court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,”ante, at18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage."
UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR US Law LII Legal Information Institute
>>>>
For that matter, Windor itself could be cited in this Monday's coming release of the Decision on the marriage part of this debate. 56 times it avered the choice to say yes or no to gay marriage was, is and always has been up to the states. If they decide differently, it would be a de facto overturning of the merits of Windsor 2013. The hinge of that case was whether or not a state had a right to ratify and apply all the perks of gay marriage or not..
And for those who want a count on how many times the Court referred to states having the say on what constitutes marriage you can hit this link: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion ForumFor other readers, since Sil ignores the true wording and meaning of Windsor...
No it doesn't, and as the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court pointed out in the Windsor documents:
"But while I disagree with the result to which the major-ity’s analysis leads it in this case, I think it more important to point out that its analysis leads no further. The Court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,”ante, at18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage."
UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR US Law LII Legal Information Institute
>>>>
Charming sentiments.Alas, the courts don't give a fiddler's fuck about your pseudo-legal 'requirement' of gays. The courts have had no problem figuring out who gays are. Just look at Romer v. Evans....almost 20 years ago.
However, I do believe the Court gives a "fiddler's fuck" about setting a precedent where people with ill defined, objectionable behaviors in an acute minority can dictate to the majority's ability to regulate behaviors in the civil and penal code systems within each state..
For that matter, Windor itself could be cited in this Monday's coming release of the Decision on the marriage part of this debate. 56 times it avered the choice to say yes or no to gay marriage was, is and always has been up to the states. If they decide differently, it would be a de facto overturning of the merits of Windsor 2013. The hinge of that case was whether or not a state had a right to ratify and apply all the perks of gay marriage or not..
And for those who want a count on how many times the Court referred to states having the say on what constitutes marriage you can hit this link: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion ForumFor other readers, since Sil ignores the true wording and meaning of Windsor...
No it doesn't, and as the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court pointed out in the Windsor documents:
"But while I disagree with the result to which the major-ity’s analysis leads it in this case, I think it more important to point out that its analysis leads no further. The Court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,”ante, at18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage."
UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR US Law LII Legal Information Institute
>>>>
Like I said on the "churches" thread already. Since the LGBT cult already owns the media, selling/promoting transgender surgery now on children's networks, the only checks and balances we had left on the behavioral wildfire was to leave it up to the states to check it's momentum and keep the conversation open and inspecting. What they did legally was like pouring gasoline on a fire.It looks like a majority of the Justices weren't buying all of Sil's bawlings about The Prince's Trust and her 'static' class legal gibberish.
Like I said on the "churches" thread already. Since the LGBT cult already owns the media, selling/promoting transgender surgery now on children's networks, the only checks and balances we had left on the behavioral wildfire was to leave it up to the states to check it's momentum and keep the conversation open and inspecting. What they did legally was like pouring gasoline on a fire.It looks like a majority of the Justices weren't buying all of Sil's bawlings about The Prince's Trust and her 'static' class legal gibberish.
Where will the winds take this social movement? That's a question they didn't feel was important enough to ask. After all, they're just the US Supreme Court. It's not like they are the last hold on things like this. Oh, wait. They are.
And the saddest part of all is that 2016 is now going to be owned, lock stock and barrel by the GOP. Goodbye all the rest of the democratic causes. I wonder if Kennedy thought that one through either? The old adage really is true: "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it"..
All the GOP has to do is shut up about how they're going to roll back meaningful healthcare and making abortion illegal; then just about every single person right of San Francisco is going to vote GOP.
In direct proportion to the groundswell of this out of control pride parade will be the shrinking of all the other democratic platforms. What I mean to say is, the 80% of Americans that kept popping up on these various polls on this topic who are clearly opposed to and feel very strongly about this decision are made up of middle democrats too.
Like I said on the "churches" thread already. Since the LGBT cult already owns the media, selling/promoting transgender surgery now on children's networks, the only checks and balances we had left on the behavioral wildfire was to leave it up to the states to check it's momentum and keep the conversation open and inspecting. What they did legally was like pouring gasoline on a fire.It looks like a majority of the Justices weren't buying all of Sil's bawlings about The Prince's Trust and her 'static' class legal gibberish.
Where will the winds take this social movement? That's a question they didn't feel was important enough to ask. After all, they're just the US Supreme Court. It's not like they are the last hold on things like this. Oh, wait. They are.
And the saddest part of all is that 2016 is now going to be owned, lock stock and barrel by the GOP. Goodbye all the rest of the democratic causes. I wonder if Kennedy thought that one through either? The old adage really is true: "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it"..
All the GOP has to do is shut up about how they're going to roll back meaningful healthcare and making abortion illegal; then just about every single person right of San Francisco is going to vote GOP.
In direct proportion to the groundswell of this out of control pride parade will be the shrinking of all the other democratic platforms.
Like I said on the "churches" thread already. Since the LGBT cult already owns the media, selling/promoting transgender surgery now on children's networks, the only checks and balances we had left on the behavioral wildfire was to leave it up to the states to check it's momentum and keep the conversation open and inspecting. What they did legally was like pouring gasoline on a fire.It looks like a majority of the Justices weren't buying all of Sil's bawlings about The Prince's Trust and her 'static' class legal gibberish.
And the saddest part of all is that 2016 is now going to be owned, lock stock and barrel by the GOP. Goodbye all the rest of the democratic causes. I wonder if Kennedy thought that one through either? The old adage really is true: "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it"..
In direct proportion to the groundswell of this out of control pride parade will be the shrinking of all the other democratic platforms. What I mean to say is, the 80% of Americans that kept popping up on these various polls on this topic who are clearly opposed to and feel very strongly about this decision are made up of middle democrats too.
Like I said on the "churches" thread already. Since the LGBT cult already owns the media, selling/promoting transgender surgery now on children's networks, the only checks and balances we had left on the behavioral wildfire was to leave it up to the states to check it's momentum and keep the conversation open and inspecting. What they did legally was like pouring gasoline on a fire.It looks like a majority of the Justices weren't buying all of Sil's bawlings about The Prince's Trust and her 'static' class legal gibberish.
Where will the winds take this social movement? That's a question they didn't feel was important enough to ask. After all, they're just the US Supreme Court. It's not like they are the last hold on things like this. Oh, wait. They are.
And the saddest part of all is that 2016 is now going to be owned, lock stock and barrel by the GOP. Goodbye all the rest of the democratic causes. I wonder if Kennedy thought that one through either? The old adage really is true: "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it"..
All the GOP has to do is shut up about how they're going to roll back meaningful healthcare and making abortion illegal; then just about every single person right of San Francisco is going to vote GOP.
In direct proportion to the groundswell of this out of control pride parade will be the shrinking of all the other democratic platforms. What I mean to say is, the 80% of Americans that kept popping up on these various polls on this topic who are clearly opposed to and feel very strongly about this decision are made up of middle democrats too.
The people popping up on your USMB polls, you mean?
Like I said on the "churches" thread already. Since the LGBT cult already owns the media, selling/promoting transgender surgery now on children's networks, the only checks and balances we had left on the behavioral wildfire was to leave it up to the states to check it's momentum and keep the conversation open and inspecting. What they did legally was like pouring gasoline on a fire.It looks like a majority of the Justices weren't buying all of Sil's bawlings about The Prince's Trust and her 'static' class legal gibberish.
Where will the winds take this social movement? That's a question they didn't feel was important enough to ask. After all, they're just the US Supreme Court. It's not like they are the last hold on things like this. Oh, wait. They are.
And the saddest part of all is that 2016 is now going to be owned, lock stock and barrel by the GOP. Goodbye all the rest of the democratic causes. I wonder if Kennedy thought that one through either? The old adage really is true: "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it"..
All the GOP has to do is shut up about how they're going to roll back meaningful healthcare and making abortion illegal; then just about every single person right of San Francisco is going to vote GOP.
In direct proportion to the groundswell of this out of control pride parade will be the shrinking of all the other democratic platforms. What I mean to say is, the 80% of Americans that kept popping up on these various polls on this topic who are clearly opposed to and feel very strongly about this decision are made up of middle democrats too.
For that matter, Windor itself could be cited in this Monday's coming release of the Decision on the marriage part of this debate. 56 times it avered the choice to say yes or no to gay marriage was,t..
And now you have the answer. Freedom and equal rights prevailed.Well, I said I would come back now and again. So I might as well hang in until June sporadically. Let's see how vigorously the *usual crowd* will spam good points into oblivion, trying to silence the conversation..
We have a couple of questions. 1. The "should the fed mandate gay marriage and silence any opposition" question and 2. The "should the fed allow some people/businesses to refuse to participate in "gay marriages" question. I sort of walk back and forth between the two questions and have a bit more of a discussion about the invisible demographic in all these conversations: children and their spongy, socially-learning minds. It weighs heavily on the future of society as we sit poised, deliberating at such a divergent fork in the social fabric...
What if a community in Iowa where pigs are raised a great deal, decided to pass a local law that said all citizens who aren't allergic to pork, must eat pork at least once a week to show their civic devotion to their mainstay and town's name? Just for instance, hypothetically.
A jew who refused to abide by that law would be in his rights. Would he not?
Denying participation in gay marriage isn't a statement about a race. It's a statement about BEHAVIORS. "I don't want to eat pork" ...where "to eat" is a verb, not a noun. "I don't want to support people who identify with a lifestyle where they have sex with the same gender".....where "they have sex with the same gender" is an action, a verb, not a noun. In contrast African Americans or First Nation People etc. are not verbs. They are nouns. Please learn the legal difference.
The equivalent is if bulimics got together and organized to force restaurant owners to place vomit urns on every table, because to not do so was "hurtful and discriminatory to bulimic Americans!". Bulimia, like homosexuality, is a stubborn habitual behavior that once learned is very difficult to change. And youngsters often pass on the bad habit socially by teaching/learning/observation of peer behaviors.
Gays claim homosexuality is innate, intrinsic. They have not demonstrated this. And in fact a vast source of knowledge from some of the most credible institutions suggests that homosexuality is learned. And worse, considering this particular question of law on marriage (the hub of modeled behavior in any society), may actually be passed on socially:
The little ole' Mayo Clinic, 2007 < (what a bunch of inbred hillbillys!)
One of the most obvious examples of an environmental factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child. This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”or “abused-abusers phenomena.”5,23,24,46......
why the “abused abusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor, in which the abused child is trying to gain a new identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf
And...the shabby source called "The CDC".. < (THAT bunch of college dropouts!?)
ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta... Drug Use among Gay Men Pervasive by Worcester Sharon - Clinical Psychiatry News Vol. 33 Issue 2 February 2005 Online Research Library Questia
LGBT professional bloggers/spammers would say instead we must listento the latest lavendar "CQR" "excellence" being pumped out of the rainbow-propaganda machine, erstwhile known as "The American Psychological Association", right?
Legal discussion: (the underlined and (parentheses) parts are part of the argument)
Since objecting to participate in supporting so-called "gay marriage" isn't an affront to life or limb of the the "victims" of such a "crime", then there's the gold standard of law when it comes to rightful and lawful discrimination against BEHAVIORS (verb) but not race (noun). Hurting people's feelings by practicing free speech and freedom of religion rejecting what they do (not what they are: people of all races and walks, of both genders) is not against the law. It may hurt homosexuals' feelings to be reminded that their behaviors aren't universally and blindly accepted/acceptable and promoted, but that isn't a crime.
I'll just end this here by saying that children are watching what we approve of and what we don't, and making decisions in their own learning/habituating experiences based on what is modeled before them.
Enjoy the thread.
Maybe this predictably idiotc ruling will lead more of the right to push for judicial reform. Mandatory retirement...more nailed down rules for conflict of interest. Perhaps less politics involved in choosing judges.
That you're incapable of comprehending it is your fault, not the Court's.daniel, your strawmen are legendary...meanwhile...where were we? Oh, right..I can't wait to start blaming the Right in any affirmative action threads for being so clueless and so Causeless as any form of equal work for equal pay.
I think if you're going to claim rights, you should have who is petitioning for those rights nailed down before you head out of the chute.We are both in agreement then: we should leave no stone unturned until every single member of the general public thoroughly understands what "gay" is, where it came from and where it's going.Once again, what part of the word gay do you have trouble with? Are you honestly trying to say that you don't think gay has been accurately defined? If that's the case, how can you be so opposed to gay marriage or gays in general, as you have been for as long as I've seen you post on this board? It seems you have been railing against something you don't understand.
Alas, the courts don't give a fiddler's fuck about your pseudo-legal 'requirement' of gays. The courts have had no problem figuring out who gays are. Just look at Romer v. Evans....almost 20 years ago.
The Romer decision is incomprehensible drivel........I would think the court would be embarrassed to even refer to it again.
Maybe this predictably idiotc ruling will lead more of the right to push for judicial reform. Mandatory retirement...more nailed down rules for conflict of interest. Perhaps less politics involved in choosing judges.
Or maybe the fringe right will weep and wail and gnash its teeth about 'judicial reform' while few if any take them seriously.
That you're incapable of comprehending it is your fault, not the Court's.daniel, your strawmen are legendary...meanwhile...where were we? Oh, right..I can't wait to start blaming the Right in any affirmative action threads for being so clueless and so Causeless as any form of equal work for equal pay.
I think if you're going to claim rights, you should have who is petitioning for those rights nailed down before you head out of the chute.We are both in agreement then: we should leave no stone unturned until every single member of the general public thoroughly understands what "gay" is, where it came from and where it's going.Once again, what part of the word gay do you have trouble with? Are you honestly trying to say that you don't think gay has been accurately defined? If that's the case, how can you be so opposed to gay marriage or gays in general, as you have been for as long as I've seen you post on this board? It seems you have been railing against something you don't understand.
Alas, the courts don't give a fiddler's fuck about your pseudo-legal 'requirement' of gays. The courts have had no problem figuring out who gays are. Just look at Romer v. Evans....almost 20 years ago.
The Romer decision is incomprehensible drivel........I would think the court would be embarrassed to even refer to it again.
In fact, Romer is a clear, concise examination of the validity of Amendment 2 in the context of 14th Amendment jurisprudence:
Was Amendment 2 rationally based – no
Did Amendment 2 pursue a proper legislative end – no
Did Amendment 2 seek only to make gay Americans unequal to everyone else predicated solely on who they are – yes
Did Amendment 2 deny gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws absent due process – yes
Did Amendment 2 deny gay Americans equal protection of the law – yes
Consequently Amendment 2 violated the 14th Amendment and was invalidated accordingly.
The states are at liberty to restrict or limit citizens civil rights, provided such restrictions are rationally based and pursue a proper legislative end, seeking not to disadvantage a given class of persons predicated solely on who they are – and when the states fail to meet those requirements, their measures are struck down as un-Constitutional.
