OFFICIAL: Gay marriage debate

[Judicial review]

I'm a conservative. However, should the Supreme court decide to allow it it must be respected. Should the states and it's citizens be allowed to vote locally for it as a state issue and it is upheld it should be respected. Under no circumstances does ANY human being have the right to say,

They can't marry, because its against my religion or against the standard. Not good enough. It's a God given right to be able to chose. He gave us the choice to make our own decisions sinful or not when he told Adam and Even what not to do, but still allowed them to chose, whether or not to do it. Also, is their a sin in the bible that will prevent you from going to heaven? We don't know because the bible doesn't say that. God created man in his image. Gods image is his heart. Love. Jesus loved sinners and their are many parts in the bible that back this up. He never tried to shun sinners from him, or say you will not go to heaven if you do this. He does say that who is man to judge when they aren't God?

Now I fully believe that the 2 supreme court justices need to step down with their conflict of interest on this issue. The judicial Branch is supposed to be fair and unbiased. This is all the reasoning I need to say this.

If you ask me if I care about what happens on this issue, not really. Times change. I'm for man and women, but I respect the way our government was made to handle these type of issues.

Now you morons can debate this issue after FINALLY a level headed original unbiased post. First one this year.

 

[Steinlight]

I'm a conservative. However, should the Supreme court decide to allow it it must be respected. Should the states and it's citizens be allowed to vote locally for it as a state issue and it is upheld it should be respected. Under no circumstances does ANY human being have the right to say,

They can't marry, because its against my religion or against the standard. Not good enough. It's a God given right to be able to chose. He gave us the choice to make our own decisions sinful or not when he told Adam and Even what not to do, but still allowed them to chose, whether or not to do it. Also, is their a sin in the bible that will prevent you from going to heaven? We don't know because the bible doesn't say that. God created man in his image. Gods image is his heart. Love. Jesus loved sinners and their are many parts in the bible that back this up. He never tried to shun sinners from him, or say you will not go to heaven if you do this. He does say that who is man to judge when they aren't God?

Now I fully believe that the 2 supreme court justices need to step down with their conflict of interest on this issue. The judicial Branch is supposed to be fair and unbiased. This is all the reasoning I need to say this.

If you ask me if I care about what happens on this issue, not really. Times change. I'm for man and women, but I respect the way our government was made to handle these type of issues.

Now you morons can debate this issue after FINALLY a level headed original unbiased post. First one this year.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I'm a conservative. However, should the Supreme court decide to allow it it must be respected. Should the states and it's citizens be allowed to vote locally for it as a state issue and it is upheld it should be respected. Under no circumstances does ANY human being have the right to say,

They can't marry, because its against my religion or against the standard. Not good enough. It's a God given right to be able to chose. He gave us the choice to make our own decisions sinful or not when he told Adam and Even what not to do, but still allowed them to chose, whether or not to do it. Also, is their a sin in the bible that will prevent you from going to heaven? We don't know because the bible doesn't say that. God created man in his image. Gods image is his heart. Love. Jesus loved sinners and their are many parts in the bible that back this up. He never tried to shun sinners from him, or say you will not go to heaven if you do this. He does say that who is man to judge when they aren't God?

Now I fully believe that the 2 supreme court justices need to step down with their conflict of interest on this issue. The judicial Branch is supposed to be fair and unbiased. This is all the reasoning I need to say this.

If you ask me if I care about what happens on this issue, not really. Times change. I'm for man and women, but I respect the way our government was made to handle these type of issues.

Now you morons can debate this issue after FINALLY a level headed original unbiased post. First one this year.

^ fag

 

[Steinlight]

I'm a conservative. However, should the Supreme court decide to allow it it must be respected. Should the states and it's citizens be allowed to vote locally for it as a state issue and it is upheld it should be respected. Under no circumstances does ANY human being have the right to say,

They can't marry, because its against my religion or against the standard. Not good enough. It's a God given right to be able to chose. He gave us the choice to make our own decisions sinful or not when he told Adam and Even what not to do, but still allowed them to chose, whether or not to do it. Also, is their a sin in the bible that will prevent you from going to heaven? We don't know because the bible doesn't say that. God created man in his image. Gods image is his heart. Love. Jesus loved sinners and their are many parts in the bible that back this up. He never tried to shun sinners from him, or say you will not go to heaven if you do this. He does say that who is man to judge when they aren't God?

Now I fully believe that the 2 supreme court justices need to step down with their conflict of interest on this issue. The judicial Branch is supposed to be fair and unbiased. This is all the reasoning I need to say this.

If you ask me if I care about what happens on this issue, not really. Times change. I'm for man and women, but I respect the way our government was made to handle these type of issues.

Now you morons can debate this issue after FINALLY a level headed original unbiased post. First one this year.

^ fag

Quit your whining you fat pussy.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I'm a conservative. However, should the Supreme court decide to allow it it must be respected. Should the states and it's citizens be allowed to vote locally for it as a state issue and it is upheld it should be respected. Under no circumstances does ANY human being have the right to say,

They can't marry, because its against my religion or against the standard. Not good enough. It's a God given right to be able to chose. He gave us the choice to make our own decisions sinful or not when he told Adam and Even what not to do, but still allowed them to chose, whether or not to do it. Also, is their a sin in the bible that will prevent you from going to heaven? We don't know because the bible doesn't say that. God created man in his image. Gods image is his heart. Love. Jesus loved sinners and their are many parts in the bible that back this up. He never tried to shun sinners from him, or say you will not go to heaven if you do this. He does say that who is man to judge when they aren't God?

Now I fully believe that the 2 supreme court justices need to step down with their conflict of interest on this issue. The judicial Branch is supposed to be fair and unbiased. This is all the reasoning I need to say this.

If you ask me if I care about what happens on this issue, not really. Times change. I'm for man and women, but I respect the way our government was made to handle these type of issues.

Now you morons can debate this issue after FINALLY a level headed original unbiased post. First one this year.

^ fag

Quit your whining you fat pussy.

^ fag

 

[Steinlight]

I'm a conservative. However, should the Supreme court decide to allow it it must be respected. Should the states and it's citizens be allowed to vote locally for it as a state issue and it is upheld it should be respected. Under no circumstances does ANY human being have the right to say,

They can't marry, because its against my religion or against the standard. Not good enough. It's a God given right to be able to chose. He gave us the choice to make our own decisions sinful or not when he told Adam and Even what not to do, but still allowed them to chose, whether or not to do it. Also, is their a sin in the bible that will prevent you from going to heaven? We don't know because the bible doesn't say that. God created man in his image. Gods image is his heart. Love. Jesus loved sinners and their are many parts in the bible that back this up. He never tried to shun sinners from him, or say you will not go to heaven if you do this. He does say that who is man to judge when they aren't God?

Now I fully believe that the 2 supreme court justices need to step down with their conflict of interest on this issue. The judicial Branch is supposed to be fair and unbiased. This is all the reasoning I need to say this.

If you ask me if I care about what happens on this issue, not really. Times change. I'm for man and women, but I respect the way our government was made to handle these type of issues.

Now you morons can debate this issue after FINALLY a level headed original unbiased post. First one this year.

^ fag

Quit your whining you fat pussy.

^ fag

No, your the gay one for sucking dick.

 

[Seawytch]

Now I fully believe that the 2 supreme court justices need to step down with their conflict of interest on this issue. The judicial Branch is supposed to be fair and unbiased. This is all the reasoning I need to say this.

Yeah? Which two?

 

[Judicial review]

Now I fully believe that the 2 supreme court justices need to step down with their conflict of interest on this issue. The judicial Branch is supposed to be fair and unbiased. This is all the reasoning I need to say this.

Yeah? Which two?

Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They are actual gay rights advocates/activists. Huge conflict of interest.

 

[Seawytch]

Now I fully believe that the 2 supreme court justices need to step down with their conflict of interest on this issue. The judicial Branch is supposed to be fair and unbiased. This is all the reasoning I need to say this.

Yeah? Which two?

Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They are actual gay rights advocates/activists. Huge conflict of interest.

Ah, of course...but Scalia, a huge, Catholic, anti gay bigot whose son conducts reparative therapy for gays is okay?

So much for your "reasonableness".

 

[JakeStarkey]

The two are no less advocates for gay rights than the other seven are for heterosexual marriage.

This is the hand with which we have been dealt.

 

[Judicial review]

Now I fully believe that the 2 supreme court justices need to step down with their conflict of interest on this issue. The judicial Branch is supposed to be fair and unbiased. This is all the reasoning I need to say this.

Yeah? Which two?

Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They are actual gay rights advocates/activists. Huge conflict of interest.

Ah, of course...but Scalia, a huge, Catholic, anti gay bigot whose son conducts reparative therapy for gays is okay?

So much for your "reasonableness".

Perfect argument in favor of not hearing the case at all. We'll done. I knew you'd bring that up.

By doing so you force the states to decide. Where it should be. The people decide by casting a vote. Not by a court.

 

[Seawytch]

Now I fully believe that the 2 supreme court justices need to step down with their conflict of interest on this issue. The judicial Branch is supposed to be fair and unbiased. This is all the reasoning I need to say this.

Yeah? Which two?

Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They are actual gay rights advocates/activists. Huge conflict of interest.

Ah, of course...but Scalia, a huge, Catholic, anti gay bigot whose son conducts reparative therapy for gays is okay?

So much for your "reasonableness".

If you were to be reasonable a say the supreme court should have refused this case and never heard it I'd agree that the conflict of interests on both sides would be a winning argument for this non action. Supreme courts refuse cases all the time.

Well that's a delightful deflection. The SCOTUS has no choice but to hear this case...one of the appeals courts ruled opposite of ALL the others. That kinda leaves no choice.

Oh, and there's the issue of the remainder of the unconstitutional DOMA still being in place which violates the FF&C clause.

Nobody on the SCOTUS is required to recuse themselves from this case. Not the ones opposed and not the ones in support.

 

[timslash]

Well, agree with you! Same sex marriages shouldn't be legalized at least because they're "against" our traditions, they're always insult traditional couples and think that they're better that average citizens. Such persons shouldn't be allowed to marry!

 

[Judicial review]

Now I fully believe that the 2 supreme court justices need to step down with their conflict of interest on this issue. The judicial Branch is supposed to be fair and unbiased. This is all the reasoning I need to say this.

Yeah? Which two?

Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They are actual gay rights advocates/activists. Huge conflict of interest.

Ah, of course...but Scalia, a huge, Catholic, anti gay bigot whose son conducts reparative therapy for gays is okay?

So much for your "reasonableness".

If you were to be reasonable a say the supreme court should have refused this case and never heard it I'd agree that the conflict of interests on both sides would be a winning argument for this non action. Supreme courts refuse cases all the time.

Well that's a delightful deflection. The SCOTUS has no choice but to hear this case...one of the appeals courts ruled opposite of ALL the others. That kinda leaves no choice.

Oh, and there's the issue of the remainder of the unconstitutional DOMA still being in place which violates the FF&C clause.

Nobody on the SCOTUS is required to recuse themselves from this case. Not the ones opposed and not the ones in support.

Fully aware of that it's not law to recuse themselves from the case even thought it's been done before by Keagan.

Also section 3 of DOMA was struck down. By not hearing the case you send a message that states or voters can decide what defines marriage as it should be, and you say to the other 2 branches they have a right to do so as they have been doing.

There is no reason at all for the Supreme court to decide what constitutes as marriage, when it already struck down section 3 of DOMA, and combine that with not hearing the case you say let it stand.

I don't care what a 3rd district appeals court did or didn't do, the supreme court is the highest court in our land and can send a message without ruling just as easy as they can with ruling.

Congress should have modified DOMA or repealed it after section 3 was shot down. However, these things do take time.

 

[Judicial review]

Now if you want to debate me about an even bigger Judicial problem about abolishing the 3rd district court of appeals, then we should have that debate. Another day, though.

 

[Seawytch]

Yeah? Which two?

Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They are actual gay rights advocates/activists. Huge conflict of interest.

Ah, of course...but Scalia, a huge, Catholic, anti gay bigot whose son conducts reparative therapy for gays is okay?

So much for your "reasonableness".

If you were to be reasonable a say the supreme court should have refused this case and never heard it I'd agree that the conflict of interests on both sides would be a winning argument for this non action. Supreme courts refuse cases all the time.

Well that's a delightful deflection. The SCOTUS has no choice but to hear this case...one of the appeals courts ruled opposite of ALL the others. That kinda leaves no choice.

Oh, and there's the issue of the remainder of the unconstitutional DOMA still being in place which violates the FF&C clause.

Nobody on the SCOTUS is required to recuse themselves from this case. Not the ones opposed and not the ones in support.

Fully aware of that it's not law to recuse themselves from the case even thought it's been done before by Keagan.

Also section 3 of DOMA was struck down. By not hearing the case you send a message that states or voters can decide what defines marriage as it should be, and you say to the other 3 branches they have a right to do so as they have been doing.

There is no reason at all for the Supreme court to decide what constitutes as marriage, when it already struck down section 3 of DOMA, and combine that with not hearing the case you say let it stand.

I don't care what a 3rd district appeals court did or didn't do, the supreme court is the highest court in our land and can send a message without ruling just as easy as they can with ruling.

You've heard of Full Faith and Credit have you not? If a 40 year old Alabama man marries his 15 year old cousin, his civil marriage is recognized in all 50 states including those that don't allow 15 year olds or 1st cousins to marry. The remaining provisions of the unconstitutional DOMA is restricting the application of FF&C must be struck down by the SCOTUS because Congress has abdicated their duties.

Civil rights have often been won through the courts. It's the system the founders set up.

 

[WinterBorn]

Now I fully believe that the 2 supreme court justices need to step down with their conflict of interest on this issue. The judicial Branch is supposed to be fair and unbiased. This is all the reasoning I need to say this.

Yeah? Which two?

Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They are actual gay rights advocates/activists. Huge conflict of interest.

Unless they are specifically involved in a connected case, the fact that they are advocates for gay rights does not automatically make them biased. The issue is not just about gays, but about marriage as well.

 

[Judicial review]

Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They are actual gay rights advocates/activists. Huge conflict of interest.

Ah, of course...but Scalia, a huge, Catholic, anti gay bigot whose son conducts reparative therapy for gays is okay?

So much for your "reasonableness".

If you were to be reasonable a say the supreme court should have refused this case and never heard it I'd agree that the conflict of interests on both sides would be a winning argument for this non action. Supreme courts refuse cases all the time.

Well that's a delightful deflection. The SCOTUS has no choice but to hear this case...one of the appeals courts ruled opposite of ALL the others. That kinda leaves no choice.

Oh, and there's the issue of the remainder of the unconstitutional DOMA still being in place which violates the FF&C clause.

Nobody on the SCOTUS is required to recuse themselves from this case. Not the ones opposed and not the ones in support.

Fully aware of that it's not law to recuse themselves from the case even thought it's been done before by Keagan.

Also section 3 of DOMA was struck down. By not hearing the case you send a message that states or voters can decide what defines marriage as it should be, and you say to the other 3 branches they have a right to do so as they have been doing.

There is no reason at all for the Supreme court to decide what constitutes as marriage, when it already struck down section 3 of DOMA, and combine that with not hearing the case you say let it stand.

I don't care what a 3rd district appeals court did or didn't do, the supreme court is the highest court in our land and can send a message without ruling just as easy as they can with ruling.

You've heard of Full Faith and Credit have you not? If a 40 year old Alabama man marries his 15 year old cousin, his civil marriage is recognized in all 50 states including those that don't allow 15 year olds or 1st cousins to marry. The remaining provisions of the unconstitutional DOMA is restricting the application of FF&C must be struck down by the SCOTUS because Congress has abdicated their duties.

Civil rights have often been won through the courts. It's the system the founders set up.

Correct. Congress should have repealed the DOMA law, and didn't, as my edit to the post you quoted showed. However, Congress should be given time to do it's job. To expedite this process by saying the courts will decide is the judicial branch taking power that its not supposed to have as the founders intended it to be the weakest branch of Govt for a reason.

Like I said, "Supreme court can send a message by not hearing a case just as easily as ruling on one." The supreme court jumped the gun on this because of power hungry justices. The amount of big cases this court has decided to hear and rule on in its very short time together screams of a judicial branch with way to much power. That's the argument for judicial reform not with the supreme court, but at the 3rd district federal court of appeals.

 

[Judicial review]

Now I fully believe that the 2 supreme court justices need to step down with their conflict of interest on this issue. The judicial Branch is supposed to be fair and unbiased. This is all the reasoning I need to say this.

Yeah? Which two?

Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They are actual gay rights advocates/activists. Huge conflict of interest.

Unless they are specifically involved in a connected case, the fact that they are advocates for gay rights does not automatically make them biased. The issue is not just about gays, but about marriage as well.

see post #18.

 

[Judicial review]

Btw.. if you feel there should be an amendment to the constitution or an added bill of rights for marriage for same sex OR opposite sex then you need to follow normal process to do so, which is the complete opposite of the Judicial Branch deciding to make one up, when it's job is to interpret the constitution, not make it.

there's no role for the 3 branches here except to follow the judical branches ruling against section 3 of DOMA, which has already been cast.