SCOTUS divided over SSM

[SassyIrishLass]

Looks like SCOTUS ruling in favor of SSM isn't the lock the homos led everyone to believe. Roberts nailed it. Kennedy is all over the map, he's obviously conflicted.

Gay Marriage Arguments Divide Supreme Court Justices

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that Ms. Bonauto was asking the court to do something radical.

“You’re not seeking to join the institution,” he said. “You’re seeking to change what the institution is.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Well of course they are.

Duh.

Very telling that some believe equal rights, as guaranteed by our constitution is "something radical".

Straights have changed the definition of marriage many times. Are you phobes okay with that?

 

[rightwinger]

It will go 6-3 in favor

 

[Redfish]

Well of course they are.

Duh.

Very telling that some believe equal rights, as guaranteed by our constitution is "something radical".

Straights have changed the definition of marriage many times. Are you phobes okay with that?

The real question here is whether homosexuality is a normal human condition. The marriage issue is just a dodge of the real issue.

Society as a whole should decide this, not 9 old farts in black robes.

 

[Redfish]

It will go 6-3 in favor

maybe, then you and your brother jake snarkey can get married

but seriously RW, if you get the ruling you want, what exactly would prevent brothers from marrying? what exactly would prevent fathers and sons from marrying to avoid inheritence taxes?

the slippery slope is real, whether you realize it or not.

 

[Statistikhengst]

It will go 6-3 in favor

Wait a minute. Wasn't Kagan recused from this argument, or did she not recuse herself?

Perhaps I read something erroneously in the last days.

I was busy writing a small book somewhere else.

 

[Statistikhengst]

It will go 6-3 in favor

maybe, then you and your brother jake snarkey can get married

but seriously RW, if you get the ruling you want, what exactly would prevent brothers from marrying? what exactly would prevent fathers and sons from marrying to avoid inheritence taxes?

the slippery slope is real, whether you realize it or not.

Hmmmm, that was a very, very weird argument. How about a man and an octupus. Were you thinking of that, too???

 

[Redfish]

It will go 6-3 in favor

Wait a minute. Wasn't Kagan recused from this argument, or did she not recuse herself?

Perhaps I read something erroneously in the last days.

I was busy writing a small book somewhere else.

she should recuse because she officiated a gay wedding, but she hasn't. She clearly has a conflict of interest.

 

[The Rabbi]

They will decide they cannot dictate social policy to all the states and overturn 1000 years of western tradition. That would be proper judicial restraint.

 

[The Rabbi]

It will go 6-3 in favor

Wait a minute. Wasn't Kagan recused from this argument, or did she not recuse herself?

Perhaps I read something erroneously in the last days.

I was busy writing a small book somewhere else.

she should recuse because she officiated a gay wedding, but she hasn't. She clearly has a conflict of interest.

The fact that she's gay herself would be enough for recusal.

 

[Redfish]

It will go 6-3 in favor

maybe, then you and your brother jake snarkey can get married

but seriously RW, if you get the ruling you want, what exactly would prevent brothers from marrying? what exactly would prevent fathers and sons from marrying to avoid inheritence taxes?

the slippery slope is real, whether you realize it or not.

Hmmmm, that was a very, very weird argument. How about a man and an octupus. Were you thinking of that, too???

I would suspect that the SC would limit its ruling to human beings. XXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

[The Rabbi]

It will go 6-3 in favor

maybe, then you and your brother jake snarkey can get married

but seriously RW, if you get the ruling you want, what exactly would prevent brothers from marrying? what exactly would prevent fathers and sons from marrying to avoid inheritence taxes?

the slippery slope is real, whether you realize it or not.

Hmmmm, that was a very, very weird argument. How about a man and an octupus. Were you thinking of that, too???

I would suspect that the SC would limit its ruling to human beings. Sorry, about your love for your octupus

Statistheihitler knew he was "different" from other boys.

 

[Marxist]

Homophobes are gonna be homophobes. (People in this thread)

 

[Iceweasel]

Homophobes are gonna be homophobes. (People in this thread)

Define homophobe.

 

[Redfish]

Homophobes are gonna be homophobes. (People in this thread)

the thread is about the division in the SC. I don't really think that anyone posting in this thread is afraid of gays.

but what is quite clear is that you fear open equal debate. Because when its open and equal you always lose, your left wing bullshit always loses, your marxist collectivist bullshit always loses. In short, you are a loser.

 

[rightwinger]

It will go 6-3 in favor

maybe, then you and your brother jake snarkey can get married

but seriously RW, if you get the ruling you want, what exactly would prevent brothers from marrying? what exactly would prevent fathers and sons from marrying to avoid inheritence taxes?

the slippery slope is real, whether you realize it or not.

Incest laws

 

[Marxist]

Homophobes are gonna be homophobes. (People in this thread)

the thread is about the division in the SC. I don't really think that anyone posting in this thread is afraid of gays.

but what is quite clear is that you fear open equal debate. Because when its open and equal you always lose, your left wing bullshit always loses, your marxist collectivist bullshit always loses. In short, you are a loser.

Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)

 

[Iceweasel]

Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)

There's no logical reason to have same sex marriage. Genders matter. So homophobia is now defined as fear of marriage destruction? You have a unique dictionary.

 

[Redfish]

It will go 6-3 in favor

maybe, then you and your brother jake snarkey can get married

but seriously RW, if you get the ruling you want, what exactly would prevent brothers from marrying? what exactly would prevent fathers and sons from marrying to avoid inheritence taxes?

the slippery slope is real, whether you realize it or not.

Incest laws

why are incest laws not discriminatory? incest was practiced by humans for thousands of years, the ruling families of europe were very good at it. Is a union of a father and son who are both over 21 considered incest? I don't think so. Incest has to do with opposite sex intercourse within the same family tree.

so my point remains vaild, got anything else?

 

[The Rabbi]

Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)

There's no logical reason to have same sex marriage. Genders matter. So homophobia is now defined as fear of marriage destruction? You have a unique dictionary.

To gays and their suckophants any opposition can only be motivated by religious bigotry or hatred.