Supreme Court to take up Same Sex Marriage...

[bodecea]

True.

In fact, it could be argued Rome never ‘fell,’ it evolved into what is today the EU. Remember also that Rome existed as a Christian empire, Christianity its official religion since the 4th Century.

The culture of Rome was submerged under the stronger culture of Christianity. A civilization that accepted homosexuality was overcome by one that did not.

And then....it fell apart. Christianity gave us The Dark Ages.

Odd....considering...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi, you have received 1360 reputation points from mal.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Welcome back Creepy!...

Regards,
mal

Haven't had dealings with Closet Cases or Bootlickers since about two weeks ago.......

 

[mal]

The culture of Rome was submerged under the stronger culture of Christianity. A civilization that accepted homosexuality was overcome by one that did not.

And then....it fell apart. Christianity gave us The Dark Ages.

Odd....considering...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi, you have received 1360 reputation points from mal.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Welcome back Creepy!...

Regards,
mal

Haven't had dealings with Closet Cases or Bootlickers since about two weeks ago.......

^Fuckin creepy and a whiner...



peace...

 

[bodecea]

And then....it fell apart. Christianity gave us The Dark Ages.

Odd....considering...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi, you have received 1360 reputation points from mal.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Welcome back Creepy!...

Regards,
mal

Haven't had dealings with Closet Cases or Bootlickers since about two weeks ago.......

^Fuckin creepy and a whiner...



peace...

Odd that you'd think I whine about pos rep. I just think it's kinda strange since I was showing High_Gravity for the last two weeks that even if I don't comment or reply to you or your Bootlicker, you follow me, talk about me, rep me, PM me a lot anyways. I made my point, quite clearly. So.....you were saying, Closet Case?

 

[mal]

Odd....considering...



Haven't had dealings with Closet Cases or Bootlickers since about two weeks ago.......

^Fuckin creepy and a whiner...



peace...

Odd that you'd think I whine about pos rep. I just think it's kinda strange since I was showing High_Gravity for the last two weeks that even if I don't comment or reply to you or your Bootlicker, you follow me, talk about me, rep me, PM me a lot anyways. I made my point, quite clearly. So.....you were saying, Closet Case?

Creepy.



peace...

 

[Koios]

what law governs gay marriage? When was marriage not defined as between a man and a woman? All states restrict who a person can marry. If gay marriage is forced upon us, not through the legislature but the judicial branch does that not mean that all marriage laws go out the window? Does that not mean you can then marry or sister? If not then why not?

doma

DOMA??? Really? DOMA does not define gay marriage it does quite the opposite. So try again. The liberal left will say that Obamacare is the law of the land because it was passed through the legislature. Funny they don't think the same of DOMA.

Obamacare passed SCOTUS scrutiny. DOMA I suspect will not.

But why do you give a fuck, if as you think, it does not define gay marriage?

 

[Glensather]

So I talked to people about this at work. 100 people, in fact; customers and employees.

Hoo boy.
Opinions to me seem divided between 3 groups:
Group A, the group against, give the old yarn about how marriage is a union between man and woman. A concerned few think that allowing gay marriage would be too easily exploitable (roommates marrying to get tax breaks was one example I was told). These people tend to be older, 35+. 45 out of 100 were against it.

Group B, the group for, said simply put that, whether or not they liked gay people was irrelevant; simply put, it was an equal rights issue. Some had gay friends that they felt should be allowed to marry. These people were younger, between 16 and 30. 35 out of 100 were for it.

Group C is special to me, because they start shrieking about sin and moral corruption and whatnot. You get a few crazies like that in the Bible Belt. Also I'm going to Hell, apparently, because I'm a member of Group B. That was 20 out of 100.

I'd love to be part of some sort of publication to put that up, but the message board here is all I got. But going by this, do you think it's fair to ascertain that maybe the American public (in Southern Red States, anyway) isn't ready for gay marriage?

It took YEARS, after all, for people to be comfortable with the idea of black/white marriages.

 

[del]

Once same sex marriage is legal, it is natural that incest will follow, as will polygamy. More than polygamy, there is nothing to stop someone from having multiple wives and multiple husbands. Harvard has already started demanding rights for the incestuous.

Harvard Students Celebrate ‘Incest-Fest’

i'm looking forward to marrying my ferret.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So I talked to people about this at work. 100 people, in fact; customers and employees.

Hoo boy.
Opinions to me seem divided between 3 groups:
Group A, the group against, give the old yarn about how marriage is a union between man and woman. A concerned few think that allowing gay marriage would be too easily exploitable (roommates marrying to get tax breaks was one example I was told). These people tend to be older, 35+. 45 out of 100 were against it.

Group B, the group for, said simply put that, whether or not they liked gay people was irrelevant; simply put, it was an equal rights issue. Some had gay friends that they felt should be allowed to marry. These people were younger, between 16 and 30. 35 out of 100 were for it.

Group C is special to me, because they start shrieking about sin and moral corruption and whatnot. You get a few crazies like that in the Bible Belt. Also I'm going to Hell, apparently, because I'm a member of Group B. That was 20 out of 100.

I'd love to be part of some sort of publication to put that up, but the message board here is all I got. But going by this, do you think it's fair to ascertain that maybe the American public (in Southern Red States, anyway) isn't ready for gay marriage?
It took YEARS, after all, for people to be comfortable with the idea of black/white marriages.

You ask the wrong question.

How much longer must same-sex couples wait for their civil liberties – a civil right delayed is a civil right denied.

 

[Koios]

Once same sex marriage is legal, it is natural that incest will follow, as will polygamy. More than polygamy, there is nothing to stop someone from having multiple wives and multiple husbands. Harvard has already started demanding rights for the incestuous.

Harvard Students Celebrate ‘Incest-Fest’

i'm looking forward to marrying my ferret.

I hope your ferret feels the same, and that you and your rodent have a wonderful life together. Congrats.

 

[Glensather]

You ask the wrong question.

How much longer must same-sex couples wait for their civil liberties – a civil right delayed is a civil right denied.

This sounds rude, but I feel like it's the really old people in Congress that held back the civil rights of gays for so long that it went to SCOTUS. They did, after all, live in a time long ago, when it was thought that homosexuality was a disease, immoral, etc.

And I agree: the longer we wait to pass this, the more it looks like the 50s all over again.

 

[JoeB131]

You ask the wrong question.

How much longer must same-sex couples wait for their civil liberties – a civil right delayed is a civil right denied.

This sounds rude, but I feel like it's the really old people in Congress that held back the civil rights of gays for so long that it went to SCOTUS. They did, after all, live in a time long ago, when it was thought that homosexuality was a disease, immoral, etc.

And I agree: the longer we wait to pass this, the more it looks like the 50s all over again.

Yeah, but this will pass a lot faster than Civil Rights did for a good reason.

A lot of these legislators have someone gay in their families, and the more they act like a bigot or a twit, the more likely they are go get the Stink-eye at Thanksgiving.

I suspect a lot of these guys are hoping that the SCOTUS makes the decision for them so they don't have to, just like a lot of them were secretly happy when SCOTUS settled the abortion issue for them.

 

[bodecea]

We'll see. History does not lie. It just repeats over and over again. We're just the latest flavor of the era.

Half the country has no interest in the health or welfare of the other half. Half the country does not support the policies and values of the other half. Half the country has dedicated itself to obstructing and thwarting the goals of the other half. This is true for BOTH sides. It is not survivable. Which is a good thing when you get right down to it.

SO you can't get your way anymore, you'd just as soon break up the country?

Hmmmm.... interesting. Kind of like an abusive husband who shoots the kids rather than lose custody.

I'm going to SOOOOO enjoy rubbing your nose in it when the courts legalize gay marriage, and you have to start painting their pictures.

Again the problem. The court legalizing anything, ain't right. But your hate driven motives don't seem to allow you to see how that could come back to bite you. Kind of like the Dred Scott decision. Do you really think the court ruled correctly?

Really? So the Court Legalizing school integration ain't right? The Court legalizing Miranda Rights ain't right? The Court legalizing Judicial Review ain't right?

 

[bodecea]

I guess Free Food and Lodging should have been in the Bill of Rights, too...

.

Not a bad idea.

What the fuck, as long as you're handing out rights may as well hand out some useful ones.

Are we not already past that point?

It is amazing to see "rights" spelled out that do not exist.

Whoa! You believe that rights have to be listed to exist?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Homosexuality is disgusting but it is your right to lead a disgusting lifestyle as long as it doesn't affect others. To each their own. I smoke and many find that disgusting but as long as it is done in private it is my right.

 

[bodecea]

Two different cases here.

United States v. Windsor - this challenged part of DOMA, the part that says gay couples can't get Federal benefits. What it doesn't challenge, apparently, is the bigger issue of whether states could refuse to recognize other state's gay marriage licenses. In any event, DOMA was always unconstitutional, it was passed by Congress to get the issue off the table when it seemed Hawaii might legalize gay marriage. Because it took another decade for a state to actually legalize same-sex marriage, it's taken a while for for someone to say the Emperor has no clothes. Striking down DOMA would effectively make gay marriage legal for the whole country, because the nine states that allow it would issue licenses to people the other states and the Feds would have to recognize.

Hollingsworth v. Perry is the more troubling one to me, because as I've said, I'm never really comfortable with the courts legislating from the bench, using their one-stop shop for doing so, the 14th Amendment. Judge Walker clearly had a conflict of interest, when he crafted a ruling that was geared towards previous rulings made by Justice Kennedy. Even the 9th Circuit reeled him back a bit, and frankly, when you get reeled back by the "9th Circus", you've probably gone too far.

The tactical layout is obvious. Sotomoyor, Kagen, Brier and Ginsburg will probably vote to uphold the lower court decisions to some degree, and Alito, Scalia and Thomas will vote to overturn them. That leaves Justice Roberts (whom I would have pegged as another knuckle dragger until he saved ObamaCare) and Kennedy (who penned Lawrence and Romer, decisions that expanded gay rights.)

Again, I would rather have this worked out in Congress and the legislatures than the courts.

Both Kennedy and Roberts have their legacy to consider. Roberts is young enough to not want to be on the wrong side of this...

Thank gawd justices are appointed so they can concentrate on the Constitution and not politics.

Judges do not hear cases unless someone brings suit. But I agree that the Supreme Court would have been better off letting the lower court decisions stand.

 

[bodecea]

The culture of Rome was submerged under the stronger culture of Christianity. A civilization that accepted homosexuality was overcome by one that did not.

And then....it fell apart. Christianity gave us The Dark Ages.

It can't quit me...



peace...

"Me"? Could this post be acknowledgement that the OP is gay? PROGRESS!

 

[Katzndogz]

The Supreme Court will undoubtably impose same sex marriage on the nation. The people are degrading, becoming more depraved. The majority accepts all kinds of things that a better people would have recoiled from just a few years ago. Western Civilization is in its waning days, following every other failed civilization into the dustbin of history and doing it by walking the very same well worn path.

 

[bodecea]

The Supreme Court will undoubtably impose same sex marriage on the nation. The people are degrading, becoming more depraved. The majority accepts all kinds of things that a better people would have recoiled from just a few years ago. Western Civilization is in its waning days, following every other failed civilization into the dustbin of history and doing it by walking the very same well worn path.

Explain very clearly to us how legalizing the marriages of tax-paying, law-abiding gay citizens is affecting you and Western Civilization detrimentally.

 

[mjollnir]

The Supreme Court will undoubtably impose same sex marriage on the nation. The people are degrading, becoming more depraved. The majority accepts all kinds of things that a better people would have recoiled from just a few years ago. Western Civilization is in its waning days, following every other failed civilization into the dustbin of history and doing it by walking the very same well worn path.

A. Nothing will be 'imposed' on you, dunce.
B. There is nothing particularly degrading or depraved about marriage.
C. It's called 'equal protection under the law'.
D. You bullshit about failed civilizations has been repeated debunked here, and you haven't been able to either support your contention or address the points against it.
E. Stop being such a pathetic, ahistorical tool.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I agree that working it out in the legislatures would be the better way.

However, 6 to 3 for the gay gang.

Two different cases here.

United States v. Windsor - this challenged part of DOMA, the part that says gay couples can't get Federal benefits. What it doesn't challenge, apparently, is the bigger issue of whether states could refuse to recognize other state's gay marriage licenses. In any event, DOMA was always unconstitutional, it was passed by Congress to get the issue off the table when it seemed Hawaii might legalize gay marriage. Because it took another decade for a state to actually legalize same-sex marriage, it's taken a while for for someone to say the Emperor has no clothes. Striking down DOMA would effectively make gay marriage legal for the whole country, because the nine states that allow it would issue licenses to people the other states and the Feds would have to recognize.

Hollingsworth v. Perry is the more troubling one to me, because as I've said, I'm never really comfortable with the courts legislating from the bench, using their one-stop shop for doing so, the 14th Amendment. Judge Walker clearly had a conflict of interest, when he crafted a ruling that was geared towards previous rulings made by Justice Kennedy. Even the 9th Circuit reeled him back a bit, and frankly, when you get reeled back by the "9th Circus", you've probably gone too far.

The tactical layout is obvious. Sotomoyor, Kagen, Brier and Ginsburg will probably vote to uphold the lower court decisions to some degree, and Alito, Scalia and Thomas will vote to overturn them. That leaves Justice Roberts (whom I would have pegged as another knuckle dragger until he saved ObamaCare) and Kennedy (who penned Lawrence and Romer, decisions that expanded gay rights.)

Again, I would rather have this worked out in Congress and the legislatures than the courts.