Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Supreme Court ruling "a victory for America," Obama says
6/30/2015

On Friday, President Barack Obama gave a moving speech in support of the Supreme Court's ruling that legalized marriage equality nationwide. Obama called the ruling "a victory for America" and added that it "reaffirmed that all Americans are entitled to equal protection to the law; that all people are treated equally regardless of who they are or who they love. ... [T]oday, we can say in no uncertain terms that we've made our union a little more perfect."

Full Story:
BuzzFeed, The Washington Post (tiered subscription model), Time.com, The Huffington Post
More Summaries:
Barack Obama, Supreme Court

Congress legislating from the bench is a victory for no one. Some people just aren't smart enough to grasp that

Congress legislating from the bench You cannot accept or understand how things work. Not my problem.

Obviously I meant the courts legislating from the bench. Wow, you got a typo, nicely played. That's pretty good ... for you ...

Courts legislating? Oh? What bill did they pass? Where do I go to read the new law they wrote in the code of laws for the federal government?

Remember this is Kaz.

When the Supreme Court overturns a law that he approves of- that is 'legislating from the bench"

When the Supreme Court overturns a law that he doesn't approve - that is a major civil rights victory.

Re: Obergefall and Loving.

NOW, he and others approves of the Loving decision because racial bigotry is more out of style and harder to get away with. Blacks and interracial couples are no longer a viable target. However, the same underlying dynamics of hatred are always there. The need to marginalize a group in order to feel superior Haters have to hate.

 

[kaz]

Supreme Court ruling "a victory for America," Obama says
6/30/2015

On Friday, President Barack Obama gave a moving speech in support of the Supreme Court's ruling that legalized marriage equality nationwide. Obama called the ruling "a victory for America" and added that it "reaffirmed that all Americans are entitled to equal protection to the law; that all people are treated equally regardless of who they are or who they love. ... [T]oday, we can say in no uncertain terms that we've made our union a little more perfect."

Full Story:
BuzzFeed, The Washington Post (tiered subscription model), Time.com, The Huffington Post
More Summaries:
Barack Obama, Supreme Court

Congress legislating from the bench is a victory for no one. Some people just aren't smart enough to grasp that

Congress legislating from the bench You cannot accept or understand how things work. Not my problem.

Obviously I meant the courts legislating from the bench. Wow, you got a typo, nicely played. That's pretty good ... for you ...

Courts legislating? Oh? What bill did they pass? Where do I go to read the new law they wrote in the code of laws for the federal government?

Gay marriage. Gays have exactly the same rights before the ruling as straights. The judges didn't like the law, so they wrote a new one they did like. A conservative should be a lot more afraid of that then happy at whatever transactional win you get

 

[kaz]

Congress legislating from the bench is a victory for no one. Some people just aren't smart enough to grasp that

Congress legislating from the bench You cannot accept or understand how things work. Not my problem.

Obviously I meant the courts legislating from the bench. Wow, you got a typo, nicely played. That's pretty good ... for you ...

Courts legislating? Oh? What bill did they pass? Where do I go to read the new law they wrote in the code of laws for the federal government?

Remember this is Kaz.

When the Supreme Court overturns a law that he approves of- that is 'legislating from the bench"

When the Supreme Court overturns a law that he doesn't approve - that is a major civil rights victory.

Re: Obergefall and Loving.

NOW, he and others approves of the Loving decision because racial bigotry is more out of style and harder to get away with. Blacks and interracial couples are no longer a viable target. However, the same underlying dynamics of hatred are always there. The need to marginalize a group in order to feel superior Haters have to hate.

Being black changed who you could marry for every black.

Being gay changed who you could marry for no gays

 

[RKMBrown]

Supreme Court ruling "a victory for America," Obama says
6/30/2015

On Friday, President Barack Obama gave a moving speech in support of the Supreme Court's ruling that legalized marriage equality nationwide. Obama called the ruling "a victory for America" and added that it "reaffirmed that all Americans are entitled to equal protection to the law; that all people are treated equally regardless of who they are or who they love. ... [T]oday, we can say in no uncertain terms that we've made our union a little more perfect."

Full Story:
BuzzFeed, The Washington Post (tiered subscription model), Time.com, The Huffington Post
More Summaries:
Barack Obama, Supreme Court

Congress legislating from the bench is a victory for no one. Some people just aren't smart enough to grasp that

Congress legislating from the bench You cannot accept or understand how things work. Not my problem.

Obviously I meant the courts legislating from the bench. Wow, you got a typo, nicely played. That's pretty good ... for you ...

Courts legislating? Oh? What bill did they pass? Where do I go to read the new law they wrote in the code of laws for the federal government?

Gay marriage. Gays have exactly the same rights before the ruling as straights. The judges didn't like the law, so they wrote a new one they did like. A conservative should be a lot more afraid of that then happy at whatever transactional win you get

Oh? What bill did they pass? Where do I go to read the new law they wrote in the code of laws for the federal government?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Congress legislating from the bench You cannot accept or understand how things work. Not my problem.

Obviously I meant the courts legislating from the bench. Wow, you got a typo, nicely played. That's pretty good ... for you ...

Courts legislating? Oh? What bill did they pass? Where do I go to read the new law they wrote in the code of laws for the federal government?

Remember this is Kaz.

When the Supreme Court overturns a law that he approves of- that is 'legislating from the bench"

When the Supreme Court overturns a law that he doesn't approve - that is a major civil rights victory.

Re: Obergefall and Loving.

NOW, he and others approves of the Loving decision because racial bigotry is more out of style and harder to get away with. Blacks and interracial couples are no longer a viable target. However, the same underlying dynamics of hatred are always there. The need to marginalize a group in order to feel superior Haters have to hate.

Being black changed who you could marry for every black.

Being gay changed who you could marry for no gays

Wrong. Blacks and whites could marry, where they could not before. Now gays can marry each other, where they could not together. It is the right to association.

 

[Syriusly]

Congress legislating from the bench You cannot accept or understand how things work. Not my problem.

Obviously I meant the courts legislating from the bench. Wow, you got a typo, nicely played. That's pretty good ... for you ...

Courts legislating? Oh? What bill did they pass? Where do I go to read the new law they wrote in the code of laws for the federal government?

Remember this is Kaz.

When the Supreme Court overturns a law that he approves of- that is 'legislating from the bench"

When the Supreme Court overturns a law that he doesn't approve - that is a major civil rights victory.

Re: Obergefall and Loving.

NOW, he and others approves of the Loving decision because racial bigotry is more out of style and harder to get away with. Blacks and interracial couples are no longer a viable target. However, the same underlying dynamics of hatred are always there. The need to marginalize a group in order to feel superior Haters have to hate.

Being black changed who you could marry for every black.

Being gay changed who you could marry for no gays

Remember this is Kaz.

When the Supreme Court overturns a law that he approves of- that is 'legislating from the bench"

When the Supreme Court overturns a law that he doesn't approve - that is a major civil rights victory.

Re: Obergefall and Loving.

 

[Syriusly]

Supreme Court ruling "a victory for America," Obama says
6/30/2015

On Friday, President Barack Obama gave a moving speech in support of the Supreme Court's ruling that legalized marriage equality nationwide. Obama called the ruling "a victory for America" and added that it "reaffirmed that all Americans are entitled to equal protection to the law; that all people are treated equally regardless of who they are or who they love. ... [T]oday, we can say in no uncertain terms that we've made our union a little more perfect."

Full Story:
BuzzFeed, The Washington Post (tiered subscription model), Time.com, The Huffington Post
More Summaries:
Barack Obama, Supreme Court

Congress legislating from the bench is a victory for no one. Some people just aren't smart enough to grasp that

Congress legislating from the bench You cannot accept or understand how things work. Not my problem.

Obviously I meant the courts legislating from the bench. Wow, you got a typo, nicely played. That's pretty good ... for you ...

Courts legislating? Oh? What bill did they pass? Where do I go to read the new law they wrote in the code of laws for the federal government?

Gay marriage. Gays have exactly the same rights before the ruling as straights. The judges didn't like the law, so they wrote a new one they did like.t

What is the name of that law?

 

[kaz]

Congress legislating from the bench is a victory for no one. Some people just aren't smart enough to grasp that

Congress legislating from the bench You cannot accept or understand how things work. Not my problem.

Obviously I meant the courts legislating from the bench. Wow, you got a typo, nicely played. That's pretty good ... for you ...

Courts legislating? Oh? What bill did they pass? Where do I go to read the new law they wrote in the code of laws for the federal government?

Gay marriage. Gays have exactly the same rights before the ruling as straights. The judges didn't like the law, so they wrote a new one they did like. A conservative should be a lot more afraid of that then happy at whatever transactional win you get

Oh? What bill did they pass? Where do I go to read the new law they wrote in the code of laws for the federal government?

Wow, you're quite a card

 

[RKMBrown]

Congress legislating from the bench You cannot accept or understand how things work. Not my problem.

Obviously I meant the courts legislating from the bench. Wow, you got a typo, nicely played. That's pretty good ... for you ...

Courts legislating? Oh? What bill did they pass? Where do I go to read the new law they wrote in the code of laws for the federal government?

Gay marriage. Gays have exactly the same rights before the ruling as straights. The judges didn't like the law, so they wrote a new one they did like. A conservative should be a lot more afraid of that then happy at whatever transactional win you get

Oh? What bill did they pass? Where do I go to read the new law they wrote in the code of laws for the federal government?

Wow, you're quite a card

I'll take that as admission that they did not in fact write a new law, rather they threw some state laws out as being unconstitutional restrictions on liberty.

 

[NoNukes]

You are as thick as two boards.

You mean because I continue to debate an idiot? You have a point there

Quit arguing with yourself and you will be much better.

Another playground argument from a liberal, who saw that coming?

Maybe when you are old enough to start dating, you will discover that men and women are different

I work with who I am dealing with. Case closed.

Man up to your own actions, Darlene

You are too stupid to see what a hypocrite you are.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kaz does not want to "subsidize" gay marriage as gays have "subsidized" his marriage.

 

[kaz]

Obviously I meant the courts legislating from the bench. Wow, you got a typo, nicely played. That's pretty good ... for you ...

Courts legislating? Oh? What bill did they pass? Where do I go to read the new law they wrote in the code of laws for the federal government?

Gay marriage. Gays have exactly the same rights before the ruling as straights. The judges didn't like the law, so they wrote a new one they did like. A conservative should be a lot more afraid of that then happy at whatever transactional win you get

Oh? What bill did they pass? Where do I go to read the new law they wrote in the code of laws for the federal government?

Wow, you're quite a card

I'll take that as admission that they did not in fact write a new law, rather they threw some state laws out as being unconstitutional restrictions on liberty.

Take it however you want. You're an emotional woman on this, not a guy with a set. Yet you can't name anyone who was treated differently under gay marriage. Being black changed who you could marry for every black. Being gay changed who you could marry for zero gays. That is the job of the courts, and their Constitutional role was to then bow out after determining that. But they didn't like it, so they rewrote the law, which is legislating from the bench.

Not liking that did not mean you had no option, it meant your option was to take it to the legislature. But that would be work, which leftists aren't interested in

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yet you can't name anyone who was treated differently under gay marriage.

Edith Windsor


>>>>

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Kaz does not want to "subsidize" gay marriage as gays have "subsidized" his marriage.

It's been said that whatever doesn't kill the right wing nuts makes them crazier. Since Obergefell, that are more then proving that correct

 

[RKMBrown]

Courts legislating? Oh? What bill did they pass? Where do I go to read the new law they wrote in the code of laws for the federal government?

Gay marriage. Gays have exactly the same rights before the ruling as straights. The judges didn't like the law, so they wrote a new one they did like. A conservative should be a lot more afraid of that then happy at whatever transactional win you get

Oh? What bill did they pass? Where do I go to read the new law they wrote in the code of laws for the federal government?

Wow, you're quite a card

I'll take that as admission that they did not in fact write a new law, rather they threw some state laws out as being unconstitutional restrictions on liberty.

Take it however you want. You're an emotional woman on this, not a guy with a set. Yet you can't name anyone who was treated differently under gay marriage. Being black changed who you could marry for every black. Being gay changed who you could marry for zero gays. That is the job of the courts, and their Constitutional role was to then bow out after determining that. But they didn't like it, so they rewrote the law, which is legislating from the bench.

Not liking that did not mean you had no option, it meant your option was to take it to the legislature. But that would be work, which leftists aren't interested in

First off, you're being a complete moron.

Second, there is a fundamental reason why you can't name the law that you say the SCOTUS created. That would be because you are lying.

Third, the actual laws that the SCOTUS tossed out for BANNING GAYS FROM GETTING MARRIED AND REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE THEIR MARRIAGES FROM OTHER STATES certainly did impact the ability for gays to get married in certain states. So again YOU ARE LYING.

Fourth, moving the goal posts from "creating/writing" a law to "rewriting" a law IS NOT GONNA HELP YOU. You are still LYING.

Fifth, if not to rule over constitutional issues regarding laws, what the hell do you think the SCOTUS is there for?

Sixth, what do you call a person that acts like a moron, and lies with nearly every sentence they utter?

 

[RKMBrown]

Kaz does not want to "subsidize" gay marriage as gays have "subsidized" his marriage.

It's been said that whatever doesn't kill the right wing nuts makes them crazier. Since Obergefell, that are more then proving that correct

Same can be said for the left wing nuts.

 

[kaz]

Yet you can't name anyone who was treated differently under gay marriage.

Edith Windsor


>>>>

So if she were straight, the government would have recognized her same sex marriage and given her money back? How do you know that? I think you're full of shit, but go ahead and give it a shot

 

[kaz]

Second, there is a fundamental reason why you can't name the law that you say the SCOTUS created. That would be because you are lying.

They made up that all gay marriages have to be recognized by every state, there is no such law and there is no basis for that in the Constitution. They made it up. They legislated from the bench.

Seriously, your argument is you want a name for the law? All States and the Federal government have to follow what they decreed even though there is no law that says what the Court ruled. The court made it up

Third, the actual laws that the SCOTUS tossed out for BANNING GAYS FROM GETTING MARRIED AND REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE THEIR MARRIAGES FROM OTHER STATES certainly did impact the ability for gays to get married in certain states. So again YOU ARE LYING.

I never said it didn't, idiot. I said other States don't have to recognize it by the Full Faith and Credit Clause

Fifth, if not to rule over constitutional issues regarding laws, what the hell do you think the SCOTUS is there for?

It's not in the Consitution, do you know who gave the Supreme Court that power

Sixth, what do you call a person that acts like a moron, and lies with nearly every sentence they utter?

Yes, of course, the inherent truth of liberalism. Everyone knows that liberalism is truth, so anyone who doesn't agree with you is lying. Grow a pair, Darlene. And seriously, you're modeling your arguments after Faun and Syriusly? Now that's striving for bottom.

The idea that what you want changes a law is retarded

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kaz, you are being treated just as any other married person.

You look the fool.

 

[RKMBrown]

Second, there is a fundamental reason why you can't name the law that you say the SCOTUS created. That would be because you are lying.

They made up that all gay marriages have to be recognized by every state, there is no such law and there is no basis for that in the Constitution. They made it up. They legislated from the bench.

Seriously, your argument is you want a name for the law? All States and the Federal government have to follow what they decreed even though there is no law that says what the Court ruled. The court made it up

Third, the actual laws that the SCOTUS tossed out for BANNING GAYS FROM GETTING MARRIED AND REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE THEIR MARRIAGES FROM OTHER STATES certainly did impact the ability for gays to get married in certain states. So again YOU ARE LYING.

I never said it didn't, idiot. I said other States don't have to recognize it by the Full Faith and Credit Clause

Fifth, if not to rule over constitutional issues regarding laws, what the hell do you think the SCOTUS is there for?

It's not in the Consitution, do you know who gave the Supreme Court that power

Sixth, what do you call a person that acts like a moron, and lies with nearly every sentence they utter?

Yes, of course, the inherent truth of liberalism. Everyone knows that liberalism is truth, so anyone who doesn't agree with you is lying. Grow a pair, Darlene. And seriously, you're modeling your arguments after Faun and Syriusly? Now that's striving for bottom.

The idea that what you want changes a law is retarded

You said... "They made up that all gay marriages have to be recognized by every state, there is no such law and there is no basis for that in the Constitution."

That's not a law, that's a "ruling" that such laws are unconstitutional. Making such rulings is what the SCOTUS does. That's why we have a SCOTUS. Do you understand the difference between ruling a law unconstitutional and making a law?

The court did not make up marriage laws. The states did that.

Wrt. the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" see the constitution for support of the right to life, which includes marriage.

If you want to throw out the SCOTUS entirely, well that's a different topic. And yes, I'm fully aware of the history of our supreme court.

I've proved that you are lying, stop lying and I'll stop calling you out for it.

ROFL now you are moving the goal posts to "changing" a law. No, they did not change those laws they threw them out as unconstitutional. But yes they did change the code of laws for the states by removing said laws, because said laws were ruled by the supreme court of this land as unconstitutional. Note: calling it a "change" is not a lie.. not if by law you meant in the plural, so if you want to say that, I will concede that point, since change by remove is a change. Just don't try to sneak change by create or write in there