BREAKING: FBI Arrests 87-Year-Old Concentration Camp Survivor for Singing Hymns Outside Abortion Clinic Door

[Curried Goats]

Then why do I support SSM as long as it's legislatively enacted?

The whole history of progressivism is the result justifies any method. Just look at Roe.

Your promise that you support same-sex marriage in theory but not practice isn't something you get cookies for.

 

[martybegan]

Your promise that you support same-sex marriage in theory but not practice isn't something you get cookies for.

It's in practice. States did pass laws changing their marriage laws before Obergfell fucked things up.

 

[Marener]

Then why do I support SSM as long as it's legislatively enacted?

The whole history of progressivism is the result justifies any method. Just look at Roe.

Because you can’t deny the fact that legislatures can do so.

This conservative court doesn’t care about method. You yourself already said in this thread that the ends justifies the means (except when you said the means matters).

Scalia would repeal Loving if he were consistent.

 

[martybegan]

Because you can’t deny the fact that legislatures can do so.

This conservative court doesn’t care about method. You yourself already said in this thread that the ends justifies the means (except when you said the means matters).

Scalia would repeal Loving if he were consistent.

Nice trying to put words in a Dead man's mouth. Hack.

Because I have no issue with SSM if properly implemented. What I hate is lazy fucks like you using malleable courts to impose your will on others.

 

[Curried Goats]

The courts were wrong.

For same sex marriage but not interracial marriage even though the reasoning was exactly the same.

So no denying you are a Trotskyist?

Yes. I'm not an early 20th century Russian revolutionary.

 

[Curried Goats]

Nice trying to put words in a Dead man's mouth. Hack.

Because I have no issue with SSM if properly implemented. What I hate is lazy fucks like you using malleable courts to impose your will on others.

Not as much as you hate tradition being used as an excuse to impose will on others. That you're okay with.

 

[martybegan]

For same sex marriage but not interracial marriage even though the reasoning was exactly the same.

Yes. I'm not an early 20th century Russian revolutionary.

The reasoning is not the same, nor are the circumstances.

oh, they are still around.

International Marxist Tendency - Wikipedia

 

[martybegan]

Not as much as you hate tradition being used as an excuse to impose will on others.

Reality. Precedent.

And this coming from one of the "Bake that fucking cake, peasant" assholes is comical.

 

[Curried Goats]

The reasoning is not the same, nor are the circumstances.

oh, they are still around.

International Marxist Tendency - Wikipedia

It was the exact same reasoning.

 

[Curried Goats]

Reality. Precedent.

And this coming from one of the "Bake that fucking cake, peasant" assholes is comical.

Reality is you bitches lost.

 

[martybegan]

It was the exact same reasoning.

Only in your SJW limited cognitive viewpoint.

 

[martybegan]

Reality is you bitches lost.

Lost what?

Roe shows that if the issue is still alive, the battle is never over.

 

[Marener]

Nice trying to put words in a Dead man's mouth. Hack.

Because I have no issue with SSM if properly implemented. What I hate is lazy fucks like you using malleable courts to impose your will on others.

Scalia can fuck himself.

You don't rely on the states to "properly implement" something you have a constitutional right to.

It's your judicial ideology that's malleable. You support extending equal protection to people based on race but not based on gender even though you see these situations are practically identical. In the 60s, I bet you would have been pissed about the liberal courts imposing their will on states who passed interracial marriage bans.

 

[pknopp]

The whole point of marriage was as a contract between two people of the opposite sex for the purpose of joining assets and providing for progeny to be legalized and taken care of.

There's nothing wrong with changing that, but trying to pretend SSM has always been part of the concept is retconning and Orwellian at the same time.

There is history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.[3] Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia.

What one could argue is new is the government being involved. There is no reason the government needs to be involved.

 

[pknopp]

Then why do I support SSM as long as it's legislatively enacted?

The whole history of progressivism is the result justifies any method. Just look at Roe.

Why should anyone have to get the governments permission to agree to bind themselves into one entity?

Why should the government be able to say "Yes, you and you can do so, but no, you and you can not"?

 

[lantern2814]

Scalia can fuck himself.

You don't rely on the states to "properly implement" something you have a constitutional right to.

It's your judicial ideology that's malleable. You support extending equal protection to people based on race but not based on gender even though you see these situations are practically identical. In the 60s, I bet you would have been pissed about the liberal courts imposing their will on states who passed interracial marriage bans.

Scalia is dead you stupid fuck. So fuck you. There is no constitutional right to same sex “marriage”. Show us where that is. Funny you have no problem with liberal courts implementing things that the people rejected at the ballot box.

 

[Marener]

Scalia is dead you stupid fuck. So fuck you. There is no constitutional right to same sex “marriage”. Show us where that is. Funny you have no problem with liberal courts implementing things that the people rejected at the ballot box.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It’s all you need to know.

 

[Unkotare]

There's going to be a lot more poor and unwanted children being born now with these new laws. I'm guessing that our republican politicians won't look into programs that help these poor and needy kids forced on society. You know they're against free stuff and hand outs etc.

"More children being born" is a good thing.

 

[martybegan]

Scalia can fuck himself.

You don't rely on the states to "properly implement" something you have a constitutional right to.

It's your judicial ideology that's malleable. You support extending equal protection to people based on race but not based on gender even though you see these situations are practically identical. In the 60s, I bet you would have been pissed about the liberal courts imposing their will on states who passed interracial marriage bans.

Yet progressives LOVE IT when the States trample on 2nd amendment rights, which are actually clearly stated in the Constitution.

Again, the issue is sexuality, not gender. It's amazing you can't get that through your thick empty room temperature IQ skull.

 

[Marener]

Yet progressives LOVE IT when the States trample on 2nd amendment rights, which are actually clearly stated in the Constitution.

Again, the issue is sexuality, not gender. It's amazing you can't get that through your thick empty room temperature IQ skull.

It’s amazing how you admit that sexuality is about gender but still pretend it doesn’t have anything to do with it.

You can’t discriminate based on sexuality without discriminating gender. If you think that statement is wrong, then explain why. So far you’ve avoided it because it ruins your axiomatic adherence to this illogical statement that it’s not about gender.