Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases.

[Czernobog]

Where is the part of the equal protection clause that specifically states it's only to apply to race issues?

We all know the intent of the amendment, its a historical fact. It's being stretched beyond its intent. Its that simple.

Translation:"I know I'm right! Quit trying to confuse me with the facts!!!"

What facts are you referencing? The Reconstruction amendments were created to protect the freedmen from local laws. Its a fact. It was not intended to be a foot in the door for things like gay marriage.

yup...and marriage was supposed to mean "between a man and a woman", even though it never said that until you guys shat yourselves over the "faggoes" getting married.

It never had to say that because everyone knew and accepted that it was between a man and a woman. The Mormons initially contested the restrictions on plural marriage, which I'm sure led to a rash of clarifying marriage laws to make sure that point was made.

Actually, it didn't. As I stated, the only time that the question of how marriage "ought" to be defined was when you guys got all skeezed out over the idea of gay people getting married.

 

[Czernobog]

it was both. and one can't exist without the other.

the whole point is that your extremist religious views are what they are. I don't really care what they are. but no religion was ever supposed to be given preferential treatment.

so do us a favor and don't interfere what is acceptable in others' belief systems.

YOU are the one who wants government to interfere in other's belief systems, not me. YOU are the one forcing people to decide between faith or pursing their career of choice. YOU are the one who loves smashing people who disagree with you with the hammer of government.

My views are irrelevant here, what matters is the process, the process that you and your ilk seem to ignore or bastardize as long as you get what you want.

No one is forcing you to marry a person of your own sex.

Marty, your bad old ways are over.

But we are forcing people to bake cakes for them, which is worse.

Yes. We're forcing business that accommodate the public to serve the public. How hideous!!! (yes...that is sarcasm...)

Use of governmental compulsion for something as stupid as this IS hideous, unless of course you are a jackbooted twatwaddle.

Actually what is hideous is that the government should be forced to intervene in bigoted assholes refusing to allow people to exercise their right of free commerce!

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact is that the cultural and social bigots of left and right will no longer rule the nation.

Only a matter of time before they are rooted out state and city and county governments.

 

[martybegan]

Did your state ratify it via legislative action, or judicial fiat?

And facts can't be bigoted.

Facts can't be, but you saying that marriage between gays and marriage between heterosexuals isn't equal IS bigoted. In half the states now it is equal. Can you explain why you believe that my civil marriage license should be treated differently than yours?

Again, if it was passed by your state legislature, it should be legally equal. If it was created via judicial fiat, it is tainted by the use of courts to create something out of thin air.

The two forms of marriage are not the same thing. It's not bigoted to point it out, its realistic.

It's not the same thing. But it is bigoted to allow one form but not another for consenting adults.

Then do it the right way, by petitioning your state legislature to change the law defining the marriage contract, and not by whipping up some right out of thin air.

Civil rights and equal protection under the law isn't whipping some right out of thin air.

Yes, it is.

 

[martybegan]

YOU are the one who wants government to interfere in other's belief systems, not me. YOU are the one forcing people to decide between faith or pursing their career of choice. YOU are the one who loves smashing people who disagree with you with the hammer of government.

My views are irrelevant here, what matters is the process, the process that you and your ilk seem to ignore or bastardize as long as you get what you want.

No one is forcing you to marry a person of your own sex.

Marty, your bad old ways are over.

But we are forcing people to bake cakes for them, which is worse.

Yes. We're forcing business that accommodate the public to serve the public. How hideous!!! (yes...that is sarcasm...)

Use of governmental compulsion for something as stupid as this IS hideous, unless of course you are a jackbooted twatwaddle.

Actually what is hideous is that the government should be forced to intervene in bigoted assholes refusing to allow people to exercise their right of free commerce!

So forcing someone to provide a service to you they don't want to is free commerce?????

Sounds more like slavery to me.

 

[Czernobog]

Since when is the right to marry ... "out of thin air?" Or any other human right for that matter? Do I need a law that allows me to breathe?

Where is the right to marry stated explicitly in the constitution? Rights exist regardless of laws, but they are only protected from government interference when explicitly given in a State's constitution or the Federal one.

Except that it was in the state statutes. This did not even become an issue until you right-wing bigots found out that "the faggoes" were daring to get married, and claim the same rights, and privileges as respectable, normal people. Then you ran to your legislations and changed the definition by adding a restriction. The right was always expressed. It was you fuckers that tried to remove that protection with the law. That was when you overstepped the Federal Constitution.

It didnt have to state it, because it was never considered. The intent was always for it to be between a man and a woman.

You are confusing religious marriage with partnerships under contract via marriage license as regulated by government.

Show some proof of a marriage license being offered to same sex couples in the US (besides cases of fraud) prior to the current few decades.

So, you want proof that people were getting married during an age when even admitting to being gay was a crime?!?! I suppose that kind of does make your point - when they was originally conceived, the statutes of marriage probably were assumed to be between only men, and women, since even admitting that you were involved in a relationship with a man could land you in jail. That is the beauty of our legal system, and our Constitutions, whether they be Federal, or State - they are imminently fluid. When the sodomy laws all began to fall apart, and it was no longer considered inappropriate, let alone illegal (well...for everyone except the religious zealots) to be gay, it was only a matter of time before they started taking advantage of the marital rights afforded to loving committed couples.

 

[martybegan]

It didnt have to state it, because it was never considered. The intent was always for it to be between a man and a woman.

You are confusing religious marriage with partnerships under contract via marriage license as regulated by government.

Show some proof of a marriage license being offered to same sex couples in the US (besides cases of fraud) prior to the current few decades.

I don't think they could, pretty sure there was a male and female requirement on the marriage license form from the start in all states. Thus the confusion over which partner would put their name in the husband field and which the wife field. I don't think anyone really cared until we started handing out marriage protections.

If they wanted to get married and have it legal from a financial perspective, they would just set up a trust, or other type of legal arrangement. As far as getting married, yes plenty of American gays have been married in the past. Getting the license in a State has been the sticky part.

So basically all those laws were passed to reinforce a previous precedent, the limiting of a marriage contract from the States to opposite sex couple.s

Yes. The same way jim crow laws were written to enforce previous precedent.

And the 14th amendment should have stopped them, but they were allowed to perpetuate via a sympathetic court that chose to ignore part of the constitution. Ignoring and creating out of thin air concepts found or not found in the document are two sides of the same dark coin, and it doesn't matter if the results are favored by you, its still wrong.

 

[Czernobog]

No one is forcing you to marry a person of your own sex.

Marty, your bad old ways are over.

But we are forcing people to bake cakes for them, which is worse.

Yes. We're forcing business that accommodate the public to serve the public. How hideous!!! (yes...that is sarcasm...)

Use of governmental compulsion for something as stupid as this IS hideous, unless of course you are a jackbooted twatwaddle.

Actually what is hideous is that the government should be forced to intervene in bigoted assholes refusing to allow people to exercise their right of free commerce!

So forcing someone to provide a service to you they don't want to is free commerce?????

Sounds more like slavery to me.

So being denied the right to purchase a service is free commerce?

Sounds like discrimination to me. But of course bigoted fucktards like being able to discriminate.

 

[martybegan]

Where is the right to marry stated explicitly in the constitution? Rights exist regardless of laws, but they are only protected from government interference when explicitly given in a State's constitution or the Federal one.

Except that it was in the state statutes. This did not even become an issue until you right-wing bigots found out that "the faggoes" were daring to get married, and claim the same rights, and privileges as respectable, normal people. Then you ran to your legislations and changed the definition by adding a restriction. The right was always expressed. It was you fuckers that tried to remove that protection with the law. That was when you overstepped the Federal Constitution.

It didnt have to state it, because it was never considered. The intent was always for it to be between a man and a woman.

You are confusing religious marriage with partnerships under contract via marriage license as regulated by government.

Show some proof of a marriage license being offered to same sex couples in the US (besides cases of fraud) prior to the current few decades.

So, you want proof that people were getting married during an age when even admitting to being gay was a crime?!?! I suppose that kind of does make your point - when they was originally conceived, the statutes of marriage probably were assumed to be between only men, and women, since even admitting that you were involved in a relationship with a man could land you in jail. That is the beauty of our legal system, and our Constitutions, whether they be Federal, or State - they are imminently fluid. When the sodomy laws all began to fall apart, and it was no longer considered inappropriate, let alone illegal (well...for everyone except the religious zealots) to be gay, it was only a matter of time before they started taking advantage of the marital rights afforded to loving committed couples.

The point I was trying to make concerns posters here getting all in a snit about states making laws to restrict marriage to opposite sex couples, acting as if the original precedent was never there, and that these laws were passed "all of a sudden for no reason."

The Constitution is being treated far more fluidly then it ever was designed to be. It is being changed, not interpreted via the courts. It should be though the amendment process, not the opinions of 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers.

 

[martybegan]

But we are forcing people to bake cakes for them, which is worse.

Yes. We're forcing business that accommodate the public to serve the public. How hideous!!! (yes...that is sarcasm...)

Use of governmental compulsion for something as stupid as this IS hideous, unless of course you are a jackbooted twatwaddle.

Actually what is hideous is that the government should be forced to intervene in bigoted assholes refusing to allow people to exercise their right of free commerce!

So forcing someone to provide a service to you they don't want to is free commerce?????

Sounds more like slavery to me.

So being denied the right to purchase a service is free commerce?

Sounds like discrimination to me. But of course bigoted fucktards like being able to discriminate.

As long as it isn't the government doing it (and maybe certain industries, like travel, lodging, and basic needs, I haven't made my mind up about that yet) discrimination should be either accepted as a price of liberty, or fought by individuals, not the government.

 

[Pop23]

found this on another site I posted on earlier:
Supreme Court declines to hear same-sex marriage cases making it legal in five new states Hot Air
So a secular government is free to redefine the meaning of a word to fit and advance their rights over others? How Orwellian.
At what point does the redefinition of the meaning of certain words end?
Frankly, a secular government can define a new term, ‘civil unions’ and extend to them the same rights and responsibilities as those in a ‘marriage’ without having to redefine a word or permitting a minority to leverage a tyranny over the majority in the name of ‘rights’ – where their ‘rights’ are more endowed by the secular government than the ‘rights’ of others.

And Civil Unions would be just dandy...if they applied to everyone. Trying to set up civil marriage for straights and civil unions for gays would be separate but equal. I'm not sure if you're aware, but that was ruled unconstitutional.

I'd also like to point out that many of the anti gay marriage laws passed by bigots in their states also prohibit civil unions.

Seperate but equal is not unconstitutional in all cases. It's often used when gender is concerned.

Why don't you explain pottys to us?

I see you agree

Next time just hit the check mark

Easy peazy

You still haven't explained that potty thing

And neither have you

Excuse me for a moment while I visit the MENS room.

 

[daws101]

this thread shows a lot from the homosexuals in this country. They force themselves on the people then turn around and HATE on Christians and everyone else who doesn't agree with this.

you're more disgusting than the people you hate on

wow! really? seems like another group has been forcing themselves on others for a couple of thousand years,telling everyone "if you don't believe what I do you'll go to hell" and hate everyone who thinks differently..
and their name is missionaries

 

[Czernobog]

Except that it was in the state statutes. This did not even become an issue until you right-wing bigots found out that "the faggoes" were daring to get married, and claim the same rights, and privileges as respectable, normal people. Then you ran to your legislations and changed the definition by adding a restriction. The right was always expressed. It was you fuckers that tried to remove that protection with the law. That was when you overstepped the Federal Constitution.

It didnt have to state it, because it was never considered. The intent was always for it to be between a man and a woman.

You are confusing religious marriage with partnerships under contract via marriage license as regulated by government.

Show some proof of a marriage license being offered to same sex couples in the US (besides cases of fraud) prior to the current few decades.

So, you want proof that people were getting married during an age when even admitting to being gay was a crime?!?! I suppose that kind of does make your point - when they was originally conceived, the statutes of marriage probably were assumed to be between only men, and women, since even admitting that you were involved in a relationship with a man could land you in jail. That is the beauty of our legal system, and our Constitutions, whether they be Federal, or State - they are imminently fluid. When the sodomy laws all began to fall apart, and it was no longer considered inappropriate, let alone illegal (well...for everyone except the religious zealots) to be gay, it was only a matter of time before they started taking advantage of the marital rights afforded to loving committed couples.

The point I was trying to make concerns posters here getting all in a snit about states making laws to restrict marriage to opposite sex couples, acting as if the original precedent was never there, and that these laws were passed "all of a sudden for no reason."

Oh no! There was a reason: You people were shitting yourselves that these damned faggots were acting like normal people! How DARE they!!!!

The Constitution is being treated far more fluidly then it ever was designed to be. It is being changed, not interpreted via the courts. It should be though the amendment process, not the opinions of 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers.

Wellll...that's not entirely true. If a state makes changes to its constitution, even if it was done so in accordance with its own amendment process (which, for the record, many of these weren't), and that change is in conflict with the Federal Constitution, then guess which one takes precedent. So, the Federal Courts were still within their purview to hand down the rulings they did.

 

[daws101]

I am asking about your concept of 'forced acquiescence'. Please clarify.

When the government mandates tax breaks and subsidies and equal footing for adoption that is forced acquiescence. Tolerance is accepting homos for who they are and not interfering their own personal choices. That is all fine. But forcing others to grant privileges to homos in the name of their personal choices is forced acquiescence. It is fascism.

No, it's equality. Tax breaks are granted to parents, married couples, the uber wealthy and corporations leaving the country. Now, which of these groups forced acquiescence upon you? The marriage license is simply that. A marriage license. It's not a heterosexual license, nor is it a homosexual license. The rights, privileges and protections provided apply to each and every license.

Discriminating because of NO SOUND REASON WHATEVER is, indeed Fascism.

Any tax break afforded is a subsidy paid by the rest of the taxpayers. Using and objectionable tax break as rationale to defend and equally objectionable tax break doesn't defend either.
Granting tax breaks created with the intention of aiding child rearing to homo couples (and thereby forcing the subsidization of homo marriages), who by their very nature cannot procreate, is a fascist imposition.
There is no need to give homo marriage legal status. They can't procreate as can hetero couples. That is the only and most necessary distinction. There is no denying rights or any undue discrimination.

Moron...we get the tax breaks for the kids regardless of whether we are married or not.

Dumbass, homos can't have kids together.

of course they can...dumbass

 

[Czernobog]

Yes. We're forcing business that accommodate the public to serve the public. How hideous!!! (yes...that is sarcasm...)

Use of governmental compulsion for something as stupid as this IS hideous, unless of course you are a jackbooted twatwaddle.

Actually what is hideous is that the government should be forced to intervene in bigoted assholes refusing to allow people to exercise their right of free commerce!

So forcing someone to provide a service to you they don't want to is free commerce?????

Sounds more like slavery to me.

So being denied the right to purchase a service is free commerce?

Sounds like discrimination to me. But of course bigoted fucktards like being able to discriminate.

As long as it isn't the government doing it (and maybe certain industries, like travel, lodging, and basic needs, I haven't made my mind up about that yet) discrimination should be either accepted as a price of liberty, or fought by individuals, not the government.

Uh huh. Cuz that worked out so well for the blacks, before the Government stepped in, and said, "Enough is enough!"

 

[daws101]

One, this is an issue about law, not culture.

Two, if we bring in culture, the millennials (who all can vote in 2016) overwhelmingly support this news.

Three, they outnumber the social con right.

Four, this is over.

Your are conflating the bigoted religious folk on the left and right with some sort of whimsical win by the left. In short... why don't you go play with yourself.

You continue to prove you don't have a clue. The issue is over.

The issue will be over when gays can get married in all states.. and the laws discriminating against gays are thrown out. You are calling this to early.

bullshit! the next 20 will be easy.

 

[daws101]

wonderful news for individual rights

No. It's a ruling against rights and freedom.
The gov mandating by fascist decree that all people must acknowledge and acquiesce to irrelevant kinky sex between non-procreative adults is an infringement upon rights and freedom. Not even a religious thing. Just basic logic. Something that eludes most democrats and lefties.

TOLERANCE

Not acceptance.

Is it so hard to tolerate someone else? Must we all conform to a narrow template of morality? Who arbitrates this morality? Used to be Queen Victoria, but that was under the aegis of the throne in Great Britain. But in America?

The government is mandating that two consenting adults without a blood relationship may avail themselves of the benefits and protections of the marriage contract.

Why do you have a problem with that? Will same sex marriage ruin your marriage?

You are just a bigot whose world is shrinking. Tough.

Looks like my post went over your head, too. Tolerance means not interfering. Forced acquiescence is interference. Homos want to force their irrelevant behavior onto others. That is the opposite of tolerance.

Who, eaxctly, are they "forcing their behavior" onto, and in what manner, specifically?

bogus excuse in 4....3...2..1

 

[Pop23]

When the government mandates tax breaks and subsidies and equal footing for adoption that is forced acquiescence. Tolerance is accepting homos for who they are and not interfering their own personal choices. That is all fine. But forcing others to grant privileges to homos in the name of their personal choices is forced acquiescence. It is fascism.

No, it's equality. Tax breaks are granted to parents, married couples, the uber wealthy and corporations leaving the country. Now, which of these groups forced acquiescence upon you? The marriage license is simply that. A marriage license. It's not a heterosexual license, nor is it a homosexual license. The rights, privileges and protections provided apply to each and every license.

Discriminating because of NO SOUND REASON WHATEVER is, indeed Fascism.

Any tax break afforded is a subsidy paid by the rest of the taxpayers. Using and objectionable tax break as rationale to defend and equally objectionable tax break doesn't defend either.
Granting tax breaks created with the intention of aiding child rearing to homo couples (and thereby forcing the subsidization of homo marriages), who by their very nature cannot procreate, is a fascist imposition.
There is no need to give homo marriage legal status. They can't procreate as can hetero couples. That is the only and most necessary distinction. There is no denying rights or any undue discrimination.

Moron...we get the tax breaks for the kids regardless of whether we are married or not.

Dumbass, homos can't have kids together.

of course they can...dumbass

And have for centuries.

Of course same sex coupling has not / cannot / and will never create a child

Glad I could be of service here

Carry on

 

[RKMBrown]

One, this is an issue about law, not culture.

Two, if we bring in culture, the millennials (who all can vote in 2016) overwhelmingly support this news.

Three, they outnumber the social con right.

Four, this is over.

Your are conflating the bigoted religious folk on the left and right with some sort of whimsical win by the left. In short... why don't you go play with yourself.

You continue to prove you don't have a clue. The issue is over.

The issue will be over when gays can get married in all states.. and the laws discriminating against gays are thrown out. You are calling this to early.

bullshit! the next 20 will be easy.

You are confused. It's not even close to being over in the first 31 states.

 

[Seawytch]

It's not, but we all know the intent of it. Interpretation is of course needed, but the 14th is being used so far outside it's intent that it can basically be used to make anything unconstitutional if you get a sympathetic court.

What do you think the intent was in the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th. Did I miss something? They seemed like very very very broad statements, giving the states the right to take your life, liberty, and property with due process.. and the people will receive equal justice.. this means you can't discriminate against people because you don't like their sexual orientation, or skin color, or religion. Or maybe justice means something different to you?

It means all things being equal, you cannot change the intent of a law between one party and the other. Race does not make one person different from another when it comes to law, or even reality. A marriage between two people changes depending on the sex of the people involved, its just reality. If we want to make them equal as per certain laws, the constitution leaves that to the state legislatures via the 10th amendment.

No, your bigotry is not "just reality," it's your personal viewpoint. The same type of viewpoint that was used to justify bigotry against blacks. The 10th amendment was modified by the 14th due process and equal protection clauses. You're not paying attn. You're justifying your bigotry.

Actually I'm justifying others bigotry. And I guess we are going to go the ThoughtCrime route now, because that's where all this is leading to.

The bigotry against blacks we got rid of was systemic governmental bigotry, which was illegal under the words AND intent of the 14th amendment.

Thought crime?

The words and intent of the 14th amendment applied to everyone not just blacks.

And it was invoked in SCOTUS cases that had nothing to do with race and everything to do with the right to marry. (Zablocki v Redhail & Turner v Safley)