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

[bodecea]

Most of Republican presidential hopefuls don't want to touch this issue.

The exception is Ted Cruz, who is calling for a constitutional amendment. Which has zero chance of ever passing, but he's just tossing meat to the base. He's also criticizing the Supreme Court for "judicial activism", which is a peculiar accusation, given that the Supreme Court's only action was not to take any action.

Ted Cruz to Introduce Constitutional Amendment Defending Traditional Marriage

I hope Cruz goes through with his plans to introduce the amendment, as it would put the rest of the GOP in an uncomfortable spot.

Is Ted Cruz aware that the two characters in "Green Eggs & Ham" were ghey?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

How was I shitting myself If I support changing marriage laws by state legislative action, and have said repeatedly on this board I would support a law doing that, and oppose a law saying marriage is between one man and one woman?

Again, the federal constitution is mum on marriage contracts, thus defining them falls to the state legislatures via the 10th amendment.

10th and 14th.

Only if you consider gay and opposite sex marriage equal.

And how are the not? (Other than the unconstitutional DOMA Section 2)

 

[Pop23]

My wife and I cannot have children: she is barren. My first wife and I had children.

Yet any who think I am any less married to this wife than the first wife are simply full of nonsense. Their arguments are not credible. Their hatred is noted by the younger generations, who will not support candidates that agree with Pop.

Why would anyone think your less married?

Odd

 

[Seawytch]

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

Dumbass, homos can't have kids together.

You mean they have to adopt kids, use IVF or artificial insemination just like millions of straight couples? No shit. Does that change the FACT that gays do have children that are legally and emotionally "theirs"? No, it does not, but keep talking and looking more moronic, please.

The heteros provide children the mother and father that is necessary for ideal child raising. That makes the difference as far as contrived conception of family creation. Homos intentionally deprive a kid not only of its true parents but of the opportunity to be raised by a mom and dad. That is probably too progressive and current for you to understand as you are a rigidly conservative lefty stuck in the 1960's.

That's crap. There has been only one study that came to this finding, and if that study is to be your guide, then you also need to lobby to abolish all divorce, as well as to require all unwed mothers to have their children removed, and placed in "traditional" homes, as this study made no distinction between homosexual couples, single mothers, and single fathers. Are you prepared to lobby for those changes as well?

No study that made direct comparison between homosexual couples, and heterosexual couples have found any major deficiencies among children raised by homosexual couples.

You are an out of touch, neocon lefty. Move forward with us true progressives and see what the prevalence of unstructured families has done to this society in the past forty years. This is a recent phenomenon. You need to progress and move forward to be truly aware. Don't rely on backwards, stodgy left wing propaganda.
Kids are best suited with their two actual parents or a facsimile thereof. Not one of either or two of either. One of each.

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

Dumbass, homos can't have kids together.

You mean they have to adopt kids, use IVF or artificial insemination just like millions of straight couples? No shit. Does that change the FACT that gays do have children that are legally and emotionally "theirs"? No, it does not, but keep talking and looking more moronic, please.

The heteros provide children the mother and father that is necessary for ideal child raising. That makes the difference as far as contrived conception of family creation. Homos intentionally deprive a kid not only of its true parents but of the opportunity to be raised by a mom and dad. That is probably too progressive and current for you to understand as you are a rigidly conservative lefty stuck in the 1960's.

That's crap. There has been only one study that came to this finding, and if that study is to be your guide, then you also need to lobby to abolish all divorce, as well as to require all unwed mothers to have their children removed, and placed in "traditional" homes, as this study made no distinction between homosexual couples, single mothers, and single fathers. Are you prepared to lobby for those changes as well?

No study that made direct comparison between homosexual couples, and heterosexual couples have found any major deficiencies among children raised by homosexual couples.

You are an out of touch, neocon lefty. Move forward with us true progressives and see what the prevalence of unstructured families has done to this society in the past forty years. This is a recent phenomenon. You need to progress and move forward to be truly aware. Don't rely on backwards, stodgy left wing propaganda.
Kids are best suited with their two actual parents or a facsimile thereof. Not one of either or two of either. One of each.

Support your claim with actual studies. "Just because I said so" is not a peer reviewed study in a reputable journal.

Did you know that your "but, but, but the children" bullshit got laughed out of court.

 

[Pop23]

Most of Republican presidential hopefuls don't want to touch this issue.

The exception is Ted Cruz, who is calling for a constitutional amendment. Which has zero chance of ever passing, but he's just tossing meat to the base. He's also criticizing the Supreme Court for "judicial activism", which is a peculiar accusation, given that the Supreme Court's only action was not to take any action.

Ted Cruz to Introduce Constitutional Amendment Defending Traditional Marriage

I hope Cruz goes through with his plans to introduce the amendment, as it would put the rest of the GOP in an uncomfortable spot.

Is Ted Cruz aware that the two characters in "Green Eggs & Ham" were ghey?

Grey?

 

[Pop23]

I'm sure the above has some sort of meaning.

But then again, maybe not

it means the ability to make kids is a distinction without a difference.
admit it or not the idea that a breeding couple is "better" than a non breeding one is a form of bigotry.

Or simply pointing out a marked difference.

Nah, your bigotry is obvious, and you are pouting like a nine year old mean child who now realizes he is not going to get his way.

I'll bet you get a shiver up yo leg every time you get to falsly accuse others

Yippie

Now you are accusing others of what you are doing. Keep pouting, mean child.

What exactly am I accusing others of

Links pleas

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Same sex couplings have never and will never reproduce a child. Ever

Which means nothing in the marriage equality discussion, ever

It means everything. The life altering circumstance brought about by child rearing are cause for the gov protections of legal marriage.

No it's not. None of the rights and privileges have anything to do with child rearing. They are all about recognizing, and protecting people who are committed to spending their lives together. Procreation has nothing to do with it. The fact is there are many many things that homosexual couples are not allowed to do, simply because repressive bigots keep wanting to dismiss them because they don't happen to like their lifestyle.

You're full of lefty conditioning, aren't you? I don't care if homos want to figuratively marry or do whatever they want to do -- in private. That's real tolerance, not bigotry. Using the gov to force others to acquiesce to and grant privileges, including the counterproductive and potentially harmful privilege of adoption, in the name of that personal behavior choice, is extremely intolerant and bigoted. You have the shoe planted squarely on the wrong foot.

 

[Pop23]

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

making the beast with two backs slap and tickle, whatever you wish to call it not the measure of having kids

I'm sure the above has some sort of meaning.

But then again, maybe not

it means the ability to make kids is a distinction without a difference.
admit it or not the idea that a breeding couple is "better" than a non breeding one is a form of bigotry.

Or simply pointing out a marked difference.

a markedly meaningless difference.

Only if population is meaningless I guess

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

No, rosh. You are merely a chew toy for our amusement

And you speak for whom? Are they aware of that?

I am...and I agree with Jake.

So the two of you are everyone? That's pretty arrogant.

 

[Seawytch]

Most of Republican presidential hopefuls don't want to touch this issue.

The exception is Ted Cruz, who is calling for a constitutional amendment. Which has zero chance of ever passing, but he's just tossing meat to the base. He's also criticizing the Supreme Court for "judicial activism", which is a peculiar accusation, given that the Supreme Court's only action was not to take any action.

Ted Cruz to Introduce Constitutional Amendment Defending Traditional Marriage

I hope Cruz goes through with his plans to introduce the amendment, as it would put the rest of the GOP in an uncomfortable spot.

Is Ted Cruz aware that the two characters in "Green Eggs & Ham" were ghey?

He doesn't realize the irony of reading "Green Eggs and Ham" while trying to stop the ACA implementation...of course he'd miss that the characters were ghey.

 

[Pop23]

No, rosh. You are merely a chew toy for our amusement

And you speak for whom? Are they aware of that?

I am...and I agree with Jake.

So the two of you are everyone? That's pretty arrogant.

No wonder they make light of reproduction

 

[JakeStarkey]

We speak in agreement with the Court, the majority of America, and for the right of marriage equality.

No one on the side of marriage equality is making "light of reproduction." That is fantasy.

No, Rosh, you don't get "just once more." Your opinions is not fact. That's over.

 

[Seawytch]

Same sex couplings have never and will never reproduce a child. Ever

Which means nothing in the marriage equality discussion, ever

It means everything. The life altering circumstance brought about by child rearing are cause for the gov protections of legal marriage.

No it's not. None of the rights and privileges have anything to do with child rearing. They are all about recognizing, and protecting people who are committed to spending their lives together. Procreation has nothing to do with it. The fact is there are many many things that homosexual couples are not allowed to do, simply because repressive bigots keep wanting to dismiss them because they don't happen to like their lifestyle.

You're full of lefty conditioning, aren't you? I don't care if homos want to figuratively marry or do whatever they want to do -- in private. That's real tolerance, not bigotry. Using the gov to force others to acquiesce to and grant privileges, including the counterproductive and potentially harmful privilege of adoption, in the name of that personal behavior choice, is extremely intolerant and bigoted. You have the shoe planted squarely on the wrong foot.

We can already adopt and have children. God you people are really stupid in your bigotry.

 

[Pop23]

Most of Republican presidential hopefuls don't want to touch this issue.

The exception is Ted Cruz, who is calling for a constitutional amendment. Which has zero chance of ever passing, but he's just tossing meat to the base. He's also criticizing the Supreme Court for "judicial activism", which is a peculiar accusation, given that the Supreme Court's only action was not to take any action.

Ted Cruz to Introduce Constitutional Amendment Defending Traditional Marriage

I hope Cruz goes through with his plans to introduce the amendment, as it would put the rest of the GOP in an uncomfortable spot.

Is Ted Cruz aware that the two characters in "Green Eggs & Ham" were ghey?

He doesn't realize the irony of reading "Green Eggs and Ham" while trying to stop the ACA implementation...of course he'd miss that the characters were ghey.

Is ghey part of the LGBTQLMNOP's?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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.

So, just to clarify, it is your contention that the only people who should be allowed to marry are those who can, and will, procreate? A simple yes, or no will suffice.

Your question is more detailed than can be answered by yes or no only. But you have an angle and that's why you asked it that way.
People who should be allowed to marry are those who could possibly conceive or who would provide the ideal circumstances for raising children. That, of course, being a man and a woman.

Okay. so you realize that you have just discounted every sterile - whether naturally, through accident, or surgery - and infertile heterosexual couple in the country, right? Well done, Sir. Well done. Your side tried this argument - it resulted in ridicule.

Your misapprehension is not shared. You either missed, failed to understand or willfully disregarded the part about kids needing a man and a woman as parents.

Of course you can produce a study that supports your claim that children need a mother and father?

I live it. Everyday. Look at every predominantly black locale in this country and you'll see what a majority of unstructured families does. And it's not poverty. Where I live the median household income is $20k higher than the national. He schools are failing and the crime rate is the highest.
Granting adoption to homos adds to that problem. Move forward.

 

[Pop23]

Same sex couplings have never and will never reproduce a child. Ever

Which means nothing in the marriage equality discussion, ever

It means everything. The life altering circumstance brought about by child rearing are cause for the gov protections of legal marriage.

No it's not. None of the rights and privileges have anything to do with child rearing. They are all about recognizing, and protecting people who are committed to spending their lives together. Procreation has nothing to do with it. The fact is there are many many things that homosexual couples are not allowed to do, simply because repressive bigots keep wanting to dismiss them because they don't happen to like their lifestyle.

You're full of lefty conditioning, aren't you? I don't care if homos want to figuratively marry or do whatever they want to do -- in private. That's real tolerance, not bigotry. Using the gov to force others to acquiesce to and grant privileges, including the counterproductive and potentially harmful privilege of adoption, in the name of that personal behavior choice, is extremely intolerant and bigoted. You have the shoe planted squarely on the wrong foot.

We can already adopt and have children. God you people are really stupid in your bigotry.

Please explain how explaining that same sex coupling, like masturbating, cannot make babies is bigotry?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I lived in the South for decades.

Poverty affects all races, and no race are better parents than the others in rural poverty. That is my finding from living there every day for thirty years.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Same sex couplings have never and will never reproduce a child. Ever

Which means nothing in the marriage equality discussion, ever

It means everything. The life altering circumstance brought about by child rearing are cause for the gov protections of legal marriage.

No it's not. None of the rights and privileges have anything to do with child rearing. They are all about recognizing, and protecting people who are committed to spending their lives together. Procreation has nothing to do with it. The fact is there are many many things that homosexual couples are not allowed to do, simply because repressive bigots keep wanting to dismiss them because they don't happen to like their lifestyle.

You're full of lefty conditioning, aren't you? I don't care if homos want to figuratively marry or do whatever they want to do -- in private. That's real tolerance, not bigotry. Using the gov to force others to acquiesce to and grant privileges, including the counterproductive and potentially harmful privilege of adoption, in the name of that personal behavior choice, is extremely intolerant and bigoted. You have the shoe planted squarely on the wrong foot.

We can already adopt and have children. God you people are really stupid in your bigotry.

Please explain how explaining that same sex coupling, like masturbating, cannot make babies is bigotry?

And Pop's 11 year old like mean pouting continues.

Tough to be him.

 

[Seawytch]

So, just to clarify, it is your contention that the only people who should be allowed to marry are those who can, and will, procreate? A simple yes, or no will suffice.

Your question is more detailed than can be answered by yes or no only. But you have an angle and that's why you asked it that way.
People who should be allowed to marry are those who could possibly conceive or who would provide the ideal circumstances for raising children. That, of course, being a man and a woman.

Okay. so you realize that you have just discounted every sterile - whether naturally, through accident, or surgery - and infertile heterosexual couple in the country, right? Well done, Sir. Well done. Your side tried this argument - it resulted in ridicule.

Your misapprehension is not shared. You either missed, failed to understand or willfully disregarded the part about kids needing a man and a woman as parents.

Of course you can produce a study that supports your claim that children need a mother and father?

I live it. Everyday. Look at every predominantly black locale in this country and you'll see what a majority of unstructured families does. And it's not poverty. Where I live the median household income is $20k higher than the national. He schools are failing and the crime rate is the highest.
Granting adoption to homos adds to that problem. Move forward.

All you had to say was "no" you have no study and can produce only anal facts...as in those pulled out of your ass.

See, because there ARE studies that show that our children are at no disadvantage to yours and that children need parents, not parents of the opposite gender.

 

[Seawytch]

Same sex couplings have never and will never reproduce a child. Ever

Which means nothing in the marriage equality discussion, ever

It means everything. The life altering circumstance brought about by child rearing are cause for the gov protections of legal marriage.

No it's not. None of the rights and privileges have anything to do with child rearing. They are all about recognizing, and protecting people who are committed to spending their lives together. Procreation has nothing to do with it. The fact is there are many many things that homosexual couples are not allowed to do, simply because repressive bigots keep wanting to dismiss them because they don't happen to like their lifestyle.

You're full of lefty conditioning, aren't you? I don't care if homos want to figuratively marry or do whatever they want to do -- in private. That's real tolerance, not bigotry. Using the gov to force others to acquiesce to and grant privileges, including the counterproductive and potentially harmful privilege of adoption, in the name of that personal behavior choice, is extremely intolerant and bigoted. You have the shoe planted squarely on the wrong foot.

We can already adopt and have children. God you people are really stupid in your bigotry.

Please explain how explaining that same sex coupling, like masturbating, cannot make babies is bigotry?

Stopping there isn't. When you say we shouldn't be able to legally marry because of that is where it becomes bigotry...but you knew that.