Conservative SCOTUS Justices FAIL: Backdoor Legislating by Marriage Attrition

[Katzndogz]

Gays have every intention of imposing depravity as the new morality on every other person so there isn't much difference in intent.

What 'depravity'?

The kind where they get married, buy a house, and raise two healthy children. God only knows how the rest of us will manage to survive such immoral depravity.

The kind where they force their lifestyle on others and raise two twisted dysfunctional children.

 

[Skylar]

Black people would disagree with that.

I'll the black folks word on that more than I would yours, claiming to speak for them.

 

[Skylar]

No country in all of history has survived the normalization of same sex relationships. It has never been passed on as a positive value to any subsequent civilization.

No country, given a long enough time line, has survived the normalization of anything. For your comment to be relevant, there needs to be a causative relationship between the normalization of same sex relationships and the survival of a country.

Show us. Don't tell us.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Gay marriage is now legal in Utah.

And in the interest of "marriage equality", so then is polygamy and incest marriage. As long as all are consenting adults in love.

Unless of course you find it "icky" and "repugnant to the majority"?

Incorrect.

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

Marriage law is not written to accommodate three or more persons, or parents and their children; marriage can accommodate only two equal partners entering into a committed relationship recognized by the state, same- or opposite-sex.

Because there is no marriage law written to accommodate three or more persons, there is no 'discrimination,' one can't be 'discriminated' against with regard to a law that doesn't exist.

Marriage equality addresses only those eligible to participate in a marriage contract, where to disallow those eligible, such as same-sex couples, is un-Constitutional.

 

[Katzndogz]

No country in all of history has survived the normalization of same sex relationships. It has never been passed on as a positive value to any subsequent civilization.

No country, given a long enough time line, has survived the normalization of anything. For your comment to be relevant, there needs to be a causative relationship between the normalization of same sex relationships and the survival of a country.

Show us. Don't tell us.

The cause is not the normalization of same sex relationships. Accepting those relationships seem to be a symptom of a culture already very sick. Of course it would have to be very sick before depravity could be considered normal behavior. Read a little history once in a while.

 

[Katzndogz]

Gay marriage is now legal in Utah.

And in the interest of "marriage equality", so then is polygamy and incest marriage. As long as all are consenting adults in love.

Unless of course you find it "icky" and "repugnant to the majority"?

Incorrect.

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

Marriage law is not written to accommodate three or more persons, or parents and their children; marriage can accommodate only two equal partners entering into a committed relationship recognized by the state, same- or opposite-sex.

Because there is no marriage law written to accommodate three or more persons, there is no 'discrimination,' one can't be 'discriminated' against with regard to a law that doesn't exist.

Marriage equality addresses only those eligible to participate in a marriage contract, where to disallow those eligible, such as same-sex couples, is un-Constitutional.

Write new laws problem solved.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gays have every intention of imposing depravity as the new morality on every other person so there isn't much difference in intent.

What 'depravity'?

The kind where they get married, buy a house, and raise two healthy children. God only knows how the rest of us will manage to survive such immoral depravity.

The kind where they force their lifestyle on others and raise two twisted dysfunctional children.

Straights have been doing that for ages. Man it must really suck to be a Jesus-freak homophobe these days? Tell me, how much are you suffering, so that I can take pleasure in it?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gay marriage is now legal in Utah.

And in the interest of "marriage equality", so then is polygamy and incest marriage. As long as all are consenting adults in love.

Unless of course you find it "icky" and "repugnant to the majority"?

Incorrect.

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

Marriage law is not written to accommodate three or more persons, or parents and their children; marriage can accommodate only two equal partners entering into a committed relationship recognized by the state, same- or opposite-sex.

Because there is no marriage law written to accommodate three or more persons, there is no 'discrimination,' one can't be 'discriminated' against with regard to a law that doesn't exist.

Marriage equality addresses only those eligible to participate in a marriage contract, where to disallow those eligible, such as same-sex couples, is un-Constitutional.

Write new laws problem solved.

New laws can be written, and the fun thing is, if you don't want plural marriage it will be you going against "tradition"...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Gay marriage is now legal in Utah.

And in the interest of "marriage equality", so then is polygamy and incest marriage. As long as all are consenting adults in love.

Unless of course you find it "icky" and "repugnant to the majority"?

Incorrect.

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

Marriage law is not written to accommodate three or more persons, or parents and their children; marriage can accommodate only two equal partners entering into a committed relationship recognized by the state, same- or opposite-sex.

Because there is no marriage law written to accommodate three or more persons, there is no 'discrimination,' one can't be 'discriminated' against with regard to a law that doesn't exist.

Marriage equality addresses only those eligible to participate in a marriage contract, where to disallow those eligible, such as same-sex couples, is un-Constitutional.

Write new laws problem solved.

This doesn't make any sense, there is no 'problem' to 'solve.'

Moreover, 'polygamy' has nothing to do with violating the equal protection rights of same-sex couples, it's nothing more than a red herring.

 

[Seawytch]

And in the interest of "marriage equality", so then is polygamy and incest marriage. As long as all are consenting adults in love.

Says you, citing you! And remember, if this whole legal journey, the stays, the appeals, the petitions for writs of cert, the USSC rulings have taught us anything......

....is that you citing you don't amount to jack shit!

Gay marriage is legal in Arizona as of this afternoon. And look! Alaska just joined the club. That's 31.

That Supreme Court that was supposed to turn this around for her, passed. They have washed their hands of this issue, until they are forced to rule but the ruling is obvious, and Sil loses yet again.

I tried to explain this situation with the USSC to a friend of mine. And she came up with a startling little conspiracy theory;

What if the conservative justices won't take up the issue because they know they'd lose. So they're leaving the issue without binding precedent waiting for one of their fellow justices to die and be replaced. With a different court mix, they might be able to institute support for a gay marriage ban affirmation ruling.

I think its far fetched. But its definitely interesting.

The genie is not going back in the bottle. Roberts isn't going to let his legacy be taking rights away from millions of Americans.

 

[jillian]

No child is required for a marriage to be valid. Nor the ability to have children. So why would a requirement that applies to no one prevent gays from being legally married?

It makes no sense.

Yet marriage is the central institution by which all children are formed as fledged adult people. So who is marriage more important to society for? Gays or children?

marriage does not make children.

do you need the talk about the birds and bees?

your religious extremism doesn't get to be law.

thank G-d we're protected from it by the courts

 

[Derideo_Te]

Gay marriage is now legal in Utah.

And in the interest of "marriage equality", so then is polygamy and incest marriage. As long as all are consenting adults in love.

Unless of course you find it "icky" and "repugnant to the majority"?

The stench of the OP's desperation is just reeking through that post.

If you have to go to those lengths you are tacitly admitting that you have zero legal basis for the denial of gay marriage.

Not to mention that you are exposing your ignorance of the law yet again.

 

[Silhouette]

Look, I'm not the one that started the poll over at this thread: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 174 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum where 82% of the responders passed over the "other, explain" option and instead weighed-in on a vehement "oh HELL NO!" to "should churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?".

And I'm not the one who set up the "Boycott A&E Facebook page" which got over a MILLION "likes" in less than 24 hours in support of Phil Robertson's stance against gay marriage. And I'm not the one who packed Chic Fil A's around the country with lines around the block in support of its CEO opposing gay marraige...and being attacked for that.

No, those 82% showed up here at one of USMB's largest polls ever....at a thread that sports over 33,000 views...voted...didn't say anything on the thread...and then tiptoed back out again...just like Boycott A&E....just like Chic Fil A....

This is why their silence is misinterpreted as a sure bet for either side. They're silently weighing who can be trusted. Four conservative Justices and pindrop silence at Fox News [GOP mouthpiece] spells out that no one of the establishment has the back of the majority on this question. And we are indeed at the threshold, therefore, of true fascism.

When behaviors or a cult of organized behaviors-in-minority of a repugnant ideology to the majority start to buy power at the top and dictate to that majority, you have a situation that is completely like Germany in the 1930s.

 

[Silhouette]

The genie is not going back in the bottle. Roberts isn't going to let his legacy be taking rights away from millions of Americans.

What conservatives are doing is rolling over and pissing on themselves in manifest "fear" of this

That's not a brand you want to sear into the party of silverbacks. It tends to make the females migrate to other troopes to find strong leadership. Or for all the monkeys to stay home and huddle in the leaderless shadows in frustration and disgust..

 

[Skylar]

Look, I'm not the one that started the poll over at this thread: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 174 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum where 82% of the responders passed over the "other, explain" option and instead weighed-in on a vehement "oh HELL NO!" to "should churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?".

Your straw poll doesn't ask about the legality of gay marriage. And 'POOF!' your entire argument crumbles to dust.

No, those 82% showed up here at one of USMB's largest polls ever....at a thread that sports over 33,000 views...voted...didn't say anything on the thread...and then tiptoed back out again...just like Boycott A&E....just like Chic Fil A....

Again, your straw poll doesn't ask about the legality of gay marriage. Meaning it doesn't measure sentiment on the legality of gay marriage, as you fallaciously claim it does.

Worse, its a straw poll. Which are notorously unreliable. Just ask Ron Paul. He won every straw poll in the 2008 race. And lost in every state. Straw polls involve only interested parties, and folks can vote in them numerous times.

Worse still, your poll has only 140 respondents. Which is utterly insuffecient for any credible poll of national sentiment.

And still worse, your poll is singular. There are dozens of conventional polls that show strong support for gay marriage. With Gallup, Pew, Rasmussen, PPP, AP, Reuters and others showing a margin of support for gay marriage ranging from 12 to 19 points. And every single one of those polls asks about the legality of gay marriage. Your straw poll never does.

Your desperate, Silo. And you're done. As no one, not even gay marriage opponents, are buy your anemic argument.

 

[Skylar]

What conservatives are doing is rolling over and pissing on themselves in manifest "fear" of this

What conservatives are doing is realizing that they're once again on the wrong side of history. And a solid majority of the electorate is on the other.

 

[Syriusly]

Gay marriage is now legal in Utah.

And in the interest of "marriage equality", so then is polygamy and incest marriage. ?

No- just showing your ignorance of the law again.

Gay marriage is now legal in Utah.

Polygamy and incest is not.

If you would like to pursue legalizing either, then go ahead and file your own lawsuit in order to marry your brother, or to have 6 wives.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I tried to explain this situation with the USSC to a friend of mine. And she came up with a startling little conspiracy theory;

What if the conservative justices won't take up the issue because they know they'd lose. So they're leaving the issue without binding precedent waiting for one of their fellow justices to die and be replaced. With a different court mix, they might be able to institute support for a gay marriage ban affirmation ruling.

I think its far fetched. But its definitely interesting.

Interesting concept, it opens up more questions though. If Ginsburg retires after the mid-terms so that it will be a Democrat President making the appointment, that means that Obama will be the appointing President.
Now, could the Senate filibuster a Supreme Court nomination for 2-years hoping a Republican President steps into the office in 2017? If we Republicans tried that, that wouldn't play well in the media during the entire Presidential primary and run-off season leading up to the election. It would divert from the message of job growth and fiscal responsibility and make Marriage Equality one of the defining issues of the campaign. That worked for Bush in 2004 when there wasn't majority support. However that would backfire in 2016, costing us (Republicans) the White House, preventing the very thing that is hoped for.

*************************

Then there are the legal questions as a result of such a decision by the Court on some hypothetical case that would be heard after a Republican President shifts the balance of the court from 4 Liberal - 1 Moderate - 4 Conservative to possibly 3 Liberal - 1 Moderate - 5 Conservative. Considering that the new President wouldn't nominate a new Justice until at least January of 2017 with confirmation that spring that means this hypothetical conservative court wouldn't be hearing a case until the October 2017 term with a ruling probably in the spring of 2018 (or even at the end of the term - June 2018). **IF** there were a case in the pipeline from the Summer. Barring that it could be the 2018 or 2019 before a case reaches the court, meaning that some states (not those who have SSCM through legislative or ballot initiatives) will have had SSCM for up to 5-years (Using Prop 8 as a time reference).

1. How would the court deal with the 10's or even 100's of thousands of same-sex couples that were legally married during that time that it was legal?

2. Since the original Constitutional bans were found in the final ruling on the matter to have been unconstitutional what would be the status of those states? Would the old bans be back in place and new SSCM's simply halted (Question #1 addresses already married couples) permanently? Would new SSCM's be halted, via a "stay" type of action pending further action to by the State to either re-implement a new ban or allow SSCM to continue? Would new SSCM's be allowed to continue, via a "stay" type of action pending further action to by the State to either re-implement a new ban or allow SSCM to continue?

>>>>

 

[Redfish]

So you are saying your party threw your moral compass under the buss??

Maybe they were just tired of being in the closet

Whatever the motivation. I just cannot respect and more importantly support at the polls a party who knowingly allows the furthest liberal left damaging agenda to overtake it without so much as a *peep*. And worse, who enables it to spread by attrition; which is exactly what's happening.

You can't tell me that Justice Roberts, Scalia, Alito & Thomas "didn't know" that this state of lawlessness they've created wasn't "legislation by limbo". By their refusal to take up this Century's most important legal question [for how far the ramifications of a torpedo to man/woman marriage will extrapolate into future generations, society and the country as a whole in every conceivable direction], they did knowingly aid and abet gay marriage being forced on your state, dear reader, against your will. So when you are watching two dudes kissing at an altar preparing to be fake "mommy and daddy" to little kids they're going to force adoption agencies in your state to relinquish to their custody, you can turn to the good old GOP and thank them. Because all that was needed was the four of their steady-eddies in the SCOTUS to vote to take this matter up.

Now even as just a few weeks pass...or months before any GOP senators can be sworn in, or GOP assume control of Congress, it will be too late because so much attrition to standing marriage laws [by attrition of gays stuffing the clerk's offices] that there will be no hope at all of recovering a normal situation to be held out as the incentivized family for children's benefit.

Thanks conservatives for giving orphans gay "moms and dads" and their accompanying cultural values [see photos in the OP] as a matter of law.

PUNISH THE GOP AT THE POLLS. Let them win...but only by the slimmest of margins..

Vote independants or simply don't show up. Send a goddamned message to the republicans that we no longer believe they are the conservative party..

That sounds good but the reality is that if we stay home of vote third party, we ensure dem control of the country.

The other sad reality is that a RINO is better than a democrat. We need to remove the far left from government first, then get true conservatives in power.

It won't be easy, and the battle may already be lost, but staying home on election day is the worst possible thing to do.

 

[Redfish]

Gay marriage is now legal in Utah.

And in the interest of "marriage equality", so then is polygamy and incest marriage. ?

No- just showing your ignorance of the law again.

Gay marriage is now legal in Utah.

Polygamy and incest is not.

If you would like to pursue legalizing either, then go ahead and file your own lawsuit in order to marry your brother, or to have 6 wives.

what you don't get is that group marriage is the next step. If two gays are allowed to marry using discrimination as a legal justification, then that exact same legal justification can and will be made for group marriage. It will be brought to SCOTUS and once they validate man/man and womand/woman marriage, they will not legally be able to deny marriage to groups of all kinds.

This is not homophobia, its reality.