Conservative SCOTUS Justices FAIL: Backdoor Legislating by Marriage Attrition

[Syriusly]

Nope, you can't as they will find out. They are operating a wedding factory at the chapel for pay, so yep they are subject to the law.

The law is subject to the constitution. The supreme court will get one of these soon. I'll remind you of your folly when they rule.

Absolutely subject to the Constitution.

Just like Marriage.

I will accept what the Supreme Court says.

Will you?

 

[Syriusly]

The majority now support this "minority", as do the courts and the states.

Sux to be haters.

No, they don't.... Check out the polls...

LOL......'polls'.....

 

[Syriusly]

Now you're muddying the water. This is about queers, not ethnicity.

"Queers" being a minority behavioral group [de facto cult], .

So are Jews a 'minority behavioral group (defacto cult)?

Same percentage of the population. Both engage in behavior that is different from the majority.

Oh but wait- thats right- you only want gays discriminated against.

 

[Ibentoken]

Nope, you can't as they will find out. They are operating a wedding factory at the chapel for pay, so yep they are subject to the law.

The law is subject to the constitution. The supreme court will get one of these soon. I'll remind you of your folly when they rule.

Absolutely subject to the Constitution.

Just like Marriage.

I will accept what the Supreme Court says.

Will you?

Yes.

 

[Ibentoken]

Now you're muddying the water. This is about queers, not ethnicity.

"Queers" being a minority behavioral group [de facto cult], .

So are Jews a 'minority behavioral group (defacto cult)?

Same percentage of the population. Both engage in behavior that is different from the majority.

Oh but wait- thats right- you only want gays discriminated against.

LOL. You're pretty ******* stupid.

 

[Syriusly]

Now you're muddying the water. This is about queers, not ethnicity.

"Queers" being a minority behavioral group [de facto cult], .

So are Jews a 'minority behavioral group (defacto cult)?

Same percentage of the population. Both engage in behavior that is different from the majority.

Oh but wait- thats right- you only want gays discriminated against.

LOL. You're pretty ******* stupid.

LOL- you have nothing left but insults and profanity to express your hate.

 

[Ibentoken]

Now you're muddying the water. This is about queers, not ethnicity.

"Queers" being a minority behavioral group [de facto cult], .

So are Jews a 'minority behavioral group (defacto cult)?

Same percentage of the population. Both engage in behavior that is different from the majority.

Oh but wait- thats right- you only want gays discriminated against.

LOL. You're pretty ******* stupid.

LOL- you have nothing left but insults and profanity to express your hate.

I don't hate anyone, even stupid people. I know what I believe and why I believe it. You have a problem. You think anyone who disagrees with you is a hateful bigot. You have the problem. Not me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We are not going back to a pre-Marshall understanding of the role of SCOTUS and the Constitution.

 

[Contumacious]

Well, you knew it was coming....a rant from the middle.

It only takes four votes in SCOTUS to hear a case. All it would've taken to prevent all of this was the four Conservative Justices voting to hear these appeals. But instead they chose to cave to an untested social trend born of the outspin of the groovy 1960s free-love cult. s!

Article III Judges are NOT supposed to be "liberals" or "conservatives" they swore to support and defend the Constitution and should set aside their personal views when adjudicating. Like Thomas Jefferson stated , judges are supposed to be mere machines.

Americans have a right to liberty, property, life and to pursue happiness.

.

 

[Syriusly]

Now you're muddying the water. This is about queers, not ethnicity.

"Queers" being a minority behavioral group [de facto cult], .

So are Jews a 'minority behavioral group (defacto cult)?

Same percentage of the population. Both engage in behavior that is different from the majority.

Oh but wait- thats right- you only want gays discriminated against.

LOL. You're pretty ******* stupid.

LOL- you have nothing left but insults and profanity to express your hate.

I don't hate anyone, even stupid people. I know what I believe and why I believe it. You have a problem. You think anyone who disagrees with you is a hateful bigot. You have the problem. Not me.

Your posts say otherwise.

Rather than engage in conversation- and reply to the content of my post- you just spew hateful bile like this gem:
LOL. You're pretty ******* stupid

 

[Silhouette]

Article III Judges are NOT supposed to be "liberals" or "conservatives" they swore to support and defend the Constitution and should set aside their personal views when adjudicating. Like Thomas Jefferson stated , judges are supposed to be mere machines.

Americans have a right to liberty, property, life and to pursue happiness.

In the past I agree. Most Justices were just that, serious, experienced dispensors of carefully-deliberated, unbiased opinions. They were chosen as older men and women so that they had years of experience. Their reputations were untarnished. Today we know what we have in the Supreme Court. It's a smaller version of Congress. Their lobbiests are more invisible. But they're there.

How else would you explain what they did on the eve of an election by refusing to take up the gay marriage appeals; even though 32 states petitioned them in desperation to resolve the highly contested issue? They did it, the conservatives anyway, to inspire more conservatives to vote in outrage. That's the sole reason they did it. The mistake they made is that the outrage and impotence conservative voters see in that move is directed towards CONSERVATIVES who are supposed to be our last bastion and guard of traditional marriage. Everyone knows that if you allow laws to erode, they cannot be enforceable. Conservatives may also have "bought the lie" that "a majority of Americans now support gay marriage" [while the LGBT machine does triple back flips to make sure Americans aren't allowed to vote on it].

They think they can roll it all back after they allow thousands of gay people to marry-in the "legality" of their arrangment. And they know they cannot. To them it was a "excusable collateral damage" to the fabric of society; just to pack Congress in this particular point in history. Meanwhile the damage to democracy remains permanent. And the looming harm to children irreversable. [evidence: gay pride parades, Harvey Milk]

Like the proverbial myopic idiot, the conservatives chose to breed themselves out of existence, all to command one Congressional period and perhaps one term with a GOP president. Allowing a behavioral group repugnant to the majority to dictate to the majority "how it will be" has ushered in a neo fascist wildfire in terms of legal precedent. This group has demonstrated not just a penchant to display lewd sex acts to kids in public as an organized display of "pride", and elevated a child teen sex predator as their messiah [Harvey Milk]. They have displayed a penchant to use the legal system and precedent like a bullet-train whenever and wherever they want it to take them.

This is how fascist cults take hold. From there, their other penchant, very similar to the nazis I might add [speaking of intolerance], which is public witch-hunts and inquisitions for those who don't fall 100% in support for the LGBT agenda/dogma will take on new momentum. You literally will be fined if you are a minister trying to preach Jude 1 to your flock. You really will be jailed for refusing to turn a child over in adoption to a couple of gay guys you just saw performing oral sex in a pride parade the day before. You really will find your career destroyed for daring to criticize their messiah for sodomizing his 16 year old minor adopted ward.

This isn't a hypothetical. These things are happening RIGHT NOW, ALREADY. And the conservative Justices just threw gasoline on the very fire that will burn them out of existence. How many LGBT or "LGBT-friendly-or-else" indoctrinated households will vote conservative in the future? And for that matter, will votes even be allowed after the new and dangerous precedent of minority-behaviors-repugnant-to-the-majority running the roost takes hold?

Tell the conservatives how you feel by doing either of these two things:

1. If nothing changes between now and the vote, stay home. Don't brave the traffic or the weather or the inconvenience just to vote for people who have betrayed your values...traitors to your party's core values.

2. If a significant gain happens to favor the voices of the People of the states to self rule on this question, show up to the polls in numbers. Crawl there on your belly through the mud if you have to.

Take back your party. Send a message to conservative leaders: "no traitors".

 

[Syriusly]

[ They did it, the conservatives anyway, to inspire more conservatives to vote in outrage. That's the sole reason they did it. .

LOL....yeah....another episode of the Telenova "El Mundo According to Silhouette".

 

[Silhouette]

[ They did it, the conservatives anyway, to inspire more conservatives to vote in outrage. That's the sole reason they did it. .

LOL....yeah....another episode of the Telenova "El Mundo According to Silhouette".

OK so careers aren't being ruined for voicing opposition to gay marraige? And ministers in Texas aren't having their sermons petitioned and screened for "anti gay statements"? At another political site, I and dozens of other people saw a thread with pictures of men performing oral sex on each other, gearing up for a pride parade in SF CA, in broad daylight on a main thoroughfare. Of course I cannot post them here. That other board was more tolerant of acts like this in public being openly discussed.

Harvey Milk did sodomize his minor adopted ward and many other teen "young waifs with substance abuse problems". . It's in his biography...written by his scrupulously honest gay -journalist friend Randy Shilts.

This is "El Mundo according to LGBT". I'm just here telling you about the reality of it. Consolodating it for examination all in one place. Informed votes or verdicts are the best kind. Unless you think that political-correctness is the only filter a Justice should be looking through...even when danger to kids, obvious, stark and "in your face" is looming with these key decisions...

Do you also blame photographs for depicting clear images? Don't kill the messenger..

 

[Syriusly]

[ They did it, the conservatives anyway, to inspire more conservatives to vote in outrage. That's the sole reason they did it. .

LOL....yeah....another episode of the Telenova "El Mundo According to Silhouette".

Harvey Milk did sodomize his minor adopted ward and many other teen "young waifs with substance abuse problems". . It's in his biography...written by his scrupulously honest gay -journalist friend Randy Shilts..

No- its not in his biography. Just another lie by you.

His biography doesn't say Milk 'sodomized' anyone.
No mention of Milk adopting anyone.
No mention of Milk sodomizing any 'teen young waifs'

That one is the most sad lie of yours.

"young waifs with substance abuse problems" was in reference to a 25 year old. No mention of teens at all.

You just flat out lied about that.

And since I have pointed this out to your repeatedly- you intentionally, and knowingly lie about it.

 

[Syriusly]

. I'm just here telling you about the reality of it...

No.......otherwise you wouldn't lie in so many posts.

Reality has almost nothing to do with your anti-homosexual screeds.

 

[Silhouette]

His biography doesn't say Milk 'sodomized' anyone.
No mention of Milk adopting anyone.
No mention of Milk sodomizing any 'teen young waifs'
.

From The Mayor of Castro Street; The LIfe and Times of Harvey Milk, by Randy Shilts, accredited gay journalist and friend of Milk's:

"...sixteen-year-old McKinley was looking for some kind of father figure...At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him." (pages 30-31)

"It would be to boyish-looking men in their late teens and early 20's that Milk would be attracted for the rest of his life." (page 24)

"Harvey always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems." (page 180)

Anyone can buy the book and read it. And I suggest they do. Would you suggest the same? After all, you seem exceedingly confident that Milk would not be portrayed as anything the the paragon of LGBT values if people read his biography. Go ahead folks. See which one of us is lying...and more importantly, why that person is lying...

 

[Silhouette]

Well? Would you like the United States Supreme Court Justices to read "The Mayor of Castro Street; The Life and Times of Harvey Milk"? I'd be thrilled for them to really get to know the sexuality of the person/messiah celebrated for his sexuality by the church of LGBT. Wouldn't you? I mean, you're proud of what he did, right? What he did represents "the LGBT movement across the nation and the world"...right [enshrined in CA law verbatum. You had a postage stamp issued in his honor with a rainbow "LGBT" logo on it so?...

 

[Syriusly]

His biography doesn't say Milk 'sodomized' anyone.
No mention of Milk adopting anyone.
No mention of Milk sodomizing any 'teen young waifs'
.

From The Mayor of Castro Street; The LIfe and Times of Harvey Milk, by Randy Shilts, accredited gay journalist and friend of Milk's:

"...sixteen-year-old McKinley was looking for some kind of father figure...At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him." (pages 30-31)

"It would be to boyish-looking men in their late teens and early 20's that Milk would be attracted for the rest of his life." (page 24)

"Harvey always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems." (page 180)

Anyone can buy the book and read it. And I suggest they do. Would you suggest the same? After all, you seem exceedingly confident that Milk would not be portrayed as anything the the paragon of LGBT values if people read his biography. Go ahead folks. See which one of us is lying...and more importantly, why that person is lying...

I have read the book. Clearly you haven't.

As I said before:
His biography doesn't say Milk 'sodomized' anyone.
No mention of Milk adopting anyone.
No mention of Milk sodomizing any 'teen young waifs'

Those are all lies you created.

Note you haven't been able to provide a single quote supporting any of your claims.

My favorite lie of yours is when you claimed this quote:
"Harvey always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems." (page 180) [/quote]

was talking about teenagers- when it was a quote in regards to drunk 25 year old Jack Lira.

The question is what drives you to lie about Harvey Milk in order to attack homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

Well? Would you like the United States Supreme Court Justices to read "The Mayor of Castro Street; The Life and Times of Harvey Milk"? I'd be thrilled for them to really get to know the sexuality of the person/messiah celebrated for his sexuality by the church of LGBT. Wouldn't you? I mean, you're proud of what he did, right? What he did represents "the LGBT movement across the nation and the world"...right [enshrined in CA law verbatum. You had a postage stamp issued in his honor with a rainbow "LGBT" logo on it so?...

I would imagine at least several of the Justices had read the "The Mayor of Castro Street".

Harvey Milk was a man- a flawed man- who worked for equal rights for gays. After reading 'The Mayor of Castro Street" I am not certain I would even like him- but I will never know since he was murdered over 40 years ago.

What Milk is recognized for is for openly promoting equal rights for gays.

And of course that is why you are so upset by him.

 

[Skylar]

Well? Would you like the United States Supreme Court Justices to read "The Mayor of Castro Street; The Life and Times of Harvey Milk"? I'd be thrilled for them to really get to know the sexuality of the person/messiah celebrated for his sexuality by the church of LGBT. Wouldn't you? I mean, you're proud of what he did, right? What he did represents "the LGBT movement across the nation and the world"...right [enshrined in CA law verbatum. You had a postage stamp issued in his honor with a rainbow "LGBT" logo on it so?...

What relevance would that have with gays and lesbians receiving equal protection under the law? You seem to be under the impression that if a gay person does something you don't like, that all gay people somehow lose their rights.

Um, that's not actually a thing.