Conservative SCOTUS Justices FAIL: Backdoor Legislating by Marriage Attrition

[Silhouette]

Sil is now meeting the definition of insanity.

Repeating the same mistake over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

Thank you for demostrating the art that has consummated over the last 4 decades into where we are today. Making "black" = white...."up" = down.

Where the inmates call the sane "crazy" and where children are happily placed by the society that has their wellbeing in custody into homes of lewd deviant-sex street performers [in front of kids] and the culture that 100% supports that. Where todays epitome of conservative values also knuckle under and concede via attrition, fear and political jockeying for short-term goals.

Who would even bother to show up at the polls when every single value is up for sale?

Thank you for that demonstration.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Sil is now meeting the definition of insanity.

Repeating the same mistake over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

Thank you for demostrating the art that has consummated over the last 4 decades into where we are today. Making "black" = white...."up" = down.

Where the inmates call the sane "crazy" and where children are happily placed by the society that has their wellbeing in custody into homes of lewd deviant-sex street performers [in front of kids] and the culture that 100% supports that. Where todays epitome of conservative values also knuckle under and concede via attrition, fear and political jockeying for short-term goals.

Who would even bother to show up at the polls when every single value is up for sale?

Thank you for that demonstration.

 

[Silhouette]

LIke I said....

...It's all a matter of perspective:

"Depends on where and who you ask and who is taking the poll. If you're going to start a propaganda campaign like inarguably the LGBT campaign has been, you get started way back. As it happens, organized homosexuals first took over the APA back in the 1970s. That is documented and there are articles about its incremental demise. Likewise, if you're going to try to insert your culture into the existing one and try to stamp out religion and get to kids [read statements from actual gay activists about this], you do it first by getting in the minds of people. After that, the lawsuits are a mere formalty.

Enter GLAAD. Many of Hollywood's more conservative crew are very upset about the extrodinary inroads and power GLAAD has over programming now. And we see it in ever more and more and more permissive and explicit "gay friendly programming". Get a few rich childless gay guys dying of AIDS, willing their estates to organized activists. Hire a few lawyers...yada yada yada...milk public sympathy about "gay teen suicides" while you send out your memos to gays or purchased-gay sympathetic leaders in high places...the ones who just happened to be there or the ones strategically placed there [Jennings, Holder, etc.]. Begin clamping down on any and all thought processes and institutions that resist your advancements. Openly punish those who are wilfull and don't immediate submit to your threats and demands and alternating sympathy plays. Teach onlookers "by example" what will come their way if they resist.

And we have precisely where we are today. Neither political party will resist. Yet tens of millions of silent voters still are utterly disgusted with this cult taking over rational thought processes. And a "conservative" movement to assist-by-attrition and limbo. I wonder how many of the Justices would like to have been raised by the folks below in those pictures? To call and think of them as "mom and dad"? Because that's what they're sentencing scores of children, who knows how many into future generations by setting this first dark paving stone inadvertently by working some "midterm election manipulation". One wonders in the end if this is all worth it. Or how one can sleep putting children in obvious danger to the point of changing the fabric of society itself so radically in such a short period of time..all while hogtying the voters' ability to even slow it down to see what we're getting into with respect to the kids involved..

It's why I keep posting the pictures I do. I do it precisely to SHOCK the reader back into reality...the reality of what they are setting up perfectly to put children in danger under. If you sit back for a moment and realize you are nothing more than the end product of decades of careful planning and strategy for what is nothing more than a deviant sex cult, that you are nothing more than an end-of-the-movie "Brad and Janet" of a real life Rocky Horror Picture Show, that you are nothing more than a brainwashed sychophant of organized limitless debauchery, hypnotized away from your conservative mores, you may have enough of a moment of clarity to move back to your own thoughts. We can move back to our own thoughts about the situation without fear of persecution by the cult leaders. We can right this ship at the last minute to turn it away from the iceberg that 2/3rds of which none of us can see.

That's the "background" for your polling data. And once again, that splash of cold water that everyone needs in their face when remembering that marriage = rights to adopt CHILDREN into THIS mindset and cultural "pride" [mental illness].."

If you think after viewing these pictures that children belong as members of this "new social order"...you are already too far gone and you can just completely disregard what I've just said. There is no hope for you. You are one of the inmates now, assimilated into the asylum.

 

[bodecea]

Conservative religious groups and a handful of Republican lawmakers decried the Supreme Court’s decision Monday to allow same-sex marriage rulings to stand in five states, saying it will help motivate voters to the polls in protest.

But most Republican leaders in Congress and elsewhere stayed relatively silent.. Conservatives decry Supreme Court s move on gay marriage - The Washington Post

This isn't from a shift in public opinion by the way. Look at the polling results on the top of this page: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
That 82% represents people who aren't really all that much about gay marriage, are they? Are people just going along with this without thinking? LOOK at those pictures in the OP here. THAT is the value system we are now assigning our orphans to. Sex in front of and with kids? Have we lost our collective mind? And REPUBLICANS sit quietly about this? Who are our conservatives?

There is a difference between forcing churches to perform gay marriages....I would vote "no" on that myself....and legal marriages. Not only would I vote yes but I have a legal marriage.

So you are comparing apples and bicycles there.

 

[bodecea]

And the answer to your poll was only to respect churches' private association, and it was not a rejection of marriage equality.

Sil has failed miserably on this OP.

I wonder if he knows the difference between a civil marriage and a religious ceremony in a church?

 

[Derideo_Te]

And the answer to your poll was only to respect churches' private association, and it was not a rejection of marriage equality.

Sil has failed miserably on this OP.

I wonder if he knows the difference between a civil marriage and a religious ceremony in a church?

I doubt that he knows the difference between day and night. Sil lives in a bizarre little bubble that has no discernible connection with reality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, 82% of Americans are not pissed off at marriage equality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, go to work on child abuse: that is your calling.

Go to work in saving all the children.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, go to work on child abuse: that is your calling.

Go to work in saving all the children.

That is precisely what I'm doing, one increment at a time. Like your cause advances towards them, that's how I expose it.

There is an eerie lack of leadership on behalf of the GOP's ability to influence this end to that incremental progression. When people with brains see people on Fox News, for example, throw their hands up in the air and do a half-miffed "oh gee well I guess most Americans are in favor of gay marriage" when they know the states keep voting it down and they saw the million likes on "Boycott A&E"...and the poll on the "churches" thread referenced by the OP here... It's beyond maddening. If the GOP wanted to, they could violate the Safe Drinking Water Act and pump benzene into your town's drinking water aquifer to frack shale...oh...wait...they're already doing that. But *somehow* they can't get the g'nads together to protect children and society by a phone call or two?

Wow ...what

I don't know which makes a worse, more ineffective "leadership"....Obama and the uber left or the GOP?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Go to work saving ALL the children NOW.

There is no calling for separate groups of children.

 

[Silhouette]

Go to work saving ALL the children NOW.

There is no calling for separate groups of children.

OK, so you'll stop using the term "gay teen suicides" then? Deal.

I have always been working for the salvation of all children. This is just part of it. Would you have me discard this part to "move on" to other aspects of their endangerment so folks won't notice the encroaching one that is most imminent and most potently poised of all to utterly engulf not just their minds and bodies, but their souls as well?

Yeah...I bet you'd like me to go onto helping "other child endangerment causes". And I will. I will. Just not until I'm finished with this one...

 

[Skylar]

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. And in the end they have sacraficed the wellbeing of children on the altar of political pressures. Our conservative principles have finally been abandoned by the last bastion in place to preserve them... Vote accordingly... Independents anyone?

But...but didn't you insist that the stay that the USSC granted the state of Utah weeks ago was the court declaring that gay marriage bans are constitutional?

Now, the courts 'chose to cave to an untested social trend'.

Gee, its almost like you don't have the slightest clue what the **** you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

But...but didn't you insist that the stay that the USSC granted the state of Utah weeks ago was the court declaring that gay marriage bans are constitutional?

Now, the courts 'chose to cave to an untested social trend'.

Gee, its almost like you don't have the slightest clue what the **** you're talking about.

None of us do. THAT'S THE POINT. SCOTUS is facilitating this legal limbo. The conservative Justices could have voted to take up all these appeals from both sides but they chose instead the position of legislating via attrition. Allowing gays to "marry in a Decision" at the highest federal level..effectivly squelching state's self rule without the Court having to have the g'nads to stand up and declare "sorry states, despite what we told you in Windsor, you cannot self-rule. We just wanted to say you could and walk both sides of the fence just then so we could strike down part of DOMA and give Edie Windsor the win. Other than that we were just kidding about states being the ones who get to choose and after that we have to listen to what they say."

For those who aren't familiar with the dictionary: "choice" means the ability to opt between two or more things that may be divergent. Such as the choice to say "yes" or "no" to anything but man/woman marriage.

BTW, polygamy now and any other form of consenting adult marriage is legal in all the states currently declaring that gay marraige is legal in violation of what the majority in their electorate cast. A dead law is a dead law. All of it, and not just the parts you want to be dead.

"Equality"....remember?

 

[Skylar]

None of us do. THAT'S THE POINT.

That's not what you said before. You insisted that the stay was the USSC overturning lower court decisions that ruled gay marriage bans were unconstitutional. You insisted that the courts were demonstrating that the gay marriage bans were constitutional.

Now how did that work out again? Let me see if I remember.....

Ah yes! The courts then rejected the appeals, lifted the stays and allowed the lower court rulings to stand. Gay marriage is now legal in Utah, the very state where you said the USSC had ruled the gay marriage ban was constitutional.

So what did you get so laughably wrong? And why would we expect any better from you this time?

 

[Silhouette]

None of us do. THAT'S THE POINT.

That's not what you said before. You insisted that the stay was the USSC overturning lower court decisions that ruled gay marriage bans were unconstitutional. You insisted that the courts were demonstrating that the gay marriage bans were constitutional.

Now how did that work out again? Let me see if I remember.....

Ah yes! The courts then rejected the appeals, lifted the stays and allowed the lower court rulings to stand. Gay marriage is now legal in Utah, the very state where you said the USSC had ruled the gay marriage ban was constitutional.

So what did you get so laughably wrong? And why would we expect any better from you this time?

We will see if it worked out. The fat lady hasn't sung yet..

 

[Skylar]

We will see if it worked out. The fat lady hasn't sung yet..

So if the stay that the court granted Utah was the court upholding gay marriage bans as constitutional as you claimed.....

......then why is the gay marriage ban in Utah now overturned as unconstitutional (with the USSC's blessing) and gay marriage now legal in Utah?

You fucked up somewhere.

 

[Silhouette]

We will see if it worked out. The fat lady hasn't sung yet..

So if the stay that the court granted Utah was the court upholding gay marriage bans as constitutional as you claimed.....

......then why is the gay marriage ban in Utah now overturned as unconstitutional (with the USSC's blessing) and gay marriage now legal in Utah?

You fucked up somewhere.

I didn't **** up. The Supreme Court's conservative Justices did. And like I said, this isn't quite over yet..

Read this and mull it over.. It's actually "legal" right now for the Browns to marry in Utah. As "legal" as it is for gays since there now is no law on marriage in Utah. And there is no law on marriage in many other states as well. Thanks, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and Scalia.

Judge finalizes ‘Sister Wives’ ruling as both sides prepare for appeals
Courts » He also says Utah County attorney violated the Brown family’s rights during investigation.
By nate carlisle
| The Salt Lake Tribune
First Published Aug 27 2014 05:44 pm • Last Updated Aug 28 2014 07:59 am
The Browns filed their lawsuit in July 2011, arguing Utah’s law violated their right to privacy. The family’s argument relied primarily on the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down the Texas law banning sodomy, which was celebrated by gay rights advocates.
Reyes’ office is already appealing a marriage ruling that came days after the bigamy ruling. That second ruling struck down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage. Judge finalizes apos Sister Wives apos ruling as both sides prepare for appeals The Salt Lake Tribune

 

[Kosh]

We will see if it worked out. The fat lady hasn't sung yet..

So if the stay that the court granted Utah was the court upholding gay marriage bans as constitutional as you claimed.....

......then why is the gay marriage ban in Utah now overturned as unconstitutional (with the USSC's blessing) and gay marriage now legal in Utah?

You fucked up somewhere.

No they do not have the blessing of the USSC, they did not make any ruling or hear any arguments. That is not a blessing by the supreme court, but to a far left drone, I am sure it is.

 

[Skylar]

I didn't **** up. The Supreme Court's conservative Justices did. And like I said, this isn't quite over yet..

Oh you completely fucked up. As you told us what the Supreme Court justices intended by the stay, what the stay meant, and what the legal outcome of the stay was...insisting that it overturned the lower court rulings that Utah's gay marriage bans were unconstitutional. You even told us that the Stay applied to the entire country and made gay marriage bans in California constitutional again.

You didn't get a single thing right.

On every single point -without exception- you were comically, laughably wrong. Projecting your own beliefs onto the court and the justices based on nothing but your own assumption that they must think like you do. You couldn't even accurately portray what a stay was, what it does, or its jurisdiction.

You simply have no idea what the **** you're talking about.

But this time its different? C'mon. I was born at night, but not LAST night.

 

[Skylar]

No they do not have the blessing of the USSC, they did not make any ruling or hear any arguments. That is not a blessing by the supreme court, but to a far left drone, I am sure it is.

The USSC allowed every lower court ruling to stand from the 4th, 7th and 10th appeals circuit. They denied cert for every one of those cases. Making the lower court rulings enforceable and authoritative in their respective districts.

Gay marriage is now legal in 30 of the 50 states.