Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal

[martybegan]

because the side that wants the courts to decide it talk in terms like, love, and not impacting others, and other intangible concepts, all of which can be exactly applied to plural marriage, and other examples. You note I don't go the whole bestiality path, because that one is just stupid.

You know that's funny because that's what people were saying about "gay marriage" in the 1980s when the gay manifesto was published from Michael Swift.


Give it a generation or two of "anything goes" from the LGBT cult. You may be surprised. Legal precedent is legal precedent and that lady wears a blindfold for a reason...

I read that thing, and to me, its pure satire.

 

[mdk]

because the side that wants the courts to decide it talk in terms like, love, and not impacting others, and other intangible concepts, all of which can be exactly applied to plural marriage, and other examples. You note I don't go the whole bestiality path, because that one is just stupid.

You know that's funny because that's what people were saying about "gay marriage" in the 1980s when the gay manifesto was published from Michael Swift.


Give it a generation or two of "anything goes" from the LGBT cult. You may be surprised. Legal precedent is legal precedent and that lady wears a blindfold for a reason...

Still doesn't get that Michael Swift's piece was a work of satire. Your predictions have been laughably wrong thus far, so you'll excuse me if I don't take your prediction serious this time.

 

[Silhouette]

because the side that wants the courts to decide it talk in terms like, love, and not impacting others, and other intangible concepts, all of which can be exactly applied to plural marriage, and other examples. You note I don't go the whole bestiality path, because that one is just stupid.

You know that's funny because that's what people were saying about "gay marriage" in the 1980s when the gay manifesto was published from Michael Swift. 1987's Gay Manifesto Then & Now. How Much of it Rings True Today? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Give it a generation or two of "anything goes" from the LGBT cult. You may be surprised. Legal precedent is legal precedent and that lady wears a blindfold for a reason... An unstoppable unreflective momentum, given time, can accomplish anything its whims conjure up..

I read that thing, and to me, its pure satire.

Yes, it's hilarious how about 90% of it has manifested in reality in less than 30 years. Imagine where the church of LGBT will take us as a society in 30 more? That should be a real side-splitter.

 

[Vandalshandle]

It is always amusing seeing people with no legal education explain why Supreme Court decisions are incorrect.

For some reason, these people do not understand the basic truth regarding law.

The Supreme Court may not always agree with you. However, they will always be the Supreme Court.

That being said, ends the argument.

"Rome has spoken, the matter is settled" is an argument used by autocrats and dictators. Free people can question anything they want to, and the argument is NEVER over.

Well, if you call your claim that the SC is dead wrong, "Questioning", then I guess so. You can question all you like. When you are finished "questioning", the law as decided by the SC will be enforced.

 

[martybegan]

because the side that wants the courts to decide it talk in terms like, love, and not impacting others, and other intangible concepts, all of which can be exactly applied to plural marriage, and other examples. You note I don't go the whole bestiality path, because that one is just stupid.

You know that's funny because that's what people were saying about "gay marriage" in the 1980s when the gay manifesto was published from Michael Swift. 1987's Gay Manifesto Then & Now. How Much of it Rings True Today? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Give it a generation or two of "anything goes" from the LGBT cult. You may be surprised. Legal precedent is legal precedent and that lady wears a blindfold for a reason... An unstoppable unreflective momentum, given time, can accomplish anything its whims conjure up..

I read that thing, and to me, its pure satire.

Yes, it's hilarious how about 90% of it has manifested in reality in less than 30 years. Imagine where the church of LGBT will take us as a society in 30 more? That should be a real side-splitter.

it's still satire, and only slightly better than quoting the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (because that wasn't satire, it was a designed fraud).

Using bad sources for your arguments make them weaker.

 

[martybegan]

It is always amusing seeing people with no legal education explain why Supreme Court decisions are incorrect.

For some reason, these people do not understand the basic truth regarding law.

The Supreme Court may not always agree with you. However, they will always be the Supreme Court.

That being said, ends the argument.

"Rome has spoken, the matter is settled" is an argument used by autocrats and dictators. Free people can question anything they want to, and the argument is NEVER over.

Well, if you call your claim that the SC is dead wrong, "Questioning", then I guess so. You can question all you like. When you are finished "questioning", the law as decided by the SC will be enforced.

But it will never be accepted, at least by some people. sooner or later it is going to cross a bridge too far (probably with gun rights) and then we will see what happens.

 

[mdk]

because the side that wants the courts to decide it talk in terms like, love, and not impacting others, and other intangible concepts, all of which can be exactly applied to plural marriage, and other examples. You note I don't go the whole bestiality path, because that one is just stupid.

You know that's funny because that's what people were saying about "gay marriage" in the 1980s when the gay manifesto was published from Michael Swift. 1987's Gay Manifesto Then & Now. How Much of it Rings True Today? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Give it a generation or two of "anything goes" from the LGBT cult. You may be surprised. Legal precedent is legal precedent and that lady wears a blindfold for a reason... An unstoppable unreflective momentum, given time, can accomplish anything its whims conjure up..

I read that thing, and to me, its pure satire.

Yes, it's hilarious how about 90% of it has manifested in reality in less than 30 years. Imagine where the church of LGBT will take us as a society in 30 more? That should be a real side-splitter.

it's still satire, and only slightly better than quoting the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (because that wasn't satire, it was a designed fraud).

Using bad sources for your arguments make them weaker.

Sil doesn't have sources, she has her imagination. Her arguments all boils down to her hating gay people and nothing more. Sil hates them so much she conjured up lies about Roof and Mercer being gay and how they went on their murderous sprees b/c a Southern Baptist leader and the Pope do not support gay marriage. lol.

 

[Vandalshandle]

It is always amusing seeing people with no legal education explain why Supreme Court decisions are incorrect.

For some reason, these people do not understand the basic truth regarding law.

The Supreme Court may not always agree with you. However, they will always be the Supreme Court.

That being said, ends the argument.

"Rome has spoken, the matter is settled" is an argument used by autocrats and dictators. Free people can question anything they want to, and the argument is NEVER over.

Well, if you call your claim that the SC is dead wrong, "Questioning", then I guess so. You can question all you like. When you are finished "questioning", the law as decided by the SC will be enforced.

But it will never be accepted, at least by some people. sooner or later it is going to cross a bridge too far (probably with gun rights) and then we will see what happens.

Fine. In the meantime, get your ass into the kitchen and bake that cake.

 

[martybegan]

It is always amusing seeing people with no legal education explain why Supreme Court decisions are incorrect.

For some reason, these people do not understand the basic truth regarding law.

The Supreme Court may not always agree with you. However, they will always be the Supreme Court.

That being said, ends the argument.

"Rome has spoken, the matter is settled" is an argument used by autocrats and dictators. Free people can question anything they want to, and the argument is NEVER over.

Well, if you call your claim that the SC is dead wrong, "Questioning", then I guess so. You can question all you like. When you are finished "questioning", the law as decided by the SC will be enforced.

But it will never be accepted, at least by some people. sooner or later it is going to cross a bridge too far (probably with gun rights) and then we will see what happens.

Fine. In the meantime, get your ass into the kitchen and bake that cake.

Fascist.

 

[Vandalshandle]

It is always amusing seeing people with no legal education explain why Supreme Court decisions are incorrect.

For some reason, these people do not understand the basic truth regarding law.

The Supreme Court may not always agree with you. However, they will always be the Supreme Court.

That being said, ends the argument.

"Rome has spoken, the matter is settled" is an argument used by autocrats and dictators. Free people can question anything they want to, and the argument is NEVER over.

Well, if you call your claim that the SC is dead wrong, "Questioning", then I guess so. You can question all you like. When you are finished "questioning", the law as decided by the SC will be enforced.

But it will never be accepted, at least by some people. sooner or later it is going to cross a bridge too far (probably with gun rights) and then we will see what happens.

Fine. In the meantime, get your ass into the kitchen and bake that cake.

Fascist.

Note to Operatives: Prepare Marty's FEMA trailer in the reeducation camp.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is always amusing seeing people with no legal education explain why Supreme Court decisions are incorrect.

For some reason, these people do not understand the basic truth regarding law.

The Supreme Court may not always agree with you. However, they will always be the Supreme Court.

That being said, ends the argument.

"Rome has spoken, the matter is settled" is an argument used by autocrats and dictators. Free people can question anything they want to, and the argument is NEVER over.

Well, if you call your claim that the SC is dead wrong, "Questioning", then I guess so. You can question all you like. When you are finished "questioning", the law as decided by the SC will be enforced.

But it will never be accepted, at least by some people. sooner or later it is going to cross a bridge too far (probably with gun rights) and then we will see what happens.

Ooh, someone butching up on the internet.

Scary! Really Scary!

 

[Silhouette]

Well, if you call your claim that the SC is dead wrong, "Questioning", then I guess so. You can question all you like. When you are finished "questioning", the law as decided by the SC will be enforced.

...Unless it conflicts with the 1st Amendment....

 

[Syriusly]

Strict constructionist, not literalist.

list a few distinction if you are able to

Strict constructionists favor what is written over interpretation, but allow for interpretation due to things like increases in technology and such, but always in the eye of people's freedoms, and not government's ability to curtail them.

It's why a strict constructionist doesn't try to limit free speech to a written press or someone standing in front of the town square.

And yet, you support state laws that curtail the freedom of Americans to marry.

No I don't. I oppose the courts forcing States to change their marriage laws without the support of the people via the legislature.

I have zero issue with SSM when it is allowed via legislative action, and would probably vote for it if it was put up for a referendum. I would also have no issue with forcing States that banned SSM from having to recognize legal SSM marriage licenses from States that DID issue them, under full faith and credit.

So you are still upset about Loving v. Virginia?

 

[Silhouette]

So you are still upset about Loving v. Virginia?

What does race have to do with sexual behaviors?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Well, if you call your claim that the SC is dead wrong, "Questioning", then I guess so. You can question all you like. When you are finished "questioning", the law as decided by the SC will be enforced.

...Unless it conflicts with the 1st Amendment....

Should that decision be made, it will be made by the same court that declared discrimination against gays to be unconstitutional.

 

[Silhouette]

Well, if you call your claim that the SC is dead wrong, "Questioning", then I guess so. You can question all you like. When you are finished "questioning", the law as decided by the SC will be enforced.

...Unless it conflicts with the 1st Amendment....

Should that decision be made, it will be made by the same court that declared discrimination against gays to be unconstitutional.

Oh, that decision will be made. And it will be made by the same court who two of which on the left are catholics. You remember the Pope's recent visit and his position on gay marriage..?

 

[Syriusly]

An undue burden according to who?
Any state that believes that siblings should not marry, can of course change their laws to prevent same sex siblings from marrying if their current language is not gender blind. IF states choose not to do so- well apparently the states don't care.

Meanwhile- siblings are prevented marrying regardless of fertility in every state in the United States.

But First Cousins in many states are allowed to marry only if they can establish that they cannot procreate together.

Clearly procreation is not the basis for denying siblings from marrying.

And never was.

And Obergefel doesn't change any of that.

Either States had a valid reason before- and still do- or they didn't have a valid reason before- and still don't.

Meanwhile- you can go demand your day in court- for 'justice'

Iowa law restricts only opposite sex family members from marriage

Maryland only restricts those that vaginally penetrate.

Of course prior to Obergfell, neither state allowed any. It was due to Obergfell.

And if Iowa cares about siblings marrying- Iowa can change Iowa's law.

I don't even know what the hell you mean about Marylands law but you seem obsessed with sex...

Meanwhile- siblings are prevented marrying regardless of fertility in every state in the United States.

But First Cousins in many states are allowed to marry only if they can establish that they cannot procreate together.

Clearly procreation is not the basis for denying siblings from marrying.

And never was.

And Obergefel doesn't change any of that.

Either States had a valid reason before- and still do- or they didn't have a valid reason before- and still don't.

Meanwhile- you can go demand your day in court- for 'justice'

Clearly you're backtracking.

Previously you said "why haven't these laws changed" faster then those for same sex marriage.

Iowa Code 595

Clearly they changed much faster, actually simultaneously with the legalization of same sex marriage

Another of your fails.

Interesting, these marriages would have to be recognized in all 50 states

Backtracking?

LOL.

As I said-

And if Iowa cares about siblings marrying- Iowa can change Iowa's law.

I don't even know what the hell you mean about Marylands law but you seem obsessed with sex...

Meanwhile- siblings are prevented marrying regardless of fertility in every state in the United States.

But First Cousins in many states are allowed to marry only if they can establish that they cannot procreate together.

Clearly procreation is not the basis for denying siblings from marrying.

And never was.

And Obergefel doesn't change any of that.

Either States had a valid reason before- and still do- or they didn't have a valid reason before- and still don't.

Meanwhile- you can go demand your day in court- for 'justice'

Same sex siblings appear legal in iowa, according to:

Iowa Code 595

Great- so you can go to Iowa and marry your same sex sibling now.

Go test that out.

Of course if Iowa thinks that is improper- it can make its marriage laws gender neutral as many other states do.
If Iowa doesn't care to make it illegal for same sex siblings illegal- well then your beef is with Iowa- not Obergefel.

 

[Syriusly]

You conveniently ignore the 14th amendment which requires that all state laws not deprive citizens or equal protection of the law or life,liberty or property without due procedure. That means that any state law is subject to constitutional challenge regardless of whether it involved a power that could be only exercised by the state. You simply do not understand that the enumeration of powers deal with powers delegated to Congress and has nothing to do with the authority of the Supreme Court.

Equal protection of the law requires things to be equal, and that is something that is a matter of debate, which should be handled by the legislative process when equality is not confirmed.

It requires that the law not deprive people of rights others enjoy without a compelling reason. There is no reason, compelling or otherwise, to deprive two adults of the protection that the laws on marriage provide.

There is also no compelling reason to overturn centuries of precedent by judicial fiat, the ability to get 5 progressive idiots to agree to it notwithstanding.

There does not have to be a compelling reason to overturn the laws passed in the 1990s and beyond that excluded gays from marriage. You have had this ass backwards for days. The government has to have a compelling reason to deny one group of people protection of the laws. There is no reason to not allow gay people to marry. Tradition is not a valid reason.

Those laws only clarified what was assumed to be the norm, which was marriage required 1 man, 1 woman.

Tradition as not a valid reason may be true, but it should have been decided by the people of the State through their legislature, not the courts.

Loving corrected a non-material restriction to an existing situation OSM, Oberfell created a new situation that has only been even considered for 30 years.

So- you object to the Supreme Court deciding on State marriage laws- some of the time- specifically only this time.

But you rationalize why it was okay every other time.

Obergefel created no new situation- same gender couples have been marrying in the United States for 11 or 12 years. Obergefel recognized the rights of those couples just as Loving recognized the rights of the Lovings.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Well, if you call your claim that the SC is dead wrong, "Questioning", then I guess so. You can question all you like. When you are finished "questioning", the law as decided by the SC will be enforced.

...Unless it conflicts with the 1st Amendment....

Should that decision be made, it will be made by the same court that declared discrimination against gays to be unconstitutional.

Oh, that decision will be made. And it will be made by the same court who two of which on the left are catholics. You remember the Pope's recent visit and his position on gay marriage?

To quote JFK;

"I don't tell the Pope how to run his church, and he doesn't tell me how to run my country".

 

[Silhouette]

To quote JFK;

"I don't tell the Pope how to run his church, and he doesn't tell me how to run my country".

If there is any deliberation in the minds of the catholics on the left of the Bench as to whether or not PA laws dominate the 1st Amendment, I think the fate of their eternal souls per Jude 1 might weigh in at that point. Even if just in (Justice) Kennedy's mind....speaking of Kennedy..