Is an Opinion of the Supreme Court the ‘Law of the Land’? Let’s ask Thomas Jefferson. . .

[PaintMyHouse]

in your mind people are less able to procreate if gay marriages are recognized by the government?

No need to grant homos coercive licence since they can't procreate or provide a facsimile of natural parents.

Tell us, do unmarried fathers have the same rights as married fathers?

No.

Show us???

Married filing jointly and health coverage through a spouse's employer.

That has not a thing to do with his rights as a father. Seems married or unmarried his rights as a baby-maker are the same. Care to try again?

 

[ogibillm]

The SCOTUS can not write law. But they CAN rule on the constitutionality of laws. And that is what they did. They ruled that the laws forbidding same sex marriage were unconstitutional. Without those laws, same sex marriage is legal.

So how do states get away with denying drivers licences to blind people?

They can present a rational basis for discrimination, and therefore get the courts to declare it legal. In this case no rational basis could be found, so the anti-gay marriage laws got tossed

The rational basis (procreation) was obfuscated and otherwise not presented at all.

in your mind people are less able to procreate if gay marriages are recognized by the government?

No need to grant homos coercive licence since they can't procreate or provide a facsimile of natural parents.

a marriage license is not needed to procreate. gay marriage doesn't make a person in a heterosexual relationship more or less likely to procreate.

if procreation is in no way affected by the recognition of gay marriage why do you think it forms an argument against it?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

why are you guys are arguing with one stupidest people in the forum?....THINK.....

Because he's in no way alone.

There are far too many more just as stupid, just as ignorant, and just as wrong.

 

[ogibillm]

The SCOTUS can not write law. But they CAN rule on the constitutionality of laws. And that is what they did. They ruled that the laws forbidding same sex marriage were unconstitutional. Without those laws, same sex marriage is legal.

So how do states get away with denying drivers licences to blind people?

Because there is a very good reason for denying blind people a license to operate a motor vehicle. Because the states have standards that must be met for public safety. Surely you are not seriously asking this question.

Very seriously and logically.

Then I explained it. It has to do with teh standards for public safety. Nothing comparable can be said for banning gay marriage.

Children lacking a parent are put at risk. Same thing. The point is that a natural limitation is legally acceptable in denying a drivers license the same can be applied for all licensing.

recognizing gay marriage does not put a child at risk.

 

[WinterBorn]

They can present a rational basis for discrimination, and therefore get the courts to declare it legal. In this case no rational basis could be found, so the anti-gay marriage laws got tossed

The rational basis (procreation) was obfuscated and otherwise not presented at all.

in your mind people are less able to procreate if gay marriages are recognized by the government?

No need to grant homos coercive licence since they can't procreate or provide a facsimile of natural parents.

First you have to show that a marriage licenses addresses procreation. That remains to be seen.

Do drivers licences need to address blindness? No. Eyesight testing, yes. Blind are assumed to be unqualified. Problem with the anti-homo marriage crew is that they let the homofascists funnel the debate into religious realm.

But drivers licenses DO address minimum sight requirements. Marriage licenses do not address procreation at all.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

So the SCOTUS says denying queers the option of marrying another queer violates the 14A. The same argument applies to people who want to marry their sibling or their dog. The SCOTUS has effectively said all restrictions on marriage are a violation of the 14A.

 

[ogibillm]

So the SCOTUS says denying queers the option of marrying another queer violates the 14A. The same argument applies to people who want to marry their sibling or their dog. The SCOTUS has effectively said all restrictions on marriage are a violation of the 14A.

no, it doesn't. nobody is allowed to marry a sibling or dog.

 

[danielpalos]

Persons are persons and citizens in the several States not just and merely, loyal subjects of the Animal Kingdom.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

So the SCOTUS says denying queers the option of marrying another queer violates the 14A. The same argument applies to people who want to marry their sibling or their dog. The SCOTUS has effectively said all restrictions on marriage are a violation of the 14A.

no, it doesn't. nobody is allowed to marry a sibling or dog.

If queer marriage must be legal why not sibling marriage??? If one violates the 14A so does the other.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Is an Opinion of the Supreme Court the ‘Law of the Land’?

No... That would make the Supreme Court; a Judicial body, a Legislative body.

In the United States; a Constitutional Republic, the only body authorized to make law is the Legislative Body.

The Supreme Court asserts that a law is or is not in compliance with the Constitution.

That a law; as written, is said to not in compliance with the law, does not axiomatically declare everything that the law sought to restrict or allow, to be allowed or restricted, respectively.

This notion that the Supreme Court Votes and the prevailing vote makes law is simply more evidence of the chaotic consequences of Relativist populism, the inevitable results of such always leading to catastrophe.

One need look no further than Roe, to see how such idiocy turns out. Roe, of course, has lead us to this mess, where it is now assumed that men can marry men and "Black Lives Matter" above all other life, including the black lives cut short in their mother's womb.

 

[ogibillm]

So the SCOTUS says denying queers the option of marrying another queer violates the 14A. The same argument applies to people who want to marry their sibling or their dog. The SCOTUS has effectively said all restrictions on marriage are a violation of the 14A.

no, it doesn't. nobody is allowed to marry a sibling or dog.

If queer marriage must be legal why not sibling marriage??? If one violates the 14A so does the other.

you are logically challenged.

 

[ogibillm]

Is an Opinion of the Supreme Court the ‘Law of the Land’?

No... That would make the Supreme Court; a Judicial body, a Legislative body.

In the United States; a Constitutional Republic, the only body authorized to make law is the Legislative Body.

The Supreme Court asserts that a law is or is not in compliance with the Constitution.

That a law; as written, is said to not in compliance with the law, does not axiomatically declare everything that the law sought to restrict or allow, to be allowed or restricted, respectively.

This notion that the Supreme Court Votes and the prevailing vote makes law is simply more evidence of the chaotic consequences of Relativist populism, the inevitable results of such always leading to catastrophe.

One need look no further than Roe, to see how such idiocy turns out. Roe, of course, has lead us to this mess, where it is now assumed that men can marry men and "Black Lives Matter" above all other life, including the black lives cut short in their mother's womb.

idiots of a feather...

 

[thanatos144]

If the court went the other way all the liberals wold be saying it isn't the Courts job.... they are hypocrites

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[ogibillm]

If the court went the other way all the liberals wold be saying it isn't the Courts job.... they are hypocrites

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

yep. those hypothetical people you've decided a hypothetical position for in your hypothetical scenario sure are hypocrites...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Is an Opinion of the Supreme Court the ‘Law of the Land’?

No... That would make the Supreme Court; a Judicial body, a Legislative body.

In the United States; a Constitutional Republic, the only body authorized to make law is the Legislative Body.

The Supreme Court asserts that a law is or is not in compliance with the Constitution.

That a law; as written, is said to not in compliance with the law, does not axiomatically declare everything that the law sought to restrict or allow, to be allowed or restricted, respectively.

This notion that the Supreme Court Votes and the prevailing vote makes law is simply more evidence of the chaotic consequences of Relativist populism, the inevitable results of such always leading to catastrophe.

One need look no further than Roe, to see how such idiocy turns out. Roe, of course, has lead us to this mess, where it is now assumed that men can marry men and "Black Lives Matter" above all other life, including the black lives cut short in their mother's womb.

idiots of a feather...

What a sweet way to concede the argument.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If the court went the other way all the liberals wold be saying it isn't the Courts job.... they are hypocrites

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

yep. those hypothetical people you've decided a hypothetical position for in your hypothetical scenario sure are hypocrites...

ROFLMNAO!

The ONLY REASON that the case was taken to this court, is that the five relativist judges were sufficient; numerically, to VOTE for the federal licensing of Degeneracy.

Now, we KNOW THIS.... because their stated reasoning is ABSURD.

Let me help you through this simple equation:

ABSURD: wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate, foolish; arousing amusement or derision; ridiculous.

See what that word represents? It is the drawing we use to convey that something exists, which should not exist.

There is no sound basis in reason which provides that people of the same gender should "BE" what they are NOT DESIGNED TO "BE".

Yet... the Supreme Court VOTED on the matter and 5 of 9 people on the court ABSURDLY CLAIMED OTHERWISE.

Understand: Just because 5 of 9 people vote that an absurdity is NOT absurd, this does not make something other than ABSURD. And this without regard to WHAT the 9 people are doing, what purpose they serve or who they are... .

Anything getting through here?

 

[ogibillm]

You know what's absurd? Believing the supreme court doesn't have the power of judicial review

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You know what's absurd? Believing the supreme court doesn't have the power of judicial review

Judicial review is NOT defined as "Determining who has what RIGHT".

Rights are NOT determined by mankind... RIGHTS are handed down by God.

For a Right to exist, the exercise of that right can not injure the means of another to exercise their own right.

Therefore we can KNOW that where a RIGHT is the function OF, or in any way promotes the spreading of DEGENERACY... such behavior is NOT the consequence of any "RIGHT".

And that is because of what DEGENERACY IS.

Allow me to help you through this:

Degeneracy: the state or property of being degenerate.

Degenerate: having lost the physical, mental, or moral qualities considered normal and desirable; showing evidence of decline.

Decline: a gradual and continuous loss of strength, numbers, quality, or value, reduction of sustaining properties

There is no potential for a right to undermine the viability of another, in ANYTHING you may choose or believe that you NEED TO DO. PERIOD!

That you HAVE A CHOICE... does not provide that you've a RIGHT TO MAKE THE CHOICE!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Rights are NOT determined by mankind... RIGHTS are handed down by God.

List these rights for us please, and where God enumerated them? TY.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Bill of Rights is man made; but rational.