Maybe the SCOTUS is about to connect some more dots!

No You're full of hate. That is where you come from and it is disgusingl.
You mistake my disdain for ignorant fucktards who deny basic human rights and protections to children as a form of hatred, but I don't hate you. Pity? Maybe a little. But I couldn't fight abortion and other leftarded activism for as long as I have, were I to be consumed with hate.

I want what today's leftardz and progressives claim they want. Justice, Fairness, Equal Rights and Protections, etc.

You can't say and mean the same.
 
Any two consenting adults?
We obviously prevent incest as that is a provable harm.


The Bible has been weaponized to support slavery.

The Bible has been weaponized to support segregation.

The Bible has been weaponized to throw gays in prison.

The Bible has been weaponized to keep gays from having their marriages recognized by the STATE (Caesar) for government cash and prizes we all get for being married.


The Supreme Court will not hear the hypocritical adulteress. She is an attention whore and nothing more.

Jesus had nothing to say about gays. But he had a LOT to say about hypocrites like Kim Davis and her camp followers.

.
 
You mistake my disdain for ignorant fucktards who deny basic human rights and protections to children as a form of hatred, but I don't hate you. Pity? Maybe a little. But I couldn't fight abortion and other leftarded activism for as long as I have, were I to be consumed with hate.

I want what today's leftardz and progressives claim they want. Justice, Fairness, Equal Rights and Protections, etc.

You can't say and mean the same.
Um...retard?

I'm pro-life.

This topic has nothing to do with abortion. It's about gay marriage.

Try to keep up.

.
 
Isn't it funny Trump's supporters ignore the fact he is an unrepentant serial adulterer, a prolific thief, and a daily bearer of false witness? Then they try to convince us they are Christian soldiers marching as to war. :laughing0301: :auiqs.jpg: :spinner:


I don't hold anyone's faith against them. Only their hypocritical behavior which is in direct opposition to their proclaimed beliefs.

Howling about gays while supporting a serial adulterer, for example.

Homosexuality isn't listed in the Ten Commandments, but Adultery sure is.

Fake Christians from around the country rushed to celebrate four-time adultress Kim Davis for protecting the institution of marriage from being destroyed, with absolutely no sense of irony or self-awareness.

kim-davis-2.jpg
 
We obviously prevent incest as that is a provable harm.

What is the provable harm if two brothers or two sisters want to marry each other?

Not like they can have any kids naturally. . . so - should they be permitted to marry?

What about group marriages, like three, four or more?

We don't have the right to deny THOSE people the right to marry too - do we?
 
Um...retard?

I'm pro-life.

This topic has nothing to do with abortion. It's about gay marriage.

Try to keep up.

.
Oh but I tried to explain the connection (through the SCOTUS) in the OP.

I think the SCOTUS will eventually agree with me that legal constructs like "marriage" can Constitutionally vary from one State to another. BUT! "Personhood" which is more than only a legal construct, (human beings are natural persons) is NOT something that can Constitutionally vary from one State to another.
 
Oh but I tried to explain the connection (through the SCOTUS) in the OP.

I think the SCOTUS will eventually agree with me that legal constructs like "marriage" can Constitutionally vary from one State to another. BUT! "Personhood" which is more than only a legal construct, (human beings are natural persons) is NOT something that can Constitutionally vary from one State to another.
You tried to connect dots which are not there.
 
You tried to connect dots which are not there.
I'll mark this to come back to it, when and if the SCOTUS ever goes to where I believe they will.
 
Oh but I tried to explain the connection (through the SCOTUS) in the OP.

I think the SCOTUS will eventually agree with me that legal constructs like "marriage" can Constitutionally vary from one State to another.
Our state and federal governments bestow nearly one thousand different types of cash and prizes on married couples.

Every one of those cash and prizes are bestowed by laws. They don't just happen by magic. Laws were written for each and every one of these marriage benefits.

Thus, the 14th amendment applies. "nor shall any State...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
 
I'll mark this to come back to it, when and if the SCOTUS ever goes to where I believe they will.
They won't even hear Davis. They will not take up her appeal.

.
 
Our state and federal governments bestow nearly one thousand different types of cash and prizes on married couples.

Every one of those cash and prizes are bestowed by laws. They don't just happen by magic. Laws were written for each and every one of these marriage benefits.

Thus, the 14th amendment applies. "nor shall any State...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Almost there.

 
15th post
Ten years after the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to same-sex couples nationwide, the justices this fall will consider for the first time whether to take up a case that explicitly asks them to overturn that decision. Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for six days in 2015 after refusing to issue marriage licenses to a gay couple on religious grounds, is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict for emotional damages plus $260,000 for attorneys fees. In a petition for writ of certiorari filed last month, Davis argues First Amendment protection for free exercise of religion immunizes her from personal liability for the denial of marriage licenses. More fundamentally, she claims the high court's decision in Obergefell v Hodges -- extending marriage rights for same-sex couples under the 14th Amendment's due process protections -- was "egregiously wrong." "The mistake must be corrected," wrote Davis' attorney Mathew Staver in the petition. He calls Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in Obergefell "legal fiction."


Will the evil 2015 Obergefell v Hodges ruling allowing gay marriage ruling be reversed?
We have the court to do it. Since 2015, the court has flipped to 5-4 conservative. Obergefell was a poorly reasoned ruling. Even liberal John Roberts thought the logic was preposterous. Let's all hope this is the right case. Such a reversal will be a great start on getting America back on track with God.
 
Last edited:
Ten years after the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to same-sex couples nationwide, the justices this fall will consider for the first time whether to take up a case that explicitly asks them to overturn that decision. Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for six days in 2015 after refusing to issue marriage licenses to a gay couple on religious grounds, is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict for emotional damages plus $260,000 for attorneys fees. In a petition for writ of certiorari filed last month, Davis argues First Amendment protection for free exercise of religion immunizes her from personal liability for the denial of marriage licenses. More fundamentally, she claims the high court's decision in Obergefell v Hodges -- extending marriage rights for same-sex couples under the 14th Amendment's due process protections -- was "egregiously wrong." "The mistake must be corrected," wrote Davis' attorney Mathew Staver in the petition. He calls Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in Obergefell "legal fiction."


Will the evil 2015 Obergefell v Hodges ruling allowing gay marriage ruling be reversed?
We have the court to do it. Since 2015, the court has flipped to 5-4 conservative. Obergefell was a poorly reasoned ruling. Even liberal John Roberts thought the logic was preposterous. Let's all hope this is the right case. Such a reversal will be a great start on getting America back on track with God.
States have to recognise marriages from other states so if I get married in Maryland and move to Kansas I don’t have to get remarried for Kansas to consider my wife and I married. Since you can now be legally married on the internet I don’t think it really matters. If they over turn this ruling, and push it back to the states there are certainly states which won’t marry gay people but it won’t be all and I doubt if it’s even half. So if a gay or lesbian or whatever couple wants to be married they can. I’m sure much will be made of it but it won’t stop a single gay marriage from happening
 
States have to recognise marriages from other states so if I get married in Maryland and move to Kansas I don’t have to get remarried for Kansas to consider my wife and I married. Since you can now be legally married on the internet I don’t think it really matters. If they over turn this ruling, and push it back to the states there are certainly states which won’t marry gay people but it won’t be all and I doubt if it’s even half. So if a gay or lesbian or whatever couple wants to be married they can. I’m sure much will be made of it but it won’t stop a single gay marriage from happening
It will stop gay marriage in over 30 states, which will definitely reduce the number. But more importantly, it is the first step in removing societal sanction for the evil practice.
 
The most ridiculous thing about it is the very same Court declared the federal government could not define marriage. That leaves it as a state issue. Not sure this case will see the light of day, but sooner or later the egregious mistake will be corrected.
 
Back
Top Bottom