SCOTUS divided over SSM

[RKMBrown]

You say, "when everything is discrimination, nothing is." That is a slippery slope argument, and it holds no weight. The oligarchy is the state ruling what a marriage is. I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU ARE BEING THIS OBTUSE.

I.e. "you are not agreeing with me BAAAAAAWWWWW"

The state only rules what marriage is when it comes to interaction with the State. Fundementalist mormons still do plural marriage in the US, its just that the State doesn't recognize it.

Not everywhere. Many states actively discriminate against plural marriage. But let's not deflect to plural marriages, that's another issue. Similar but different.

All the logic SSM supporters apply to SSM apply to plural marriage, but they know that one is less of a gimmie, so they deflect.

Nonsense. I support plural marriage and SSM. Yes the same logic applies to both. However, you are the one deflecting to it as a slippery slope argument.

by supporting both you actually PROVE the slippery slope argument.

Nonsense. Banning plural marriage was the slippery slope to banning other liberties.. see how that works? Or is it that you don't mind slippery slopes that take liberties away, it's just going back up hill to regain liberty that you are against?

 

[danielpalos]

You say, "when everything is discrimination, nothing is." That is a slippery slope argument, and it holds no weight. The oligarchy is the state ruling what a marriage is. I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU ARE BEING THIS OBTUSE.

I.e. "you are not agreeing with me BAAAAAAWWWWW"

The state only rules what marriage is when it comes to interaction with the State. Fundementalist mormons still do plural marriage in the US, its just that the State doesn't recognize it.

Not everywhere. Many states actively discriminate against plural marriage. But let's not deflect to plural marriages, that's another issue. Similar but different.

All the logic SSM supporters apply to SSM apply to plural marriage, but they know that one is less of a gimmie, so they deflect.

Nonsense. I support plural marriage and SSM. Yes the same logic applies to both. However, you are the one deflecting to it as a slippery slope argument.

by supporting both you actually PROVE the slippery slope argument.

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

 

[martybegan]

I.e. "you are not agreeing with me BAAAAAAWWWWW"

The state only rules what marriage is when it comes to interaction with the State. Fundementalist mormons still do plural marriage in the US, its just that the State doesn't recognize it.

Not everywhere. Many states actively discriminate against plural marriage. But let's not deflect to plural marriages, that's another issue. Similar but different.

All the logic SSM supporters apply to SSM apply to plural marriage, but they know that one is less of a gimmie, so they deflect.

Nonsense. I support plural marriage and SSM. Yes the same logic applies to both. However, you are the one deflecting to it as a slippery slope argument.

by supporting both you actually PROVE the slippery slope argument.

Nonsense. Banning plural marriage was the slippery slope to banning other liberties.. see how that works? Or is it that you don't mind slippery slopes that take liberties away, it's just going back up hill to regain liberty that you are against?

Precedent set to create so called liberties can easily be used to limit others, you just can't see that. You see a short term goal and ignore the long term consequences of this, which is less federalism, and less freedom.

Sooner or later the people supporting this will decide it isn't enough to just get married, they need to get married in the church they want to, the need to have people accept and approve of their lifestyle publicly, and if you don't, you will be ruined.

This isn't slippery slope, we are already seeing it. And you are there cheering along.

 

[martybegan]

I.e. "you are not agreeing with me BAAAAAAWWWWW"

The state only rules what marriage is when it comes to interaction with the State. Fundementalist mormons still do plural marriage in the US, its just that the State doesn't recognize it.

Not everywhere. Many states actively discriminate against plural marriage. But let's not deflect to plural marriages, that's another issue. Similar but different.

All the logic SSM supporters apply to SSM apply to plural marriage, but they know that one is less of a gimmie, so they deflect.

Nonsense. I support plural marriage and SSM. Yes the same logic applies to both. However, you are the one deflecting to it as a slippery slope argument.

by supporting both you actually PROVE the slippery slope argument.

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

Bullcrap. The left is only about the rights they think are acceptable, and forcing their morality on everyone else. You are the new Moral Majority, just as busy body, just as annoying, and now you added using courts to getting what you want.

 

[RKMBrown]

I.e. "you are not agreeing with me BAAAAAAWWWWW"

The state only rules what marriage is when it comes to interaction with the State. Fundementalist mormons still do plural marriage in the US, its just that the State doesn't recognize it.

Not everywhere. Many states actively discriminate against plural marriage. But let's not deflect to plural marriages, that's another issue. Similar but different.

All the logic SSM supporters apply to SSM apply to plural marriage, but they know that one is less of a gimmie, so they deflect.

Nonsense. I support plural marriage and SSM. Yes the same logic applies to both. However, you are the one deflecting to it as a slippery slope argument.

by supporting both you actually PROVE the slippery slope argument.

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

I am on the right YOU DUMB ASS.

 

[RKMBrown]

Not everywhere. Many states actively discriminate against plural marriage. But let's not deflect to plural marriages, that's another issue. Similar but different.

All the logic SSM supporters apply to SSM apply to plural marriage, but they know that one is less of a gimmie, so they deflect.

Nonsense. I support plural marriage and SSM. Yes the same logic applies to both. However, you are the one deflecting to it as a slippery slope argument.

by supporting both you actually PROVE the slippery slope argument.

Nonsense. Banning plural marriage was the slippery slope to banning other liberties.. see how that works? Or is it that you don't mind slippery slopes that take liberties away, it's just going back up hill to regain liberty that you are against?

Precedent set to create so called liberties can easily be used to limit others, you just can't see that. You see a short term goal and ignore the long term consequences of this, which is less federalism, and less freedom.

Sooner or later the people supporting this will decide it isn't enough to just get married, they need to get married in the church they want to, the need to have people accept and approve of their lifestyle publicly, and if you don't, you will be ruined.

This isn't slippery slope, we are already seeing it. And you are there cheering along.

Life and Marriage are not new liberties... you are making that up. Freedom is not the FREEDOM TO TAKE FREEDOM AWAY. You are arguing that freedom is the liberty to take liberties away from people you don't like. That is an absurd circular argument that is only held by AUTHORITARIANS.

As for your FUD argument that churches will be forced to throw out the bible... That's nothing but a ridiculous slippery slope argument that has no basis in fact.

 

[Pop23]

Oh, but it is, the conflict from my earlier post will have to be dealt with at some time.

valid reason to deny and blah, blah, blah

Obviously, two gay brothers marrying = no valid reason to deny

A hetro bro and sis = yep ya betcha.

Oh dear

Did your marriage get destroyed when blacks intermarried with whites too?

Blacks cannot change color. A black will always be black and nothing can change that. Gays have married for centuries.

See the difference?

Yes I see that you are a racist and a bigot. Next question.

Please point out the racist comment.

Taken alone and in combination each of your comments in that post are both racist and bigoted.

How do, be specific. Is stating a black man will always be black racist?

Odd world you live in

 

[Pop23]

Not everywhere. Many states actively discriminate against plural marriage. But let's not deflect to plural marriages, that's another issue. Similar but different.

All the logic SSM supporters apply to SSM apply to plural marriage, but they know that one is less of a gimmie, so they deflect.

Nonsense. I support plural marriage and SSM. Yes the same logic applies to both. However, you are the one deflecting to it as a slippery slope argument.

by supporting both you actually PROVE the slippery slope argument.

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

I am on the right YOU DUMB ASS.

I'm a moderate.

 

[Pop23]

You say, "when everything is discrimination, nothing is." That is a slippery slope argument, and it holds no weight. The oligarchy is the state ruling what a marriage is. I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU ARE BEING THIS OBTUSE.

I.e. "you are not agreeing with me BAAAAAAWWWWW"

The state only rules what marriage is when it comes to interaction with the State. Fundementalist mormons still do plural marriage in the US, its just that the State doesn't recognize it.

Not everywhere. Many states actively discriminate against plural marriage. But let's not deflect to plural marriages, that's another issue. Similar but different.

All the logic SSM supporters apply to SSM apply to plural marriage, but they know that one is less of a gimmie, so they deflect.

Nonsense. I support plural marriage and SSM. Yes the same logic applies to both. However, you are the one deflecting to it as a slippery slope argument.

by supporting both you actually PROVE the slippery slope argument.

^^^^this^^^^

They are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[RKMBrown]

Did your marriage get destroyed when blacks intermarried with whites too?

Blacks cannot change color. A black will always be black and nothing can change that. Gays have married for centuries.

See the difference?

Yes I see that you are a racist and a bigot. Next question.

Please point out the racist comment.

Taken alone and in combination each of your comments in that post are both racist and bigoted.

How do, be specific. Is stating a black man will always be black racist?

Odd world you live in

Coming from you in the context that you provided in this thread, yes. Context matters.

 

[danielpalos]

Not everywhere. Many states actively discriminate against plural marriage. But let's not deflect to plural marriages, that's another issue. Similar but different.

All the logic SSM supporters apply to SSM apply to plural marriage, but they know that one is less of a gimmie, so they deflect.

Nonsense. I support plural marriage and SSM. Yes the same logic applies to both. However, you are the one deflecting to it as a slippery slope argument.

by supporting both you actually PROVE the slippery slope argument.

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

Bullcrap. The left is only about the rights they think are acceptable, and forcing their morality on everyone else. You are the new Moral Majority, just as busy body, just as annoying, and now you added using courts to getting what you want.

Not in this case: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

 

[martybegan]

Not everywhere. Many states actively discriminate against plural marriage. But let's not deflect to plural marriages, that's another issue. Similar but different.

All the logic SSM supporters apply to SSM apply to plural marriage, but they know that one is less of a gimmie, so they deflect.

Nonsense. I support plural marriage and SSM. Yes the same logic applies to both. However, you are the one deflecting to it as a slippery slope argument.

by supporting both you actually PROVE the slippery slope argument.

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

I am on the right YOU DUMB ASS.

When you go running to the federal government to crush local legislatures over something like this, you line up on the left.

 

[danielpalos]

Not everywhere. Many states actively discriminate against plural marriage. But let's not deflect to plural marriages, that's another issue. Similar but different.

All the logic SSM supporters apply to SSM apply to plural marriage, but they know that one is less of a gimmie, so they deflect.

Nonsense. I support plural marriage and SSM. Yes the same logic applies to both. However, you are the one deflecting to it as a slippery slope argument.

by supporting both you actually PROVE the slippery slope argument.

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

I am on the right YOU DUMB ASS.

I know.

 

[RKMBrown]

All the logic SSM supporters apply to SSM apply to plural marriage, but they know that one is less of a gimmie, so they deflect.

Nonsense. I support plural marriage and SSM. Yes the same logic applies to both. However, you are the one deflecting to it as a slippery slope argument.

by supporting both you actually PROVE the slippery slope argument.

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

I am on the right YOU DUMB ASS.

When you go running to the federal government to crush local legislatures over something like this, you line up on the left.

Nonsense. I line up with liberty. I could give a shit whether it's the left or the right that are defending it. Thus I left the republican party to become a libertarian. FYI there are a great many and growing on your "right" that agree with me wrt. the choice of allowing the gay folk the same liberties as hetero folk wrt. marriage.

 

[RKMBrown]

All the logic SSM supporters apply to SSM apply to plural marriage, but they know that one is less of a gimmie, so they deflect.

Nonsense. I support plural marriage and SSM. Yes the same logic applies to both. However, you are the one deflecting to it as a slippery slope argument.

by supporting both you actually PROVE the slippery slope argument.

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

I am on the right YOU DUMB ASS.

I know.

Well then don't make blanket statements that everyone on the right are against liberty. At least do the courtesy of saying those on the right who __... or some of the right...

 

[martybegan]

All the logic SSM supporters apply to SSM apply to plural marriage, but they know that one is less of a gimmie, so they deflect.

Nonsense. I support plural marriage and SSM. Yes the same logic applies to both. However, you are the one deflecting to it as a slippery slope argument.

by supporting both you actually PROVE the slippery slope argument.

Nonsense. Banning plural marriage was the slippery slope to banning other liberties.. see how that works? Or is it that you don't mind slippery slopes that take liberties away, it's just going back up hill to regain liberty that you are against?

Precedent set to create so called liberties can easily be used to limit others, you just can't see that. You see a short term goal and ignore the long term consequences of this, which is less federalism, and less freedom.

Sooner or later the people supporting this will decide it isn't enough to just get married, they need to get married in the church they want to, the need to have people accept and approve of their lifestyle publicly, and if you don't, you will be ruined.

This isn't slippery slope, we are already seeing it. And you are there cheering along.

Life and Marriage are not new liberties... you are making that up. Freedom is not the FREEDOM TO TAKE FREEDOM AWAY. You are arguing that freedom is the liberty to take liberties away from people you don't like. That is an absurd circular argument that is only held by AUTHORITARIANS.

As for your FUD argument that churches will be forced to throw out the bible... That's nothing but a ridiculous slippery slope argument that has no basis in fact.

Marriage between two people of the same sex has never been a freedom in the history of this country or any documented civilization. Its something made up in the past few decades.

Federalism is assigning certain roles to certain levels of government, and defining the marriage contract has always been left to the States and their legislatures.

 

[danielpalos]

Nonsense. I support plural marriage and SSM. Yes the same logic applies to both. However, you are the one deflecting to it as a slippery slope argument.

by supporting both you actually PROVE the slippery slope argument.

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

I am on the right YOU DUMB ASS.

I know.

Well then don't make blanket statements that everyone on the right are against liberty.

you may have missed the moral point.

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

 

[martybegan]

Nonsense. I support plural marriage and SSM. Yes the same logic applies to both. However, you are the one deflecting to it as a slippery slope argument.

by supporting both you actually PROVE the slippery slope argument.

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

I am on the right YOU DUMB ASS.

When you go running to the federal government to crush local legislatures over something like this, you line up on the left.

Nonsense. I line up with liberty. I could give a shit whether it's the left or the right that are defending it. Thus I left the republican party to become a libertarian. FYI there are a great many and growing on your "right" that agree with me wrt. the choice of allowing the gay folk the same liberties as hetero folk wrt. marriage.

You can keep deluding yourself all you want.

And those that agree on the right mostly take my position, that if the legislature does it, its OK, and other States have to recognize them, they stop at courts being able to force States to issue them themselves if the people of that State don't want to.

And I guess you will also support all upcoming lawsuit storm of progressives going after people via public accommodations, because that's the next step once they win on the SSM thing.

 

[RKMBrown]

Nonsense. I support plural marriage and SSM. Yes the same logic applies to both. However, you are the one deflecting to it as a slippery slope argument.

by supporting both you actually PROVE the slippery slope argument.

Nonsense. Banning plural marriage was the slippery slope to banning other liberties.. see how that works? Or is it that you don't mind slippery slopes that take liberties away, it's just going back up hill to regain liberty that you are against?

Precedent set to create so called liberties can easily be used to limit others, you just can't see that. You see a short term goal and ignore the long term consequences of this, which is less federalism, and less freedom.

Sooner or later the people supporting this will decide it isn't enough to just get married, they need to get married in the church they want to, the need to have people accept and approve of their lifestyle publicly, and if you don't, you will be ruined.

This isn't slippery slope, we are already seeing it. And you are there cheering along.

Life and Marriage are not new liberties... you are making that up. Freedom is not the FREEDOM TO TAKE FREEDOM AWAY. You are arguing that freedom is the liberty to take liberties away from people you don't like. That is an absurd circular argument that is only held by AUTHORITARIANS.

As for your FUD argument that churches will be forced to throw out the bible... That's nothing but a ridiculous slippery slope argument that has no basis in fact.

Marriage between two people of the same sex has never been a freedom in the history of this country or any documented civilization. Its something made up in the past few decades.

Federalism is assigning certain roles to certain levels of government, and defining the marriage contract has always been left to the States and their legislatures.

Gay marriages are a new thing, that is correct. Why? BECAUSE BEING GAY WAS ILLEGAL. Is that what you want? To start arresting gay people again? Or are you just saying that the gays should be happy that we stopped arresting them and shut the hell up about wanting to be treated as equals in society?

 

[RKMBrown]

by supporting both you actually PROVE the slippery slope argument.

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

I am on the right YOU DUMB ASS.

When you go running to the federal government to crush local legislatures over something like this, you line up on the left.

Nonsense. I line up with liberty. I could give a shit whether it's the left or the right that are defending it. Thus I left the republican party to become a libertarian. FYI there are a great many and growing on your "right" that agree with me wrt. the choice of allowing the gay folk the same liberties as hetero folk wrt. marriage.

You can keep deluding yourself all you want.

And those that agree on the right mostly take my position, that if the legislature does it, its OK, and other States have to recognize them, they stop at courts being able to force States to issue them themselves if the people of that State don't want to.

And I guess you will also support all upcoming lawsuit storm of progressives going after people via public accommodations, because that's the next step once they win on the SSM thing.

Yes, I will also support an update to the public accommodations portion of the federal civil rights act to extend sexual orientation to the list of illegal types of discrimination. For that one though it's not a matter of the courts, it's a matter of legislation. Public accommodation is only a liberty, atm, through the legislative process.

That said I would also support you, if you championed a civil rights act amendment. I would agree with you if you made the argument that forcing civil rights laws via the commerce clause is tenuous at best.