SCOTUS divided over SSM

[bodecea]

That you consider SSM the same thing as Opposite sex marriage. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

The above statement put into the way back machine:

That you consider interracial marriage the same thing as white marriages. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

no matter how much you try to make it the same, race and sexual orientation are not the same. different tribes intermarried in the past, marriages between ethnic groups at the royal level were common as methods diplomacy, and the Brits and especially Spaniards had no issues interbreeding with the locals during colonialism (except for Americans who got a bug up their asses due to extended slavery).

There are 2 and only 2 arguments for SSM:
1) Gays are really Negroes c.1960
2) We've won lots of court cases until now.
Both are fallacies. But it's all they've got.

Idiot - 1) Rabbi.

Translation: Rabbi pwns me every single time.

Ah...Rabbi is schizophrenic.

 

[bodecea]

Of course it's different, duh! The question isn't whether it's different or not. The question is whether or not the states can "constitutionally" discriminate against the life of gays because of this difference.

Yes, on behalf of their good reasons to incentivize boys with fathers and girls with mothers. ie: states have the right to maintain their description (not a ban) of marriage for the most important people in it: their future citizens (children) and the formative environment studies know is best for them: to have their gender represented daily as a role model. Otherwise they grow up maladjusted and this costs the states money. Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Next easy question to answer..?

I love that you are still peddling the Prince's Trust Study despite the fact that it does not support any of your wilds claims. Watching you beat that dead horse is comical though.

He must be a follower of Joseph Goebbels.

 

[mdk]

Of course it's different, duh! The question isn't whether it's different or not. The question is whether or not the states can "constitutionally" discriminate against the life of gays because of this difference.

Yes, on behalf of their good reasons to incentivize boys with fathers and girls with mothers. ie: states have the right to maintain their description (not a ban) of marriage for the most important people in it: their future citizens (children) and the formative environment studies know is best for them: to have their gender represented daily as a role model. Otherwise they grow up maladjusted and this costs the states money. Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Next easy question to answer..?

I love that you are still peddling the Prince's Trust Study despite the fact that it does not support any of your wilds claims. Watching you beat that dead horse is comical though.

He must be a follower of Joseph Goebbels.

Sil has an ax to grind and will do anything to smear gays and their families.

 

[danielpalos]

The above statement put into the way back machine:

That you consider interracial marriage the same thing as white marriages. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

no matter how much you try to make it the same, race and sexual orientation are not the same. different tribes intermarried in the past, marriages between ethnic groups at the royal level were common as methods diplomacy, and the Brits and especially Spaniards had no issues interbreeding with the locals during colonialism (except for Americans who got a bug up their asses due to extended slavery).

There are 2 and only 2 arguments for SSM:
1) Gays are really Negroes c.1960
2) We've won lots of court cases until now.
Both are fallacies. But it's all they've got.

Idiot - 1) Rabbi.

Translation: Rabbi pwns me every single time.

Ah...Rabbi is schizophrenic.

I hear it Only happens to non-True Judeans.

 

[RKMBrown]

That you consider SSM the same thing as Opposite sex marriage. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

The above statement put into the way back machine:

That you consider interracial marriage the same thing as white marriages. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

no matter how much you try to make it the same, race and sexual orientation are not the same. different tribes intermarried in the past, marriages between ethnic groups at the royal level were common as methods diplomacy, and the Brits and especially Spaniards had no issues interbreeding with the locals during colonialism (except for Americans who got a bug up their asses due to extended slavery).

There are 2 and only 2 arguments for SSM:
1) Gays are really Negroes c.1960
2) We've won lots of court cases until now.
Both are fallacies. But it's all they've got.

Idiot - 1) Rabbi.

Translation: Rabbi pwns me every single time.

Translation: Rabbi is delusional.

 

[Syriusly]

What's the difference between Same Sex Marriage (SSM) and Gay Marriage?

Seriously?

Yes. Enlighten me, what is the difference between Same Sex Marriage (SSM) and Gay Marriage?

There is no such thing as "gay marriage."

There is just marriage- whether by two gays or two straights.

And soon, two siblings.

LOL.....I leave you to pursue your dream of marrying your brother- you have the legal right to go to court and make that argument.

Let us know how it goes.

 

[Syriusly]

Ayup... it was. And things change.

if they change in this case it should be by the will of the people, not judicial fiat.

ROFL... dude marriage is already allowed in this country. It's not judicial fiat to say that gays have a right to liberty.

They have a right to liberty, a right to call their relationship a marriage, but no legal right to it unless a State changes it Marriage contract legislatively.

I have a feeling that the SCOTUS, based on precedent, will disagree.

I have a feeling we are getting the "nobody wins" result. States cannot be forced to change the marriage contract on SSM, but have to recognize duly issued marriage contracts from other States.

Actually, after reading the transcripts of the oral arguments- I suspect it will be all or nothing- if the Court doesn't find for gay marriage, they will not require states to recognize marriage from other states.

 

[Syriusly]

The above statement put into the way back machine:

That you consider interracial marriage the same thing as white marriages. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

no matter how much you try to make it the same, race and sexual orientation are not the same. different tribes intermarried in the past, marriages between ethnic groups at the royal level were common as methods diplomacy, and the Brits and especially Spaniards had no issues interbreeding with the locals during colonialism (except for Americans who got a bug up their asses due to extended slavery).

There are 2 and only 2 arguments for SSM:
1) Gays are really Negroes c.1960
2) We've won lots of court cases until now.
Both are fallacies. But it's all they've got.

Idiot - 1) Rabbi.

Translation: Rabbi pwns me every single time.

Translation: Rabbi is delusional.

That has been clear for a long time.

 

[kaz]

if they change in this case it should be by the will of the people, not judicial fiat.

ROFL... dude marriage is already allowed in this country. It's not judicial fiat to say that gays have a right to liberty.

They have a right to liberty, a right to call their relationship a marriage, but no legal right to it unless a State changes it Marriage contract legislatively.

I have a feeling that the SCOTUS, based on precedent, will disagree.

I have a feeling we are getting the "nobody wins" result. States cannot be forced to change the marriage contract on SSM, but have to recognize duly issued marriage contracts from other States.

Actually, after reading the transcripts of the oral arguments- I suspect it will be all or nothing- if the Court doesn't find for gay marriage, they will not require states to recognize marriage from other states.

The only appropriate ruling based on the Constitution is that gay marriage is not addressed, so they have no basis to rule anything. Take it up with the legislature. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS isn't big on ruling based on the actual law, they prefer to make it

 

[The Rabbi]

The above statement put into the way back machine:

That you consider interracial marriage the same thing as white marriages. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

no matter how much you try to make it the same, race and sexual orientation are not the same. different tribes intermarried in the past, marriages between ethnic groups at the royal level were common as methods diplomacy, and the Brits and especially Spaniards had no issues interbreeding with the locals during colonialism (except for Americans who got a bug up their asses due to extended slavery).

There are 2 and only 2 arguments for SSM:
1) Gays are really Negroes c.1960
2) We've won lots of court cases until now.
Both are fallacies. But it's all they've got.

Idiot - 1) Rabbi.

Translation: Rabbi pwns me every single time.

Translation: Rabbi is delusional.

LOL! Says the guy who repeats the same failed points over and over and when that doesnt work resorts to insults.

 

[The Rabbi]

ROFL... dude marriage is already allowed in this country. It's not judicial fiat to say that gays have a right to liberty.

They have a right to liberty, a right to call their relationship a marriage, but no legal right to it unless a State changes it Marriage contract legislatively.

I have a feeling that the SCOTUS, based on precedent, will disagree.

I have a feeling we are getting the "nobody wins" result. States cannot be forced to change the marriage contract on SSM, but have to recognize duly issued marriage contracts from other States.

Actually, after reading the transcripts of the oral arguments- I suspect it will be all or nothing- if the Court doesn't find for gay marriage, they will not require states to recognize marriage from other states.

The only appropriate ruling based on the Constitution is that gay marriage is not addressed, so they have no basis to rule anything. Take it up with the legislature. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS isn't big on ruling based on the actual law, they prefer to make it

There was some feeling during the discussion that they were exceeding their authority on this one. I hope that becomes the dominant opinion.
While I oppose gay marriage as bad policy I recognize that states can enact bad policy if they want. Too bad the gay marriage proponents dont want to extend that freedom to others.

 

[Syriusly]

Because the right to life should not be a on a state by state basis.

Federalism disagrees with you on this.

It's only been one day and you've forgotten the 14th amendment again.

I know it, the problem is your definition of "equal"

Huh?

That you consider SSM the same thing as Opposite sex marriage. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

Actually that is incorrect- the Netherlands- which I consider a civilized country- has recognized SSM since 2001.

A total of 16 countries around the world recognize SSM.

Recent- yes- but recent is precedent also.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, on behalf of their good reasons to incentivize boys with fathers and girls with mothers. ie: states have the right to maintain their description (not a ban) of marriage for the most important people in it: their future citizens (children) and the formative environment studies know is best for them: to have their gender represented daily as a role model.

Gays and lesbians will be having kids in the future too. Just like they've had kids in the past. And they'll have kids in the future. Denying gays and lesbians marriage doesn't mean that their children magically have opposite sex parents.

It only guarantees that these children never have married parents. Which hurts them. Nor can you cite a single benefit to any child in denying gay's marriage.

Your proposal only hurts kids. It doesn't help them. And you already know that.

Otherwise they grow up maladjusted and this costs the states money. Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The study you just cited doesn't mention gay parents. Or gays. Or gay parenting. Or measure the effects of any kind of parenting.

Why do you keep citing sources that don't have a thing to do with your argument?

 

[Syriusly]

Not really, as all those people have to do is go to another State that does issue them as a "do-over"

And if they vote on forcing all states to Accept SSM, they don't have to decide on FFC.

Well, they probably will for bookkeeping purposes, and gays shouldn't have to go to another state after they paid for a license in their own.

The reality, though, is the Court is going to legalize gay marriage for the whole country, for no other reason than the GOP wants this issue to go away.

Just like Roe V Wade made abortion go away?

The issue is once SSM advocates win on this, they go hard for the next group of targets, which is anyone who doesn't want to play along. So an increase in PA prosecutions, coupled with attempts to screw over religious institutions will follow.

Already there. This will add fuel to that movement. The gov't already admitted that if the court mandates SSM then religious institutions will be squarely within the sights of the faghaddis.

LOL- love the lies of the Christo-fascists like you.

 

[Skylar]

They have a right to liberty, a right to call their relationship a marriage, but no legal right to it unless a State changes it Marriage contract legislatively.

I have a feeling that the SCOTUS, based on precedent, will disagree.

I have a feeling we are getting the "nobody wins" result. States cannot be forced to change the marriage contract on SSM, but have to recognize duly issued marriage contracts from other States.

Actually, after reading the transcripts of the oral arguments- I suspect it will be all or nothing- if the Court doesn't find for gay marriage, they will not require states to recognize marriage from other states.

The only appropriate ruling based on the Constitution is that gay marriage is not addressed, so they have no basis to rule anything. Take it up with the legislature. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS isn't big on ruling based on the actual law, they prefer to make it

There was some feeling during the discussion that they were exceeding their authority on this one. I hope that becomes the dominant opinion.
While I oppose gay marriage as bad policy I recognize that states can enact bad policy if they want. Too bad the gay marriage proponents dont want to extend that freedom to others.

The 'freedom' to strip others of rights?

The conservative conception of 'freedom' continues to leave a brown streak on the bowl as it swirls downward.

 

[danielpalos]

ROFL... dude marriage is already allowed in this country. It's not judicial fiat to say that gays have a right to liberty.

They have a right to liberty, a right to call their relationship a marriage, but no legal right to it unless a State changes it Marriage contract legislatively.

I have a feeling that the SCOTUS, based on precedent, will disagree.

I have a feeling we are getting the "nobody wins" result. States cannot be forced to change the marriage contract on SSM, but have to recognize duly issued marriage contracts from other States.

Actually, after reading the transcripts of the oral arguments- I suspect it will be all or nothing- if the Court doesn't find for gay marriage, they will not require states to recognize marriage from other states.

The only appropriate ruling based on the Constitution is that gay marriage is not addressed, so they have no basis to rule anything. Take it up with the legislature. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS isn't big on ruling based on the actual law, they prefer to make it

There is no appeal to ignorance of Article 4, Section 2.

 

[Syriusly]

Just like Roe V Wade made abortion go away?

No, the Republicans have done a great job keeping the religious stupids upset about that, talking big and doing nothing.

They won't have as much luck with this.

The issue is once SSM advocates win on this, they go hard for the next group of targets, which is anyone who doesn't want to play along. So an increase in PA prosecutions, coupled with attempts to screw over religious institutions will follow.

You talk like that's a bad thing...

Screwing over religious assholes, that's music to my ears, baby.

Americans like the idea of equality, but hate bullies, and Gay rights advocates are more and more becoming the bullies.

What BS.

For years and years, homosexuals were actually bullied- and attacked- and murdered- for the 'crime' of being gay.

Laws were passed to deny them employment- laws were passed to make sex for them illegal. Police routinely harrased them. Gay men were regularly targeted for assault and police ignored the crimes.

Americans didn't hate those bullies.

More recently there have been cases of homosexuals actually standing up for their legal rights- and advocating boycotts against individuals and business's that they disagree with.

Just as American Conservatives and Christian groups continue to do to this day.

What you call bullying is nothing compared to what has happened to homosexuals- and is exactly what is being done by the homophobic bigots to homosexuals to this day.

And Americans are not 'hating' those bullies now either.

Standing up for your legal rights is not bullying.

Even when its homosexuals standing up for their rights.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not really, as all those people have to do is go to another State that does issue them as a "do-over"

And if they vote on forcing all states to Accept SSM, they don't have to decide on FFC.

Well, they probably will for bookkeeping purposes, and gays shouldn't have to go to another state after they paid for a license in their own.

The reality, though, is the Court is going to legalize gay marriage for the whole country, for no other reason than the GOP wants this issue to go away.

Just like Roe V Wade made abortion go away?

The issue is once SSM advocates win on this, they go hard for the next group of targets, which is anyone who doesn't want to play along. So an increase in PA prosecutions, coupled with attempts to screw over religious institutions will follow.

Already there. This will add fuel to that movement. The gov't already admitted that if the court mandates SSM then religious institutions will be squarely within the sights of the faghaddis.

LOL- love the lies of the Christo-fascists like you.

Which part is a lie, cupcake? The Solicitor General admitted that religious colleges and the like would become targets if gay marriage was the law. Are you disputing he said that? Or do you think he didnt really mean it?

 

[RKMBrown]

no matter how much you try to make it the same, race and sexual orientation are not the same. different tribes intermarried in the past, marriages between ethnic groups at the royal level were common as methods diplomacy, and the Brits and especially Spaniards had no issues interbreeding with the locals during colonialism (except for Americans who got a bug up their asses due to extended slavery).

There are 2 and only 2 arguments for SSM:
1) Gays are really Negroes c.1960
2) We've won lots of court cases until now.
Both are fallacies. But it's all they've got.

Idiot - 1) Rabbi.

Translation: Rabbi pwns me every single time.

Translation: Rabbi is delusional.

LOL! Says the guy who repeats the same failed points over and over and when that doesnt work resorts to insults.

ROFL says the racist bigot POS.

 

[The Rabbi]

I have a feeling that the SCOTUS, based on precedent, will disagree.

I have a feeling we are getting the "nobody wins" result. States cannot be forced to change the marriage contract on SSM, but have to recognize duly issued marriage contracts from other States.

Actually, after reading the transcripts of the oral arguments- I suspect it will be all or nothing- if the Court doesn't find for gay marriage, they will not require states to recognize marriage from other states.

The only appropriate ruling based on the Constitution is that gay marriage is not addressed, so they have no basis to rule anything. Take it up with the legislature. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS isn't big on ruling based on the actual law, they prefer to make it

There was some feeling during the discussion that they were exceeding their authority on this one. I hope that becomes the dominant opinion.
While I oppose gay marriage as bad policy I recognize that states can enact bad policy if they want. Too bad the gay marriage proponents dont want to extend that freedom to others.

The 'freedom' to strip others of rights?

The conservative conception of 'freedom' continues to leave a brown streak on the bowl as it swirls downward.

There is no stripping anyone of rights, except stripping voters of the right to decide policy questions. Which is what you want, shit-stain.