SCOTUS divided over SSM

[RKMBrown]

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.

^ dumb ass is fighting for marriage between siblings.

^dumbass can't make an argument as to why this taboo is any less objectionable to his taboo

^dumbass thinks the old taboo of two consenting same sex adults having sex is just as objectionable as the brutal and repeated raping a child.

 

[Skylar]

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.

All the laws that the judiciary, both state and federal, have overturned says otherwise. A law being voted in doesn't make it constitutional. That laws adherence to and compatibility with the constitution makes it constitutional.

Any law that abrogates rights is already invalid. And marriage is most definitely a right.

 

[Pop23]

JOE: ain't you heard.

There IS NO PROCREATION requirement in marriage.

And may I add, two male siblings can't make them there babies.

Get with it JOE. Or do you just think it's icky?

There's no requirement, but there is a potential. So that's why it's illegal.

Potential when the partners are both the same sex????

Really JOE???

Please, be so kind to explain this cuz, for more than a year I've been claiming that. (Clears his throat).........

Opposite gender coupling has made each and every baby ever born.

So Joe, name the child created by same sex coupling?

^ retard thinks women can't get pregnant.

^dumbass thinks members of the same sex can get each other pregnant.

What relevance does the ability to procreate have with marriage? No one is excluded from marriage for being unable to procreate.

No one.

Why then would we exclude gays for failing to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

Wrong. Same sex siblings are excluded

Is your taboo more powerful mojo them theirs?

 

[martybegan]

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.

Where did I say SSM is the same thing as Hetero sexual marriage? Please cite.

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.

The whole crux of the 14th amendment argument is equal protection under the law. If they are not equal, then the whole 14th amendment argument goes away.

ROFL Equal protection of ALL CITIZENS BLACK, WHITE, GAY, ... Equal protection does not mean if you are heterosexual or if you are white.

Equal protection under the law, the law is a marriage contract, so if you want to use the 14th to extended it to gay couples, SSM and OSM have to be equal.

Incorrect.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts; to seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

only if you agree SSM and OSM are the same thing. its the contract and the law that matter.

 

[martybegan]

gender and orientation are not the same either.

and considering every victory on your side seems to just embolden you to go after private citizens who disagree with you, forgive me if I don't seem to trust you on any of this.

No one said they were.

But both are nonetheless entitled to Constitutional protections, immune from attack by the state.

And of course, no protections for bakers.

Nope. They have to serve interracial couples in all 50 states...gays in a few.

Welcome to the world of being a bully. At least own up to it.

Yes- that is what bullies do- demand not to be discriminated against.

Those damn bullies who demanded equal employment opportunities!

Welcome to the progressive new world, where if you don't agree with them, screw you, go and starve.

 

[martybegan]

gender and orientation are not the same either.

and considering every victory on your side seems to just embolden you to go after private citizens who disagree with you, forgive me if I don't seem to trust you on any of this.

No one said they were.

But both are nonetheless entitled to Constitutional protections, immune from attack by the state.

And of course, no protections for bakers.

Nope. They have to serve interracial couples in all 50 states...gays in a few.

Welcome to the world of being a bully. At least own up to it.

Sure...we've been big bullies since 1967.

The fact that you laugh at something like this shows what type of hollow miserable person you really are.

 

[Skylar]

Potential when the partners are both the same sex????

Really JOE???

Please, be so kind to explain this cuz, for more than a year I've been claiming that. (Clears his throat).........

Opposite gender coupling has made each and every baby ever born.

So Joe, name the child created by same sex coupling?

I think you are a little confused.

We don't let siblings marry because they might produce genetically damaged children who will vote Republican and shit.

Gays aren't going to produce kids. Oh, they could use surrogates and adoption and artificial insemination.

How do same sex siblings produce defective children Joe?

You smoking that whacky tobacky?

So Pop, which country allows sibling marriages as a result of their having same sex marriage? Denmark has had them since 1989. How slippery is this slope of yours, Pops? How many years do we have to wait for your little slippery slope wet dream?

And explain to us how this it will be the gays that "open the door" to the sibling marriages you're dreaming about since it wasn't the gays that established that marriage was a fundamental right? Shouldn't you blame it on the Lovings?

Yet another deflection.

Why is it that SSSM is excluded when SSM is not.

The arguments are exactly the same.

SSSM = same sex sibling marriage.

More red herrings? Your obsession with incest has nothing to do with the case the Supreme Court is considering. None of the questions relate to incest. Nor is anyone in the Obergefell case related.

Your argument has collapsed so completely that you can't even discuss same sex marriage now. If your claims had actual merit, you wouldn't need to run.

 

[Pop23]

There is no such thing as "gay marriage."

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

And soon, two siblings.

^ dumb ass is fighting for marriage between siblings.

^dumbass can't make an argument as to why this taboo is any less objectionable to his taboo

^dumbass thinks the old taboo of two consenting same sex adults having sex is just as objectionable as the brutal and repeated raping a child.

What?

Since when has there been a requirement for sex in marriage?

You really are a tard

 

[Pop23]

Potential when the partners are both the same sex????

Really JOE???

Please, be so kind to explain this cuz, for more than a year I've been claiming that. (Clears his throat).........

Opposite gender coupling has made each and every baby ever born.

So Joe, name the child created by same sex coupling?

I think you are a little confused.

We don't let siblings marry because they might produce genetically damaged children who will vote Republican and shit.

Gays aren't going to produce kids. Oh, they could use surrogates and adoption and artificial insemination.

How do same sex siblings produce defective children Joe?

You smoking that whacky tobacky?

So Pop, which country allows sibling marriages as a result of their having same sex marriage? Denmark has had them since 1989. How slippery is this slope of yours, Pops? How many years do we have to wait for your little slippery slope wet dream?

And explain to us how this it will be the gays that "open the door" to the sibling marriages you're dreaming about since it wasn't the gays that established that marriage was a fundamental right? Shouldn't you blame it on the Lovings?

Yet another deflection.

Why is it that SSSM is excluded when SSM is not.

The arguments are exactly the same.

SSSM = same sex sibling marriage.

More red herrings? Your obsession with incest has nothing to do with the case the Supreme Court is considering. None of the questions relate to incest. Nor is anyone in the Obergefell case related.

Your argument has collapsed so completely that you can't even discuss same sex marriage now. If your claims had actual merit, you wouldn't need to run.

Yet you can't answer. Your not for equality at all.

 

[Skylar]

No one said they were.

But both are nonetheless entitled to Constitutional protections, immune from attack by the state.

And of course, no protections for bakers.

Nope. They have to serve interracial couples in all 50 states...gays in a few.

Welcome to the world of being a bully. At least own up to it.

Sure...we've been big bullies since 1967.

The fact that you laugh at something like this shows what type of hollow miserable person you really are.

How is it being a bully to hold require someone to treat their customers fairly and equally in business?

I don't think 'bully' means what you think it means.

 

[martybegan]

And of course, no protections for bakers.

Nope. They have to serve interracial couples in all 50 states...gays in a few.

Welcome to the world of being a bully. At least own up to it.

Sure...we've been big bullies since 1967.

The fact that you laugh at something like this shows what type of hollow miserable person you really are.

How is it being a bully to hold require someone to treat their customers fairly and equally in business?

I don't think 'bully' means what you think it means.

If you don't see it, you just agree with the bullying. So the proper response of course to having to go to another baker is a $150k fine, and loss of livelihood.

Just own up to the fact that you love and crave making people live just like you live.

 

[Syriusly]

No one said they were.

But both are nonetheless entitled to Constitutional protections, immune from attack by the state.

And of course, no protections for bakers.

Nope. They have to serve interracial couples in all 50 states...gays in a few.

Welcome to the world of being a bully. At least own up to it.

Yes- that is what bullies do- demand not to be discriminated against.

Those damn bullies who demanded equal employment opportunities!

Welcome to the progressive new world, where if you don't agree with them, screw you, go and starve.

LOL- pissed off that homosexuals are using your tactics now?

Oh wait- Conservatives just did that to homosexuals for being homosexuals- they didn't give a damn what homosexuals thought- just put them in prison, get them fired, and try to drive any business that is 'too gay friendly' out of business.

 

[Kosh]

Nope. They have to serve interracial couples in all 50 states...gays in a few.

Welcome to the world of being a bully. At least own up to it.

Sure...we've been big bullies since 1967.

The fact that you laugh at something like this shows what type of hollow miserable person you really are.

How is it being a bully to hold require someone to treat their customers fairly and equally in business?

I don't think 'bully' means what you think it means.

If you don't see it, you just agree with the bullying. So the proper response of course to having to go to another baker is a $150k fine, and loss of livelihood.

Just own up to the fact that you love and crave making people live just like you live.

This whole movement is about punishing those that make the gay community feel they are not normal. Just like they want to punish the church.

 

[martybegan]

And of course, no protections for bakers.

Nope. They have to serve interracial couples in all 50 states...gays in a few.

Welcome to the world of being a bully. At least own up to it.

Yes- that is what bullies do- demand not to be discriminated against.

Those damn bullies who demanded equal employment opportunities!

Welcome to the progressive new world, where if you don't agree with them, screw you, go and starve.

LOL- pissed off that homosexuals are using your tactics now?

Oh wait- Conservatives just did that to homosexuals for being homosexuals- they didn't give a damn what homosexuals thought- just put them in prison, get them fired, and try to drive any business that is 'too gay friendly' out of business.

My tactics? When have I ever tried to ruin a person over their opinions and beliefs?

 

[Syriusly]

Nope. They have to serve interracial couples in all 50 states...gays in a few.

Welcome to the world of being a bully. At least own up to it.

Sure...we've been big bullies since 1967.

The fact that you laugh at something like this shows what type of hollow miserable person you really are.

How is it being a bully to hold require someone to treat their customers fairly and equally in business?

I don't think 'bully' means what you think it means.

If you don't see it, you just agree with the bullying. So the proper response of course to having to go to another baker is a $150k fine, and loss of livelihood.

Just own up to the fact that you love and crave making people live just like you live.

Demanding your legal rights is not bullying when homosexuals do it, nor is it bullying when Christians or Jews or blacks or latinos do it.

 

[Kosh]

And of course, no protections for bakers.

Nope. They have to serve interracial couples in all 50 states...gays in a few.

Welcome to the world of being a bully. At least own up to it.

Yes- that is what bullies do- demand not to be discriminated against.

Those damn bullies who demanded equal employment opportunities!

Welcome to the progressive new world, where if you don't agree with them, screw you, go and starve.

LOL- pissed off that homosexuals are using your tactics now?

Oh wait- Conservatives just did that to homosexuals for being homosexuals- they didn't give a damn what homosexuals thought- just put them in prison, get them fired, and try to drive any business that is 'too gay friendly' out of business.

A prime example that is about revenge and not about any "rights" spewed by the far left drones..

 

[kaz]

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.

No idea what that means Homey and I'm not a conservative. You're completely lost, aren't you? My suggestion is to try remembering where you were the last time you did know where you are and start from there.

 

[Syriusly]

Nope. They have to serve interracial couples in all 50 states...gays in a few.

Welcome to the world of being a bully. At least own up to it.

Yes- that is what bullies do- demand not to be discriminated against.

Those damn bullies who demanded equal employment opportunities!

Welcome to the progressive new world, where if you don't agree with them, screw you, go and starve.

LOL- pissed off that homosexuals are using your tactics now?

Oh wait- Conservatives just did that to homosexuals for being homosexuals- they didn't give a damn what homosexuals thought- just put them in prison, get them fired, and try to drive any business that is 'too gay friendly' out of business.

My tactics? When have I ever tried to ruin a person over their opinions and beliefs?

'your'- the English language plural for you and others of your ilk.

refer to the paragraph above.

 

[Pop23]

And of course, no protections for bakers.

Nope. They have to serve interracial couples in all 50 states...gays in a few.

Welcome to the world of being a bully. At least own up to it.

Yes- that is what bullies do- demand not to be discriminated against.

Those damn bullies who demanded equal employment opportunities!

Welcome to the progressive new world, where if you don't agree with them, screw you, go and starve.

LOL- pissed off that homosexuals are using your tactics now?

Oh wait- Conservatives just did that to homosexuals for being homosexuals- they didn't give a damn what homosexuals thought- just put them in prison, get them fired, and try to drive any business that is 'too gay friendly' out of business.

The funny part in ^^^^ is that I've been using the homosexual argument, their tactics, to justify same sex sibling marriage (SSSM), AND YOU CAN'T defend it.

Roflmao

 

[Syriusly]

Nope. They have to serve interracial couples in all 50 states...gays in a few.

Welcome to the world of being a bully. At least own up to it.

Yes- that is what bullies do- demand not to be discriminated against.

Those damn bullies who demanded equal employment opportunities!

Welcome to the progressive new world, where if you don't agree with them, screw you, go and starve.

LOL- pissed off that homosexuals are using your tactics now?

Oh wait- Conservatives just did that to homosexuals for being homosexuals- they didn't give a damn what homosexuals thought- just put them in prison, get them fired, and try to drive any business that is 'too gay friendly' out of business.

A prime example that is about revenge and not about any "rights" spewed by the far left drones..

A prime example of the Conservative mind think that its not bullying when we do it- but it is when it is done to them.