SCOTUS divided over SSM

[The Rabbi]

They will decide they cannot dictate social policy to all the states and overturn 1000 years of western tradition. That would be proper judicial restraint.

Not true.

How many times do I need to post this before the phobes get it?

Gays are not Negroes from 1960. 'nuff said.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Had dinner in Denver last month with a friend who is in the federal courts. He says the judges who oppose marriage equality are infuriated with the stupidity of the far right, that they drive the undecided to the other side.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Looks like SCOTUS ruling in favor of SSM isn't the lock the homos led everyone to believe. Roberts nailed it. Kennedy is all over the map, he's obviously conflicted.

Gay Marriage Arguments Divide Supreme Court Justices

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that Ms. Bonauto was asking the court to do something radical.

“You’re not seeking to join the institution,” he said. “You’re seeking to change what the institution is.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html

Point out to us where anyone made a claim that the SSM decision would be a 9-0 decision.

9-0, now that would be fun, and will never happen.

 

[Redfish]

Well of course they are.

Duh.

Very telling that some believe equal rights, as guaranteed by our constitution is "something radical".

Straights have changed the definition of marriage many times. Are you phobes okay with that?

The real question here is whether homosexuality is a normal human condition. The marriage issue is just a dodge of the real issue.

Society as a whole should decide this, not 9 old farts in black robes.

Is marriage a normal human condition....in the format it is right now?

marriage is a human institution. not a biological condition. it comes from civilization, not biology. Whereas, according to you homosexuality is a biological condition.

again, your logic is falling apart with each new post.

 

[candycorn]

I think that states should be deprived of any power to withhold recognition of any marriage, just like it is with drivers licenses. That's a fair compromise. But you faghadists don't want compromise, you want to have your way and **** anyone who disagrees with you.

I've said the same thing you've said--2 years before you even showed up:;

I think it was Liability that had the best idea of all on this:

The State should get out of the marriage business. Make all "marriages" that are now on the books--hetero/homo--a civil union. If you want to get married, you get a certificate from your house of worship or your lodge or your local tavern or where ever. But in the eyes of the State; you form a civil union thus legally availing you and your spouse of the responsibilities and the benefits.

the State should be out of the marriage business. But while it is, you should be allowed to marry who you want since the union does not damage anyone outside of the union.

The state will never be out of the marriage business. That's nothing more than libertarian drivel. Marriage is a legal and financial institution as well as a social one and people themselves will never allow it to be otherwise. It's been that way throughout human history and the delusions of the libertarian Left cannot change it. So how about we stop proposing things that aren't even remotely possible?

So how about we just let people marry whom they love. Half the time in female/male relationships they end up splitting apart anyway and going through a divorce. Can gays really get it much worse than most heterosexual couples?

Yes, they can destroy the lives of children far worse than any hetero couple.

Yeah, not worried:

Well, it was an added bonus for the conservatives...it not only destroyed the lives of the Lanzas but 20+ other families.

 

[candycorn]

Well of course they are.

Duh.

Very telling that some believe equal rights, as guaranteed by our constitution is "something radical".

Straights have changed the definition of marriage many times. Are you phobes okay with that?

The real question here is whether homosexuality is a normal human condition. The marriage issue is just a dodge of the real issue.

Society as a whole should decide this, not 9 old farts in black robes.

Is marriage a normal human condition....in the format it is right now?

marriage is a human institution. not a biological condition. it comes from civilization, not biology. Whereas, according to you homosexuality is a biological condition.

again, your logic is falling apart with each new post.

If by "falling apart" you mean destroying you...you're right.

 

[Syriusly]

Looks like SCOTUS ruling in favor of SSM isn't the lock the homos led everyone to believe. Roberts nailed it. Kennedy is all over the map, he's obviously conflicted.

Gay Marriage Arguments Divide Supreme Court Justices

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that Ms. Bonauto was asking the court to do something radical.

“You’re not seeking to join the institution,” he said. “You’re seeking to change what the institution is.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html

I have always said anyone is a fool if they bet on how the Supreme Court will rule.

I think it is likely the Court will rule in favor of gay marriage, but I will not be shocked if they do not.

Its fun to try to read the tea leaves, but we won't know until the Court rules.

I make this prediction again:
a) if the Court rules in favor of marriage equality- Sassy and her fellow travellers will be calling the Supreme Court 'black robed fascists' or some similar types of pejoratives'
b) if the Court rules against marriage equality- I will disagree- but will not be calling the Supreme Court 'black robed fascists' or any other pejoratives.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They will decide they cannot dictate social policy to all the states and overturn 1000 years of western tradition. That would be proper judicial restraint.

Not true.

How many times do I need to post this before the phobes get it?

Gays are not Negroes from 1960. 'nuff said.

You're correct, they are the black man and the white woman who married from a few years later.

 

[rightwinger]

They will decide they cannot dictate social policy to all the states and overturn 1000 years of western tradition. That would be proper judicial restraint.

Not true.

How many times do I need to post this before the phobes get it?

Gays are not Negroes from 1960. 'nuff said.

Nothing says they can't be

 

[Redfish]

It is statements like "You support a dad marrying his adult son to be consistent with your statement" that is going to, among a hot of other issues, why your antiAmerican agenda will lose in SCOTUS.

could you translate that to english?

It is quite clear and show you are quite dense.

who is "show you" ?

 

[candycorn]

It will go 6-3 in favor

Wait a minute. Wasn't Kagan recused from this argument, or did she not recuse herself?

Perhaps I read something erroneously in the last days.

I was busy writing a small book somewhere else.

Kagan lacks the integrity to recuse herself.

Why should she recuse herself?

do you understand what conflict of interest means?

What interest does she have in if you can marry the other gay man on your LaCrosse team?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Looks like SCOTUS ruling in favor of SSM isn't the lock the homos led everyone to believe. Roberts nailed it. Kennedy is all over the map, he's obviously conflicted.

Gay Marriage Arguments Divide Supreme Court Justices

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that Ms. Bonauto was asking the court to do something radical.

“You’re not seeking to join the institution,” he said. “You’re seeking to change what the institution is.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html

I have always said anyone is a fool if they bet on how the Supreme Court will rule.

I think it is likely the Court will rule in favor of gay marriage, but I will not be shocked if they do not.

Its fun to try to read the tea leaves, but we won't know until the Court rules.

I make this prediction again:
a) if the Court rules in favor of marriage equality- Sassy and her fellow travellers will be calling the Supreme Court 'black robed fascists' or some similar types of pejoratives'
b) if the Court rules against marriage equality- I will disagree- but will not be calling the Supreme Court 'black robed fascists' or any other pejoratives.

There is essentially zero risk that they will kick this back. The ruling is as obvious as the times.

 

[Redfish]

It will go 6-3 in favor

maybe, then you and your brother jake snarkey can get married

but seriously RW, if you get the ruling you want, what exactly would prevent brothers from marrying? what exactly would prevent fathers and sons from marrying to avoid inheritence taxes?

the slippery slope is real, whether you realize it or not.

If father/son marriages is something you wish to legalize, do the legal ground work that gays have been doing for decades.

grow the **** up,. its not something I want, its the next step in the destruction of our society in order to appease the 4% that prefer butt ******* to normal sex.

keep up the shit and you may join seabytch on my ignore list.

 

[Syriusly]

Homophobes are gonna be homophobes. (People in this thread)

the thread is about the division in the SC. I don't really think that anyone posting in this thread is afraid of gays.

but what is quite clear is that you fear open equal debate. Because when its open and equal you always lose, your left wing bullshit always loses, your marxist collectivist bullshit always loses. In short, you are a loser.

Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)

the reason is that a majority of human beings on planet earth consider it wrong. no other reason is required.

So you think it is okay to deny rights to people if the majority of human beings on earth consider it wrong?

Wow....good thing that wasn't considered when the issue of women voting rights came up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

who is "shows you" ? Fixed.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I'm always amazed you claim to be a lawyer. when you go off and say dumb things like this.

this isn't a CIVIL rights case and you know it. How you of all people can go around and distort and mislead people in this manner is shameful

I am amazed that you claim to be a homo sapiens when you cannot even rhyme two basic sentences together without at least one spelling of punctuation error.

Are you drunk?

the poor clowns has nothing but insults, not just to me but to everyone on the board. But for some reason....... they are ALLOWED to get away with this shit.

If you people haven't yet put someone as nasty as this on ignore yet. well I feel for ya

Irony alert!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

It will go 6-3 in favor

maybe, then you and your brother jake snarkey can get married

but seriously RW, if you get the ruling you want, what exactly would prevent brothers from marrying? what exactly would prevent fathers and sons from marrying to avoid inheritence taxes?

the slippery slope is real, whether you realize it or not.

If father/son marriages is something you wish to legalize, do the legal ground work that gays have been doing for decades.

grow the **** up,. its not something I want, its the next step in the destruction of our society in order to appease the 4% that prefer butt ******* to normal sex.

keep up the shit and you may join seabytch on my ignore list.

Far right reactionary typical behavior because they get their asses kicked by their betters.

 

[candycorn]

It will go 6-3 in favor

maybe, then you and your brother jake snarkey can get married

but seriously RW, if you get the ruling you want, what exactly would prevent brothers from marrying? what exactly would prevent fathers and sons from marrying to avoid inheritence taxes?

the slippery slope is real, whether you realize it or not.

If father/son marriages is something you wish to legalize, do the legal ground work that gays have been doing for decades.

grow the **** up,. its not something I want, its the next step in the destruction of our society in order to appease the 4% that prefer butt ******* to normal sex.

keep up the shit and you may join seabytch on my ignore list.

No great loss...not having you to conversate with.

How does it feel to have the world passing you by just a bit more every day?

 

[bodecea]

It will go 6-3 in favor

Wait a minute. Wasn't Kagan recused from this argument, or did she not recuse herself?

Perhaps I read something erroneously in the last days.

I was busy writing a small book somewhere else.

she should recuse because she officiated a gay wedding, but she hasn't. She clearly has a conflict of interest.

And....using that logic, those who officiated over a straight wedding should have also recused themselves due to a clear conflict of interest.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It will go 6-3 in favor

maybe, then you and your brother jake snarkey can get married

but seriously RW, if you get the ruling you want, what exactly would prevent brothers from marrying? what exactly would prevent fathers and sons from marrying to avoid inheritence taxes?

the slippery slope is real, whether you realize it or not.

If father/son marriages is something you wish to legalize, do the legal ground work that gays have been doing for decades.

grow the **** up,. its not something I want, its the next step in the destruction of our society in order to appease the 4% that prefer butt ******* to normal sex.

keep up the shit and you may join seabytch on my ignore list.

No great loss...not having you to conversate with.

How does it feel to have the world passing you by just a bit more every day?

It infuriates him, obviously. Nothing like being left in the dust of history to make one cranky.