SCOTUS signals upcoming historic approval for gay marriage

[Anathema]

You are welcome to leave anytime

Trust me, it's something I'm constantly looking at. Unfortunately it's nowhere near as easy as one would tend to think to renounce one's US Citizenship and become a citizen of Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.....

 

[Skylar]

You can ignore the laws. They won't ignore you. That sovereign citizen bullshit has never worked out for your ilk.

That's fine. They can feel free to come and discuss it with me at any time. Just make sure they bring Morticians, Guns, and EOD.

Yeah, ask Ed and Elaine Brown how well that worked out for them.

 

[Silhouette]

As to the title of this thread, am I the only one (besides Thomas and Scalia) who openly feels that the SCOTUS "signaling" how it's going to Find on this matter ahead of the Hearing is a problem for how the public perceives the "impartiality" of the Nine?

 

[Syriusly]

As to the title of this thread, am I the only one

that hears those voices in your head?

Yes

 

[Silhouette]

As to the title of this thread, am I the only one

that hears those voices in your head?

Yes

So Thomas and Scalia are hearing voices in their heads too I suppose?

 

[Skylar]

As to the title of this thread, am I the only one (besides Thomas and Scalia) who openly feels that the SCOTUS "signaling" how it's going to Find on this matter ahead of the Hearing is a problem for how the public perceives the "impartiality" of the Nine?

Are you JUST figuring out the court's take on state gay marriage bans? Scalia told you almost 2 years ago:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status. "

Justice Scalia in dissent of Windsor v. US

Note the terms 'beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable'. Did you not notice that the court has denied EVERY stay of a federal ruling that overturned gay marriage bans. Every single one, without exception? That the ONLY ruling on gay marriage bans it hasn't preserved is the one that affirmed gay marriage bans?

You've been laughably, comically wrong in virtually every aspect of your interpretation of the Windsor ruling. While the court's position has remained perfectly consistent.

 

[Syriusly]

As to the title of this thread, am I the only one

that hears those voices in your head?

Yes

So Thomas and Scalia are hearing voices in their heads too I suppose?

I wouldn't know about them.

But you are the only one who hears those odd voices in your head.

 

[Silhouette]

Such a bummer that the US Supreme Court is advertising bias using forced-attrition of state laws by procedural trickery (refusing to honor stays).

I don't recall the Supremes ever in my life appearing so obviously biased before a Hearing on the merits. Oh well. America was fun while it lasted..

 

[WinterBorn]

Such a bummer that the US Supreme Court is advertising bias using forced-attrition of state laws by procedural trickery (refusing to honor stays).

I don't recall the Supremes ever in my life appearing so obviously biased before a Hearing on the merits. Oh well. America was fun while it lasted..

I'm having fun living here, like I always have. Same sex marriages have absolutely no effect on me (or on you, for that matter).

 

[Skylar]

Such a bummer that the US Supreme Court is advertising bias using forced-attrition of state laws by procedural trickery (refusing to honor stays).

That's precedent, Sil. Remember, the rationale you're accusing the SCOTUS of signalling.....is rationale they already used in Windsor:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status. "

Justice Scalia in dissent of Windsor v. US

Why would the USSC ignore the Windsor ruling?

 

[Syriusly]

Oh well. America was fun while it lasted..

Get out while you can.

Russia would seem a perfect fit for you.

 

[Seawytch]

Oh well. America was fun while it lasted..

Get out while you can.

Russia would seem a perfect fit for you.

Or Uganda.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Because marriage contract law is not written to accommodate siblings marrying, or more than two persons, for that matter.

What most opposed to equal protection rights for same-sex couples fail to understand is that allowing same sex couples to marry in no way 'changes' marriage, nothing 'new' is being 'added' to marriage – it's simply a matter of allowing those already eligible to marry to indeed do so.

They were already eligible to marry.

You know, that's the same argument racists used to support anti miscegenation laws. They said there was no discrimination because blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. The argument failed when the Lovings took their case to the SCOTUS.

It changes the definition of what marriage has been in America.

So blacks being allowed to marry whites changed the definition? Did women and blacks voting change the definition of voting too?

Why shouldn't two brothers be allowed to marry and take advantage of the benefits? Two consenting adults, hurting no one.

If you believe there is no societal harm in marrying a close familial tie, I encourage you to challenge the prohibitions in court. Good luck.

Do you deny they were allowed to marry? How's that?

The definition of marriage is one man/one woman. Blacks marrying whites doesn't change that definition. Women voting has nothing to do with marriage.

Please explain how two brothers marrying will cause societal harm.

 

[Zoom-boing]

They were already eligible to marry.

It changes the definition of what marriage has been in America.

So?

Why shouldn't two brothers be allowed to marry and take advantage of the benefits? Two consenting adults, hurting no one.

Sounds like you have some parades to organize. Best of luck.

Changing the definition opens the door. For example:

Please explain why two brothers, two consenting adults, shouldn't be allowed to marry. To take advantage of the benefits. How will that harm you?

 

[Inevitable]

They were already eligible to marry.

It changes the definition of what marriage has been in America.

So?

Why shouldn't two brothers be allowed to marry and take advantage of the benefits? Two consenting adults, hurting no one.

Sounds like you have some parades to organize. Best of luck.

Changing the definition opens the door. For example:

Please explain why two brothers, two consenting adults, shouldn't be allowed to marry. To take advantage of the benefits. How will that harm you?

I didn't say it would.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They were already eligible to marry.

It changes the definition of what marriage has been in America.

So?

Why shouldn't two brothers be allowed to marry and take advantage of the benefits? Two consenting adults, hurting no one.

Sounds like you have some parades to organize. Best of luck.

Changing the definition opens the door. For example:

Please explain why two brothers, two consenting adults, shouldn't be allowed to marry. To take advantage of the benefits. How will that harm you?

Because the definition of marriage isn't being 'changed,' no 'door' is being 'opened.'

Marriage remains a commitment of two equal, unrelated, consenting adult partners recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference. Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts; marriage unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

That's not the case with two brothers wishing to marry, where no marriage law is written to accommodate siblings.

Consequently, your 'argument' fails as a slippery slope fallacy, it's nothing more than unfounded, inane demagoguery.

 

[Inevitable]

They were already eligible to marry.

It changes the definition of what marriage has been in America.

So?

Why shouldn't two brothers be allowed to marry and take advantage of the benefits? Two consenting adults, hurting no one.

Sounds like you have some parades to organize. Best of luck.

Changing the definition opens the door. For example:

Please explain why two brothers, two consenting adults, shouldn't be allowed to marry. To take advantage of the benefits. How will that harm you?

Because the definition of marriage isn't being 'changed,' no 'door' is being 'opened.'

Marriage remains a commitment of two equal, unrelated, consenting adult partners recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference. Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts; marriage unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

That's not the case with two brothers wishing to marry, where no marriage law is written to accommodate siblings.

Consequently, your 'argument' fails as a slippery slope fallacy, it's nothing more than unfounded, inane demagoguery.

The attempt to equate it to sibling marriages or marriages between children and adults is a diversion that I pay no mind to.

 

[Syriusly]

Because marriage contract law is not written to accommodate siblings marrying, or more than two persons, for that matter.

What most opposed to equal protection rights for same-sex couples fail to understand is that allowing same sex couples to marry in no way 'changes' marriage, nothing 'new' is being 'added' to marriage – it's simply a matter of allowing those already eligible to marry to indeed do so.

They were already eligible to marry.

You know, that's the same argument racists used to support anti miscegenation laws. They said there was no discrimination because blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. The argument failed when the Lovings took their case to the SCOTUS.

It changes the definition of what marriage has been in America.

So blacks being allowed to marry whites changed the definition? Did women and blacks voting change the definition of voting too?

Why shouldn't two brothers be allowed to marry and take advantage of the benefits? Two consenting adults, hurting no one.

If you believe there is no societal harm in marrying a close familial tie, I encourage you to challenge the prohibitions in court. Good luck.

Do you deny they were allowed to marry? How's that?

The definition of marriage is one man/one woman..

And in most states, and in many counties- marriage is one man and one man or one woman one woman.

 

[Syriusly]

They were already eligible to marry.

It changes the definition of what marriage has been in America.

So?

Why shouldn't two brothers be allowed to marry and take advantage of the benefits? Two consenting adults, hurting no one.

Sounds like you have some parades to organize. Best of luck.

Changing the definition opens the door. For example:

Please explain why two brothers, two consenting adults, shouldn't be allowed to marry. To take advantage of the benefits. How will that harm you?

You folks seem to think we have any obligation to make your arguments for you.

I think a same gender couple should have the same right to marry as my wife and I enjoyed. You want to argue for incestuous marriage, you can go for it- but its your strawman- and its not an issue that the courts are deciding, nor do I have to make your argument for- or against incest.

 

[Inevitable]

Such a bummer that the US Supreme Court is advertising bias using forced-attrition of state laws by procedural trickery (refusing to honor stays).

I don't recall the Supremes ever in my life appearing so obviously biased before a Hearing on the merits. Oh well. America was fun while it lasted..

You only think they are biased because they are going against your bias. Seems just three years ago they went with it.