Supreme Court justices RIP ruling forcing states to recognize same-sex marriages - 'Threat To Religious Freedom!'

[Blues Man]

[CITATION NEEDED]
You seem braindead to me.

Really and how would one who is brain dead know how to write those words?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Not the same thing.

I am a living autonomous sentient being a 3 week old fetus is not those things

The only relevant difference between a fetus, a toddler, and you, is how much support is needed from others in order to survive.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

A fetus isn't a toddler.

And a toddler is not an adult.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Start with post 800 then go back further, THEN use the USMB search app to search for the DOZENS of times I have posted it in numerous threads...

...or don't and just keep falsely accusing me of opposing it.

At this point I don't give a damn what you think, what you feel, or what you believe.

Let me make this simple for you since you are obviously an idiot:

I don't care what you do with your same-sex partner in your own bedroom, don't care who you choose to spend your life with, don't care if the federal govt recognizes it the same as a heterosexual marriage. I believe everyone should be treated equally.

You and your same-sex partner getting married is none of my business, and you don't need my permission - or blessing, for that matter - to do it. The same thing goes for heterosexual marriages.

If you and your same-sex partner decide to head to the court house to get married you won't find me blocking the door with a protest sign. Go for it - Congrats, and have a long happy life together.

I've repeatedly posted this several dozen times over the last few years in numerous threads, and your continued harassment, false accusations, and questioning shows you still don't know me, still don't know what I believe or think, so STOP trying to speak FOR me, tell me and others what I think / feel / believe.

If that isn't clear enough for you, piss off.

That is quite an unhinged rant, Bubba. Get a grip. I did go beck to 800 and that is all I'm going to do. Nowhere did you say thatyou support legal same sex marriage. The closest that you came is to say that gays should have equal rights but you never explained what that would look like. Then you say right here that you don't care "if the Fereral Government recognises it" That still don't cut it. It is not enough to not care what people do. If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. And, your OP is clearly supportive of Thomas'n remarks. That is what I know about you and it is quite enough. So much for not caring

Haveing said that, let me point out that you do not know me as evidensed by all of that crap about "my same sex partner." I know a hell of a lot nore about you than you know about me. To assume that you know something about my sexuality based on my politics and advocacy is as stupid as stupid gets

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So Thomas wants to do his fucking job and respects the Constitution.

Shame we didn’t have 8 more like him.

Thomas is a corrupt partisn hack who does the bidding of all of the right wing special interest groups that his wife is in bed with

 

[easyt65]

That is quite an unhinged rant, Bubba. Get a grip. I did go beck to 800 and that is all I'm going to do. Nowhere did you say thatyou support legal same sex marriage. The closest that you came is to say that gays should have equal rights but you never explained what that would look like. Then you say right here that you don't care "if the Fereral Government recognises it" That still don't cut it. It is not enough to not care what people do. If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. And, your OP is clearly supportive of Thomas'n remarks. That is what I know about you and it is quite enough. So much for not caring

Haveing said that, let me point out that you do not know me as evidensed by all of that crap about "my same sex partner." I know a hell of a lot nore about you than you know about me. To assume that you know something about my sexuality based on my politics and advocacy is as stupid as stupid gets

F* off, troll.

You have been proven to be a pathetic liar. Go stalk someone else.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

F* off, troll.

You have been proven to be a pathetic liar. Go stalk someone else.

Are we getting a wee bit defensive? What exactly am I lying about? I am not stalking you . You started this and I am calling you out on yur hipocrissy . You claim to suport equality but then not really.

Come on Bro, just say the words: "I support LEGAL same sex MARRIAGE" /" I do not agree that states have a constitutional right to ban same sex marriage" You can do it. Just try

 

[HeyNorm]

All states must reccognize opposite sex marriage is found no where in the US Constitution Marrige of any sort is found no where in the US Constitutiom.

HOWEVER, since the begining, marriage for heterosexuals has been treated as a rigth while it was denied to homoexuals. That is discriniation and a denial of equal protetion under the law.

Your religious beliefs have nothing to do with what other believe or how they live. Live your life and let others live theirs and you won't be branded bigot

I can only imaging the howling –much coming from conservatives who are married and enjoying all of the perks that go with it- if a state decided not to recognize heterosexual marriage

Marriage was never limited to heterosexuals. Gays can, and have married through out history. But when they did, it was someone of the opposite sex, regardless of the others sexuality.

This has been pointed out to you countless times.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Thomas is a corrupt partisn hack who does the bidding of all of the right wing special interest groups that his wife is in bed with

There is a hell of a lot of damaging news about Thomas for it all to be fake https://www.usmessageboard.com/members/carsomyrplussix.87475/

Lets see how much of this you can refute

MSN

Even Fox News is trashing him

Clarence Thomas is one of the 'most corrupt justices in American history,' MSNBC guest declares

MSNBC guest Elie Mystal blasted Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as one of the "most corrupt justices in American history" on Saturday.

www.foxnews.com

It gets worse

Clarence Thomas might have just broken the law in the Supreme Court

Justice Thomas has not recused himself from a case involving courts' power to strike down electoral maps.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Blues Man]

The only relevant difference between a fetus, a toddler, and you, is how much support is needed from others in order to survive.

So then remove the fetus and give it support and see what happens.

21 weeks is the very edge of viability outside the womb that is the metric I choose to use as the limit for abortion.

and the fact is that most abortions take place before 10 weeks

 

[Blues Man]

And a toddler is not an adult.

But it is an autonomous sentient being

 

[Bob Blaylock]

A fetus isn't a toddler.

And a toddler is not an adult.

But it is an autonomous sentient being

Put him out on the street, to fend for himself, and see how “autonomous” he really is.

 

[Blues Man]

Put him out on the street, to fend for himself, and see how “autonomous” he really is.

Irrelevant.

 

[emilynghiem]

How does same sex marriage impact your life or your religious faith?

1. Same sex marriage is a matter of religious freedom. So relying on govt to establish your religious beliefs violates the first amendment. People should be able to practice religious rituals without govt having to force this policy in everyone.
2. There is nothing wrong with people getting married by their beliefs and practices. This is like the differences in beliefs about Baptisms, communion, funeral services etc. Likewise anyone can go pursue and perform a same sex wedding or marriage if that is their belief. That's a private personal choice and freedom, but not an area that govt is supposed to regulate or establish.

3. The problem is tying govt benefits to marriage. Which is why so many Conservatives Libertarians and Constitutionalists argue that neither marriage nor benefits should be regulated through govt in the first place . Those are subjective and people will want their own choice of beliefs and interests represented.

What govt can regulate are the neutral and objective "civil unions" "domestic partnership" "estate or custody agreements" guardianship and other legal and financial agreements.

And if benefits are managed relatively by party or banks or other institutions where citizens have a choice in what terms of benefits they want to fund and follow, then we wouldn't have to argue or compete to impose one set of conditions for everyone.

 

[surada]

1. Same sex marriage is a matter of religious freedom. So relying on govt to establish your religious beliefs violates the first amendment. People should be able to practice religious rituals without govt having to force this policy in everyone.
2. There is nothing wrong with people getting married by their beliefs and practices. This is like the differences in beliefs about Baptisms, communion, funeral services etc. Likewise anyone can go pursue and perform a same sex wedding or marriage if that is their belief. That's a private personal choice and freedom, but not an area that govt is supposed to regulate or establish.

3. The problem is tying govt benefits to marriage. Which is why so many Conservatives Libertarians and Constitutionalists argue that neither marriage nor benefits should be regulated through govt in the first place . Those are subjective and people will want their own choice of beliefs and interests represented.

What govt can regulate are the neutral and objective "civil unions" "domestic partnership" "estate or custody agreements" guardianship and other legal and financial agreements.

And if benefits are managed relatively by party or banks or other institutions where citizens have a choice in what terms of benefits they want to fund and follow, then we wouldn't have to argue or compete to impose one set of conditions for everyone.

Same sex marriage doesn't cost you anything. They pay taxes too.

 

[emilynghiem]

Same sex marriage doesn't cost you anything. They pay taxes too.

It is still the govt endorsing or establishing a policy that people do not all believe in
1. belief in govt managing social benefits and health care centrally for everyone vs belief that health care and benefits as relative social programs belong to people not federal govt or states unless people consent to the terms. Anc prochoice vs prolife believers clearly do not agree on funding the other policy with their taxes
2. Belief in marriage, being personal and whether belief in same sex couples being valid or not, being endorsed by the state without consent of the public

If people AGREE to these beliefs through govt, then it's not argued as unconstitutional. It's when people don't agree on beliefs, then imposing one policy over another isn't treating everyone's consent and beliefs the same.

When I talk with Libertarians and independents like one of my lesbian friends who also believes govt should stay out of marriage, they agree that Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships would solve the problem similar to having Unisex Restrooms that don't specify gender at all.

So that is where we can get universal consensus. By having the state revert to neutral language and not cause conflicts with anyone's beliefs

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

1. Same sex marriage is a matter of religious freedom. So relying on govt to establish your religious beliefs violates the first amendment. People should be able to practice religious rituals without govt having to force this policy in everyone.

Same sex marriage, like marriage in general, is a civil right. People are free to bring religion into it if they so choose. They are also free to allow religion to define marriage... for themselves, and ONLY for themselves.

So what is this nonsense about government establishing your reigious beliefs? That makes NO sense at all. That is not what is happening.

But you are correct in saying that "people should be able to practice religious rituals without govt having to force this policy in everyone.
However that was in fact done in the past with laws against same sex marriage and being done now with abortion to give just two exmples

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

2. There is nothing wrong with people getting married by their beliefs and practices. This is like the differences in beliefs about Baptisms, communion, funeral services etc. Likewise anyone can go pursue and perform a same sex wedding or marriage if that is their belief. That's a private personal choice and freedom, but not an area that govt is supposed to regulate or establish.

Yes people can perform a same sex wedding or marriage if that is their belief. But without government they do not enjoy the financial benefits and legal protections and rights of marriage. You seem to be confused. Government regulation of legal marriage does not kean that government is regulating the religious aspects of marriage.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

3. The problem is tying govt benefits to marriage. Which is why so many Conservatives Libertarians and Constitutionalists argue that neither marriage nor benefits should be regulated through govt in the first place . Those are subjective and people will want their own choice of beliefs and interests represented.ying govt benefits to marriage

Tying govt benefits to marriage is only a problem if you make it a problem, and you are making it a problem. t is not a problem for the millionsof people af all religious beliefs and who can be found all accross the political spectum. If you do not want government invilves in mariage anddo not care about the benefits, you are free TO NOT GET MARRIED. Don't try to spoil it for others

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What govt can regulate are the neutral and objective "civil unions" "domestic partnership" "estate or custody agreements" guardianship and other legal and financial agreements.

"civil unions" "domestic partnership" ?? Separate but "equal" Didn't work during Jim Crow and it doesn't work now