Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[PaintMyHouse]

Non familial consenting adult couple.s. Same rules gay and straight. Simple.

The rules were that only opposite sex couples could marry. When did the "couple" requirement enter the picture? Was that before or after you threw out the opposite sex requirement? The same thing goes for the "non familial" requirement? Why should that be a requirement if marriage has nothing to do with procreation?

You queers just can't keep your arguments consistent, can you?

Any two adults unless you can show a compelling state interest as to why not? That's why your side lost, and why it should have.

 

[bripat9643]

Why should taxpayers have to subsidize this kind of bigoted bovine excrement ?? ..........Breaking Bobby Jindal Spent Hundreds Of Thousands Of Tax Dollars To Fight Gay Marriage Exclusive - The New Civil Rights Movement

Breaking: Bobby Jindal Spent Hundreds Of Thousands Of Tax Dollars To Fight Gay Marriage (Exclusive)

As we are well aware, many attorneys general across the United States spent copious amounts of taxpayer money to defend state marriage bans. John Boehner spent millions at the federal level to defend DOMA. Louisiana AG Buddy Caldwell and Governor Bobby Jindal are no different.

In a time when Louisiana is fiscally broke, having to slash some higher education and hospital services, the amount of taxpayer money Bobby Jindal paid to the attorney fighting same-sex marriage rights could have been much better spent.

My husband and I were some of those taxpayers that Jindal disenfranchised. Having filed the federal lawsuit, Robicheaux et. al., challenging Louisiana’s marriage ban in July 2013, we’ve been fighting the governor and his officers for the last 24 months. We’ve been forced to file our taxes separately due to the ban that was in place and have those tax dollars used against us.

The dust has settled in Louisiana on this matter, but the taxpayers will continue to suffer for the fiscal crisis that Jindal will leave behind. Even those of us that had our tax money spent in the fight against us.

For the same reason that Obumulini spent millions of tax payer's dollars promoting Obamacare or his illegal amnesty by executive order.

 

[bripat9643]

Non familial consenting adult couple.s. Same rules gay and straight. Simple.

The rules were that only opposite sex couples could marry. When did the "couple" requirement enter the picture? Was that before or after you threw out the opposite sex requirement? The same thing goes for the "non familial" requirement? Why should that be a requirement if marriage has nothing to do with procreation?

You queers just can't keep your arguments consistent, can you?

Any two adults unless you can show a compelling state interest as to why not? That's why your side lost, and why it should have.

What's the compelling reason for limiting it to two adults? What's the compelling reason for limiting it non family members?

We all lost on the gay marriage issue. You don't win when you destroy ancient social institutions.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What's the compelling reason for limiting it to two adults? What's the compelling reason for limiting it non family members?

1. There likely isn't one, it's just the law currently. 2. That's not always the case and the only argument is the weak biological one which applies not to marriage but making babies. That also applies to incestuous sex outside of marriage BTW.

 

[bripat9643]

What's the compelling reason for limiting it to two adults? What's the compelling reason for limiting it non family members?

1. There likely isn't one, it's just the law currently. 2. That's not always the case and the only argument is the weak biological one which applies not to marriage but making babies. That also applies to incestuous sex outside of marriage BTW.

You turds have said over and over again that reproduction has nothing to do with marriage.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You turds have said over and over again that reproduction has nothing to do with marriage.

That's because it doesn't, but the biological argument is the only one you can make against incest marriage, and it applies to the sex, not the marriage. Married people often have sex, for a few years anyway.

 

[bripat9643]

You turds have said over and over again that reproduction has nothing to do with marriage.

That's because it doesn't, but the biological argument is the only one you can make against incest marriage, and it applies to the sex, not the marriage. Married people often have sex, for a few years anyway.

"It applies to the sex, not the marriage?" You are the world's biggest moron. I won't even bother explaining what's wrong with that statement. It would require an actual brain to understand.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You turds have said over and over again that reproduction has nothing to do with marriage.

That's because it doesn't, but the biological argument is the only one you can make against incest marriage, and it applies to the sex, not the marriage. Married people often have sex, for a few years anyway.

"It applies to the sex, not the marriage?" You are the world's biggest moron. I won't even bother explaining what's wrong with that statement. It would require an actual brain to understand.

We have laws against incest even when you don't want to get married. You have to deal with those laws before you fight out the marriage part, in cases where the sex is against the law so the state isn't interested in granting their approval to the couple, in marriage or in bed.

 

[bripat9643]

You turds have said over and over again that reproduction has nothing to do with marriage.

That's because it doesn't, but the biological argument is the only one you can make against incest marriage, and it applies to the sex, not the marriage. Married people often have sex, for a few years anyway.

"It applies to the sex, not the marriage?" You are the world's biggest moron. I won't even bother explaining what's wrong with that statement. It would require an actual brain to understand.

We have laws against incest even when you don't want to get married. You have to deal with those laws before you fight out the marriage part, in cases where the sex is against the law so the state isn't interested in granting their approval to the couple, in marriage or in bed.

Marriage has nothing to do with sex, according to morons like you, so what do laws against incest have to do with anything?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You turds have said over and over again that reproduction has nothing to do with marriage.

That's because it doesn't, but the biological argument is the only one you can make against incest marriage, and it applies to the sex, not the marriage. Married people often have sex, for a few years anyway.

"It applies to the sex, not the marriage?" You are the world's biggest moron. I won't even bother explaining what's wrong with that statement. It would require an actual brain to understand.

We have laws against incest even when you don't want to get married. You have to deal with those laws before you fight out the marriage part, in cases where the sex is against the law so the state isn't interested in granting their approval to the couple, in marriage or in bed.

Marriage has nothing to do with sex, according to morons like you, so what do laws against incest have to do with anything?

Go debate that with your buddy Scalia, who reasoned that when gay sex became legal gay marriage would soon follow. Same thing for incest.

 

[Faun]

No, I think pointing out how gay marriage has changed who gays can marry utterly destroys your idiocy that gay marriage didn't change who you can marry for anyone.

Keep on kazzin'.

I will, thanks! The Democratic party you are a ***** to will never tell me what to think.

And I owe you a thanks as well, you are greatly improving my site experience, thank you for helping me identify and rid the most children of dickless bitches. you're doing me a solid

Glad I could help by getting under your skin.

Yes, gay boy, obviously you know how I feel. Well, you think you do. Your self portrayal way overestimates your actual abilities

You don't even seem to realize just how much of yourself you reveal. Ignoring all those folks because they call you out for kazzing reveals how much I get under your skin. Expressing your fantasies of straight men having gay sex reveals your own curious desires. I can only go by the words you express.

You got teased a lot in school, didn't you?

Your school yard schtick is boring as shit. You started the "kazzing" thing, now you have fantasies about all the other intellectual grade schoolers chanting kazzing to me over and over. Why would I want to participate in that? I'm not mentally eight like you, Syriusly, Dot Com, Mertex and Skyar are. What interest do I have when you just keep chanting "kazzing" between you over and over? Not interested, tyky poo. And at this point you are putting all your effort into roping more of your fellow childen in. It's playground. I realize that's your speed, but while I like to banter, it's not mine. I don't give a shit other than that at this point, you and the other children are just tired

Oh look, you're even keepin' a list.

 

[RKMBrown]

You don't even seem to realize just how much of yourself you reveal. Ignoring all those folks because they call you out for kazzing reveals how much I get under your skin. Expressing your fantasies of straight men having gay sex reveals your own curious desires. I can only go by the words you express.

You got teased a lot in school, didn't you?

Your school yard schtick is boring as shit. You started the "kazzing" thing, now you have fantasies about all the other intellectual grade schoolers chanting kazzing to me over and over. Why would I want to participate in that? I'm not mentally eight like you, Syriusly, Dot Com, Mertex and Skyar are. What interest do I have when you just keep chanting "kazzing" between you over and over? Not interested, tyky poo. And at this point you are putting all your effort into roping more of your fellow childen in. It's playground. I realize that's your speed, but while I like to banter, it's not mine. I don't give a shit other than that at this point, you and the other children are just tired

Says the bully with the nazi boots.

LOL, that still cracks me up. You're so far gone in leftist kool aid you think that for government to not give people things is Nazi. I'm thinking the European Jews wouldn't have seen it that way, Karl

^ dumb ass that "claims" to be a libertarian... wants the liberty to tax the shit out of gays without them getting the same benefits as everyone else. Yes, he's not libertarian... he's AUTHORITARIAN.

OK, I'll bite. What do I think that isn't libertarian?

Every statement you make is the opposite of libertarian, you fool.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Non familial consenting adult couple.s. Same rules gay and straight. Simple.

The rules were that only opposite sex couples could marry. When did the "couple" requirement enter the picture? Was that before or after you threw out the opposite sex requirement? The same thing goes for the "non familial" requirement? Why should that be a requirement if marriage has nothing to do with procreation?

You queers just can't keep your arguments consistent, can you?

Any two adults unless you can show a compelling state interest as to why not? That's why your side lost, and why it should have.

What's the compelling reason for limiting it to two adults? What's the compelling reason for limiting it non family members?

We all lost on the gay marriage issue. You don't win when you destroy ancient social institutions.

Non familial consenting adult couple.s. Same rules gay and straight. Simple.

The rules were that only opposite sex couples could marry. When did the "couple" requirement enter the picture? Was that before or after you threw out the opposite sex requirement? The same thing goes for the "non familial" requirement? Why should that be a requirement if marriage has nothing to do with procreation?

You queers just can't keep your arguments consistent, can you?

Any two adults unless you can show a compelling state interest as to why not? That's why your side lost, and why it should have.

What's the compelling reason for limiting it to two adults? What's the compelling reason for limiting it non family members?

Progressive Patriot: I'm going to call red herring on that well worn horseshit. I for one have not taken a position against group marriage or any other variation on it as ling as it does not involve children, animals or anyone who is not able to consent. However, there are different social and legal implications when the marriage goes beyond two people. If anyone wants that, they are free to pursue it through the legal process and see if the states can come up with a compelling interest to limit it to two people.

This is the kind of crap that you people bring up when you can't formulate an argument against same sex marriage on its own merits

We all lost on the gay marriage issue. You don't win when you destroy ancient social institutions.

You mean the ancient social institution of polygamy and ownership of the woman y her husband. And how the hell is anything destroyed. Heterosexuals will continue to get married as they always have been.

 

[bripat9643]

Non familial consenting adult couple.s. Same rules gay and straight. Simple.

The rules were that only opposite sex couples could marry. When did the "couple" requirement enter the picture? Was that before or after you threw out the opposite sex requirement? The same thing goes for the "non familial" requirement? Why should that be a requirement if marriage has nothing to do with procreation?

You queers just can't keep your arguments consistent, can you?

Any two adults unless you can show a compelling state interest as to why not? That's why your side lost, and why it should have.

What's the compelling reason for limiting it to two adults? What's the compelling reason for limiting it non family members?

We all lost on the gay marriage issue. You don't win when you destroy ancient social institutions.

Non familial consenting adult couple.s. Same rules gay and straight. Simple.

The rules were that only opposite sex couples could marry. When did the "couple" requirement enter the picture? Was that before or after you threw out the opposite sex requirement? The same thing goes for the "non familial" requirement? Why should that be a requirement if marriage has nothing to do with procreation?

You queers just can't keep your arguments consistent, can you?

Any two adults unless you can show a compelling state interest as to why not? That's why your side lost, and why it should have.

What's the compelling reason for limiting it to two adults? What's the compelling reason for limiting it non family members?

I'm going to call red herring on that well worn horseshit. I for one have not taken a position against group marriage or any other variation on it as ling as it does not involve children, animals or anyone who is not able to consent. However, there are different social and legal implications when the marriage goes beyond two people. If anyone wants that, they are free to pursue it through the legal process and see if the states can come up with a compelling interest to limit it to two people.

This is the kind of crap that you people bring up when you can't formulate an argument against same sex marriage on its own merits

We all lost on the gay marriage issue. You don't win when you destroy ancient social institutions.

You mean the ancient social institution of polygamy and ownership of the woman y her husband. And how the hell is anything destroyed. Heterosexuals will continue to get married as they always have been.

Actually not. The males of the millennial generation show little interest in getting married. Why bother with marriage when you can just hookup? There's absolute no benefit to men from the legal constraints imposed by marriage.

 

[bripat9643]

You got teased a lot in school, didn't you?

Your school yard schtick is boring as shit. You started the "kazzing" thing, now you have fantasies about all the other intellectual grade schoolers chanting kazzing to me over and over. Why would I want to participate in that? I'm not mentally eight like you, Syriusly, Dot Com, Mertex and Skyar are. What interest do I have when you just keep chanting "kazzing" between you over and over? Not interested, tyky poo. And at this point you are putting all your effort into roping more of your fellow childen in. It's playground. I realize that's your speed, but while I like to banter, it's not mine. I don't give a shit other than that at this point, you and the other children are just tired

Says the bully with the nazi boots.

LOL, that still cracks me up. You're so far gone in leftist kool aid you think that for government to not give people things is Nazi. I'm thinking the European Jews wouldn't have seen it that way, Karl

^ dumb ass that "claims" to be a libertarian... wants the liberty to tax the shit out of gays without them getting the same benefits as everyone else. Yes, he's not libertarian... he's AUTHORITARIAN.

OK, I'll bite. What do I think that isn't libertarian?

Every statement you make is the opposite of libertarian, you fool.

Wrong.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Actually not. The males of the millennial generation show little interest in getting married. Why bother with marriage when you can just hookup? There's absolute no benefit to men from the legal constraints imposed by marriage.

There are a lot of benefits, which is why I got married. I was already in love with my "wife" but this saved us a ton of cash on car insurance, among other things.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually not. The males of the millennial generation show little interest in getting married. Why bother with marriage when you can just hookup? There's absolute no benefit to men from the legal constraints imposed by marriage.

There are a lot of benefits, which is why I got married. I was already in love with my "wife" but this saved us a ton of cash on car insurance, among other things.

I wouldn't have to pay for my wife's car insurance if I wasn't married, so how do I benefit?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Actually not. The males of the millennial generation show little interest in getting married. Why bother with marriage when you can just hookup? There's absolute no benefit to men from the legal constraints imposed by marriage.

There are a lot of benefits, which is why I got married. I was already in love with my "wife" but this saved us a ton of cash on car insurance, among other things.

I wouldn't have to pay for my wife's car insurance if I wasn't married, so how do I benefit?

Married people, especially young men, get better rates my little infant. And remember, it's not all about you, even though you'll never believe that, never.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I don't know who is more fucked up, these people here or some of those who are posting on this forum.

Religious Right activists have compared today’s gay marriage ruling to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and Pearl Harbor, warning of imminent divine judgment and civil war. “No matter what, the Court’s ruling does not upend millenia of truth,” former Rep. Michele Bachmann said. “Many Americans will choose to follow God’s ways rather than this Court and they should suffer no penalty for doing so. The Court has flung open the gate to lawsuits from those pushing the gay agenda against those who disagree with same sex marriage.”


Rep. Louie Gohmert said God will withdraw his protection from America: Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, reacted with guns blzaing, calling the ruling a “civilization-changing decision that destroys our nation’s heritage of Biblical marriage. May God forgive our Supreme Court majority for its arrogance and its self-apotheosis.” - See more at: Far-Right Flee America Before God Destroys Us For Gay Marriage Right Wing Watch

More horseshit than you can shake a stick at....

 

[Faun]

Sure you can. No one will ask about your sexual orientation. However, would you want to if you're not gay? Of course not although I did here of a case where two straight guys- much to the chagrin of gays did get married as a stunt.

So now, as we know anyone can marry someone of either gender. And both gays, like straights can marry the one who they desire. That is, after all, what marriage is about, at least in part.

Great argument to make to the legislature, irrelevant to courts following the law

And...your legal theory behind that assertion is what, exactly? From Obergefell.....OBERGEFELL v. HODGES US Law LII Legal Information Institute

1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479–486. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed

.

A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception, 381 U. S., at 485, and was acknowledged in Turner, supra, at 95. Same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association, a right extending beyond mere freedom from laws making same-sex intimacy a criminal offense. See Lawrence, supra, at 567.

4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. Baker v. Nelson is overruled. The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23.

Have you even bothered to read the opinion or have you just brushed it aside as though you know more about the constitution that Kennedy?

The theory behind it is the Constitution which is clear, you must apply the law to all citizens equally. All citizens can enter a man/woman marriage. No citizen can enter a single sex marriage. The job of the courts is done.y

Yeah- the court rejected your theory.

Because they understand the Constitution and you don't.

Their decision on gay marriage was one of the most irrational poorly argued decisions the court ever made, and that's a very low bar to get under. Kennedy didn't even refer to the actual text of the Constitution.

Notice that when the Court rules in the left's favor, their word is gospel, but when it rules against them, the members of the court are self-serving political hacks.

Day 22 -- the massive conservative butthurt drags on ...