Yes! Oz in Pennsylvania says he supports gay marriage bill

[SassyIrishLass]

I have mentioned that few times, for some reason the Christians do not want to talk about that, especially the MAGA folks

It's Mosaic Law from Leviticus.

What did Jesus do and say when the adulteress was brought before him? Hint... it's in the Book of John

 

[postman]

What evidence do you have that gay marriage is in peril. And by that I mean actual facts, not vitriol?

Read the opinions of the senior justice on the US Supreme Court.

 

[Ralph Norton]

We now have 5 activist judges on the supreme court.

Translation: We now have 5 judges who don't decide cases the way I want them to.

 

[postman]

As for gays getting married, who gives a shit? I don't object. Millions do and have gotten married. So what's the problem?

If Obergerfell gets overturned, as several on the USSC have urged. It would throw all those marriages into a legal quandary. Limbo.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Selective biblical reading. Almost radical fixation on some parts of the bible, while ignoring the parts they don't like.

Like how Jesus was pro-tax, and pro-healthcare, and pro-welfare.

Well, fuck Jesus.

Thor is pro-fuck-off, pro-kill-your-enemies, pro-war, and pro-take-care-of-yourself-or-die.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If Obergerfell gets overturned

It won't. Not even close.

It would throw all those marriages into a legal quandary. Limbo.

No it won't. They were married under color of law. Those marriages are legit, regardless.

 

[postman]

I am sorry that you hate consensus.

The modern republican is all about obstruction. Stopping the other party from getting anything done. Why do you think on most votes republicans are in perfect sheep-like lockstep opposition.

Only those facing political oblivion break away from the herd.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Read the opinions of the senior justice on the US Supreme Court.

Can you post a quote where he says gay marriage will be outlawed? I'd love to see it.

 

[TNHarley]

The current activist supreme court, means nothing is settled.

Originalism is activism?

 

[BS Filter]

The bible also says that adulterers shall be stoned to death.,

Cool Huh?

That's coming up soon. Better behave.

 

[postman]

Stare Decisis has been dead for 200 years. Where have you been?

It was alive and well in Heller V DC. In fact Scalia clearly said that. And of course that was the case with Roberts and the Texas and Georgia voting laws.

 

[BS Filter]

We now have 5 activist judges on the supreme court.

Constitutional originalists. No such thing as "settled law".

 

[BS Filter]

The modern republican is all about obstruction. Stopping the other party from getting anything done. Why do you think on most votes republicans are in perfect sheep-like lockstep opposition.

Only those facing political oblivion break away from the herd.

Following the Constitution is not obstruction. You're confused.

 

[postman]

No it won't. They were married under color of law. Those marriages are legit, regardless.

Wrong. It would throw it to the individual states whether or not to recognize such marriages, and the legal consequences of dissolving that recognition.

Such as invalidating life insurance policies.

 

[Papageorgio]

Because a supreme court ruling (up until the activists on the court) believed in precedent, and stare decisis, such that their opinions were more solidly etched into the fabric of our nation, and beyond the temporary whims of an ever changing congress.

Any law that congress passes, the next congress (or even he same congress) can un-do.

That wasn't the case for supreme court rulings. (until now)

Tell me about Congress changing laws all the time? Like the replacement of Obamacare? Oh wait, that didn't happen, the end of social security? Didn't happen either, what about Medicare? Nope still intact.

Congress screwed up 50 years ago and now they need to make it right, it is on them, the court decision is correct without a federal law in place.

 

[Papageorgio]

Should we make it illegal like people wish to make same sex marriage?

Why?

 

[postman]

Following the Constitution is not obstruction. You're confused.

You know that the constitution (original) was written to support slavery. And that the decisions in Dred Scott, except those invalidated by constitutional amendments, still stand as legal precedence. And how slavery was engrained in our laws is still a valid conclusion.

 

[Papageorgio]

If Obergerfell gets overturned, as several on the USSC have urged. It would throw all those marriages into a legal quandary. Limbo.

Maybe Congress should have been making a law that would not be overturned.

 

[BS Filter]

You know that the constitution (original) was written to support slavery. And that the decisions in Dred Scott, except those invalidated by constitutional amendments, still stand as legal precedence. And how slavery was engrained in our laws is still a valid conclusion.

Wrong.

 

[JGalt]

And this is not a religious matter, but a civil one.

Mankind is subject to the laws of God, whether he or she accepts it or not. We can believe that we're exempt from God's laws in this short period of time we exist on earth, but what happen in the afterlife is forever.

And it is God who defines what a marriage is: A holy union between one man and one woman.