PDA

View Full Version : Gay Marriage Legal everywhere in US



Cullion
26th June 15, 03:17 PM
How do you all feel about it?

Spade: The Real Snake
26th June 15, 05:27 PM
You should be more pissed that the Supreme Court, unelected politicians with lifetime appointments are essentially creating law and superseding the will of the people.
Honestly, I don't care if gheys marry, fuck 'em if they want to deal with divorce, but in State's Rights, if the voters don't want it, these 9 faggots shouldn't overturn it. They did the exact same thing with the shitting interpretation of "state exchange' in the ACA by deciding the whole "willful ambiguity".
And only the whackjobs would claim a fucking typhoon is being blamed on buggery.

Cullion
26th June 15, 05:30 PM
snake, are you concerned this might lead to an increase of firefighters snapping at each other's glistening wet backsides with towels ? a surge in german sparkle parties in your neighbourhood ?

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
26th June 15, 06:02 PM
Burn baby burn, Pastor Inferno! (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/06/25/christian-pastor-promises-to-set-himself-on-fire-if-gay-marriage-is-legalized-nationwide-audio/)

MerkinMuffly
26th June 15, 06:11 PM
You should be more pissed that the Supreme Court, unelected politicians with lifetime appointments are essentially creating law and superseding the will of the people.
Honestly, I don't care if gheys marry, fuck 'em if they want to deal with divorce, but in State's Rights, if the voters don't want it, these 9 faggots shouldn't overturn it. They did the exact same thing with the shitting interpretation of "state exchange' in the ACA by deciding the whole "willful ambiguity".
And only the whackjobs would claim a fucking typhoon is being blamed on buggery.

Sorry bigot but your state does not get to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
26th June 15, 06:15 PM
https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/11667481_805300032910158_4563007735417925284_n.jpg ?oh=88b66549ff0caa1d4e3a6ccba2e1005a&oe=5621C491

Spade: The Real Snake
26th June 15, 06:33 PM
snake, are you concerned this might lead to an increase of firefighters snapping at each other's glistening wet backsides with towels ? a surge in german sparkle parties in your neighbourhood ?
Well YOU sure seem to have fully-crafted a detailed scenario for a scant 2 minute sojourn into the men's room.

Spade: The Real Snake
26th June 15, 06:34 PM
I am 100 percent OK with 'superseding the will of the people' if it both reduces discrimination AND increases freedoms.

So:
legalizing gay marriage = good
Making it illegal to use the word 'faggot' = bad

legalizing public nudity = good
forcing children to watch porn in schools = bad
We can't really take serious the opinions of a man whom thinks children should be allowed sexual intercourse with adults.

Spade: The Real Snake
26th June 15, 06:38 PM
Snake, there are folks out there denied access to their committed dying lovers medical records and hospital rooms by homophobic relatives and hospital staff. There was actually a case of a couple where one man adopted his partner to gain some of the benefits they couldn’t get through marriage, like lower inheritance tax rates. It’s insane the measures people have had to go through to get the legal protections that opposite-sex couples can take for granted.

That touches even my stone heart.

This is very similar to the stupid people who don't want everything surveilled. You need to go over their heads.
I already set Lord Humongous straight on this one.
There are legally binding contracts, in place, in every state, that removes each and every one of those scenarios. Living Wills, Medical/Financial/General Powers of Attorney, Living Trusts....all of them work in all scenarios. Including old people whom want to marry but cannot because they will lose the pension and/or benefits from their previous spouse.
What's next, the Supreme Court going to make all those situations go away?

Spade: The Real Snake
26th June 15, 06:40 PM
Sorry bigot but your state does not get to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Instead the Federal Government can just supersede the 10th Amendment.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
26th June 15, 06:42 PM
LOL! Like the US constitution means shit! LOL!

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
26th June 15, 06:54 PM
Oh so your cruising for boys as well!

Cullion
26th June 15, 06:59 PM
Instead the Federal Government can just supersede the 10th Amendment.

Marriage in this sense is not a specific religious ceremony, it is a status that offers various protections under the law, and can be enacted on a civil basis with no religious affiliation.


No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This amendment was passed to ensure that former slaves had the same legal rights as free born white people, but the amendment isn't worded that specifically, it just says 'people'. Wouldn't you say that refusing the legal protection of the status of marriage to gay people, was to refuse 'any person.. the equal protection of the laws.' ?

On this basis, a state enacting laws specifically to ban gay people from obtaining this legal status sounds unconstitutional to me.

This would only infringe people's religious liberty if the law insisted churches had to perform weddings for gay couples over and above the beliefs of the minister/imam/rabbi/pandit and the congregation, and it's not doing that.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
26th June 15, 07:04 PM
https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10405476_1618712518407050_3347002106202056872_n.jp g?oh=ab9b54363393e22c5acbcb8060153eaf&oe=562EE981

resolve
26th June 15, 07:56 PM
Very early on in the gay marriage debate I championed the cause of Civil Unions amongst my friends and sending letters to legislators.

Why? Because monogamous gay people were denied certain rights that was simply coming from a mean spiritedness; from seeing loved ones in the hospital, to inheritance, to tax burden relief, et cetera.

I said that it would be best for the church to de-couple itself entirely from the governmental process*, call every monogamous union under the law a civil union regardless of whether they were gender diverse or not and to retain marriage as a religious institution. I felt it would be the best way to show love to the people of the homosexual community while retaining something we consider holy.

I still feel that way, but the time is past for that kind of change. The church in America as a whole went the way of cruelty and seeking power (both against the mandates for the Church in Acts and the letters) while also acting hypocritically in the face of divorce. So in turn they bought themselves a tremendous cultural backlash.

A homosexual marriage is a biologically nonviable union and does not bring together the disparity of gender diversity so thus is not a true marriage by its original definition.

But conservative people largely didn't want the path of Civil Unions and decoupling their power from the state and monogamous homosexuals coveted the word marriage above all for its status of normalcy that it would bestow. So conservatives lost the word in a major upset today.

Ultimately the only thing this has created is more future legal messes regarding the government's role in a private citizen's marriage in all aspects. The future will get worse for it in that aspect.




* There is a new pledge amongst clergy to do just that... but it is too late imo.
http://www.firstthings.com/marriage-pledge

Edited for bad grammar and footnote.

Spade: The Real Snake
26th June 15, 08:12 PM
14 year olds are children? Not according to the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/parents/children/). Children are ages 4-11.

Also, Biologically, a child is a human between the stages of birth and puberty. On average, girls begin puberty at ages 10–11; boys at ages 11–12.
The definition of a child, according to UNICEF, is under 18. Same with the UN.

Spade: The Real Snake
26th June 15, 08:18 PM
Marriage in this sense is not a specific religious ceremony, it is a status that offers various protections under the law, and can be enacted on a civil basis with no religious affiliation.
And there are numerous legal contracts that same-sex couples could and have entered into that afforded them the same protections, with exception of tax status and partner employment benefits. If they REALLY wanted that, those could have been addressed without attaching the concept of "marriage" to this cause.





This amendment was passed to ensure that former slaves had the same legal rights as free born white people, but the amendment isn't worded that specifically, it just says 'people'. Wouldn't you say that refusing the legal protection of the status of marriage to gay people, was to refuse 'any person.. the equal protection of the laws.' ?

On this basis, a state enacting laws specifically to ban gay people from obtaining this legal status sounds unconstitutional to me.

This would only infringe people's religious liberty if the law insisted churches had to perform weddings for gay couples over and above the beliefs of the minister/imam/rabbi/pandit and the congregation, and it's not doing that.
I'm not sure.
Can you please point to the part of American History where gay people were owned and sold like cattle?
You realize that the most polarizing thing that many gay people did was try and conscript and co-op "Slavery" to their own cause. Seriously, if you want to continue to do that, then realize and accept that slavery was a "state's rights" issue, up until succession.

Spade: The Real Snake
26th June 15, 08:19 PM
https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10405476_1618712518407050_3347002106202056872_n.jp g?oh=ab9b54363393e22c5acbcb8060153eaf&oe=562EE981
Of course it did.
Gay Dinosaurs can't breed and led to their own extinction

resolve
26th June 15, 08:29 PM
"Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer."

"Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration ... If you are among the many Americans — of whatever sexual orientation — who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

- Chief Justice Roberts of the Supreme Court of the United States of America


This is what I was referring to to future legal troubles. In the same week we have now stripped our national sovereignty from trade and given it to corporate lawyers and set precedents in court that can have real disastrous effects later on.

MerkinMuffly
26th June 15, 09:04 PM
Instead the Federal Government can just supersede the 10th Amendment.
You're goddamn right.
The rights of the people supersede the hatred of right-wing wackos.

Adouglasmhor
27th June 15, 01:11 AM
https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/11667481_805300032910158_4563007735417925284_n.jpg ?oh=88b66549ff0caa1d4e3a6ccba2e1005a&oe=5621C491


http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a193/bigdougie/offend%20everyone_zpsxys15vst.jpg (http://s11.photobucket.com/user/bigdougie/media/offend%20everyone_zpsxys15vst.jpg.html)

Üser Friendly
27th June 15, 03:02 AM
Well

It's about time Yankganistahn finally caught up with Ireland

Well done

One point that came out in the debate here was a clarification of terms:

Marriage is a legal contract facilitated by the state

Matrimony is a religious ceremony facilitated by a religious group

Cullion
27th June 15, 05:22 AM
And there are numerous legal contracts that same-sex couples could and have entered into that afforded them the same protections, with exception of tax status and partner employment benefits. If they REALLY wanted that, those could have been addressed without attaching the concept of "marriage" to this cause.

Why shouldn't they attach the concept of marriage here ? Marriage is a legal status, that being the case, it seems unconstitutional to withhold it from some citizens.



I'm not sure.
Can you please point to the part of American History where gay people were owned and sold like cattle?
You realize that the most polarizing thing that many gay people did was try and conscript and co-op "Slavery" to their own cause. Seriously, if you want to continue to do that, then realize and accept that slavery was a "state's rights" issue, up until succession.

I don't agree with this. First of all, regardless of context, there's nothing in this amendment that says it only applies to former slaves. It applies to all people. Secondly, slavery was a 'states rights' issue, but the states that felt strongly about that were on the losing side of a civil war 150 years ago, and the constitution has legitimately changed since then. The 14th amendment was passed after the war, in 1868.

The judge complaining about democracy being usurped does not properly understand the difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual against the will of a majority when necessary. And that is what has happened here.

Cut to the chase, why don't you want to let gay people get married ?

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
27th June 15, 05:55 AM
Cause he doesnt want to get married

Spade: The Real Snake
27th June 15, 09:43 AM
Why shouldn't they attach the concept of marriage here ? Marriage is a legal status, that being the case, it seems unconstitutional to withhold it from some citizens.



I don't agree with this. First of all, regardless of context, there's nothing in this amendment that says it only applies to former slaves. It applies to all people. Secondly, slavery was a 'states rights' issue, but the states that felt strongly about that were on the losing side of a civil war 150 years ago, and the constitution has legitimately changed since then. The 14th amendment was passed after the war, in 1868.

The judge complaining about democracy being usurped does not properly understand the difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual against the will of a majority when necessary. And that is what has happened here.

Cut to the chase, why don't you want to let gay people get married ?
Quite simply, the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution grants legal gun ownership, however State's Rights has been allowed to usurp this legal prerogative, permitting state's to define "what is considered a prudent gun?" Any and all legal permits I, as a free and legal citizen of the US, without one black mark upon my record, possess in my State begins and ends at that state. Were I to load ALL of my firearms into my vehicle and cross into California. Or Nevada. Or Utah, Colorado or New Mexico, all states which border mine, I face prosecution as these firearms, as legally and rightfully granted to me under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution and legally purchased, with my entire background history vetted by the Bureau of Alcohol/Tobacco and Firearms and registered in the State of Arizona, as it is not considered a "legal firearm" to possess in that state.
But the concept marriage, an issue not address in the US Constitution, is able to have the state's rights overturned?
You, as a person whom has had numerous issues with the governmental interference in all manner of life, wouldn't figure you would support this.
And at what point did I say I *didn't* want gays to marry?

Honestly, I don't care if gheys marry
I don't like the role the Supreme Court is taking in Activist Politics and usurping the will of the people. They are unelected and unaccountable. President and Congress are all beholden to the voters for a preset amount of time. The Court isn't.

Spade: The Real Snake
27th June 15, 09:50 AM
You're goddamn right.
The rights of the people supersede the hatred of right-wing wackos.
States which had a ban on gay marriage include California, Oregon, Wisconsin, Colorado, Florida.....among others. All states which voted Democrat in 2008. In fact, the maps which show the voting pattern in 2008 and 2012 aren't too much different from the states that had a ban on gay marriage.
Yes.
ALL "Right Wing Whacko States".
It's all a Right Wing Conspiracy.
Please change "The Fox"'s name to "Pantsuit Hilly"

Cullion
27th June 15, 11:31 AM
Quite simply, the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution grants legal gun ownership, however State's Rights has been allowed to usurp this legal prerogative, permitting state's to define "what is considered a prudent gun?" Any and all legal permits I, as a free and legal citizen of the US, without one black mark upon my record, possess in my State begins and ends at that state. Were I to load ALL of my firearms into my vehicle and cross into California. Or Nevada. Or Utah, Colorado or New Mexico, all states which border mine, I face prosecution as these firearms, as legally and rightfully granted to me under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution and legally purchased, with my entire background history vetted by the Bureau of Alcohol/Tobacco and Firearms and registered in the State of Arizona, as it is not considered a "legal firearm" to possess in that state.
But the concept marriage, an issue not address in the US Constitution, is able to have the state's rights overturned?

That's not a reason to give gay people a hard time though.



You, as a person whom has had numerous issues with the governmental interference in all manner of life, wouldn't figure you would support this.
And at what point did I say I *didn't* want gays to marry?

I think you're looking to resolve an unfair double-standard in the wrong direction. That said, I'd say their double standard was understandble if misguided, America has more of a problem with firearm homicide than it does with gay couples wanting to call civil partnership contracts 'being married'.



I don't like the role the Supreme Court is taking in Activist Politics and usurping the will of the people. They are unelected and unaccountable. President and Congress are all beholden to the voters for a preset amount of time. The Court isn't.

Constitutional Republics are supposed to provide individual rights which can't be easily pushed away by the democratically expressed will of a majority. The court just interpreted the constitution in a way that upholds the individual rights of Americans living in states that have decided to be unequal in their extension of marital status in law. They're supposed to overrule democratic will when constitutionally protected individual freedoms are threatened.

I know that they only tend to do this in a way that urban liberals find agreeable, but the unequal extension of proper constitutional protections isn't a reason to sweep them all away. You ought to be glad that some of them are still functioning.

Robot Jesus
27th June 15, 12:02 PM
I hope that this will piss off old people enough that it becomes a major issue in the republican primaries.

my wet dream is a Sanders vs Cruze election, barring something more insane coming out of the woodwork.



how can Cruze even run, we were born in the same city?

MerkinMuffly
27th June 15, 01:05 PM
States which had a ban on gay marriage include California, Oregon, Wisconsin, Colorado, Florida.....among others. All states which voted Democrat in 2008. In fact, the maps which show the voting pattern in 2008 and 2012 aren't too much different from the states that had a ban on gay marriage.
Yes.
ALL "Right Wing Whacko States".
It's all a Right Wing Conspiracy.
Please change "The Fox"'s name to "Pantsuit Hilly"

Bigotry is not solely the domain of reich-wingers, but it's close.

Spade: The Real Snake
27th June 15, 01:30 PM
That's not a reason to give gay people a hard time though.

I think you're looking to resolve an unfair double-standard in the wrong direction. That said, I'd say their double standard was understandble if misguided, America has more of a problem with firearm homicide than it does with gay couples wanting to call civil partnership contracts 'being married'.
And that is not the doing of the legally vetted firearm owner. The gun homicides are the direct result of crime: stolen guns being used by criminals.
Using your metric, you are fine punishing the legal firearms owners in the same manner as the voters are "punishing the gays", yet in reverse by power of the government.



Constitutional Republics are supposed to provide individual rights which can't be easily pushed away by the democratically expressed will of a majority. The court just interpreted the constitution in a way that upholds the individual rights of Americans living in states that have decided to be unequal in their extension of marital status in law. They're supposed to overrule democratic will when constitutionally protected individual freedoms are threatened.

I know that they only tend to do this in a way that urban liberals find agreeable, but the unequal extension of proper constitutional protections isn't a reason to sweep them all away. You ought to be glad that some of them are still functioning.

Yet it doesn't in all applications.
"Common Law" marriages are not, nor need be, recognized in all states, unless they have held themselves out as spouses in a Federally recognized or judicious manner. For example, court testimony. Yet every day, thousands of old people are unable to call themselves "husband and wife" for fear of losing their government or retirement benefits.
Shit happens all the time, however the old people have less skilled PR than the gays do. Nobody gives a shit when Wilfred Brimley talks, only if Bruce Jenner does.
Fact is, the Federal Government's job is to serve the people. People have spoken in a democratically elected manner, it's just the few, unelected and unaccountable minority don't like what they said. It's the same course that started this country.

Spade: The Real Snake
27th June 15, 01:31 PM
Bigotry is not solely the domain of reich-wingers, but it's close.
That's true.
Al Gore's father and Bill Clinton's mentor were huge segregationists and worked diligently to block and and all civil rights measures in the South.
Thank God for the Republicans.
Glad you see it that way.

Cullion
27th June 15, 02:05 PM
And that is not the doing of the legally vetted firearm owner. The gun homicides are the direct result of crime: stolen guns being used by criminals.
Using your metric, you are fine punishing the legal firearms owners in the same manner as the voters are "punishing the gays", yet in reverse by power of the government.

No, not even vaguely. I'm just pointing out that snatching away basic legal rights from gay people isn't in any way going to restore your freedom to travel around the US armed.



Yet it doesn't in all applications.
"Common Law" marriages are not, nor need be, recognized in all states, unless they have held themselves out as spouses in a Federally recognized or judicious manner. For example, court testimony. Yet every day, thousands of old people are unable to call themselves "husband and wife" for fear of losing their government or retirement benefits.
Shit happens all the time, however the old people have less skilled PR than the gays do. Nobody gives a shit when Wilfred Brimley talks, only if Bruce Jenner does.
Fact is, the Federal Government's job is to serve the people. People have spoken in a democratically elected manner, it's just the few, unelected and unaccountable minority don't like what they said. It's the same course that started this country.

Constitutional rights stand above democratic will expressed in simple majority votes to elect a representative. That's the principle that protects individual rights from mobs whipped up by demagogues. This is the principle that the supreme court was acting on in its judgement. I know it does this unequally, applying it zealously to causes favoured by urban liberals and ignoring or outright trampling on it when the cause is associated, in the popular media and urban liberal thought, with the concerns of socially conservative rural crackers.. but that doesn't change whether this particular judgement is right

resolve
27th June 15, 03:03 PM
You don't want to be a "legal person" anyways imo.

But that's just the "crazy" in me talking, right NoB?

Anyways...

This is what the US can expect to look forward to soon, according to the Canadian experience.

bcGf_yOlai8

MerkinMuffly
27th June 15, 03:35 PM
This is what the US can expect to look forward to soon, according to the Canadian experience.

bcGf_yOlai8

This is great news.

MerkinMuffly
27th June 15, 03:47 PM
https://goodolewoody.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/2008061720gay20marriage.jpg?w=474

Spade: The Real Snake
27th June 15, 06:26 PM
No, not even vaguely. I'm just pointing out that snatching away basic legal rights from gay people isn't in any way going to restore your freedom to travel around the US armed.
Actually, it SHOULD set a legal precedent for my concealed carry permit, legally issued and recognized in Arizona, to be valid ANYWHERE, regardless of local municipalities Codes or Statutes.
They HAVE to recognize it.




Constitutional rights stand above democratic will expressed in simple majority votes to elect a representative. That's the principle that protects individual rights from mobs whipped up by demagogues. This is the principle that the supreme court was acting on in its judgement. I know it does this unequally, applying it zealously to causes favoured by urban liberals and ignoring or outright trampling on it when the cause is associated, in the popular media and urban liberal thought, with the concerns of socially conservative rural crackers.. but that doesn't change whether this particular judgement is right
Yes, because, as Justice Kennedy opined, the Supreme Court needs to make a decision not based on Constitutionality, but because he feels there were gays that were lonely.

Aphid Jones
28th June 15, 01:33 AM
Very early on in the gay marriage debate I championed the cause of Civil Unions amongst my friends and sending letters to legislators.
Why? Because monogamous gay people were denied ...seeing loved ones in the hospital, to inheritance, to tax burden relief, et cetera.
That's why I voted for gay civil marriage when it was on the docket.



I said that it would be best for the church to de-couple itself entirely from the governmental process*

Economic dispensation of material goods (that's what the 'all your strength' means) is part of Christian marriage. You don't want to de-couple it completely.



* There is a new pledge amongst clergy to do just that... but it is too late imo.
http://www.firstthings.com/marriage-pledge

Lol. I remember when this first came out; conservatives treating it as though boldly facing the inauguration of the New Persecutions. First Things is a continuing neo-con embarrassment.

nihilist
28th June 15, 01:39 AM
The energy expenditure by these so-called straight people on this topic is more than a little excessive.

MerkinMuffly
28th June 15, 01:42 AM
At least now the average rate of divorce will go way down.

MerkinMuffly
28th June 15, 02:11 AM
http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/06/26/exclusive-franklin-graham-warns-gay-marriage-ruling-will-lead-christian-persecution
Some rather unsurprising rhetoric and threats from Faux news.

MerkinMuffly
28th June 15, 03:08 AM
http://blog.seattlepi.com/davidhorsey/files/library/Marriage-12-15-10-web.jpg

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
28th June 15, 04:58 AM
Personally I think marriage shouldn't be a thing that is legitimized by law & should be removed as a legal entity completely.

Üser Friendly
28th June 15, 05:03 AM
^swinger

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
28th June 15, 05:08 AM
You wish.

Üser Friendly
28th June 15, 05:23 AM
I wouldn't touch you with The Fox's penis

Cullion
28th June 15, 05:52 AM
Actually, it SHOULD set a legal precedent for my concealed carry permit, legally issued and recognized in Arizona, to be valid ANYWHERE, regardless of local municipalities Codes or Statutes.
They HAVE to recognize it.

No argument there, but that's no reason to take anything away from gay people.



Yes, because, as Justice Kennedy opined, the Supreme Court needs to make a decision not based on Constitutionality, but because he feels there were gays that were lonely.

That's the media soundbite just to piss off sexually frustrated rednecks. The case itself was brought before the court in terms of 14th amendment violation, and that's what they were ruling on.

nihilist
28th June 15, 09:22 AM
Personally I think marriage shouldn't be a thing that is legitimized by law & should be removed as a legal entity completely.
The genie is is out the bottle like so many doofa testicles.

Spade: The Real Snake
28th June 15, 09:32 AM
No argument there, but that's no reason to take anything away from gay people.
Except it won't.
Because it doesn't make anyone "feel good".
And nothing was "taken away" from gay people. Christ you make it sound like they were all being led away on cattlecars to the reprogramming center.



That's the media soundbite just to piss off sexually frustrated rednecks. The case itself was brought before the court in terms of 14th amendment violation, and that's what they were ruling on.
No, that's take verbatim from his opinion.
https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/06/CIbz5KGWUAAYAli.png

nihilist
28th June 15, 09:33 AM
I wouldn't touch you with The Fox's penis
Once any penis goes inside doofa's mouth, he clamps down on it like a wolverine in heat.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
28th June 15, 09:36 AM
Its just another one of those pointless legal fictions that complicates society. If you need to make some kind of legal contract with another person (reguardless of whether your fucking them or not) then fine, do so.

I dont see why such a contract should get special status in the eyes of the law just because its called marriage.

The whole farce should be eradicated from any legal framework in my (obviously correct) opinion.

Cullion
28th June 15, 11:01 AM
Except it won't.
Because it doesn't make anyone "feel good".
And nothing was "taken away" from gay people. Christ you make it sound like they were all being led away on cattlecars to the reprogramming center.

They lacked the right to legal protections with their romantic partners that straight people have. 'I don't see the problem, we weren't putting them in concentration camps' is not a strong or intelligent argument.



No, that's take verbatim from his opinion.
https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/06/CIbz5KGWUAAYAli.png

That isn't the whole legal summary. Obergefell vs Hodges is specifically a case brought on the basis of 14th amendment rights being violated, that's the whole question they were asked to rule on.

You can read it here:-

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Üser Friendly
28th June 15, 12:40 PM
Its just another one of those pointless legal fictions that complicates society. If you need to make some kind of legal contract with another person (reguardless of whether your fucking them or not) then fine, do so.

I dont see why such a contract should get special status in the eyes of the law just because its called marriage.

The whole farce should be eradicated from any legal framework in my (obviously correct) opinion.

The state has a vested interest in stable families as a source of stable members of society

marriage, though perhaps out dated in many ways, is the institution that tries to provide that frame work

Cullion
28th June 15, 04:04 PM
marriage is about property and inheritance. uncontrolled sexual expression where people don't in any sense own each other, or create legal obligations by having sex, leads to financial anarchy. having everybody sign documents like this and presenting it as some kind of fucking hard earned reward is just way of helping keep the books nice and tidy on a municipal/national level.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
28th June 15, 05:04 PM
marriage is about property and inheritance. uncontrolled sexual expression where people don't in any sense own each other, or create legal obligations by having sex, leads to financial anarchy. having everybody sign documents like this and presenting it as some kind of fucking hard earned reward is just way of helping keep the books nice and tidy on a municipal/national level.

Exactly, if people want to pass into some sort of financial arrangement with each other then they can, this whole ludicrous legal marriage charade is bullshit.

Spade: The Real Snake
28th June 15, 07:53 PM
They lacked the right to legal protections with their romantic partners that straight people have. 'I don't see the problem, we weren't putting them in concentration camps' is not a strong or intelligent argument.
Neither is your rewording of "they were lonely"




That isn't the whole legal summary. Obergefell vs Hodges is specifically a case brought on the basis of 14th amendment rights being violated, that's the whole question they were asked to rule on.

You can read it here:-

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
His feelings have no place in a legal summery.

Spade: The Real Snake
28th June 15, 07:56 PM
marriage is about property and inheritance. uncontrolled sexual expression where people don't in any sense own each other, or create legal obligations by having sex, leads to financial anarchy. having everybody sign documents like this and presenting it as some kind of fucking hard earned reward is just way of helping keep the books nice and tidy on a municipal/national level.
And if the "Gay Community" were so ignorant of asset protection that they never heard of the concept of a Family Trust, a Living Trust, a Living Will and Power of Attorney, then they too would have been doomed like the dinosaurs their gay marriages doomed once before.
But I guess the idea of calling someone your "Partner in a Financial Living Trust" makes you 'feel lonely'

Spade: The Real Snake
28th June 15, 07:56 PM
Governments need to stick it to religious groups more often and capitulate to them less.

Regardless of the actual legal ramifications, this is a good thing, symbolically, for America and every other government ruled by sky wizard worshiper whims.
You are just hoping this paves the way for you to try and fuck 14 yr. olds under the Equal Protection Clause

Spade: The Real Snake
28th June 15, 07:59 PM
Exactly, if people want to pass into some sort of financial arrangement with each other then they can, this whole ludicrous legal marriage charade is bullshit.
They already could.
For, like, forever and stuff.
They could also make one another's medical and financial decisions under the various and sundry Powers of Attorney forms available at the even gay friendly wizardry of fucking LegalZoom.com.
No need to answer of you are gay or not or change you Facebook avatar to a rainbow fucking flag version of your picture or anything.

nihilist
28th June 15, 10:01 PM
Point to the spot on the doll where your gay uncle laughed at you.

Cullion
29th June 15, 02:03 AM
Neither is your rewording of "they were lonely"

His feelings have no place in a legal summery.

Says who? You haven't done anything to demonstrate that this ruling on the 14th amendment is wrong. You've ranted about how it's not fair that other people are allowed to get married whilst you're still restricted from carrying guns across state lines (weird but true, this was actually your first argument), then you've pointed out that without having this right, they could get most of the same things by making a little extra effort to enter into separate agreements. Your final argument is that you don't like the ruling because the summary presented to the media has some emotive language in it. Really ?

I think what you're really trying to say is that you think marriage should only be between a man and a woman, but you won't come out and say it because some saner part of you knows you can't defend it.

Feryk
29th June 15, 12:24 PM
I think Snake's larger point is one of State's rights, and that the Supreme Court seems willing to supercede them whenever they want.

Having said that, the reason the Supreme Court judges are appointed and not elected is so they DO NOT bow to public opinion and intepret things solely as a matter of law.

At least, that's the theory. So from that point of view, they did their job. Perhaps not in the way you agree with, but that's their function.

MerkinMuffly
29th June 15, 12:55 PM
Article IX was never meant to be used as a vehicle for discrimination and was rendered largely impotent by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Cullion
29th June 15, 12:56 PM
I think Snake's larger point is one of State's rights, and that the Supreme Court seems willing to supercede them whenever the state in question has violated a constitutional amendment that says 'States shall not..'.

FTFY. It's their job to intervene when that happens. This cranky conception of States Rights that Snake has ended when the South lost, and there's a whole amendment to the constitution clarifying the point that was added in 1868.

Alas Klar?

Spade: The Real Snake
29th June 15, 01:10 PM
Point to the spot on the doll where your gay uncle laughed at you.
The spot where I put you in front of a mirror.

Spade: The Real Snake
29th June 15, 01:29 PM
Says who? You haven't done anything to demonstrate that this ruling on the 14th amendment is wrong. You've ranted about how it's not fair that other people are allowed to get married whilst you're still restricted from carrying guns across state lines (weird but true, this was actually your first argument), then you've pointed out that without having this right, they could get most of the same things by making a little extra effort to enter into separate agreements. Your final argument is that you don't like the ruling because the summary presented to the media has some emotive language in it. Really ?

I think what you're really trying to say is that you think marriage should only be between a man and a woman, but you won't come out and say it because some saner part of you knows you can't defend it.
The area where there are numerous other issues that have been brought before them OR they flat-out refused to hear because they don't believe in that issue.
But I suppose it is easier for you to merely paint
me as a bigot, as one cannot prove a negative, as opposed to just accepting the fact that I view the situation more like Roberts: "not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with the five lawyers"
as opposed to Kennedy....and I don't think I need to trot-out the "lonely" quote from his opinion, again...however he, himself, in striking down a portion of the DOMA cited "state's rights autonomy" as part of the reason the Federal Governement could NOT exclude a gay lady, whom was married in Canucklestan, had it recognized in NY and was looking for Federal Inheritance Tax Exemptions.
So I guess the Feds only believe in State's Rights Autonomy when it suits their personal beliefs.

Spade: The Real Snake
29th June 15, 01:31 PM
FTFY. It's their job to intervene when that happens. This cranky conception of States Rights that Snake has ended when the South lost, and there's a whole amendment to the constitution clarifying the point that was added in 1868.

Alas Klar?
And the bulk of that dealt with the concept of establishing the slave as a free-person under the Federal Government. The whole "you aren't property and you can own stuff and everything". You are forgetting that the reason they HAD to create this Amendment was one-half of the country was trying to leave.

Spade: The Real Snake
29th June 15, 01:31 PM
I think Snake's larger point is one of State's rights, and that the Supreme Court seems willing to supercede them whenever they want.

Having said that, the reason the Supreme Court judges are appointed and not elected is so they DO NOT bow to public opinion and intepret things solely as a matter of law.

At least, that's the theory. So from that point of view, they did their job. Perhaps not in the way you agree with, but that's their function.
No.
According to Faustus and Cullion it's because I'm a bigot.
It's just easier to say I'm a bigot and be done with it.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
29th June 15, 01:59 PM
You Big Fat Bigoted Fag!

Feryk
29th June 15, 02:07 PM
No.
According to Faustus and Cullion it's because I'm a bigot.
It's just easier to say I'm a bigot and be done with it.

Whether you are a bigot or not is irrelevant to the conversation. Frankly, your viewpoint on gay marriage seems to be indifference. What I believe you have an issue with is 'law by judge'. You are not alone. But in this case, I believed the mechanism functioned as it should have - even if you have an issue with it.

Spade: The Real Snake
29th June 15, 02:22 PM
Whether you are a bigot or not is irrelevant to the conversation.
But it certainly is a convenient excuse to disregard my opinion.


Frankly, your viewpoint on gay marriage seems to be indifference. What I believe you have an issue with is 'law by judge'. You are not alone. But in this case, I believed the mechanism functioned as it should have - even if you have an issue with it.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I couldn't keep my own marriage together. Do you really think I give two fucks if a couple of gays get married? It affects my day, on average, not one iota. Unless I need to vet out legal standing. Which happens.

What I DO deal with, on a fucking daily basis, are petit bureaucrats whom think they can act autonomously. Cuz government. They tend to tread a bit more lightly when they are elected, because they know they are beholden to the whim of the people. Even judges whom are elected. However the appointees tend to act with careless and willful disregard and there has been an increase in judicial activism and, for all intent, there is very little which can be done about it.

There is no Federal Mandate of marriage. Period. You can ascertain "Equal Protection" all you wish, however there are numerous cases of there not being real and tangible equal protection. If a state, by ballot, determines they wish to acknowledge a marriage of same sex, then so be it. If they don't, then so be it. But to have 5 unelected and unaccountable judges determine which laws apply and which do not? It's ridiculous.

Üser Friendly
29th June 15, 02:30 PM
I don't think your opinion is being disregarded Snake, just disagreed with

The debate between you a Cullion was educational and enlightening

good show

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
29th June 15, 03:05 PM
And yeah I wasnt calling you a bigot Snake you fucking gay fag wanna be! Even went out of my way to +rep some of your posts you ungrateful fucking fag!

Feryk
29th June 15, 03:50 PM
But it certainly is a convenient excuse to disregard my opinion.

Which is why I won't. I don't happen to agree with the specifics of your argument, but I won't dismiss it out of hand.



Not to put too fine a point on it, but I couldn't keep my own marriage together. Do you really think I give two fucks if a couple of gays get married? It affects my day, on average, not one iota. Unless I need to vet out legal standing. Which happens. You had a very good reason for your marriage to end. It didn't 'fall apart'. It came to the logical conclusion given the parameters. Context matters. As for the rest, yes, it does. Not because of two people wanting to be together, but because it's about to hit a lot of areas of law/government practice that WILL affect you. In short:

- Gay people can name each other as pension partners. I know in some states, this allows their pension income to be creditorproofed in a way it won't be now.
- Social Security and other government benefits will now consider a gay couple a household and get corresponding benefits - which can be transferred to spouses on a survivorship basis. This will cause the costs of the program to increase.
- all the other stuff in the at Rebel.com video.

None of which is a good reason to not allow it, but it will actually have an impact on you.




What I DO deal with, on a fucking daily basis, are petit bureaucrats whom think they can act autonomously. Cuz government. They tend to tread a bit more lightly when they are elected, because they know they are beholden to the whim of the people. Even judges whom are elected. However the appointees tend to act with careless and willful disregard and there has been an increase in judicial activism and, for all intent, there is very little which can be done about it.

There is no Federal Mandate of marriage. Period. You can ascertain "Equal Protection" all you wish, however there are numerous cases of there not being real and tangible equal protection. If a state, by ballot, determines they wish to acknowledge a marriage of same sex, then so be it. If they don't, then so be it. But to have 5 unelected and unaccountable judges determine which laws apply and which do not? It's ridiculous.

The judges on the Supreme Court were approved by your Senate, weren't they? So you DID have oversight by elected and accountable officials. Perhaps a lifetime appointment is no longer feasible given that these guys can live a long time, but ask yourself if you REALLY want the FINAL authority on Legal Interpretation of the Consitution to be elected. And then consider the Tea Party.

Cullion
29th June 15, 04:01 PM
The area where there are numerous other issues that have been brought before them OR they flat-out refused to hear because they don't believe in that issue.
But I suppose it is easier for you to merely paint
me as a bigot, as one cannot prove a negative, as opposed to just accepting the fact that I view the situation more like Roberts: "not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with the five lawyers"
as opposed to Kennedy....and I don't think I need to trot-out the "lonely" quote from his opinion, again...however he, himself, in striking down a portion of the DOMA cited "state's rights autonomy" as part of the reason the Federal Governement could NOT exclude a gay lady, whom was married in Canucklestan, had it recognized in NY and was looking for Federal Inheritance Tax Exemptions.
So I guess the Feds only believe in State's Rights Autonomy when it suits their personal beliefs.

I don't want to believe you're a bigot, but your argument basically consists of ranting about how this new found respect for the constitution on the part of the supreme court judges isn't being applied evenly. I want you to parse what I write next very carefully:-

I completely agree that what they're doing isn't even-handed and fair. But this point is critical; that does not make it incorrect. The 14th Amendment absolutely does overturn states rights when it comes to certain issues of equal treatment under the law, it was deliberately passed to change the settlement between the states and the federal government where states rights vs individual rights are concerned, and that amendment isn't worded so that it only applies to former slaves.
You ought to look for them to change their minds about all the other things, rather than this thing. If you keep insisting on being angry about this particular thing for gay people being allowed, guess what, most people will assume that it's because you're a bigot.

Does that make sense to you ?

Spade: The Real Snake
29th June 15, 04:18 PM
it's about to hit a lot of areas of law/government practice that WILL affect you. In short:

- Gay people can name each other as pension partners. I know in some states, this allows their pension income to be creditorproofed in a way it won't be now.
Honestly, in the long-term, I don't really see this as being TOO big of a problem, unless we are talking about government pensions. Then, to be honest, it should be tiered based on household income, since this isn't the 1950s with a single-income household.


- Social Security and other government benefits will now consider a gay couple a household and get corresponding benefits - which can be transferred to spouses on a survivorship basis. This will cause the costs of the program to increase.
This is the largest area of problem. This and the new ability to file jointly. The Feds aren't going to take a tax hit based on the, likely 10-20% of newly minted spouses filing jointly, instead of separately. The lower tax base is going to hit Obamacare hard and I doubt his sacred cow will take the hit. The taxation base is the biggest problem I have been discussing, for years, on this issue.
When it comes to the Feds: "They will get theirs". I am sure this will create some new manner of Federal Department of Marriage Equality or something.


- all the other stuff in the at Rebel.com video.

None of which is a good reason to not allow it, but it will actually have an impact on you.

Yeah, there will be a large increase in cost in needing to rewrite and reword EVERYTHING. Wonder if this means that Equal Protection should allow a white person from building a house on Sovereign Tribal land. Or qualify for Federal minority college grants and loans and scholarships and stuff.





The judges on the Supreme Court were approved by your Senate, weren't they? So you DID have oversight by elected and accountable officials. Perhaps a lifetime appointment is no longer feasible given that these guys can live a long time, but ask yourself if you REALLY want the FINAL authority on Legal Interpretation of the Consitution to be elected. And then consider the Tea Party.
No, that's accountability by proxy. If McCain directly supports something I don't like, he answers, directly, to me and every other registered voter in our state. Directly. Like he has to campaign around the state in another couple of years and say, "Oh, hey...'member that time I said I was gonna then didn't?? Yeah....good times, good times."
The President nominates and Congress confirms. Just like the Department of Health and Human Services. I can't get DHHS head fired by not voting for her, because her job is a sacred cow, and that is precisely how they act.
However, next election cycle, they are likely gone.
Not the case with the Supreme Court. They can legislate from the bench.

Spade: The Real Snake
29th June 15, 04:22 PM
I don't want to believe you're a bigot, but your argument basically consists of ranting about how this new found respect for the constitution on the part of the supreme court judges isn't being applied evenly. I want you to parse what I write next very carefully:-

I completely agree that what they're doing isn't even-handed and fair. But this point is critical; that does not make it incorrect. The 14th Amendment absolutely does overturn states rights when it comes to certain issues of equal treatment under the law, it was deliberately passed to change the settlement between the states and the federal government where states rights vs individual rights are concerned, and that amendment isn't worded so that it only applies to former slaves.
You ought to look for them to change their minds about all the other things, rather than this thing. If you keep insisting on being angry about this particular thing for gay people being allowed, guess what, most people will assume that it's because you're a bigot.

Does that make sense to you ?
Do you understand that Marriage is not a Federal Contract and is valid and enforceable only under that specific state's law? One state does not have to honor or recognize a marriage license any more so than they have to honor and recognize a driver's license or CCW license.
In fact, they don't. They require you to apply for a driver's license in that state.
And the Supreme Court already ruled that the Federal DOMA cannot negate a state's sovereign ability to recognize, or not, a marriage contract.
Again, Kennedy is a hypocrite.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
29th June 15, 04:38 PM
I've never seen him write so much before.

Kinda reminds me of resolve on a good day.

Cullion
29th June 15, 05:19 PM
Do you understand that Marriage is not a Federal Contract and is valid and enforceable only under that specific state's law?

That doesn't matter. The 14th Amendment is not about states applying federal law unequally, it prevents them from applying their own law unequally.


No State shall make or enforce any law which..



One state does not have to honor or recognize a marriage license any more so than they have to honor and recognize a driver's license or CCW license.

But no state can give out drivers licences or CCW licences in a manner by which citizens are not treated equally under the law. It would be illegal for Texas to issue driver's licences only to white people, for example.



And the Supreme Court already ruled that the Federal DOMA cannot negate a state's sovereign ability to recognize, or not, a marriage contract.

And as long as no state discriminates in who it allows to marry, then the above is perfectly consistent with the 14th Amendment.



Again, Kennedy is a hypocrite.

It doesn't matter that Kennedy is a hypocrite, Kennedy is right this time and you are not. And trying to make gay people miserable still isn't going to get you the right to carry firearms across state borders.

OZZ
30th June 15, 10:44 AM
What difference does it make now anyways ?
The gay community has enough clout now that their votes matter, so they have been getting what they want for years.
Including influencing the sex-ed curriculum here in our Ontario schools..now that is fucking bullshit.
We have a dyke Premiere and there was a convicted kiddie-porn addict in charge of our sex ed program overhaul - but its all well and good - because someone might get their feelings hurt.
Stay the fuck out of my face.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
30th June 15, 10:55 AM
The Good LordŽ help them if they're Chinese & gay!

Üser Friendly
30th June 15, 11:28 AM
Gaynese

Adouglasmhor
1st July 15, 12:30 AM
FTFY. It's their job to intervene when that happens. This cranky conception of States Rights that Snake has ended when the South lost, and there's a whole amendment to the constitution clarifying the point that was added in 1868.

Alas Klar?

Alles; Bruder.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
1st July 15, 01:55 PM
Snakes true identity revealed!!!!!!!!!!


Cornerstone Baptist Church founder Pastor John Hagee blasted the U.S. Supreme Court this week for a “naked judicial power grab” over its recent decision legalizing same-sex marriage.

In his first comments on the marriage ruling, Hagee warned that the Supreme Court had become a “threat to American democracy.”

“We are entering an era of judicial tyranny,” he explained. “This ruling is a direct attack on states’ rights. This ruling prohibits states from defining marriage as an institution consisting of one man and one woman. This naked judicial power grab by the court is at odds with our system of government.”

“This Supreme Court has made America the new Sodom and Gomorrah,” he added. “God will have to judge America or is going to have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.”

Full Raw Story article. (http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/pastor-john-hagee-tells-god-punish-america-for-same-sex-marriage-or-apologize-to-sodom-and-gomorrah/)

Feryk
2nd July 15, 02:29 PM
This is NOT over. Well, it IS over, but the religious right is going to keep pushing, regardless.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
2nd July 15, 03:21 PM
I think you're gonna see a lot more right wing nut jobs popping up in the US

nihilist
14th July 15, 12:15 AM
I think you're gonna see a lot more right wing nut jobs popping up in the US

You mean like this freakazoid?

vAo1pmaUxlY

Adouglasmhor
14th July 15, 12:59 AM
You mean like this freakazoid?

vAo1pmaUxlY

It's not funny to mock the mentally afflicted; no I take that back, sometimes it is.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
14th July 15, 08:22 AM
Poor woman.

Pie of Hate
14th July 15, 08:31 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xinLivR8Sp0

Harpy
17th July 15, 05:49 AM
Australia better achieve marriage equality before the year is out.

Syntactical Disruptorize
17th July 15, 07:42 AM
I finally read the majority opinion and the dissent.

My overall reaction is that the Court got this one right. I'm not normally on board with courts making law, but in this case they stuck pretty closely to previous rulings, and their reasoning was solid. States do not, in fact, have the general right to impose arbitrarily on the rights of despised subgroups. Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment may have been enacted in the context of the Civil War's aftermath, but its wording is very general. It extends a promise. And that promise is not restricted to one subgroup.

I do have some reservations about the opinion. The "right to dignity" is specifically called out as unspecific, to be interpreted according to the social context of the day, as is the right to privacy; this seems like a mandate for the court to do whatever it likes at the time. Kennedy's flights of poetry reinforce the idea that this was a decision driven by a desired outcome rather than by legal reasoning. That combination doesn't appeal to me.

However, these are trivial quibbles. I don't intend to get married, but I'll be damned if I want some pissant legislature to tell me that I can't. Arguments that I can achieve similar results through other, varied means have a certain odor to them..."separate but equal," perhaps. I do hope this reasoning is applied to concealed carry and other firearms-related civil rights. But the way to do that is to make that argument, not to invalidate this one.

Feryk
17th July 15, 10:32 AM
Australia better achieve marriage equality before the year is out.

Shit, I thought they already had. WTF is wrong with you people?

Syntactical Disruptorize
17th July 15, 10:49 AM
Australia better achieve marriage equality before the year is out.
What will you do to make that happen? Or will you just demand that men do it for you, then call yourself empowered and independent?

Pie of Hate
17th July 15, 10:53 AM
I just wish that they'd have sorted all this out before I married a woman. I could be watching sports and drinking beer instead of coffee and soap operas.

Pie of Hate
17th July 15, 10:56 AM
Are you using the FBI's new definition?

nihilist
17th July 15, 12:06 PM
Look on the bright side Lily, you can still marry your siblings.