Good point, but in this case I believe I read that the majority support ss marriage.
G.O.P. Hopefuls Denounce Marriage Equality Ruling
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
wait.... how could could changing a figurative institution have a substantive impact on society?
I wish we could just stop the leftist bullshit for once and say... hey we want 1.6 percent of the population to be married if they want to do it, even if it is does change an important institution of large organized societies.
But note... we still don't want 2 women and a man to be married. So you old school mormons... keep hiding.
I wish we could just stop the leftist bullshit for once and say... hey we want 1.6 percent of the population to be married if they want to do it, even if it is does change an important institution of large organized societies.
But note... we still don't want 2 women and a man to be married. So you old school mormons... keep hiding.
Here's the marriage rate of one country after they legalized homosexual marriage:
When marriage is no longer a special, sacred union, but just a couple of dudes having butt sex, then what's the point, really?
So we've all heard the connection between single parent households and poverty:
Iow, it's all going to lead to a poverty mired hellhole. :eek:
Fabulous
Last edited:
Yup. Straight folks have no monopoly on obnoxiousness behavior, that's for sure. I just try to maintain a perspective on these antics and realize that the majority of gays, at least the ones i know, would never run naked through the streets of Toronto. They might consider it though.
So Jem, imagine you were going to argue the case against gay marriage before the Court. What argument would you use to convince the court that you or other heterosexual people could suffer substantive harm to your constitutional rights if gays were allowed to marry. I'm afraid harm to the figurative institution of marriage is not substantive. You'll have to go back to the drawing board on that one. And you'll also have to show that the substantive harm done to you, and many others, outweighs the substantive harm done to gay people by being denied the right to equal protection.
And while I'm at it, what on Earth does this have to do with Left or Right politics. You seem to try and force every issue, no matter how far from politics into a political mold. This is a purely constitutional issue. In spite of that ridiculous comment of Roberts. If you don't believe it, read the Majority Opinion! And the pleadings! . .
Is Dick Cheney your idea of a "lefty"? Is Laura Bush your idea of a "Lefty"' ? Hah! What an idiot you can be at times! Dick Cheney is further right than Josef Mengele, and twice as evil!!!
Here for your personal enjoyment is what's his names take (Oh, it's Stephen Colbert.):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/28/stephen-colbert-scotus-gay-marriage_n_7680398.html
[added in edit: In case you didn't realize it, Dickie and Laura are staunch supporters of Gays being able to marry. Hah, again!]
P.S. I know your a supporter of gays being able to marry, so don't blow your cover, and wreck our high opinion of you with nonsense comments. Take credit graciously for being on the "right" side of this issue.
Last edited:
Yup. Straight folks have no monopoly on obnoxiousness behavior, that's for sure. I just try to maintain a perspective on these antics and realize that the majority of gays, at least the ones i know, would never run naked through the streets of Toronto. They might consider it though.
The funny part is that I work with a large IT crew, many of whom recently came to Canada in the last few months from Asia and are single & under 30.
They heard last week there was parade this weekend in Toronto where many people would take off their clothes. Then I had to explain to them it was mainly guys doing that and they were quite disappointed.
you are completely reversing the way constitutional law jurisprudence should happen.
Since its the supreme court I don't feel like re litigating these issues in detail.
But, I did comment extensively when the CA supreme court overruled the vote of the people.
in short...
this court should have left this up to the states, as even Justice Roberts stated.
and the state courts should have left this up to a vote of the people
especially if the people created an equivalent status for gay couples.. such as gayiage.
If the courts found it necessary to overrule the vote of the people in each state then they should have gotten the state out of the marriage business.
regarding left right... I was referring to you as the lefty.
you are a pro soros, propublica big govt supporting lefty. you supported the IRS going after conservatives ... calling yourself a libertarian is like a bill clinton calling himself a mongamous.
Since its the supreme court I don't feel like re litigating these issues in detail.
But, I did comment extensively when the CA supreme court overruled the vote of the people.
in short...
this court should have left this up to the states, as even Justice Roberts stated.
and the state courts should have left this up to a vote of the people
especially if the people created an equivalent status for gay couples.. such as gayiage.
If the courts found it necessary to overrule the vote of the people in each state then they should have gotten the state out of the marriage business.
regarding left right... I was referring to you as the lefty.
you are a pro soros, propublica big govt supporting lefty. you supported the IRS going after conservatives ... calling yourself a libertarian is like a bill clinton calling himself a mongamous.
Last edited:
Interesting read on the legal history leading to the case...
How the 1942 case of a one-footed chicken thief laid the foundation for marriage equality
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...w_skinner_v_oklahoma_laid_the_foundation.html
How the 1942 case of a one-footed chicken thief laid the foundation for marriage equality
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...w_skinner_v_oklahoma_laid_the_foundation.html
You've got some interesting points, but they're all wrong of course. In case you did not notice the decision was 5 to 4 against Roberts. In other words, the majority did not agree with him that this was a States Rights issue. You are a lawyer. Didn't they teach you in law school that the Constitution trumps States Rights if they are in conflict? This was a Constitutional issue. And the Majority held that way. Sorry for your side. You lose this one. Maybe next time!
The Court rules only on what it is asked to rule on. They were not asked to consider the question of whether the States should be in the marriage business, as you put it.
And yes, of course I am a libertarian. You're confused, which is understandable, considering all these tea party folks who are calling themselves "libertarians".
Very interesting. Thank you.