Gay Marriage Upheld by Supreme Court

[Troglodyte]

wait till priests are forced to marry gays and school teachers required to teach the gay lifestyle, then the fun starts - that's just the beginning

Jocelyn Elders suggested masterbation be taught in schools 20+ years ago (I still chuckle) and that hasn't happened.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Jocelyn Elders suggested masterbation be taught in schools 20+ years ago (I still chuckle) and that hasn't happened.

No? Taking 12 year olds to an adult toy store and teaching them about vibrators is somehow different?

http://www.startribune.com/minneapo...toy-store-for-sex-education-lesson/305770831/

Take a look at the sex education going on in this country right now. Jocelyn is slowly getting her wish.

 

[Spike]

Silence! You will be told what to think.


Paper Will Limit Anti-Gay Marriage Op-Eds

The editorial board of PennLive/The Patriot-News in Harrisburg, Pa. is taking a hardcore stance against those who disagree with the Supreme Court ruling to legalize gay marriage.

“As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage,” they declared.


After receiving strong pushback, the newspaper’s editorial board, which is overseen by Editorial Page Editor John Micek, quickly revised its policy.

Freedom of speech will be allowed — but only for a “limited” period of time.

Micek explained on Twitter: “Clarification: We will not foreclose discussion of the high court’s decision, but arguments that gay marriage is wrong/unnatural are out.”

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/26/the-silencing-paper-will-limit-anti-gay-marriage-op-eds/

 

[TAS]

I don't get all the hype around this. I mean, I guess if you are gay, this is the top of the mountain. If you're not gay, I do not see how it affects your life. I know a handful of gay people, and they seem pretty "meh" over the whole deal. Whatever. Yay for gays! What's on TV tonight?

I don't give a **** about who gets married. I do get really pissed when the courts decide to discount the people's vote. Gay marriage has been voted down many times by the people.

 

[oneforthebus]

What bothers me again is this is not supposed to be the province of the Supreme Court. They were tasked with deciding whether this is a state or federal issue according to the Constitution. They were not supposed to base their decision on the merits of gay marriage or their personal opinion on what the definition of marriage should be. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution or any of its amendments that defines marriage as some sort of protected Constitutional right. We have an amendment process in this country which could be utilized to delineate it as such, in accordance with the wishes of a supposedly self-governing populace.

This is a court that seems to have entirely forgotten what its role is. And I say this as someone who has no problem with gay marriage and who figured on it becoming law in all 50 states eventually anyway.

 

[Spike]

Scalia: Gay marriage decision shows court is America's 'ruler'

“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court,” he writes.

“This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...sion-shows-court-is-americas-ruler/ar-AAcaHNF

 

[deljzc]

We were at a tipping point where so many of the states accepted gay marriage that having 10-12 "dissenting" locations became problematic. What happens if a married couple recognized in California has an car accident in Texas and a "spouse" was refused the right to decide life support or medical care?

In the opinion of the liberal side of the Supreme Court it became more important to just take the leap and force this issue upon the country once and or all. They did it with many of the civil rights issues as well. The few states that wanted to hang on to Jim Crow laws had to finally be forced to "catch up" to America. And they did it with abortion in 1973.

In most instances when the court overreaches on it's power a bit, they turn out to be mostly "ahead of the time" and in 20-30 years we'll look back at the idea of arguing over a word like "marriage" as kind of silly.

But I do somewhat agree with the conservative justices that this is a somewhat abusive act by the judicial branch. That it is beyond what the founding fathers had intended the judicial branch to be doing in the 1776 "blueprint" of our country. But in many ways that original blueprint has to bend and morph a bit for the times. I'm all for states' rights. I'm all for leaning more towards a a true united states republic and less toward a one-nation democracy. I want larger state governments, more state taxes, more state programs and less federal government, less federal taxes and less federal responsibility.

But I also understand that on some issues having states do their own things causes more trouble than it's worth and on this issue I think I agree with the Supreme Court verdict.

 

[oneforthebus]

We were at a tipping point where so many of the states accepted gay marriage that having 10-12 "dissenting" locations became problematic. What happens if a married couple recognized in California has an car accident in Texas and a "spouse" was refused the right to decide life support or medical care?

In the opinion of the liberal side of the Supreme Court it became more important to just take the leap and force this issue upon the country once and or all. They did it with many of the civil rights issues as well. The few states that wanted to hang on to Jim Crow laws had to finally be forced to "catch up" to America. And they did it with abortion in 1973.

In most instances when the court overreaches on it's power a bit, they turn out to be mostly "ahead of the time" and in 20-30 years we'll look back at the idea of arguing over a word like "marriage" as kind of silly.

But I do somewhat agree with the conservative justices that this is a somewhat abusive act by the judicial branch. That it is beyond what the founding fathers had intended the judicial branch to be doing in the 1776 "blueprint" of our country. But in many ways that original blueprint has to bend and morph a bit for the times. I'm all for states' rights. I'm all for leaning more towards a a true united states republic and less toward a one-nation democracy. I want larger state governments, more state taxes, more state programs and less federal government, less federal taxes and less federal responsibility.

But I also understand that on some issues having states do their own things causes more trouble than it's worth and on this issue I think I agree with the Supreme Court verdict.

In other words, these 9 unelected people know what's best for us and they do not have to follow the Constitution on issues where they have strong personal opinions.

Lord help us.

 

[Shane Falco]

I don't give a **** about who gets married. I do get really pissed when the courts decide to discount the people's vote. Gay marriage has been voted down many times by the people.

It used to be of the people, for the people and by the people. Now it's of the people, for the people and f*ck the people

 

[MT~Forged]

This decision was a no brainer, and way past time that it was put to bed.

For all those that are against it, just replace "Gay" with "Black" and tell us why Black's should not be allowed to marry. Not too long ago Black's were still treated as 3rd class citizens, because a group of people "Voted" that they could. My aunt and uncle used to tell us all the stories, and NO ONE should ever be subjected to that kind of treatment, EVER.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

This decision was a no brainer, and way past time that it was put to bed.

For all those that are against it, just replace "Gay" with "Black" and tell us why Black's should not be allowed to marry. Not too long ago Black's were still treated as 3rd class citizens, because a group of people "Voted" that they could. My aunt and uncle used to tell us all the stories, and NO ONE should ever be subjected to that kind of treatment, EVER.

I don't believe you'll find many here who were against it.

It's the manner in which it was achieved that is the issue. That and what happens in the future to Religion. How long until churches speaking about homosexuality being a sin are condoned as using hate speech and our "other" freedoms are destroyed? It's already happening in the business world. It won't be long till Big Daddy Federal Government takes control of our religion as well. Then...

That is my major beef.

I truly do not care if someone is gay or lesbian. Not in the least. But when them getting their rights means we losing ours...that's where I draw the line. And when the Judicial branch and the Executive branch violate their solemnly sworn duties and bypass the rules by which they operate to circumvent the Constitution, well...what is next?

These checks and balances are and have been core to our security and safety. Now, one leader, or a handful, can bypass our wants. They just did.

Trust me...this is the beginning of the slippery slope.

 

[Spike]

Trust me...this is the beginning of the slippery slope.

It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy

Why group marriage is the next horizon of social liberalism.

The question presents itself: Where does the next advance come? The answer is going to make nearly everyone uncomfortable: Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.

This is not an abstract issue. In Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he remarks, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.”

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...n-polygamy-119469.html?cmpid=sf#ixzz3eBghjMqc
==============================

that's a lot of pies

 

[Spike]

It used to be of the people, for the people and by the people. Now it's of the people, for the people and f*ck the people

Somewhere Putin is laughing

 

[oneforthebus]

This decision was a no brainer, and way past time that it was put to bed.

For all those that are against it, just replace "Gay" with "Black" and tell us why Black's should not be allowed to marry. Not too long ago Black's were still treated as 3rd class citizens, because a group of people "Voted" that they could. My aunt and uncle used to tell us all the stories, and NO ONE should ever be subjected to that kind of treatment, EVER.

Once again, the objection here isn't about whether one supports or opposes gay marriage. It's about SCOTUS declaring that marriage is some kind of fundamental human right. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but that's not their job to decide. It's their job to decide whether our Constitution delineates marriage as a fundamental human right, which it does not. If we don't like that, we have avenues to change that. Now it seems that all it takes to amend the Constitution is to have a lawyer convince 5 guys that it ought to say something that it doesn't.

What happens when 5 justices decide that they feel strongly that it's in everyone's best interest to declare the second amendment doesn't mean what it actually says? Or that they feel strongly that it's in everyone's best interest if certain groups aren't allowed free speech because they're offensive? This isn't how we're supposed to go about things here.

 

[Yinzerlyn]

Somewhere Putin is laughing

Yeah.....that picture pisses me off. And I support their right to marry. So much for showing support for those who oppose it. President of the people. my ***.

 

[oneforthebus]

Somewhere Putin is laughing

That is an embarrassment.

 

[Tibs]

That is an embarrassment.

I totally agree. The person taking the picture should have stood a bit to the right so the tree branch doesn't ruin the shot.

 

[EdReed4Prez]

Somewhere Putin is laughing

 

[Shane Falco]

Why? One nagging wife isn't enough? Have at it

It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy

Why group marriage is the next horizon of social liberalism.

The question presents itself: Where does the next advance come? The answer is going to make nearly everyone uncomfortable: Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.

This is not an abstract issue. In Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he remarks, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.”

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...n-polygamy-119469.html?cmpid=sf#ixzz3eBghjMqc
==============================

that's a lot of pies

 

[Shane Falco]

And Kruschev is smiling

Somewhere Putin is laughing

 

[Sarge]

I LOL'd when I saw this. This President was firmly against gay marriage before he was for it. He evolved. Colored the White House like a rainbow. Whatever. That anyone buys this pandering nonsense is comical.

The US Government has become a side show. The citizenry is obsessed with **** that doesn't matter. If the US wasn't armed with nuclear weapons, I doubt any nation on Earth would take us seriously. Sure, it is sad, the cess pool our country has become. There is no going back. The horse is out of the barn. That ship has sailed. All you can do is just laugh and enjoy the ride around the white circular water slide.

 

[DBS1970]

So does this mean we are going to take the good faith clause and apply it to things like CCW permits?

 

[Tibs]

Sign of the times...

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Sign of the times...

Indeed, the beginnings of oppression. Some flags can be waved, others not. Some words can be spoken, others not. You are no longer as free as you were yesterday or a week ago. And a select few are determining what is now acceptable for the masses, and bypassing our checks and balances system to implement what they want.

Tomorrow it might be Hildabeast. Or it could be a Conservative. But our Checks and Balances are gone. Precedent has been set. One man (or woman) can nearly act as a dictator in the USA.

That's some scary ****.

Those, like you, who are currently getting their way, will one day be crying as well. Before this all melts down around us.

 

[Tibs]

Indeed, the beginnings of oppression.

Truly, gays getting married is going to oppress us all. And the confederate flag not being flown on state property, how is that a bad thing?

Before this all melts down around us.

Yeah, right-wingers have been crying "this is melting down around us" since the beginning of time.