Gay Marriage Upheld by Supreme Court

[Rod Farva]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/28/whos-godless-now-russia-says-its-us/

Strange times indeed.

 

[Spike]

Putin: America Is Godless, Has Turned Away from Christian Values

If all 50 states had voted for gay marriage, then he might have a point

Our government has turned it's back on God, there's a difference.

 

[TAS]

 

[Spike]

1st same sex marriage in Jackson, Mississippi

You know me. I am very tolerant of slavegirls of all persuasions


Looks like there's a room for a third in that thar picture there - are they bi?

 

[MT~Forged]

Do they have any footage of the honeymoon?

 

[Steelr4evr]

1st same sex marriage in Jackson, Mississippi

You know me. I am very tolerant of slavegirls of all persuasions




Looks like there's a room for a third in that thar picture there - are they bi?

Way too pretty to be full blown dykes. I'm calling bs.

 

[Yinzerlyn]

I thought they were sisters....wait...that's legal under this ruling, right? Since it's between two people?

 

[SteelChip]

I can't top that, but there is a point Scalia made that's not been brought to the forefront.

Scalia notes that the current Supreme Court “consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School.” Besides their elite legal background, Scalia points out a couple other relevant facts:

Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single South-westerner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.
http://click.heritage.org/v1PY0r0E0seTMpmfH03K000

Whodda thunk it ?

 

[Rod Farva]

If all 50 states had voted for gay marriage, then he might have a point

Our government has turned it's back on God, there's a difference.

I report, you decide.

 

[IndySteel]

..................................

 

[TAS]

1st same sex marriage in Jackson, Mississippi

You know me. I am very tolerant of slavegirls of all persuasions


Looks like there's a room for a third in that thar picture there - are they bi?

Complete waste of perfectly good vagina.

 

[oneforthebus]

I can't top that, but there is a point Scalia made that's not been brought to the forefront.

Scalia notes that the current Supreme Court “consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School.” Besides their elite legal background, Scalia points out a couple other relevant facts:

Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single South-westerner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.
http://click.heritage.org/v1PY0r0E0seTMpmfH03K000

Whodda thunk it ?

Crazy talk!

Seriously, Scalia's opinion is brilliant, reasoned and makes total sense but is being trashed in the media as the hateful rantings of a lunatic.

 

[Spike]

Montana trio applies for wedding license

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — A Montana man said Wednesday that he was inspired by last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage to apply for a marriage license so that he can legally wed his second wife.

Nathan Collier and his wives Victoria and Christine applied at the Yellowstone County Courthouse in Billings on Tuesday in an attempt to legitimize their polygamous marriage. Montana, like all 50 states, outlaws bigamy — holding multiple marriage licenses — but Collier said he plans to sue if the application is denied.

"It's about marriage equality," Collier told The Associated Press Wednesday. "You can't have this without polygamy."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6f9f...nts-protesters-gather-indiana-church-cannabis

 

[TAS]

Do your part

 

[oneforthebus]

 

[Rod Farva]

View attachment 1569

Pretty funny.