View Full Version : Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide
Whiskey_Bravo
06-26-15, 09:18
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-06-26-10-02-52
Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide
Gay marriage has been decided and is now legal nation wide, no more state bans.
Moose-Knuckle
06-26-15, 09:24
Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America
http://www.amazon.com/Men-Black-Supreme-Destroying-America/dp/1596980095
Roberts dissented on this one.
SomeOtherGuy
06-26-15, 09:36
Awesome week for SCOTUS decisions. I'm sure the Founders would be so proud.
I'm happy. Now we'll never have to worry about this whole gay rights thing again. Issue officially solved. We can move on.
Now we'll never have to worry about this whole gay rights thing again. Issue officially solved. We can move on.
Wrong! Now we will have to try the cases of people exercising their rights to not provide services for said marriages.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-26-15, 09:47
Roberts dissented on this one.
Like saying the Devil thru some Canadian coins in the Salvation Army Kettle.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-26-15, 09:48
Wrong! Now we will have to try the cases of people exercising their rights to not provide services for said marriages.
When the best examples of discrimination is that people won't bake them a cake..... Wow, that is really tough on gays and my four year old son.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-06-26-10-02-52
Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide
Gay marriage has been decided and is now legal nation wide, no more state bans.
As there's no Constitutional basis for it being banned, an obvious outcome. Too bad so much time and effort had to be wasted getting to an obvious conclusion. I'll actually be interested to read what the dissenters had to say on the matter. Maybe we can move onto topics that actually matter?
Here's my real Q: what does the state or Feds have any business in marriage at all?
Averageman
06-26-15, 09:50
Legislating from the bench.
I'm not sure why this was an issue, I'm not sure it will even matter in the grand scheme of things, but we are watching history happen.
I'm not sure how much longer we will hold this republic together.
This is only the beginning. Give them an inch and they'll want a mile.
SCALIA: The Supreme Court is a 'threat to American democracy'
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/scalia-gay-marriage-dissent-2015-6#ixzz3eBHR366J
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Oh my god. Come one guys, how does this effect you? Who cares. This is the least of our worries. Live and let live on this one, I say. The constitution does not say anything forbidding it, there is no reason to prevent it.
Roberts dissented on this one.
And he said they court isn't a legislative body in the process... To hell with him.
Oh my god. Come one guys, how does this effect you? Who cares. This is the least of our worries. Live and let live on this one, I say. The constitution does not say anything forbidding it, there is no reason to prevent it.
Some honest questions.
1. Have you have ever taken even a few moments to actually ever bother studying the issue?
2. Since you clearly support the government having the power and authority to redefine the term "marriage" to mean anything it wants, do you also support the government having the power and authority to redefine the term"assault-weapon" to mean anything it wants?
3. Why do you think any of the lunatic leftist agenda of Obama, Hillary, Cuomo, Feinstein, and Boxer, is something you should support or turn a blind eye too.
The Audacity of the State
It’s Bent on Bringing Down the House on the Family & the Church
"..Replaced by a kaleidoscope of transient sexual and psychological configurations, which serve chiefly to make children of adults and adults of children, the declining family is ceding enormous tracts of social and legal territory to the state. At law, parent-child relationships are losing their a priori status and privilege. Crafty fools ask foolish fools, “What harm does same-sex marriage do to your marriage, or to your family?” The truthful answer is: Same-sex marriage makes us all chattels of the state, because the state, in presuming to define the substance rather than the accidents of marriage, has made marriage itself a state artefact."
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-01-028-f
Why Fight Same-Sex Marriage?
Is There Really That Much at Stake?
A Tool of the State
Six years ago, when same-sex marriage became law in Canada, ...consequential amendments section, Bill C-38 struck out the language of “natural parent,” “blood relationship,” etc., from all Canadian laws. Wherever they were found, these expressions were replaced with “legal parent,” “legal relationship,” and so forth.
That was strictly necessary. “Marriage” was now a legal fiction, a tool of the state, not a natural and pre-political institution recognized and in certain respects (age, consanguinity, consent, exclusivity) regulated by the state. And the state’s goal, as directed by its courts, was to assure absolute equality for same-sex couples. The problem? Same-sex couples could be parents, but not parents of common children. Granting them adoption rights could not fully address the difference. Where natural equality was impossible, however, formal or legal equality was required. To achieve it, “heterosexual marriages” had to be conformed in law to “homosexual marriages.” The latter produced non-reproductive units, constituted not by nature but by law; the former had therefore to be put on the same footing, and were.
The aim of such legislation, as F. C. DeCoste has observed in “Courting Leviathan” (Alberta Law Review, 2005),
is to de-naturalize the family by rendering familial relationships, in their entirety, expressions of law. But relationships of that sort—bled as they are of the stuff of social tradition and experience—are no longer family relationships at all. They are rather policy relationships, defined and imposed by the state.
Here we have what is perhaps the most pressing reason why same-sex marriage should be fought, and fought vigorously. It is a reason that neither the proponents nor the opponents of same-sex marriage have properly debated or thought through. In attacking “heterosexual monogamy,” same-sex marriage does away with the very institution—the only institution we have—that exists precisely in order to support the natural family and to affirm its independence from the state. In doing so, it effectively makes every citizen a ward of the state, by turning his or her most fundamental human connections into legal constructs at the state’s gift and disposal.
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=25-01-024-f
Digital_Damage
06-26-15, 10:28
Who cares, no harm no foul.
I would like to know how this will effects the tax base however.
Digital_Damage
06-26-15, 10:31
As there's no Constitutional basis for it being banned, an obvious outcome. Too bad so much time and effort had to be wasted getting to an obvious conclusion. I'll actually be interested to read what the dissenters had to say on the matter. Maybe we can move onto topics that actually matter?
Here's my real Q: what does the state or Feds have any business in marriage at all?
Would like to know as well... Eliminate the tax break and call it a day. Let individuals decide what it means to be married.
The best outcome for GOP candidates. Now it's not an issue for debate as it's "settled" and they might finally be able to draw some of the moderate and independent votes, especially among the younger folk.
If SCOTUS decided it was a states' rights issue, I'd bet a lot of money on another liberal sitting in the White House in 2017.
Digital_Damage
06-26-15, 10:33
The best outcome for GOP candidates. Now it's not an issue for debate as it's "settled" and they might finally be able to draw some of the moderate and independent votes, especially among the younger folk.
If they could only shut up about this and choice they would actual make progress...
Some honest questions.
1. Have you have ever taken even a few moments to actually ever bother studying the issue?
2. Since you clearly support the government having the power and authority to redefine the term "marriage" to mean anything it wants, do you also support the government having the power and authority to redefine the term"assault-weapon" to mean anything it wants?
3. Why do you think any of the lunatic leftist agenda of Obama, Hillary, Cuomo, Feinstein, and Boxer, is something you should support or turn a blind eye too.
Who should define the meaning of the word? A fictional book written about a magical deity?
Why can two dudes in Cali get married, move to another state and not have their union be recognized? I have the same problem with states not recognizing CCW permits from other states. All states recognize all US drivers licenses, why not marriage licences?
I see your point regarding definition of terms and "Assault Weapon" as being another one. I get your point, but I still feel that homos should be able to do as they wish when it comes to getting married in any state they wish.
If they could only shut up about this and choice they would actual make progress...
I'm not sure I understand your sentence? By "and choice" do you mean pro-choice/life?
BoringGuy45
06-26-15, 10:37
There's no basis for why it should be banned. The state is not the church; if gay people want to get marriage licenses, fine.
However, there's going to be a HUGE battle when (and it's a when, not if) they try to make a law that churches must perform same sex marriages and try to declare that speaking against homosexuality is speech not protected by the 1st Amendment.
The left isn't going to be content with this victory. It's not enough to obey Big Brother. You must love him as well.
There's no basis for why it should be banned. The state is not the church; if gay people want to get marriage licenses, fine.
I am fine with this as well. I have long advocated for civil unions and equal benefits.
brickboy240
06-26-15, 10:44
I knew...just KNEW there would be some here that would blow a gasket when this came down.
I could care less....the ruling on Obamacare is ten times more damaging to us than homos marrying.
Maybe this means this silly issue is off the table for the 2016 elections? I hope so...the left loves to trip up GOP candidates and watch them squirm when they bring up homos marrying! LOL
I knew...just KNEW there would be some here that would blow a gasket when this came down.
I could care less....the ruling on Obamacare is ten times more damaging to us than homos marrying.
Maybe this means this silly issue is off the table for the 2016 elections? I hope so...the left loves to trip up GOP candidates and watch them squirm when they bring up homos marrying! LOL
Exactly. Let em corn hole each other with wedding bands on. Who cares?
As there's no Constitutional basis for it being banned, an obvious outcome. Too bad so much time and effort had to be wasted getting to an obvious conclusion. I'll actually be interested to read what the dissenters had to say on the matter. Maybe we can move onto topics that actually matter?
Here's my real Q: what does the state or Feds have any business in marriage at all?
Exactly!!! I have said that all my life.... .gov has zero business in any marriage between two human beings. That is between the people and their freedom of Religion.
brickboy240
06-26-15, 10:58
The left loves to use the issues of abortion and gay marriage to trip up GOP candidates in interviews and debates. They do this because it works so damn well. It is like watching Lucy and Charlie Brown with the football! You think they'd see it coming but they step in it every time. Hello Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee.
Maybe...MAYBE this time we can put this non-issue aside and concentrate on economic issues and repealing/replacing Obamacare. THOSE issues affect ALL of us. Homos tying the knot...not so much.
Crow Hunter
06-26-15, 11:16
There's no basis for why it should be banned. The state is not the church; if gay people want to get marriage licenses, fine.
However, there's going to be a HUGE battle when (and it's a when, not if) they try to make a law that churches must perform same sex marriages and try to declare that speaking against homosexuality is speech not protected by the 1st Amendment.
The left isn't going to be content with this victory. It's not enough to obey Big Brother. You must love him as well.
Excellent insight.
Personally, I don't care about gay marriage other than I am tired of hearing about it.
But I know, just like if the Left got "Universal Background Checks", they will want more.
I wonder if this ruling can be used as support for national reciprocity for CCW.
brickboy240
06-26-15, 11:19
Of course they will. That is how they operate.
Do you think that when the CSA flag and Jeff Davis statues come down...they will just shut up and be happy? Are you kidding....they will go after statues of Washington and Jefferson. You know...they were slave owners and all.
Laugh all you want at that but they won this one and they smell blood in the water. They won Obamacare, gay marriage and the CSA flag - no stopping now.
...its coming.
Doc Safari
06-26-15, 11:21
Great. Now that's settled can we get on to more important stuff like whether Wal-Mart should sell Confederate flags?
I'm tired of people concentrating on trivial things like whether we are about to start World War III with Russia, or whether the TPP might result in some new gun and ammo bans, or whether ISIS might get a dirty bomb into the US through the southern border.
Everyone knows that this country should come to a complete STOP until we make sure every LGBT loon has free healthcare and the right to marry.
Crow Hunter
06-26-15, 11:25
Great. Now that's settled can we get on to more important stuff like whether Wal-Mart should sell Confederate flags?
I'm tired of people concentrating on trivial things like whether we are about to start World War III with Russia, or whether the TPP might result in some new gun and ammo bans, or whether ISIS might get a dirty bomb into the US through the southern border.
Everyone knows that this country should come to a complete STOP until we make sure every LGBT loon has free healthcare and the right to marry.
Too bad we can't get some LGBT people to get a Confederate Flag wedding cake from a Muslim bakery.
Everyone knows that this country should come to a complete STOP until we make sure every LGBT loon has free healthcare and the right to marry.
Good to see you know the agenda!
skijunkie55
06-26-15, 11:29
For all you entrepreneurial type people, now would be a great time to start a gay friendly small business: wedding venues, bakery, catering, photography, tailoring, divorce attorney, etc.
And then charge a premium because you are have an exclusive niche in the wedding market. Hundreds of dollars to be made here folks...
Doc Safari
06-26-15, 11:33
For all you entrepreneurial type people, now would be a great time to start a gay friendly small business: wedding venues, bakery, catering, photography, tailoring, divorce attorney, etc.
And then charge a premium because you are have an exclusive niche in the wedding market. Hundreds of dollars to be made here folks...
Why would the government allow some new upstart make money on it?
The government will just jail existing vendors for NOT complying with the "new civil right".
WickedWillis
06-26-15, 11:34
It shouldn't be the Governments business, or right to tell you who you can and cannot marry.
Doc Safari
06-26-15, 11:36
It shouldn't be the Governments business, or right to tell you who you can and cannot marry.
I actually agree with this position more than any other. Giving them the right to regulate who can get married to whom also gives them the right to regulate other things having to do with marriage.
The entire institution of marriage just became a federally-regulated endeavor.
WickedWillis
06-26-15, 11:40
The entire institution of marriage just became a federally-regulated endeavor.
Very well said, I agree.
Moose-Knuckle
06-26-15, 11:41
Oh my god. Come one guys, how does this effect you? Who cares. This is the least of our worries. Live and let live on this one, I say. The constitution does not say anything forbidding it, there is no reason to prevent it.
I'm not coming at this from a religious angle, as a student of history all great civilizations have decayed from within. Marriage between homosexuals itself is not the lynch pin to our undoing merely it's a symptom of the times.
Moose-Knuckle
06-26-15, 11:47
Too bad we can't get some LGBT people to get a Confederate Flag wedding cake from a Nation of Islam bakery.
I still want to walk into a Halal market and demand that my Allahless heathen ways be met and the proprietor forced via court order to sell me bacon, vodka, and an issue of Hustler.
I still want to walk into a Halal market and demand that my Allahless heathen ways be met and the proprietor forced via court order to sell me bacon, vodka, and an issue of Hustler.
Please be sure to tell us how that works out for you.
Whiskey_Bravo
06-26-15, 11:57
I wonder if this ruling can be used as support for national reciprocity for CCW.
This was my first thought.
I'm not coming at this from a religious angle, as a student of history all great civilizations have decayed from within. Marriage between homosexuals itself is not the lynch pin to our undoing merely it's a symptom of the times.
This was almost my exact comment to my wife when we were talking about it this morning. I don't really care if two dudes want to marry, but it is a symptom of the decay of our country morally. And if you think they will stop here you are fooling yourself, the left agenda will be jammed down your throat. As someone else said, it's not enough to accept things like this, you must also love it.
Business_Casual
06-26-15, 12:44
If they could only shut up about this and choice they would actual make progress...
Wrong. Culture is economic. Also we should never let the State get into the business of murder; the end result is Hitler or Pol Pot.
Try again.
brickboy240
06-26-15, 12:47
Umm...take a look around.
You are getting Hitler without the ovens (yet) right now. Govt run healthcare, govt spying on you, defacing of historical monuments, gun controls....only thing missing are the ovens and swastikas...pretty much! LOL
As some rights are gained, some rights are lost. The targets will be Conservative Evangelical Churches. New Gay couples will start attending services, then ask the Pastor to conduct the marriage ceremony. Pastor will decline and will be sued in civil court. Pastor will also be charged with a Constitutional violation, fined, and when he refuses to comply, he will be jailed. Church will also lose tax exempt status.
This is a perfect way to destroy Conservative leaning Churches in America. At some point, religious freedom will have to be enjoyed under the radar and out of sight. Kind of like the early Christians in Rome, or even in the former Soviet Union.
Digital_Damage
06-26-15, 13:22
I'm not sure I understand your sentence? By "and choice" do you mean pro-choice/life?
Yep, the moment they start talking about a woman's reproductive rights they tank in the polls.
CrazyFingers
06-26-15, 13:23
Some of you guys could really use one of these:
33877
:p
http://bearingarms.com/scotus-ruling-sex-marriage-mandates-nationwide-concealed-carry-reciprocity/?utm_source=bafbp&utm_medium=fbpage&utm_campaign=baupdate
"Using the same “due process clause” argument as the Supreme Court just applied to gay marriage, my concealed carry permit must now be recognized as valid in all 50 states and the District of Columbia."
Whiskey_Bravo
06-26-15, 13:35
Some of you guys could really use one of these:
33877
:p
And this is why nothing will ever change. People begin to point out major issues and question them and the tried and true /conspiracy/tinfoilhat/racist labels are thrown.
This is only the beginning. Give them an inch and they'll want a mile.
Yea it's really a shame that people want to be treated as people and not some kind of plague.
I'll be real pissed when my rights get trampled becuase two people who have nothing to do with me want to get married...
Outlander Systems
06-26-15, 13:52
Some of you guys could really use one of these:
33877
:p
ad ho·mi·nem
ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"vicious ad hominem attacks"
brickboy240
06-26-15, 13:54
Obamacare ruling will do FAR more damage for much longer than will this ruling.
...count on it
It's not about freedom, it's about destroying the religious freedoms of this country. Marrying is not the issue, they won't be happy till no one can say they don't like it.
33878
Of the things that have come to fruition in the last 2 weeks, this is the least of our worries. Its not like the moral compass of the SCOTUS pointed due N. to begin with.
Outlander Systems
06-26-15, 14:03
Obamacare ruling will do FAR more damage for much longer than will this ruling.
...count on it
Absolutely.
It's not about freedom, it's about destroying the religious freedoms of this country. Marrying is not the issue, they won't be happy till no one can say they don't like it.
I don't know man, I work with a few gay guys and the first I heard of this was on here. The ones that people see protesting and complaing on the news and in TV do not represent the guys that I know now or the many that I went to high school and college with.
I've never felt my rights were at risk by anyone asking for rights for themselves.
I don't know man, I work with a few gay guys and the first I heard of this was on here. The ones that people see protesting and complaing on the news and in TV do not represent the guys that I know now or the many that I went to high school and college with.
I've never felt my rights were at risk by anyone asking for rights for themselves.
It's not your average gay person, most are normal other than gay. It's the small faction of loud ones that will tear us apart piece by piece.
It's the Westboro Baptist church type gays that will do it.
As there's no Constitutional basis for it being banned, an obvious outcome. Too bad so much time and effort had to be wasted getting to an obvious conclusion. I'll actually be interested to read what the dissenters had to say on the matter. Maybe we can move onto topics that actually matter?
Here's my real Q: what does the state or Feds have any business in marriage at all?
Well said.
Congrats to any members here this directly affects. Been a long time coming.
For those worrying about your religious/marriage institutions being put at risk, if something as harmless as this jeopardizes them, they must have been shaky in the first place.
Some of you guys could really use one of these:
Tell that to Justice Scalia. I couldn't say it better:
This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected commit- tee 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.
Some of you need to wake up.......It is not about deviant sexual activity (nothing about religion) or two homos want to be married. No one gives a SH#$ about them. It is about the end of culture in this country. Take away the middle class family model and you will have a whole country of the FSA. That is how their culture failed. Now the government is dictating what our culture is and not what society as a whole wants as our culture. Look at the past and you will see our future.
Want to take any bets on when they make public displays about religious activities a crime as it will offend someone? That is how you pacify a people. Take away there culture and they have nothing to bind them together. Do you think that our founding fathers would have been able to defeat the most powerful empire in the world if they had not been bound together with a similar culture?
Take away the economy and we can work very hard to get it back. Take away our culture and there is no coming back.
It is really the beginning of the end of our society.
Doc Safari
06-26-15, 14:16
Obamacare ruling will do FAR more damage for much longer than will this ruling.
...count on it
I'm not saying you're wrong, but when people start applying for the right to marry multiple partners, or children, or animals, will the SCOTUS say "no" then?
I'm thinking the door has been thrown open to any kind of "alternate lifestyle" being the new normal, and you will be a pariah if you are against it.
Truly this is the beginning of a Pandora's Box of things we don't want to see.
Digital_Damage
06-26-15, 14:37
Some of you need to wake up.......It is not about deviant sexual activity (nothing about religion) or two homos want to be married. No one gives a SH#$ about them. It is about the end of culture in this country. Take away the middle class family model and you will have a whole country of the FSA. That is how their culture failed. Now the government is dictating what our culture is and not what society as a whole wants as our culture. Look at the past and you will see our future.
Want to take any bets on when they make public displays about religious activities a crime as it will offend someone? That is how you pacify a people. Take away there culture and they have nothing to bind them together. Do you think that our founding fathers would have been able to defeat the most powerful empire in the world if they had not been bound together with a similar culture?
Take away the economy and we can work very hard to get it back. Take away our culture and there is no coming back.
It is really the beginning of the end of our society.
HAHAHAHAHAHA Good god this is stupid!
Wake up, this IS what a majority of society wants. This is NOT the .gov forcing the issue. It is quite the opposite, this gives individuals the right to dictate what marriage means to THEM not YOU.
Marriage is a stupid concept to begin with.
Digital_Damage
06-26-15, 14:38
I'm not saying you're wrong, but when people start applying for the right to marry multiple partners, or children, or animals, will the SCOTUS say "no" then?
I'm thinking the door has been thrown open to any kind of "alternate lifestyle" being the new normal, and you will be a pariah if you are against it.
Truly this is the beginning of a Pandora's Box of things we don't want to see.
How is it any of your business if someone wants to marry a dog?
Doc Safari
06-26-15, 14:40
How is it any of your business if someone wants to marry a dog?
What if they want to have sex with a dog, and then one of your kids?
Would you feel differently then?
Or is it okay to have no standards?
Bring on gay divorce court because that shit will be funny as hell.
What about transchildren? It's not pedophilia if a 40yr old "feels" he is 8 years old and it's okay with the kid. Who are parents to say what's good for their kid?
Doc Safari
06-26-15, 14:46
What about transchildren? It's not pedophilia if a 40yr old "feels" he is 8 years old and it's okay with the kid. Who are parents to say what's good for their kid?
Exactly. All this "free love" and "it's all okay" are very fine and good until some old geezer wants to claim he has a "right" to have sex with your 10-year-old son.
And those of you who think I'm overreacting, have you ever heard of NAMBLA?
What if they want to have sex with a dog, and then one of your kids?
Would you feel differently then?
Or is it okay to have no standards?
Whoa were's dog ****ing coming from? If a guy wants to **** a guy that's not my business. But he sure ain't coming near me with that shit.
we do have the right not to have sex with people in this country...
Digital_Damage
06-26-15, 14:49
What if they want to have sex with a dog, and then one of your kids?
Would you feel differently then?
Or is it okay to have no standards?
If someone wants to have sex with a Dog so be it, not my business. If they try to have sex with my child that is my business. What it means to be Married has nothing to do with it.
You are equating a legal standing to deviant behavior. Borderline Bigotry there bub.
Exactly. All this "free love" and "it's all okay" are very fine and good until some old geezer wants to claim he has a "right" to have sex with your 10-year-old son.
And those of you who think I'm overreacting, have you ever heard of NAMBLA?
Yep, in fact Omao's first safe school czar was a member of NAMBLA, we do however still have statutory rape laws to cover that.
Doc Safari
06-26-15, 14:51
If someone wants to have sex with a Dog so be it, not my business. If they try to have sex with my child that is my business. What it means to be Married has nothing to do with it.
You are equating a legal standing to deviant behavior. Borderline Bigotry there bub.
What I am saying is that homosexuality IS deviant behavior, and this ruling throws the door open to OTHER deviant behavior.
Clear?
HAHAHAHAHAHA Good god this is stupid!
Wake up, this IS what a majority of society wants. This is NOT the .gov forcing the issue. It is quite the opposite, this gives individuals the right to dictate what marriage means to THEM not YOU.
Marriage is a stupid concept to begin with.
Really? Thank you for the mature response and inability to hold a proper conversation just proves my point more. Thank you for that example.
I aslo feel bad for you and feel sick if that is what you think. That is want to media wants people to think ( and what people say publicaly) and not what people actually think. Get out of the filth of the city and talk to some people, you might be surprised at what you hear.
Doc Safari
06-26-15, 14:52
Yep, in fact Omao's first safe school czar was a member of NAMBLA, we do however still have statutory rape laws to cover that.
For now. We had laws against sodomy for many decades too.
Don't go back to sleep.
Exactly. All this "free love" and "it's all okay" are very fine and good until some old geezer wants to claim he has a "right" to have sex with your 10-year-old son.
And those of you who think I'm overreacting, have you ever heard of NAMBLA?
Yea but that's impeding the rights of the child, that's not the case. Two consenting adults is one thing. Raping children is another.
I see your point and I respect where your coming from but I don't think it's my place to tell people how to live thier lives. It doesn't effect me or my family.
People saying that this is ruining the country, that's crazy. This country was not based on Christian value, it's based on moral value of equality and freedom. The golden age of our country we held slaves or had segregated bathrooms. We need to evolve with the times.
Digital_Damage
06-26-15, 14:54
What I am saying is that homosexuality IS deviant behavior, and this ruling throws the door open to OTHER deviant behavior.
Clear?
And it is none of your business what they do behind close doors, who are you to decide what is Deviant behavior? Where do those rules exist?
Whiskey_Bravo
06-26-15, 14:55
And it is none of your business what they do behind close doors, who are you to decide what is Deviant behavior? Where do those rules exist?
I would tell you but you wouldn't like the answer.
Yep, in fact Omao's first safe school czar was a member of NAMBLA, we do however still have statutory rape laws to cover that.
Is it statutory if they are both children? Sounds like descrimination to me...
Doc Safari
06-26-15, 14:58
Yea but that's impeding the rights of the child, that's not the case. Two consenting adults is one thing. Raping children is another.
I see your point and I respect where your coming from but I don't think it's my place to tell people how to live thier lives. It doesn't effect me or my family.
People saying that this is ruining the country, that's crazy. This country was not based on Christian value, it's based on moral value of equality and freedom. The golden age of our country we held slaves or had segregated bathrooms. We need to evolve with the times.
I personally think the government has no right to regulate marriage whatsoever.
What I DO maintain is that now that the federal government has asserted its right to regulate the institution of marriage, the froot loops are going to come out of the woodwork demanding "their rights" to engage in every form of perversion under the sun, and will petition the legal system to give them the means and the justification to do so.
So it's statutory rape to have sex with children? No problem. NAMBLA will simply put money in the coffers of candidates who will vote to lower the age of consent to a ridiculously low level, for example.
I could give a rat's ass if two dudes want to go to bed together. But I do care that they've turned it into a political "right" that other nutjobs will ride like a surfboard to get their perverted practices codified by the SCOTUS as acceptable right behind this ruling.
Digital_Damage
06-26-15, 15:00
Really? Thank you for the mature response and inability to hold a proper conversation just proves my point more. Thank you for that example.
I aslo feel bad for you and feel sick if that is what you think. That is want to media wants people to think ( and what people say publicaly) and not what people actually think. Get out of the filth of the city and talk to some people, you might be surprised at what you hear.
So you want me to try and travel around and find that small majority that think this is wrong? pfffftt.
Y'all argue all you want. I'm going to sit over hear and cling to my guns and religion .
Digital_Damage
06-26-15, 15:02
I personally think the government has no right to regulate marriage whatsoever.
What I DO maintain is that now that the federal government has asserted its right to regulate the institution of marriage, the froot loops are going to come out of the woodwork demanding "their rights" to engage in every form of perversion under the sun, and will petition the legal system to give them the means and the justification to do so.
So it's statutory rape to have sex with children? No problem. NAMBLA will simply put money in the coffers of candidates who will vote to lower the age of consent to a ridiculously low level, for example.
I could give a rat's ass if two dudes want to go to bed together. But I do care that they've turned it into a political "right" that other nutjobs will ride like a surfboard to get their perverted practices codified by the SCOTUS as acceptable right behind this ruling.
They are not regulating it, quite the opposite... they are deregulating it...
Doc Safari
06-26-15, 15:04
And it is none of your business what they do behind close doors, who are you to decide what is Deviant behavior? Where do those rules exist?
You say that because you have no standard to measure against. I won't even present a religious argument to you. Sex at its heart is a mechanism to procreation. Since a sex act with another member of the same sex cannot result in procreation, it is by definition "deviant", as in "deviating" from the norm.
Now, if two guys or two girls want to have sex, I don't even care as long as they leave me alone.
What I do care about is that it is a political football, and it's going to bring about even worse "rights" to every form of perversion in the future.
Is it statutory if they are both children? Sounds like descrimination to me...
I'm not sure what you're trying to say? Heterosexual teens have sex.
Doc Safari
06-26-15, 15:05
They are not regulating it, quite the opposite... they are deregulating it...
You will see. Now employers will be forced to offer benefits to same-sex couples. Churches will be required to accept gay marriages even if it goes against their religious beliefs. I could go on and on.
We will all suffer because a new class of "victims" have been granted de facto rights.
I could give a rat's ass if two dudes want to go to bed together. But I do care that they've turned it into a political "right" that other nutjobs will ride like a surfboard to get their perverted practices codified by the SCOTUS as acceptable right behind this ruling.
That's the dam truth
brickboy240
06-26-15, 15:08
Since we already have over 50% divorce rate amongst heteros....will adding gays to the marrying list really be the end of our culture?
The institute of marriage is already pretty well beaten down.
Straight Shooter
06-26-15, 15:09
MANY posts here continue to prove to me that just because someone owns/shoots/likes firearms & shooting, doesn't mean you are conservative, or even someone Id have a beer with, and that we have NOTHING in common other than owning guns.
Oh my god. Come one guys, how does this effect you? Who cares. This is the least of our worries. Live and let live on this one, I say. The constitution does not say anything forbidding it, there is no reason to prevent it.
Fair enough, but since my state now has to accept gay marriages from everywhere else when can my CCW permit be recognized everywhere else????????
You can't pick and choose what "Full Faith and Credit" licenses you're going to accept. It's the whole ball of wax.
Doc Safari
06-26-15, 15:12
MANY posts here continue to prove to me that just because someone owns/shoots/likes firearms & shooting, doesn't mean you are conservative, or even someone Id have a beer with, and that we have NOTHING in common other than owning guns.
LOL. I live in New Mexico where gun laws are for the most part pretty lenient. I had a friend and fellow gun nut who knowingly moved back to New York and their draconian gun laws because he liked their more liberal views better. True story. (And New Mexico is a pretty blue state other than 2A issues, so his attitude says something).
Crow Hunter
06-26-15, 15:13
MANY posts here continue to prove to me that just because someone owns/shoots/likes firearms & shooting, doesn't mean you are conservative, or even someone Id have a beer with, and that we have NOTHING in common other than owning guns.
I personally think that is a good thing. :)
I wonder if this ruling can be used as support for national reciprocity for CCW.
It should be, that's for damned sure! "Full Faith and Credit" seems to be applicable here. Wonder if some entity with the $$$ can pursue it legally and *maybe* the SCOTUS will get it and say "Yep, it's only fair" (of course I'm not holding my breath)
Whiskey_Bravo
06-26-15, 15:18
It should be, that's for damned sure! "Full Faith and Credit" seems to be applicable here. Wonder if some entity with the $$$ can pursue it legally and *maybe* the SCOTUS will get it and say "Yep, it's only fair" (of course I'm not holding my breath)
If they don't want it they will just refuse to hear it. .
Since we already have over 50% divorce rate amongst heteros....will adding gays to the marrying list really be the end of our culture?
The institute of marriage is already pretty well beaten down.
Don't forget all the people that cheat on their spouses.
Digital_Damage
06-26-15, 15:19
MANY posts here continue to prove to me that just because someone owns/shoots/likes firearms & shooting, doesn't mean you are conservative, or even someone Id have a beer with, and that we have NOTHING in common other than owning guns.
But that is the beauty of it all, gun ownership is wide spreading across this country and should be celebrated.
Race, Religion, Political leanings and now orientation :-p does not dictate who has a firm belief in the 2nd amendment.
Averageman
06-26-15, 15:19
They are not regulating it, quite the opposite... they are deregulating it...
Not so much.
I would say if they want to be out of it, leave it up to the Church to marry, conduct divorces, set child support rates and keep the records.
The only reason they want in on it is to make more money.
Digital_Damage
06-26-15, 15:23
Not so much.
I would say if they want to be out of it, leave it up to the Church to marry, conduct divorces, set child support rates and keep the records.
The only reason they want in on it is to make more money.
So only people a part of a religion should get married? Nonsense, marriage is a legal standing.
This will not allow the .gov to make more money, I suspect this will actually cost them a significant amount in reduction of tax income due to joint filing.
brickboy240
06-26-15, 15:37
Some that own guns are NOT Bible thumping conservatives...I will give you that.
Some of us are libertarians and believe that people should be free to make their own dumb decisions.
Some of us put individual liberty above some sort of far right wing dogma.
Some of us feel that what 3% of the population does in regards to tying the knot is just not very important.
I find it odd that some can say that this will lead to men marrying multiples or men marrying animals and think that is not silly. But will be the first to poo poo the libs when they say that concealed carry will lead to blood in the streets. Both are equally silly if you ask me.
Doc Safari
06-26-15, 15:42
Some that own guns are NOT Bible thumping conservatives...I will give you that.
Some of us are libertarians and believe that people should be free to make their own dumb decisions.
Some of us put individual liberty above some sort of far right wing dogma.
Some of us feel that what 3% of the population does in regards to tying the knot is just not very important.
And I would agree 100% except that it's been turned into a political issue and you are a bigot if you disagree with the gay narrative.
I find it odd that some can say that this will lead to men marrying multiples or men marrying animals and think that is not silly. But will be the first to poo poo the libs when they say that concealed carry will lead to blood in the streets. Both are equally silly if you ask me.
I think you all will see. It may not be today, and it may not be tomorrow, but at some point this ruling will be used as the basis for polygamy (any Mormons in the audience), pedophilia, bestiality, and other things.
Time will tell.
And I would agree 100% except that it's been turned into a political issue and you are a bigot if you disagree with the gay narrative.
I think you all will see. It may not be today, and it may not be tomorrow, but at some point this ruling will be used as the basis for polygamy (any Mormons in the audience), pedophilia, bestiality, and other things.
Time will tell.
Polygamy maybe, but not pedophilia nor bestiality because children and animals have no right to consent and thus it is legally impossible for them to enter into a marriage or to consent to sex. This ruling does nothing to change how consent works in America.
Doc Safari
06-26-15, 15:54
Polygamy maybe, but not pedophilia nor bestiality because children and animals have no right to consent and thus it is legally impossible for them to enter into a marriage or to consent to sex. This ruling does nothing to change how consent works in America.
I stated in an earlier post that certain groups could very well campaign for children to have the right to consent.
So, gays have a right to marry now.
Just speaking theoretically, if I were a churchgoer and my church thinks homosexual marriage is a sin, then do my rights to my religious beliefs have to be violated now because my church doesn't recognize gay marriage?
Does a minister now have to perform gay wedding ceremonies even though he finds it personally abhorrent?
Wonder what the Muslims think about this? Aren't they throwing gays off of buildings in Iraq?
You think the feds will force them to allow gay marriages in their mosque?
You think Imams will be forced to perform gay weddings?
Whatever your feelings toward Muslims, don't they have the religious freedom to not allow homosexual marriages in their congregations?
Again, I'm speaking theoretically, but you see what a Pandora's Box this has opened.
You'll see that this ruling actually gives homosexuals potentially more rights than the rest of us.
I stated in an earlier post that certain groups could very well campaign for children to have the right to consent.
They could have done that before this ruling too. This ruling changes absolutely nothing in that regard - why bring it up?
So, gays have a right to marry now.
Just speaking theoretically, if I were a churchgoer and my church thinks homosexual marriage is a sin, then do my rights to my religious beliefs have to be violated now because my church doesn't recognize gay marriage?
Does a minister now have to perform gay wedding ceremonies even though he finds it personally abhorrent?
Wonder what the Muslims think about this? Aren't they throwing gays off of buildings in Iraq?
You think the feds will force them to allow gay marriages in their mosque?
You think Imams will be forced to perform gay weddings?
Whatever your feelings toward Muslims, don't they have the religious freedom to not allow homosexual marriages in their congregations?
Again, I'm speaking theoretically, but you see what a Pandora's Box this has opened.
No, a church is thankfully not the government, which avoids Titles III and VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Furthermore, can you describe a church as a hotel, motel, restaurant, theater, or a public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce? I can't because it's not engaged in commerce, isn't a hotel, isn't a motel, isn't a restaurant, and isn't a theater, thus it avoids Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Getting around Titles II, III, and VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 basically makes it exempt from discrimination based on protected classes (assuming the state version of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is substantially similar to the Federal version).
So a church could deny service to those not of the same faith if it so desired. If you were gay and visited a church that was anti-gay, you would have no reasonable legal recourse but to find another church.
You'll see that this ruling actually gives homosexuals potentially more rights than the rest of us.
No, it brought them from second class citizens to first class citizens, just like everyone else. That should be a win for anyone who loves freedom.
Digital_Damage
06-26-15, 16:04
I stated in an earlier post that certain groups could very well campaign for children to have the right to consent.
So, gays have a right to marry now.
Just speaking theoretically, if I were a churchgoer and my church thinks homosexual marriage is a sin, then do my rights to my religious beliefs have to be violated now because my church doesn't recognize gay marriage?
Does a minister now have to perform gay wedding ceremonies even though he finds it personally abhorrent?
Wonder what the Muslims think about this? Aren't they throwing gays off of buildings in Iraq?
You think the feds will force them to allow gay marriages in their mosque?
You think Imams will be forced to perform gay weddings?
Whatever your feelings toward Muslims, don't they have the religious freedom to not allow homosexual marriages in their congregations?
Again, I'm speaking theoretically, but you see what a Pandora's Box this has opened.
You'll see that this ruling actually gives homosexuals potentially more rights than the rest of us.
So how about this, just do away with marriage all together. Problem solved.
So how about this, just do away with marriage all together. Problem solved.
I'm completely on board with that. However, marriage is so intertwined with both tax law and familial rights issues that I don't think that can happen. If we can't get out of it, I think perhaps make everything a civil union. Keep marriage within religion and go from there.
Doc Safari
06-26-15, 16:10
So how about this, just do away with marriage all together. Problem solved.
Just get government out of the bedroom.......period.
This will not allow the .gov to make more money, I suspect this will actually cost them a significant amount in reduction of tax income due to joint filing.
Actually, I believe joint filers pay more than 2 singles. Ever hear of the marriage tax?
Actually, I believe joint filers pay more than 2 singles. Ever here of the marriage tax?
It depends on the disparity of income between the two filers. If both make relatively the same amount, it's possible they might pay more. But if one makes far more than the other, you're pretty much guaranteed to pay less in tax when filing jointly.
So does same sex marriage also create spousal testimonial privilege/immunity? For example, under California Evidence Code ("CEC") §970:
"California permits the application of testimonial privilege to both civil and criminal cases, and includes both the privilege not to testify as well as the privilege not to be called as a witness by the party adverse to the interests of the spouse in the trial."
(Other states have similar statutes, California is referenced on wikipedia.)
So if a criminal can put the machismo aside and make the business decision "marry" his co-conspirator in a crime so neither one of them could be compelled to testify against the other. That creates a lot of problems. Likely this would mean no divide and conquer, so no plea deal in exchange for immunity or a lighter sentence for cooperation and no easy way for the prosecutor. Some smarter criminals could exploit this since there is no "gay" test and there could be no affirmation of homosexuality required prior to a same sex wedding.
To get spousal privilege revoked, both spouses would have to be charged as co-defendants, which may be a tougher road for the prosecutor as well since usually it is tough to prove an equal role or have a higher burden of proof on actual roles in a crime. If spousal privilege is revoked by a judge with two same sex co-defendants, that would likely be claimed as discriminatory by the defense. Pandora's box is open.
So does same sex marriage also create spousal testimonial privilege/immunity? For example, under California Evidence Code ("CEC") §970:
(Other states have similar statutes, California is referenced on wikipedia.)
So if a criminal can put the machismo aside and make the business decision "marry" his co-conspirator in a crime so neither one of them could be compelled to testify against the other. That creates a lot of problems. Likely this would mean no divide and conquer, so no plea deal in exchange for immunity or a lighter sentence for cooperation and no easy way for the prosecutor. Some smarter criminals could exploit this since there is no "gay" test and there could be no affirmation of homosexuality required prior to a same sex wedding.
To get spousal privilege revoked, both spouses would have to be charged as co-defendants, which may be a tougher road for the prosecutor as well since usually it is tough to prove an equal role or have a higher burden of proof on actual roles in a crime. If spousal privilege is revoked by a judge with two same sex co-defendants, that would likely be claimed as discriminatory by the defense. Pandora's box is open.
Is this already a problem for a male and female non-married co-conspirator "couple"(not in the married sense of the word)? Has this happened yet in any state that has had gay marriage on the books for a while?
Is this already a problem for a male and female non-married co-conspirator "couple"(not in the married sense of the word)? Has this happened yet in any state that has had gay marriage on the books for a while?
For non-married couples, it would depend on how state law defines a "spouse" (legally married versus "common law"). Now same sex marriage has been affirmed as a Constitutional right, so state laws that define same sex "spouses" in any way different than married (legally, not common law) spouses would be unconstitutional and would have to be changed. This is where there is a huge problem. It becomes a bigger challenge for the prosecutor since deals are not as attractive.
So does same sex marriage also create spousal testimonial privilege/immunity? For example, under California Evidence Code ("CEC") §970:
(Other states have similar statutes, California is referenced on wikipedia.)
So if a criminal can put the machismo aside and make the business decision "marry" his co-conspirator in a crime so neither one of them could be compelled to testify against the other. That creates a lot of problems. Likely this would mean no divide and conquer, so no plea deal in exchange for immunity or a lighter sentence for cooperation and no easy way for the prosecutor. Some smarter criminals could exploit this since there is no "gay" test and there could be no affirmation of homosexuality required prior to a same sex wedding.
To get spousal privilege revoked, both spouses would have to be charged as co-defendants, which may be a tougher road for the prosecutor as well since usually it is tough to prove an equal role or have a higher burden of proof on actual roles in a crime. If spousal privilege is revoked by a judge with two same sex co-defendants, that would likely be claimed as discriminatory by the defense. Pandora's box is open.
Reminds me of
http://i60.tinypic.com/25q81w1.gif
wildcard600
06-26-15, 17:05
MANY posts here continue to prove to me that just because someone owns/shoots/likes firearms & shooting, doesn't mean you are conservative, or even someone Id have a beer with, and that we have NOTHING in common other than owning guns.
Whats wrong with that ? I can't stand "conservatives" for the most part and other than flaming leftists, i dont think there is another "political affiliation" i would rather not be around.
*quotes are to emphasize the point that what constitutes the definition of each term varies by induvidual*
Eurodriver
06-26-15, 17:14
The gays are already shutting down the streets here and throwing a huge ass parade. They even raised the gay flag above city hall.
Not kidding.
Outlander Systems
06-26-15, 17:22
The gays are already shutting down the streets here and throwing a huge ass parade. They even raised the gay flag above city hall.
Not kidding.
Ass parade, indeed.
Put the whole wood on it, nomsayin?
Eurodriver
06-26-15, 17:48
Ass parade, indeed.
Put the whole wood on it, nomsayin?
Put the whole wood in it, Ian.
Averageman
06-26-15, 17:52
So only people a part of a religion should get married? Nonsense, marriage is a legal standing.
This will not allow the .gov to make more money, I suspect this will actually cost them a significant amount in reduction of tax income due to joint filing.
No, if you go down to the Justice of the Peace it's a "Civil Union" if you go to a Church and have a ceremony it is a Marriage. At least that's my opinion, until you do it in a Church you've pretty much excluded all of the ceremony, and sanctity.
The whole idea of charging a couple for a licence, Court Fee's for a Divorce, Child Support etc. That's where the money is, the State get's to wet it's beak at each and every turn along with the whole industry of Attorneys who specialize in this.
I'm sure if studied, the numbers might surprise you.
The whole idea that we are going to pick the winners and losers in this issue via the tax code only shows just how far the .gov has encroached upon our lives.
I don't care what people do, who they sleep with or decide to "partner" with. The same legal issues could have been handled with some paperwork and a bit of time. The difference is the homosexual agenda wanted to force the issue. Fine, have fun with that, hope you do better with it than the heterosexuals have. In the end though unless it happens in a church, I don't feel that in the eyes of god, these folks are married.
So how about this, just do away with marriage all together. Problem solved.
To me this would have been the thing to do - make a law/amendment that essentially replaces marriage with a civil contract. Grandfather in anyone who has a marriage license dated prior to the law/amendments passage. Open the contract to anyone - hypothectical - Joe and Ted are both in their 50's, their wives have both died of cancer, neither has children in the home, neither of them intends to remarry or cohabit, they just want to ride, fish, and chase tail. Why shouldn't they be able to make a civil contract to have each other's backs, economically and healthcare wise?
Seriously, why not?
Let Churches worry about who gets married.
So how about this, just do away with marriage all together. Problem solved.
"But in the future there will be no wives and no friends" 1984 - Orwell, George
They could have done that before this ruling too. This ruling changes absolutely nothing in that regard - why bring it up?
No, a church is thankfully not the government, which avoids Titles III and VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Furthermore, can you describe a church as a hotel, motel, restaurant, theater, or a public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce? I can't because it's not engaged in commerce, isn't a hotel, isn't a motel, isn't a restaurant, and isn't a theater, thus it avoids Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Getting around Titles II, III, and VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 basically makes it exempt from discrimination based on protected classes (assuming the state version of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is substantially similar to the Federal version).
So a church could deny service to those not of the same faith if it so desired. If you were gay and visited a church that was anti-gay, you would have no reasonable legal recourse but to find another church.
No, it brought them from second class citizens to first class citizens, just like everyone else. That should be a win for anyone who loves freedom.
My suspicion is that the LGBT movement is going to take a more indirect tactic of challenging the tax exempt status (501 c3) of religious institutions that refuse to participate. This will be very similar to the BSA fiasco. Personally, I think that this is a great thing; since the Pope is so interested in a global redistribution of wealth, let him be the first to give up 1/3 of the church's income.
No, if you go down to the Justice of the Peace it's a "Civil Union" if you go to a Church and have a ceremony it is a Marriage. At least that's my opinion, until you do it in a Church you've pretty much excluded all of the ceremony, and sanctity.
I think that you are confusing marriage with Holy Matrimony. One is a contract between 2 humans and the State, and is sometimes officiated by a magistrate or Elvis impersonator. The other is a sacrament between a man, woman, and God. In most Christian denominations, the two usually occur simultaneously unless a couple are already married and renewing their vows. The same cannot be said for marriage outside of most Judeo-Christian institutions.
Digital_Damage
06-26-15, 18:39
No, if you go down to the Justice of the Peace it's a "Civil Union" if you go to a Church and have a ceremony it is a Marriage. At least that's my opinion, until you do it in a Church you've pretty much excluded all of the ceremony, and sanctity.
The whole idea of charging a couple for a licence, Court Fee's for a Divorce, Child Support etc. That's where the money is, the State get's to wet it's beak at each and every turn along with the whole industry of Attorneys who specialize in this.
I'm sure if studied, the numbers might surprise you.
The whole idea that we are going to pick the winners and losers in this issue via the tax code only shows just how far the .gov has encroached upon our lives.
I don't care what people do, who they sleep with or decide to "partner" with. The same legal issues could have been handled with some paperwork and a bit of time. The difference is the homosexual agenda wanted to force the issue. Fine, have fun with that, hope you do better with it than the heterosexuals have. In the end though unless it happens in a church, I don't feel that in the eyes of god, these folks are married.
Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about... Funny thing, my marriage license says "Marriage License" and we were wed by a Judge just before I left to Iraq...
The real scam is the Church's getting paid... tax free.
Please keep this thread SFW.
I could care less about gay people and gay marriage.
I only wish we enjoyed the kind of freedom and political victories they are enjoying with regard to our "liberty."
So now that same sex marriage is all nice and perfectly legal, How long before incestuous marriage and polygamy are legal?
Every argument in favor of same sex marriage applies to those two as well. Consenting adults and all that...
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-26-15, 23:15
So how about this, just do away with marriage all together. Problem solved.
Actually, I think that a portion of the radical progressive gays are out to destroy all normal morality and the family unit. Burn it all down so that they aren't abnormal anymore.
So does same sex marriage also create spousal testimonial privilege/immunity? For example, under California Evidence Code ("CEC") §970:
(Other states have similar statutes, California is referenced on wikipedia.)
So if a criminal can put the machismo aside and make the business decision "marry" his co-conspirator in a crime so neither one of them could be compelled to testify against the other. That creates a lot of problems. Likely this would mean no divide and conquer, so no plea deal in exchange for immunity or a lighter sentence for cooperation and no easy way for the prosecutor. Some smarter criminals could exploit this since there is no "gay" test and there could be no affirmation of homosexuality required prior to a same sex wedding.
To get spousal privilege revoked, both spouses would have to be charged as co-defendants, which may be a tougher road for the prosecutor as well since usually it is tough to prove an equal role or have a higher burden of proof on actual roles in a crime. If spousal privilege is revoked by a judge with two same sex co-defendants, that would likely be claimed as discriminatory by the defense. Pandora's box is open.
Then throw in polygamy to get around RICO. Also, prostitution is just a matter of time. If we can't put morality into the marriage equation and it is just a contract, prostitution is just a short marriage with highly defined disposition of an asset in one direction.
This isn't over, this is the beginning. Now the legal attack on churches happens over tax issues. The far Progressive left will now start to attack the middle Democrats over their religious affiliations with Churches that oppose gay marriage. Either quit the church and attack it or be ex-communicated from the Progressive power structure.
This is how the far left purges the last remnants of the Blue Dog Democrats and anyine to the right of Che. It's the inquisition in reverse. Renounce God, or we'll cut you off from the Progressive power structure and all the govt goodies that you have gotten used to.
Ask a man at work about his wife and you are instantly using the new n-word. You are micro-aggression signalling that you think the man should have a wife not another man as a husband. I don't even know if 'spouse' will keep you out of the HR office.
ETA: I really don't care about gay marriage. Straight people have done far more damage to marriage than gays ever could. But the key is that this was never about gay marriage. It is about getting the legal standing to effectively outlaw one of the basic tenements of western culture. Thirty years ago you would have probably been thrown in jail talking about homosexuality and gays marrying. Now it's almost reversed.
The Church is pushing me away, but the Progressives are pushing me back in. I want in on the new martyrdom that Progressives are going to throw at people. I'll punch that lion in the arena in the throat.
This is far left nihilism at its worst as it tears down any kind of societal norm that binds us together. Divided we fall.
Watch the SCOTUS whores all of a sudden not find anything useful here when it comes time for CCW reciprocity.
The Progressives have gotten their own Holy book now and they are going to go around burning witches.
Moose-Knuckle
06-27-15, 00:01
Please be sure to tell us how that works out for you.
Oh no doubt I would be arrested and charge with a hate crime for demanding such sinful fare from such Holy people . . .
Moose-Knuckle
06-27-15, 00:05
ad ho·mi·nem
ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"vicious ad hominem attacks"
Spot on.
Moose-Knuckle
06-27-15, 00:06
Obamacare ruling will do FAR more damage for much longer than will this ruling.
...count on it
It's a culmination of all these things. Hell every headline this week should be a ginormous signal fire to the path that we are upon . . .
BoringGuy45
06-27-15, 00:29
It's a culmination of all these things. Hell every headline this week should be a ginormous signal fire to the path that we are upon . . .
The thing I wonder is: When is the left going to get violent? I don't mean these anti-cop riots. I mean, when are they going to blatantly in broad daylight start gunning down pastors who speak against homosexuality, conservative activists, and anyone whose great great grandparents fought for the South? Because it is coming. I just wonder when...
The thing I wonder is: When is the left going to get violent? I don't mean these anti-cop riots. I mean, when are they going to blatantly in broad daylight start gunning down pastors who speak against homosexuality, conservative activists, and anyone whose great great grandparents fought for the South? Because it is coming. I just wonder when...
Throughout history, the left is always violent, yet takes the position that "violence is immoral" until it becomes "a means to an end", such as Obama's mentor, Bill Ayers. I agree that what you describe is coming, but it will be blamed on someone else.
Moose-Knuckle
06-27-15, 01:58
The thing I wonder is: When is the left going to get violent? I don't mean these anti-cop riots. I mean, when are they going to blatantly in broad daylight start gunning down pastors who speak against homosexuality, conservative activists, and anyone whose great great grandparents fought for the South? Because it is coming. I just wonder when...
Well Obama's mentor had something to say about this . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWMIwziGrAQ
This is why disarmament (aka gun control) is so important to them, they don't want us to be able to shoot back.
well some might say this last week ?
tin foil ?
the exact same way our gov has created the terrorists they are so called catching they find a guy with issues and groom him and help him and enable him to carry out a attack but they stop him at the last moment and shout LOOK we stopped a terrorist ! of course they created him they enabled him and armed him
but in the progressives case they did not bother stopping this one !
far fetched ? I sadly dont think so anymore once again our gov creates terrorist what is the difference of the progressives creating theres but never stopping them !
of course this was about race ! YEAH SURE IT WAS
The thing I wonder is: When is the left going to get violent? I don't mean these anti-cop riots. I mean, when are they going to blatantly in broad daylight start gunning down pastors who speak against homosexuality, conservative activists, and anyone whose great great grandparents fought for the South? Because it is coming. I just wonder when...
Sorry, but there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the agenda of these gun-grabbing leftist lunatics that is good for America.
http://i1328.photobucket.com/albums/w522/mtjh45/5a884389007feaa07dbc860ddb1cd884_zps23d38c9a.jpeg
A "right" has to come from somewhere. From where I sit it seems a right must come from either the Creator or from the Constitution.
Since homosexual sodomy is repeatedly and strongly condemned as an abomination in the sight of God, that option is rather out.
And since Thomas Jefferson himself authored a law punishing committing homosexual sodomy with castration it seems more than a little unlikely that those who wrote the Constitution would agree with the court's decision that the Constitution forces the individual states to perform homosexual "marriages".
Actually, I think that a portion of the radical progressive gays are out to destroy all normal morality and the family unit. Burn it all down so that they aren't abnormal anymore.
Yep.
http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/09/bait-and-switch-how-same-sex-marriage-ends-marriage-and-family-autonomy/
“Gay marriage is a lie,” announced gay activist Masha Gessen in a panel discussion last year at the Sydney Writers’ Festival. “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there. It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”
The lunatic left's support for pedophilia: http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-sexual-revolution-and-children-how-the-left-took-things-too-far-a-702679.html
And incest: http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2012/09/12/hollywood_star_embraces_incest/page/full
And bestiality: http://humanevents.com/2007/02/01/hollywood-and-bestiality/
Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about... Funny thing, my marriage license says "Marriage License" and we were wed by a Judge just before I left to Iraq...
The real scam is the Church's getting paid... tax free.
I believe what it is called depends on the jurisdiction, but I do think if it is done outside a church all it is is a legal document to claim benefits of marriage.
As for churches tax-free status...I am a card-carrying, church-going, conservative Christian....and I totally agree. I think churches should pay taxes...I very much hate the quid-pro-quo arrangement of "you pay no taxes but we restrict your free speech." Take the noose off the church's neck and the muzzle from its mouth.
I have mixed feelings...as a Christian my opinion is clearly articulated (and every faith has a view on this). As a Libertarian, at the end of the day I don't really care who lies with whom and what you choose to call the life-long partnership of BFFs. My issues are a) what doors this will open in terms of further legislation, and b) how the left (AND the .gov) will use this for further encroachment of pushing an agenda all in the name of "tolerance".
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-27-15, 08:20
So how about this, just do away with marriage all together. Problem solved.
So does same sex marriage also create spousal testimonial privilege/immunity? For example, under California Evidence Code ("CEC") §970:
(Other states have similar statutes, California is referenced on wikipedia.)
So if a criminal can put the machismo aside and make the business decision "marry" his co-conspirator in a crime so neither one of them could be compelled to testify against the other. That creates a lot of problems. Likely this would mean no divide and conquer, so no plea deal in exchange for immunity or a lighter sentence for cooperation and no easy way for the prosecutor. Some smarter criminals could exploit this since there is no "gay" test and there could be no affirmation of homosexuality required prior to a same sex wedding.
To get spousal privilege revoked, both spouses would have to be charged as co-defendants, which may be a tougher road for the prosecutor as well since usually it is tough to prove an equal role or have a higher burden of proof on actual roles in a crime. If spousal privilege is revoked by a judge with two same sex co-defendants, that would likely be claimed as discriminatory by the defense. Pandora's box is open.
The thing I wonder is: When is the left going to get violent? I don't mean these anti-cop riots. I mean, when are they going to blatantly in broad daylight start gunning down pastors who speak against homosexuality, conservative activists, and anyone whose great great grandparents fought for the South? Because it is coming. I just wonder when...
The MSM, the IRS and the Justice Department can do something far worse: make you irrelevant, vilified and cast out. They will marginalize us and marginalize us all while claiming 'Progress'. Oh, they'll come for us, but only after they make sure that no one will care and the faint hearted have converted. We'll all look back and wonder if Sharia law might have been a better end.
Averageman
06-27-15, 08:42
Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about... Funny thing, my marriage license says "Marriage License" and we were wed by a Judge just before I left to Iraq...
The real scam is the Church's getting paid... tax free.
Sorry about that, but this explains my position a bit clearer.
I think that you are confusing marriage with Holy Matrimony. One is a contract between 2 humans and the State, and is sometimes officiated by a magistrate or Elvis impersonator. The other is a sacrament between a man, woman, and God. In most Christian denominations, the two usually occur simultaneously unless a couple are already married and renewing their vows. The same cannot be said for marriage outside of most Judeo-Christian institutions.
Clearly it may mean the same to you, but to others the two are vastly different.
Digital_Damage
06-27-15, 11:21
Sorry about that, but this explains my position a bit clearer.
Clearly it may mean the same to you, but to others the two are vastly different.
That is a fallacy considering the term and act of marriage predates the recognition of it being a Christian sacrament. If I recall my world religion studies it was not until the Council of Verona or perhaps the Council of Trent that Christianity hijacked it for their own purpose of generating revenue by trying to force it into law that the act had to take place before a Priest for monetary recompense and if it was not performed by them it was considered a sin and the parties could be incarcerated.
A "right" has to come from somewhere. From where I sit it seems a right must come from either the Creator or from the Constitution.
ALL Rights come from your Creator. Thus ALL men are CREATED EQUAL. Governments then infringe upon those rights as allowed by the people ( or so it was planned by man.).
"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman." Hillary Clinton 2000
Now don't get me wrong, Hillary is evolving and I expect by Nov. 8th 2016 Hillary will in fact become completely gay. In fact we may learn that the whole Monica thing was a cover up and that she and Monica have been lovers. At which point Hillary will be elected and Monica will be appointed the LBGT Czar... and of course there will be a big colorful parade. Chuck Todd will get a new box of crayons none of which are red or blue and he will draw rainbows all over the USA map. MagPul will scrap Wolf Grey and introduce a new line of furniture known as GayMo which will blend well in the newly transforming rainbow oriented urban environments. JEB Bush will join Rush Limbaugh in translating children's books to Spanish language and Chris Christy will actually become Santa Clause because basically no one wants to hear from him more than once a year anyway.
.... or something along those lines....
1. All men are created equal
2. Men give up some rights granted by God to be governed by 'Man'
3. 1st amendment ( freedom and acknowledgement of 1 above via religion)
4. Humans are imperfect and sinners
5. God is forgiving and doesn't need 'man' to get things right, no matter his instructions. Man is not forgiving and does need God to get it right.
6. goto 1
Kind of a tough program.... and that's with no evil in the code.
Straight Shooter
06-27-15, 14:11
Yep.
The lunatic left's support for pedophilia: http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-sexual-revolution-and-children-how-the-left-took-things-too-far-a-702679.html
And incest: http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2012/09/12/hollywood_star_embraces_incest/page/full
And bestiality: http://humanevents.com/2007/02/01/hollywood-and-bestiality/
To add further knowledge of this sick evil...research tenured "professor" PETER SINGER. This goblin has written books and given lectures for years about WORSE things than what Belloc has linked to.
The connection to gay marriage? MANY...I personally think a large majority but certainly not all...gays are "down" with all this sick shit..and now they've got a foot in the door for it. Go ahead and pooh pooh it all you want, just like we all thought 5-10 years ago homo marriage would never..COULD NEVER happen in America. Shit just gets worse and worse. Couple that with a large number of people in elected positions who are gay, well it aint never gonna get any better.
Averageman
06-27-15, 14:42
To add further knowledge of this sick evil...research tenured "professor" PETER SINGER. This goblin has written books and given lectures for years about WORSE things than what Belloc has linked to.
The connection to gay marriage? MANY...I personally think a large majority but certainly not all...gays are "down" with all this sick shit..and now they've got a foot in the door for it. Go ahead and pooh pooh it all you want, just like we all thought 5-10 years ago homo marriage would never..COULD NEVER happen in America. Shit just gets worse and worse. Couple that with a large number of people in elected positions who are gay, well it aint never gonna get any better.
On Singer;
http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/princeton-prof-kill-severely-disabled-infants-under-obamacare/
In a radio interview Sunday, Princeton University ethics professor Peter Singer argued it is “reasonable” for government or private insurance companies to deny treatment to severely disabled babies.
Singer contended the health-care system under Obamacare should be more overt about rationing and that the country should acknowledge the necessity of “intentionally ending the lives of severely disabled infants.”
https://www.ted.com/speakers/peter_singer
his groundbreaking book Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals, which questions society’s tendency to put human needs above those of members of other species. And he draws fire from critics who object to his fascinating argument in favor of an obligation to help the global poor that sets the bar so high that it means we are almost all living unethically. His defense of euthanasia and infanticide, in some circumstances, has led to protests against his lectures and to teaching position at Princeton.
http://www.biography.com/people/peter-singer-39994#controversial-figure
Among pro-life activists in particular, Singer has proven to be a popular target. His belief that newborns should not be considered a person until 30 days after their birth, and his allowance that physicians should have the right to kill some disabled babies, has drawn condemnation from anti-abortion leaders from around the world.
Throughout his long career, Singer has been a strong proponent of eliminating poverty, arguing that anyone who has more than they need should be giving to those in need.
Yeah, he's a gem alright.
Deleted
Article date was old.
Sorry about that, but this explains my position a bit clearer.
Clearly it may mean the same to you, but to others the two are vastly different.
You must have misunderstood me - I'm drawing a distinction between marriage and Holy Matrimony. Let me restate it so that we are clear: marriage is between people and state; matrimony is between husband, wife, and God. SCOTUS has dominion over marriage, but not matrimony.
Notice that I do not mention the word "church" and matrimony in the same sentence. There are reasons for that...
Averageman
06-27-15, 22:56
You must have misunderstood me - I'm drawing a distinction between marriage and Holy Matrimony. Let me restate it so that we are clear: marriage is between people and state; matrimony is between husband, wife, and God. SCOTUS has dominion over marriage, but not matrimony.
Notice that I do not mention the word "church" and matrimony in the same sentence. There are reasons for that...
Sorry for the confusion, I as agreeing with your position and using what you had written to clarify my point to Digital Damage.
Unless it is in a Church it isn't a union sanctified by God, if it is a union by the state, it is a marriage, or what I had referred to as a civil union.
Either way, the State may control Marriage, but the Church controls Matrimony.
Sorry about the confusion.
Why Same-Sex "Marriage" Won’t Bring Us Peace
http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/26/same-sex-marriage-wont-bring-us-peace/
I'm so upset about this. I just got all my signs and banners made for the big protest about colored people being able to drink from our water fountains, and now THIS!?!?
WHEN WILL THEY HAVE ENOUGH!!!!
Actually I'm largely underwhelmed by the repercussions of allowing gays to marry. Nobody has forced anything into my butt without a ring, they can't force me to marry them either. Get over yourselves. Dictate the way you interpret your religion of choice and impose it on your own life. Allow others to do the same.
Freedom is hard for some people.
They should have deemed it a states rights issue... Nothing more.
They should have deemed it a states rights issue... Nothing more.
If they had, we could have said goodbye to national ccw reciprocity.
If they had, we could have said goodbye to national ccw reciprocity.
Which we haven't got yet. But it wouldn't surprise me if SCOTUS got to rule on that and subsequently ruled against for whatever reason. Regardless I don't equate gay marriage as being the equivalent of a constitutionally protected right that's spelled out as such.
Which we haven't got yet. But it wouldn't surprise me if SCOTUS got to rule on that and subsequently ruled against for whatever reason. Regardless I don't equate gay marriage as being the equivalent of a constitutionally protected right that's spelled out as such.
According to some people, whose legal background is unknown, the ruling already gave us national reciprocity.
I guarantee that the Second Amendment Foundation is licking their lips on this one. I can't wait for them to make a move on it.
Sorry for the confusion, I as agreeing with your position and using what you had written to clarify my point to Digital Damage.
Unless it is in a Church it isn't a union sanctified by God, if it is a union by the state, it is a marriage, or what I had referred to as a civil union.
Either way, the State may control Marriage, but the Church controls Matrimony.
Sorry about the confusion.
Full Disclosure: I was baptized Methodist, educated in a Catholic HS, and married Greek Orthodox. I now consider myself a Jeffersonian Deist with Christian leanings in that I like a lot of what Jesus had to say (at least, as much that can be directly attributed to him), but distrust most of the churches.
With that disclosure being said, I intentionally leave "the church" out of the relationship between man, woman, and God that we call matrimony. That is because I do not trust these institutions of man to faithfully uphold this sacriment. Belloc's article does a good job describing how our religious institutions have dropped the ball when it comes to providing moral leadership and articulating standards. This has been the most significant factor leading to our current predicament. I fully expect to see churches across the country executing gay marriages labeled as matrimony within the decade. In addition, notice how the Pope has been very silent on Ireland's foray into gay marriage and our most recent SCOTUS decision. We wouldn't want to shake His Eminence's popularity with today's youth by taking "controversial" stances - that would not be good for the coffers. Instead, he will continue to talk about the real threats to our collective spirituality - climate change. Just to be fair, the Catholic Church is not alone in this abdication of moral authority, Protestant church's are equally culpable when it comes to issues of life and marriage.
How very sad and tragic that those who claim that they believe in a right to keep and bear arms brag about how much they agree with the lunatic leftist ideological philosophy of the biggest gun-grabbers to ever sit on the Supreme Court.
http://i1328.photobucket.com/albums/w522/mtjh45/SupremeCourtJustices_zps1xfgn6xa.jpg
Eurodriver
06-28-15, 07:51
This girl I'm talking to said she is naming her daughters "Ruth, Bader, and Ginsburg" when she starts having them.
I asked why not "Sandra Day" and she said because SDO was "a corrupt sexist". :blink:
According to some people, whose legal background is unknown, the ruling already gave us national reciprocity.
I will believe that when I see it. While I agree with your opinion (that it should give us nationwide reciprocity) I'll guarantee you the Left will find some cockimamy excuse for how that doesn't apply here. Just watch.
This girl I'm talking to said she is naming her daughters "Ruth, Bader, and Ginsburg" when she starts having them.
I asked why not "Sandra Day" and she said because SDO was "a corrupt sexist". :blink:
Eject!
This girl I'm talking to said she is naming her daughters "Ruth, Bader, and Ginsburg" when she starts having them.
I asked why not "Sandra Day" and she said because SDO was "a corrupt sexist". :blink:
Eject!
Averageman
06-28-15, 09:43
Of all people, I asked my 75 year old Mother what She thought of it and she said "I don't Care." taken a bit by surprise by that I asked "Why?'
She went on to explain that people know right from wrong, good from bad what intent is and was. She went on to add, "If they wan't to rewrite the rules for their lives hear and now, they will surely answer for them if they were wrong later."
Much of that I agree with.
Digital_Damage
06-28-15, 09:50
Sorry for the confusion, I as agreeing with your position and using what you had written to clarify my point to Digital Damage.
Unless it is in a Church it isn't a union sanctified by God, if it is a union by the state, it is a marriage, or what I had referred to as a civil union.
Either way, the State may control Marriage, but the Church controls Matrimony.
Sorry about the confusion.
Another fallacy... you cant sanctify a marriage in the narrow terms you are providing.
Marriage is considered a sacrament by established Christian churches post Counsel of Trent when they saw they could make revenue. It is not a requirement of the Christian version of god or his perceived teachings.
To Sanctify something does not require a church as repeatedly demonstrated in KJV.
Averageman
06-28-15, 09:52
Another fallacy... you cant sanctify a marriage in the narrow terms you are providing.
Marriage is considered a sacrament by established Christian churches post Counsel of Trent when they saw they could make revenue. It is not a requirement of the Christian version of god or his perceived teachings.
To Sanctify something does not require a church as repeatedly demonstrated in KJV.
I'm pretty sure She meant they will go to the Hell of their own making.
Digital_Damage
06-28-15, 09:56
I'm pretty sure She meant they will go to the Hell of their own making.
What does that have to do with the incorrect application of what it means to sanctify something?
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-28-15, 10:03
I'm so upset about this. I just got all my signs and banners made for the big protest about colored people being able to drink from our water fountains, and now THIS!?!?
WHEN WILL THEY HAVE ENOUGH!!!!
Actually I'm largely underwhelmed by the repercussions of allowing gays to marry. Nobody has forced anything into my butt without a ring, they can't force me to marry them either. Get over yourselves. Dictate the way you interpret your religion of choice and impose it on your own life. Allow others to do the same.
Freedom is hard for some people.
You don't understand Progressives or how they will use this against conservatives. It will go past not discriminating against them to having to publicly accept and endorse the LGBTQIAXYZ agenda in full.
Averageman
06-28-15, 10:09
What does that have to do with the incorrect application of what it means to sanctify something?
In Biblical terms, and She's a very religious Lady, those who would sanctify something that is against the will of God will find their place in the after life a bit warmer than perhaps they thought it should be.
You have free will to either obey or disregard Gods will, you will in either case get your reward for your choices. Man can change any Law here he chooses, that doesn't make it right or within the guidelines of our knowledge of spiritual right or wrong.
Fight the good fight, but always know you will be judged for the choices you make and the things you do.
I will believe that when I see it. While I agree with your opinion (that it should give us nationwide reciprocity) I'll guarantee you the Left will find some cockimamy excuse for how that doesn't apply here. Just watch.
The standard excuse will probably be that the decision is to be interpreted narrowly only for the purposes of marriage. I haven't read the decision so idk. What I do know is that I won't be the test case for this interpretation.
This girl I'm talking to said she is naming her daughters "Ruth, Bader, and Ginsburg" when she starts having them.
I asked why not "Sandra Day" and she said because SDO was "a corrupt sexist". :blink:
There's a restaurant I like that starts with "Ruth", though I haven't been in a while.
skijunkie55
06-28-15, 12:12
http://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt28/skijunkie55/Mobile%20Uploads/IMG_5654.png
While I can't claim this is a recent photo collage as it's not uncommon to post on Facebook for shock value, the images speak for themselves...
Welcome to the new America everyone. This is free speech. But don't you dare speak out and say "hey that's not right" because then you are a homophobe bigot who hates people who want to love each other... Hope you enjoy the ride.
But don't you dare speak out and say "hey that's not right" because then you are a homophobe bigot who hates people who want to love each other... Hope you enjoy the ride.
I have said nothing more than "it is a lifestyle with which neither my religion nor myself agree" and already I have become a pariah of a quarter of my family and half of my co-workers. I have not said a mean word, called any names or used any slurs, but that phrase alone has separated me from a couple dozen people. So be it.
skijunkie55
06-28-15, 12:53
I have said nothing more than "it is a lifestyle with which neither my religion nor myself agree" and already I have become a pariah of a quarter of my family and half of my co-workers. I have not said a mean word, called any names or used any slurs, but that phrase alone has separated me from a couple dozen people. So be it.
This is going to be the new norm. Disagreement with their lifestyle is now the same as hate speech.
Eurodriver
06-28-15, 12:58
This is going to be the new norm. Disagreement with their lifestyle is now the same as hate speech.
On the same side of the coin, agreement with your life style is also hate speech.
This girl I'm talking to said she is naming her daughters "Ruth, Bader, and Ginsburg" when she starts having them.
I asked why not "Sandra Day" and she said because SDO was "a corrupt sexist". :blink:
Dude............ There is a common denominator in all of this and it's your choice in women lol.
Eurodriver
06-28-15, 15:16
Dude............ There is a common denominator in all of this and it's your choice in women lol.
Dumb and easy > Smart and difficult
How long before "Gay Studies" is a required course for high school graduation?
Bingo. They based the ruling on a SC Justice's opinion which apparently defines “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy." The opinion was written in regard to a law making contraceptives illegal if possessed by non-married couples in Massachusetts. I'm sure they will say the ruling provides the right to have whatever sex you'd like but not the RTK&BA. Opinion based upon opinion based upon opinion...it's outrageous.
The standard excuse will probably be that the decision is to be interpreted narrowly only for the purposes of marriage. I haven't read the decision so idk. What I do know is that I won't be the test case for this interpretation.
There's a restaurant I like that starts with "Ruth", though I haven't been in a while.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-28-15, 16:54
While I can't claim this is a recent photo collage as it's not uncommon to post on Facebook for shock value, the images speak for themselves...
Welcome to the new America everyone. This is free speech. But don't you dare speak out and say "hey that's not right" because then you are a homophobe bigot who hates people who want to love each other... Hope you enjoy the ride.
What if St. Pats day parade had the mirror image equivalent portrayals of gays and lesbians? I struggle to think what that would actually look like, but any attack on their life style would bring out condemnation.
How long before "Gay Studies" is a required course for high school graduation?
Dude, we are already there.
Singlestack Wonder
06-28-15, 16:58
Public school biology classes will start teaching how a penis in another man's behind is how nature planned it.
America is truly gone now after this decision........
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-28-15, 18:29
Public school biology classes will start teaching how a penis in another man's behind is how nature planned it.
America is truly gone now after this decision........
The floods coming and there ain't no ark.
We are headed for a rolling French Revolution directed by the most collectivist progressives. It iss only a matter of time that our reluctance leads to them being violent, or more likely, standing aside as the true psychos start to violently tear down society.
If a hard reset gonna happen I wish it word hurry up so I'm still young enough to do something about it. I'm still eyeballing one of tanks at my local armory lol.
Just read the whole damn opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Complete and utter leftist bullshit, start to finish. The dissents are, however, spot on.
SCOTUS just went nuclear on the American people. The only question now is what their next targets of choice will be. Lemme guess...
It's gonna get bumpy.
skywalkrNCSU
06-28-15, 19:44
I woke up this morning and my oatmeal tasted the same and my day went on as normal. Only thing that has changed since this ruling is some gay people are a lot happier now and some people who think the church should legislate the nation are pissed. Hopefully now republicans will talk about issues that actually matter.
Moose-Knuckle
06-28-15, 20:09
This girl I'm talking to said she is naming her daughters "Ruth, Bader, and Ginsburg" when she starts having them.
So if she has boys instead girls will she simply abort them or will she raise them to "identify" as females until they are of age to have gender reassignment surgery?
Rand's rebuttal.
http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/
Moose-Knuckle
06-28-15, 20:23
Just read the whole damn opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Complete and utter leftist bullshit, start to finish. The dissents are, however, spot on.
SCOTUS just went nuclear on the American people. The only question now is what their next targets of choice will be. Lemme guess...
It's gonna get bumpy.
Pretty much . . .
Two different constitutional attorneys I've heard this week sum it up, SCOTUS has now just defined what marriage and family are and they are legislating from the bench.
"I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy,".
"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." Justice Scalia wrote in the opening paragraph of his dissent
crusader377
06-28-15, 22:48
Late to this discussion and I agree the Supreme Court ruling is wrong and an unconstitutional example of the Supreme Court legislating from the bench. Personally I think people should start contacting their state representatives and governors and implore them to ignore the Supreme Courts ruling. Citizens for support traditional values need to be united and take a strong stand against this issue.
Public school biology classes will start teaching how a penis in another man's behind is how nature planned it.
America is truly gone now after this decision........
That's already been going on for a while.
The New School: Homosexual Propaganda and Your Kids
http://catholicexchange.com/the-new-school-homosexual-propaganda-and-your-kids
The logic works like this: If homosexual acts are moral, as so many now insist, then they should be normative. If they are normative, they should be taught in our schools as a standard. If they are a standard, they should be enforced. And so it has come, and is coming, to be. Education is an essential part of the drive to universalize the rationalization for homosexual behavior; so it must become a mandatory part of the curriculum. What began as a plea for diversity ends with a demand for conformity.
The infiltration of higher education by LGBT studies is well known. However, less attention seems to have been paid to the effort to spread LGBT propaganda in elementary schools and high schools. Because of the young ages of students K through 12, the introduction of pro-homosexual materials has required a special sensitivity from those who are trying to get away with it. They must avoid the explicit nature of the LGBT courses offered at the college level and disguise the effort in terms of something other than what it really is. Therefore, they use a stealth approach under the cover of issues such as school safety, diversity, and bullying.
Has there ever been a self-identifying homosexual on this board?
Has there ever been a self-identifying homosexual on this board?
Yes
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=135995
This is going to be a shock for a lot of people. Many Americans are obviously pissed, but many more do not seem to care about gay marriage from what I am seeing.
Eurodriver
06-29-15, 06:32
Pretty much . . .
Two different constitutional attorneys I've heard this week sum it up, SCOTUS has now just defined what marriage and family are and they are legislating from the bench.
Isn't the idea of SCOTUS' sole purpose to preserve liberty and the constitution?
I'm quite certain we would be singing a different tune if the majority ruled gun owners shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Averageman
06-29-15, 06:41
Isn't the idea of SCOTUS' sole purpose to preserve liberty and the constitution?
I'm quite certain we would be singing a different tune if the majority ruled gun owners shouldn't be allowed to marry.
I happened to be channel surfing and got to hear part of the argument on C-Span.
I could care less, but I think the argument was presented and debated weakly. I think more than a few here could have made the point better, but I'm willing to bet that even before the ruling came down they were preparing the White House to be all rainbowy.
If you've reached he age of accountability and still haven't figured out right and wrong, have you really not figured it out? Perhaps in reality you have and you decided to make bad choices and want someone to reinforce these choices with excuses?
Isn't the idea of SCOTUS' sole purpose to preserve liberty and the constitution?
I'm quite certain we would be singing a different tune if the majority ruled gun owners shouldn't be allowed to marry.
The majority who legislated from the bench and redefined marriage are the exact same ones who don't believe that the Constitution protects the individual right to keep and bear arms.
And you know this.
http://i1328.photobucket.com/albums/w522/mtjh45/SupremeCourtJustices_zps1xfgn6xa.jpg
No one here has stated that those who habitually engage in homosexual acts cannot get married, only that engaging in homosexual acts does not make a person into "a people", and that the rules governing marriage were already equally applicable to everyone, regardless of wether or not a person, for whatever reason, wanted to commit homosexual acts.
Trolling around on the web there are some seriously deranged folks out there.
Caught this gem and a corresponding rant over how it's not enough that LGBT lifestyles aren't being embraced and more must be done...
http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/06/29/a27e1eb052d2f104fe28421599b40c17.jpg
Some folks are missing the point here, which is surprising, because many of you fully understand and have seen the diabolic power hungry nature of the political class and their desire to rule by decree. This is a nation ruled by law, not by men, not my opinion, nor your opinion, about what we do or don't like at a given moment of time. So when the "high court" does not function as a court and, for example, ignores and rewrites the clear language in Obamacare regarding the exchanges being run "by the state" and then interprets that to mean the opposite of what it says, then we can know it is the rule of man, not of law, and that it is not within their constitutional power to rewrite law. To relate it to something many of you actually do give a crap about, this move of interpretation and reinterpretation is right out of the playbook of the AFT and DOJ.
What really irks me is part of their opinion was based on all the states where gay marriage is already legal. You mean the ones where the court overturned the state laws passed by the people and/or legislature? It's legal because the court made it legal! And so now the court finds justification to overturn all state laws because a justice in the 70's said that sex without the intention to procreate is protected as “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy." I don't disagree with his opinion, but does the right to have sex without the intention to procreate now trump the tenth amendment and, accordingly, the rights reserved to all states and all people? That could not be the intention of his opinion.
Singlestack Wonder
07-01-15, 10:10
And the sub culture continues on its quest to further undermine America by continuing to force deviant lifestyle acceptance in America's schools...
http://www.advancementcourses.com/blogcelebrate-pride-month-by-developing-strategies-to-support-lgbtq-students-in-your-classroom/
brickboy240
07-01-15, 11:02
I found the rulings on Obamacare and not having to show proof of citizenship at the voting booth to be far more scary than the gay marriage ruling.
Having the healthcare industry implode and increasing voter fraud will do much more damage to us than two boys tying the knot.
The left is hoping you all blow a gasket and get worked up over homos while they wreck the healthcare system and steal every national election from this day forward.
I found the rulings on Obamacare and not having to show proof of citizenship at the voting booth to be far more scary than the gay marriage ruling.
Having the healthcare industry implode and increasing voter fraud will do much more damage to us than two boys tying the knot.
The left is hoping you all blow a gasket and get worked up over homos while they wreck the healthcare system and steal every national election from this day forward.
As you might imagine, I disagree.
The government believing that it has the orwellian power and authority to arbitrarily redefine words is the bigger threat.
If the government can redefine marriage to mean something it never has in all of recorded human history, then it can redefine "assault weapon" to mean anything it wants, including anything not a flintlock if it so wishes, and then have the courts declare that the constitution does not grant citizens to right to own assault weapons.
brickboy240
07-01-15, 16:30
Destroying the health care system and ensuring voting fraud from here on out is much more damaging.
Hetero marriage ends up in divorce 50% of the time...it was not as if hetero marriage was golden and they swept in and sullied it! LOL
Allowing voter fraud ensures that nobody will be elected to reverse the ACA or voting ID laws.....OR the gay marriage act.
So yes...the voting ruling was huge...sorry.
wildcard600
07-01-15, 16:42
Destroying the health care system and ensuring voting fraud from here on out is much more damaging.
Hetero marriage ends up in divorce 50% of the time...it was not as if hetero marriage was golden and they swept in and sullied it! LOL
Allowing voter fraud ensures that nobody will be elected to reverse the ACA or voting ID laws.....OR the gay marriage act.
So yes...the voting ruling was huge...sorry.
But the teachins of jebus !!!! Two men rubbing willies !!! sky is falling !!!
Whiskey_Bravo
07-01-15, 16:44
But the teachins of jebus !!!! Two men rubbing willies !!! sky is falling !!!
Are you going to be ok?
WickedWillis
07-01-15, 16:44
I think this thread is doing a great job of showing people who have class, and people who are just human garbage. So goes the interwebs though.
I still think alot of folks are missing the point.
Liberty means just that, freedom of choice and the permitting of others to choose as they see fit so long as they don't infringe upon my liberty. Granted I subscribe to a more libertarian viewpoint but IMO the gov should have ZERO involvement in the institution of marriage, other than articulating age of consent. No defining, tax incentives, etc. If two dudes/gals of consenting age want to get hitched knock your socks off. Now what has transpired thus far goes well beyond that and is the hijacking and exploitation of a population for political reasons and a bigger agenda. But at it's core the issue is pretty cut and dry again IMO.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-01-15, 19:19
There are two issues here. Gay marriage and gays marrying. Gays marrying isn't a problem. It makes as much sense as riding a tandem bike while wearing a fish suit, but if that what you want, have fun spawning. Gay marriage is the political movement that isn't about liberty- it is the exact opposite. Like most 'rights' put forward by Progressives, it is a collective right that actually takes rights away from others. Gays didn't gain the right to marry as much as everyone else lost the right to say that it is immoral or oppose it.
Back to the 2A parallelism, after SCOTUS ruled on Heller, it didn't become illegal to advocate restricting 2A rights. Local govts did everything in and beyond their power and legal authority to restrict and deny the rights. The left instantly started talking about how to roll it back or even repeal the 2A. Anyone who does this on this ruling will be sitting at a long table alone with Donald Trump.
This decision is a net loss in liberty and sets the stage for the rest of the LGBTQIAXYZ agenda to be enacted and protected.
What is happening now to the Confederate flag will soon be happening to Christian Churches. Actaully, the LGBTQIAXYZers already do that with their silly parades, actions and imagery- it will just become more mainstream, at least as reported by the MSM.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-01-15, 19:21
Mis-tap
I still think alot of folks are missing the point.
Liberty means just that, freedom of choice and the permitting of others to choose as they see fit so long as they don't infringe upon my liberty. Granted I subscribe to a more libertarian viewpoint but IMO the gov should have ZERO involvement in the institution of marriage, other than articulating age of consent. No defining, tax incentives, etc. If two dudes/gals of consenting age want to get hitched knock your socks off. Now what has transpired thus far goes well beyond that and is the hijacking and exploitation of a population for political reasons and a bigger agenda. But at it's core the issue is pretty cut and dry again IMO.
Why I disagree.
No Truce With the Left
http://sultanknish.blogspot.co.at/2015/06/no-truce-with-left.html
There comes a time when every conservative thinker tries to find some common ground with the left in some area. Today it's criminal rights and the headlines have Rand Paul denouncing the racist justice system while Grover Norquist and the Koch Brothers join with the left to back their reforms. As usually happens, the conservatives or libertarians turn out to be the useful idiots of the left.
Liberals have a long history of being the left's useful idiots. It's only fair that libertarians get a turn.
Republicans are still trying to figure out a truce on gay marriage. They retreated to civil unions, then accepted a full defeat on gay marriage and then acted baffled when Christian bakery owners were dragged into court for refusing to participate in gay weddings. When the left insisted that gay marriage was a civil rights issue, they refused to take them as their word.
Now they're wondering how an accommodation can be made with tranny rights. A brief look back at gay rights will show that the only possible accommodation is one in which men in dresses have a legal right to use the ladies room and every single closed female space and event. And yes, that means your business will be shut down if you object to Steve using the female locker room.
I still think alot of folks are missing the point.
Liberty means just that, freedom of choice and the permitting of others to choose as they see fit so long as they don't infringe upon my liberty.
The problem here is that your definition of liberty is simply a personally invented post-modern one that bears little resemblance to the classical understanding of the principles of freedom and liberty articulated by our Founding Fathers and great political philosophers.
Why then should not another be able to also redefine liberty as he or she see fit? If "marriage" can mean anything anyone wants it to mean, as you believe, then so can "liberty". That rather means that your neighbours could believe that freedom and liberty means that their neighborhood be 'free and liberated' from all "assault style weapons". Now you might counter that that infringes on your liberty, but then they could just as legitimately counter back that you having dangerous military style weapons which serve no sporting purpose infringes on their freedom and liberty to feel safe and unthreatened. And as we see with equating males sodomizing each other to the bond of intimacy between a man and his wife, the lunatic leftist arguments don't have to make a lick of sense and can rest entirely, as we see with their homosexual "marriage" inane incoherent nonsense, on adolescent emotive histrionic posturing.
"Liberty . . . is not a licentiousness of doing what is pleasing to every one against the command of God"
Algernon Sidney, "Discourses Concerning Government"
"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their appetites."
-Edmund Burke
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
-John Adams
"Liberty regards religion as its companion in all its battles and its triumphs . . . it considers religion as the safeguard of morality, and morality as the best security of law and the surest pledge of the duration of freedom."
-Alexis de Tocqueville
"A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience are incompatible with freedom. It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains."
-Patrick Henry
"Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith."
-Horace Greely
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity [freedom and liberty], Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens."
-George Washington
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?"
-Thomas Jefferson
These sentiments are either true, or they aren't. But if they are not, then you have your work cut out for you explaining why they are not, why we can simply ignore and discard them, and how moral subjectivism, i.e. relativism, is a path we must follow to achieve and secure the blessings of liberty.
Granted I subscribe to a more libertarian viewpoint but IMO the gov should have ZERO involvement in the institution of marriage,
Government is involved in marriage because marriage produces children, and those children, as well as their parents as their parents, have certain inalienable rights that it is the duty and responsibility of the state to recognise and guarantee.
If there is one major emphatic point to be made regarding this ruling, it is your statement below. The parallels with the Heller ruling is an apples to oranges comparison though. The Heller ruling falls back on our constitution where this ruling falls back on stretching previous SCOTUS opinions and resulting precedent. For SCOTUS to fall back to Eisenstadt v. Baird will set further precedent to elevate sex without the intention to procreate, and now gay marriage, to overrule other rights protected within our constitution.
Gay marriage is the political movement that isn't about liberty- it is the exact opposite. Like most 'rights' put forward by Progressives, it is a collective right that actually takes rights away from others. Gays didn't gain the right to marry as much as everyone else lost the right to say that it is immoral or oppose it.
The problem here is that your definition of liberty is simply a personally invented post-modern one that bears little resemblance to the classical understanding of the principles of freedom and liberty articulated by our Founding Fathers and great political philosophers.
Why then should not another be able to also redefine liberty as he or she see fit? If "marriage" can mean anything anyone wants it to mean, as you believe, then so can "liberty". That rather means that your neighbours could believe that freedom and liberty means that their neighborhood be 'free and liberated' from all "assault style weapons". Now you might counter that that infringes on your liberty, but then they could just as legitimately counter back that you having dangerous military style weapons which serve no sporting purpose infringes on their freedom and liberty to feel safe and unthreatened. And as we see with equating males sodomizing each other to the bond of intimacy between a man and his wife, the lunatic leftist arguments don't have to make a lick of sense and can rest entirely, as we see with their homosexual "marriage" inane incoherent nonsense, on adolescent emotive histrionic posturing.
These sentiments are either true, or they aren't. But if they are not, then you have your work cut out for you explaining why they are not, why we can simply ignore and discard them, and how moral subjectivism, i.e. relativism, is a path we must follow to achieve and secure the blessings of liberty.
Government is involved in marriage because marriage produces children, and those children, as well as their parents as their parents, have certain inalienable rights that it is the duty and responsibility of the state to recognise and guarantee.
Look, that's great and all but what two consenting adults do in private I could care less about. Regarding your tie in with the 2A one is shrouded in the protections of the Constitution, one isn't. As for morality you can conceptualize matters all you want but at the end of the day free people will do as they please, government be damned. I'd rather not see government involved in the institution of marriage at all but at most it should be left to individual states to decide for themselves if they want to recognize gay marriages. Perhaps if our founders had taken a more specific approach in the crafting of the Constitution regarding marriage we wouldn't be having this conversation, but they didn't.
Lastly for the record I'm still of the belief that homosexuality is a deviation away from the natural order of things and is on the same level of abnormality as numerous psychological illnesses. But freedom and tolerance are funny things.
If there is one major emphatic point to be made regarding this ruling, it is your statement below. The parallels with the Heller ruling is an apples to oranges comparison though. The Heller ruling falls back on our constitution where this ruling falls back on stretching previous SCOTUS opinions and resulting precedent. For SCOTUS to fall back to Eisenstadt v. Baird will set further precedent to elevate sex without the intention to procreate, and now gay marriage, to overrule other rights protected within our constitution.
Because it was from first to last entirely all about a power grab by the government.
The Audacity of the State
It’s Bent on Bringing Down the House on the Family & the Church
"..Replaced by a kaleidoscope of transient sexual and psychological configurations, which serve chiefly to make children of adults and adults of children, the declining family is ceding enormous tracts of social and legal territory to the state. At law, parent-child relationships are losing their a priori status and privilege. Crafty fools ask foolish fools, “What harm does same-sex marriage do to your marriage, or to your family?” The truthful answer is: Same-sex marriage makes us all chattels of the state, because the state, in presuming to define the substance rather than the accidents of marriage, has made marriage itself a state artefact."
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-01-028-f
Why Fight Same-Sex Marriage?
Is There Really That Much at Stake?
A Tool of the State
Six years ago, when same-sex marriage became law in Canada, ...consequential amendments section, Bill C-38 struck out the language of “natural parent,” “blood relationship,” etc., from all Canadian laws. Wherever they were found, these expressions were replaced with “legal parent,” “legal relationship,” and so forth.
That was strictly necessary. “Marriage” was now a legal fiction, a tool of the state, not a natural and pre-political institution recognized and in certain respects (age, consanguinity, consent, exclusivity) regulated by the state. And the state’s goal, as directed by its courts, was to assure absolute equality for same-sex couples. The problem? Same-sex couples could be parents, but not parents of common children. Granting them adoption rights could not fully address the difference. Where natural equality was impossible, however, formal or legal equality was required. To achieve it, “heterosexual marriages” had to be conformed in law to “homosexual marriages.” The latter produced non-reproductive units, constituted not by nature but by law; the former had therefore to be put on the same footing, and were.
The aim of such legislation, as F. C. DeCoste has observed in “Courting Leviathan” (Alberta Law Review, 2005),
is to de-naturalize the family by rendering familial relationships, in their entirety, expressions of law. But relationships of that sort—bled as they are of the stuff of social tradition and experience—are no longer family relationships at all. They are rather policy relationships, defined and imposed by the state.
Here we have what is perhaps the most pressing reason why same-sex marriage should be fought, and fought vigorously. It is a reason that neither the proponents nor the opponents of same-sex marriage have properly debated or thought through. In attacking “heterosexual monogamy,” same-sex marriage does away with the very institution—the only institution we have—that exists precisely in order to support the natural family and to affirm its independence from the state. In doing so, it effectively makes every citizen a ward of the state, by turning his or her most fundamental human connections into legal constructs at the state’s gift and disposal.
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=25-01-024-f
Look, that's great and all but what two consenting adults do in private I could care less about.
Nor could I, but I have always understood, as already posted and stated more profoundly and eloquently here than I can put it,
No Truce With the Left
http://sultanknish.blogspot.co.at/2015/06/no-truce-with-left.html
that from the very beginning, it was absolutely never, for a single solitary moment, about that. Not ever.
It was always about a government power grab.
It was always about forcing a leftist ideological agenda on the entire populace. Hell, they even admit this.
Bait And Switch: How Same Sex Marriage Ends Family Autonomy
http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/09/bait-and-switch-how-same-sex-marriage-ends-marriage-and-family-autonomy/
“Gay marriage is a lie,” announced gay activist Masha Gessen in a panel discussion last year at the Sydney Writers’ Festival. “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there. It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”
The New School: Homosexual Propaganda and Your Kids
http://catholicexchange.com/the-new-school-homosexual-propaganda-and-your-kids
"The logic works like this: If homosexual acts are moral, as so many now insist, then they should be normative. If they are normative, they should be taught in our schools as a standard. If they are a standard, they should be enforced. And so it has come, and is coming, to be. Education is an essential part of the drive to universalize the rationalization for homosexual behavior; so it must become a mandatory part of the curriculum. What began as a plea for diversity ends with a demand for conformity."
eightmillimeter
07-02-15, 14:06
Polygamus Montana Trio Applies for Marriage License (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/02/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-for-wedding-license/?intcmp=latestnews)
HELENA, Mont. – 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.
Nor could I, but I have always understood, as already posted and stated more profoundly and eloquently here than I can put it,
that from the very beginning, it was absolutely never, for a single solitary moment, about that. Not ever.
It was always about a government power grab.
It was always about forcing a leftist ideological agenda on the entire populace. Hell, they even admit this.
Bigtime.
Singlestack Wonder
07-02-15, 15:14
Polygamus Montana Trio Applies for Marriage License (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/02/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-for-wedding-license/?intcmp=latestnews)
Here we go.....How long until NAMBLA sues as well for equal rights?
Here we go.....How long until NAMBLA sues as well for equal rights?
The left tried once already to get pedophilia "normalised" in society, but they got a little ahead of themselves.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-sexual-revolution-and-children-how-the-left-took-things-too-far-a-702679.html
Eurodriver
07-02-15, 15:28
Belloc,
Do not misunderstand me. I assure you that we are on the same side.
However, I must ask the following:
Would you vote for a fiscal conservative that valued individual liberty if that person openly supported gay marriage?
Belloc,
Do not misunderstand me. I assure you that we are on the same side.
However, I must ask the following:
Would you vote for a fiscal conservative that valued individual liberty if that person openly supported gay marriage?
You mean if he were running against a spendthrift who openly supported gay "marriage"?
See why that question is difficult to answer? There is just no way of reducing it to such a simple formulation. Does he support letting the people vote, or does he support the courts forcing a liberal agenda on the people?
I guess I would have to somehow contact him and ask him or someone from his/her campaign the following questions:
Dear candidate for office,
When it comes to homosexuality this is what the research tells us. For reasons unknown to science, some people experience same-sex attraction. Of that group some experience early in life, then apparently grow out of it. Others do not experience it until later in life. And then still others experience same-sex attraction their entire lives. Among this last group there is yet another smaller group that experience homosexual attraction exclusively. No one has any idea why any of this happens. But the fact is that researchers are, and have been for a while now, moving away from any so called "gay gene/born gay" theory.
So then four questions.
1.Can you explain how engaging in homosexual acts, or simply wanting to do so, is somehow an ontology?
2. I hold that government has neither the power nor the competence to change the definition and substance of marriage. Can you explain why you in fact believe the government, i.e. you if you win, does have that power and authority?
3. Can you explain how the laws governing marriage do not already equally apply to everyone regardless their sexual proclivities?
4. And if the most fundamental principle of marriage is simply arbitrary as you obviously believe, does that not then also, necessarily, render all subordinate principles likewise arbitrary?
Sorry if that does not satisfy for an answer, but is the best I can offer considering the limited parameters of you question.
At the end of the day, the government spending money it does not have is certainly foolhardy and will eventually have rather dire economic repercussions, but there are very good reasons why the government believing it has the orwellian power to redefine any words it wishes, for any reason it wants, to be the greater danger.
For example, I trust you would not support the government redefining "assault weapon" to mean anything not a flintlock.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-02-15, 19:48
Look, that's great and all but what two consenting adults do in private I could care less about.
Ah, the good old days of the Texas sodomy laws when Rick Santorum was called crazy when he said that if the sodomy laws were overturned that it would lead to things like gay marriage. When the gay marriage fights came to the SCOTUS, the overturning of the sodomy laws was one of the legal precedents.
Well what two consenting adults do in their bedroom just landed in your local bakers business and wants a cake NOW, bitch.
How can no one make fun of gays that their biggest complaint of discrimination is that people won't bake them a cake? The GayKK and my four year old want a cake, NOW.
And how cute that you all think that now that gays can marry, this is all over! Here comes the rest of the queer'd alphabet for their day and you'd better not say anything about it or else you will be removed from society.
Gays marrying vs gay marriage and the GayKK in their rainbow robes, looking FABULOUS.
Well what two consenting adults do in their bedroom just landed in your local bakers business and wants a cake NOW, bitch.
I just about ruined my keyboard with Diet Pepsi.
Well what two consenting adults do in their bedroom just landed in your local bakers business and wants a cake NOW, bitch.
http://i1328.photobucket.com/albums/w522/mtjh45/Gay%20Rights%20Demands1_zpsfxb2m7f4.jpg
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-03-15, 00:20
I just about ruined my keyboard with Diet Pepsi.
It's OK, you can tell everyone the truth now. It was a wine spritzer, wasn't it ;)
http://www.ammoland.com/2015/06/gay-marriage-ruling-paves-the-way-for-concealed-carry-national-reciprocity/
Coming to your community, the right to thought and expression is dead. 1st Amendment be damned.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/03/hate-wins-oregon-state-issues-gag-order-against-opposing-gay-marriage/
HATE WINS: OREGON STATE ISSUES GAG ORDER AGAINST OPPOSING GAY MARRIAGE
In a sign of the overt fascism and religious persecution to come in the wake of a Left emboldened by the Supreme Court’s recent gay marriage ruling, a judge in Oregon has issued a gag order denying two Christian bakery owners from speaking out against same sex marriage.
“The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation,” [Administrative Law Judge Alan] Avakian wrote.
The gag order is meant to stop Aaron and Melissa Klein from publicly speaking out about their desire to not bake cakes for same sex weddings. The State’s order came after the Kleins were interviewed by the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, and after the State fined the Kleins $135,000 for “emotional damages” incurred by a lesbian couple after the Kleins refused to bake their wedding cake.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-04-15, 15:39
Coming to your community, the right to thought and expression is dead. 1st Amendment be damned.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/03/hate-wins-oregon-state-issues-gag-order-against-opposing-gay-marriage/
We are so far past 'what two consenting adults do'...
Whiskey_Bravo
07-04-15, 17:01
Coming to your community, the right to thought and expression is dead. 1st Amendment be damned.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/03/hate-wins-oregon-state-issues-gag-order-against-opposing-gay-marriage/
Wow is really all I can say.
It's OK, you can tell everyone the truth now. It was a wine spritzer, wasn't it ;)
Yeth.
Coming to your community, the right to thought and expression is dead. 1st Amendment be damned.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/03/hate-wins-oregon-state-issues-gag-order-against-opposing-gay-marriage/
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/instruction.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZCkOakoSiDo/UKYSlRMPqLI/AAAAAAAAIZo/-hC8PJ-wAX8/s1600/thoughtcrime1.gif
An interesting theory on the actual causes of homosexual orientation disorder.
How Choice And Emotion Can Influence Sexual Orientation
http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/08/how-choice-and-emotion-can-influence-sexual-orientation/
Moose-Knuckle
07-08-15, 15:39
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/instruction.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZCkOakoSiDo/UKYSlRMPqLI/AAAAAAAAIZo/-hC8PJ-wAX8/s1600/thoughtcrime1.gif
Pretty much . . .
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3815/19346192379_445278ab8c_z.jpg
Digital_Damage
07-08-15, 18:23
still crying about this?
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-08-15, 19:46
still crying about this?
Have the Progressives given up after Citizens United?
Did Chicago and DC start handing out CCW permits willy-nilly after they lost?
The left never rests on losses or victories.
"The New Totalitarians Are Here"
"Totalitarians want their rule, and their belief system, to be accepted and self-sustaining - even if it takes bludgeoning every last citizen who disagrees."
http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/06/the-new-totalitarians-are-here/
brickboy240
07-09-15, 12:14
If you are maybe 2-3% of the total population...how can you take over and become totalitarian?
Never knew so many could be so scared of homos. I have scarier things to get worked up over...sorry.
Some just cannot let the homo thing go...I guess.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-09-15, 12:52
If you are maybe 2-3% of the total population...how can you take over and become totalitarian?
Never knew so many could be so scared of homos. I have scarier things to get worked up over...sorry.
Some just cannot let the homo thing go...I guess.
According to some, the 1% does a pretty good job controlling things...
You misunderstand. It's the Progressives that will use this on 40-60% of the population that think that letting gays marry is none of their business- until they now find out that you can't have any reservations about the gay lifestyle.
ETA: Your comment about 'letting go' of the homo thing is actually a micro-aggression so in vogue with the left. You really need to be more careful about these in the future.
Singlestack Wonder
07-09-15, 12:53
I can't let my God fearing Christian thing go that's why......
brickboy240
07-09-15, 13:42
So it is wrong to think that our debt, energy policy, monetary policy and tax structure are much more pressing than homos marrying?
I think the gay marriage issue is akin to the flap over the CSA flag in SC - low hanging fruit. A distraction if you will.
Just like the issue of race, the right will never win the public over on the gay issue. How about focusing on the other issues I stated? Those issues are not based on someone's religion but on numbers and hard facts. I think these are easier to argue than fighting over who's invisible man in the sky is best.
The left loves the issues of gay marriage and abortion because they have become really good at making the right seem out of touch or silly, while arguing these issues. Whether these are or are not silly issues (to some they are not...I get this) is not the point. the left chooses the gay marriage issue because they KNOW the right is easily beaten on it. They avoid the hard figure issues like the plague...because they know they are dead wrong and will never win these issues...period.
It is high time the right stops playing the left's game. Stop being Charlie Brown when Lucy puts the football up for a kick...ok?
You want to win...don't you?
Me? I am tired of losing...to losers.
Singlestack Wonder
07-09-15, 14:14
Yes, there are other issues that matter as well . However if we always just ignore the left's pushing issues by us and not standing up, they'll keep pushing more issues by the American people at a faster rate. If someone told me 10 years ago that illegal aliens in America can work here, pay no taxes, receive welfare benefits, get free cell phones, get top of the line free medical care, and vote in some jurisdictions, I would have laughed at loud. Now when I hear about it, I think about a good portion of my tax dollars going to support such activity. Plus I'm sure the left will be pushing for social security benefits for illegals soon even though they never paid into the system.
We're not playing a game, we are trying to save America........but I fear it is too late............
So it is wrong to think that our debt, energy policy, monetary policy and tax structure are much more pressing than homos marrying?
In other words, you actually believe that our energy policy is a greater threat to liberty and freedom than the government believing it has the power and authority to redefine any and all words it wishes, for any reason it wants, including redefining "assault weapon" to mean anything not a flintlock musket, or hell, even also a flintlock musket. And on top of this, you keep posting ad nauseam how much it bothers you that others don't remotely agree with you and indeed find your position to be breathtakingly naive and shallow.
some folks for sure cant see the big pic :)
again for the %1 they change and write what they want because the progressives are getting more emboldened
we know our first has been crippled more now with this law since we cant saw what we want ! by a round about way with this cave in to the %1 folks
and they will cripple the 2nd in many round about ways
I can't believe how some fall for things like the energy policy ? tax structure etc... ? I guess they must think they will have 1s and 2nd to protect those but they cant see the attack on the 1st and second and fall for the distraction of the other things :)
In other words, you actually believe that our energy policy is a greater threat to liberty and freedom than the government believing it has the power and authority to redefine any and all words it wishes, for any reason it wants, including redefining "assault weapon" to mean anything not a flintlock musket, or hell, even also a flintlock musket. And on top of this, you keep posting ad nauseam how much it bothers you that others don't remotely agree with you and indeed find your position to be breathtakingly naive and shallow.
brickboy240
07-09-15, 16:45
Well then what is your big plan to restore DOMA? I have not heard one good plan on how to do this.
Doesn't all that scare-mail material from the NRA say that the govt is going to redefine "assault weapon" to mean anything but a flintlock? All the stuff I have received for years has said that stuff. Sounds like others here ALSO succumb to propaganda....just propaganda they like.
Also...you have to win major national election BEFORE you can change any of that stuff. A few gains in mid term elections will not stave off that which you say is coming. A presidential win in 2016 can change the Supreme Court in a good way...or be the end of us all. Winning IS important, unless you want to see more of this activity....sorry.
The left HAS figured out that winning is important. How else could they lose the House and Senate and still pull off all this garbage? They pull their shit together and they WIN. They should never win a damn thing bu they do because they know it is important.
Nothing naive about this...sorry.
The stupid shit stops when enough people speak out and stop staying quiet with their opinions. The Left BETS the Right and Middle won't say anything, and just go on to work. The pushback on the 2A gun grabbers is an example. CNN did a pole and an overwhelming majority of Americans did NOT see the Confederate Battle Flag as a racist symbol, but because the media is giving the radicals all the air time (because they make good ratings) it looks different. I've never had a Confederate Battle Flag, but I'm ready to go buy one...
some folks for sure cant see the big pic :)
again for the %1 they change and write what they want because the progressives are getting more emboldened
we know our first has been crippled more now with this law since we cant saw what we want ! by a round about way with this cave in to the %1 folks
and they will cripple the 2nd in many round about ways
I can't believe how some fall for things like the energy policy ? tax structure etc... ? I guess they must think they will have 1s and 2nd to protect those but they cant see the attack on the 1st and second and fall for the distraction of the other things :)
What is both sad and ironic is that it is actually their total and complete inability, (or perhaps pathetic unwillingness) to ever bother to see the big picture that keeps handing the left the very victories that they themselves then complain about. They then insanely suggest that to combat this and find the path back to freedom and liberty we need to adopt their very same breathtakingly naive and shallow shortsightedness.
Apparently for them, capitulating to the agenda of these lunatic leftist gun-grabbing constitution shredding miscreants is the way we "stop playing their game". :rolleyes:
http://i1328.photobucket.com/albums/w522/mtjh45/5a884389007feaa07dbc860ddb1cd884_zps23d38c9a.jpeg
Again, Why No Truce With The Left Is Ever Possible http://sultanknish.blogspot.co.at/2015/06/no-truce-with-left.html
Well then what is your big plan to restore DOMA? I have not heard one good plan on how to do this.
How many ungood plans have you heard?
ditto :)
its the same as well what do you have to hide if a police want to search you :)
its the little give us this that are then taken over not sure how to word what I mean ;) but give a inch they take a mile
the OK I will let you becomes the law and the norm as they push the control more and more
What is both sad and ironic is that it is actually their total and complete inability, (or perhaps pathetic unwillingness) to ever bother to see the big picture that keeps handing the left the very victories that they themselves then complain about. They then insanely suggest that to combat this and find the path back to freedom and liberty we need to adopt their very same breathtakingly naive and shallow shortsightedness.
Apparently for them, capitulating to the agenda of these lunatic leftist gun-grabbing constitution shredding miscreants is the way we "stop playing their game". :rolleyes:
http://i1328.photobucket.com/albums/w522/mtjh45/5a884389007feaa07dbc860ddb1cd884_zps23d38c9a.jpeg
Again, Why No Truce With The Left Is Ever Possible http://sultanknish.blogspot.co.at/2015/06/no-truce-with-left.html
So it is wrong to think that our debt, energy policy, monetary policy and tax structure are much more pressing than homos marrying?
I think the gay marriage issue is akin to the flap over the CSA flag in SC - low hanging fruit. A distraction if you will.
Just like the issue of race, the right will never win the public over on the gay issue. How about focusing on the other issues I stated? Those issues are not based on someone's religion but on numbers and hard facts. I think these are easier to argue than fighting over who's invisible man in the sky is best.
The left loves the issues of gay marriage and abortion because they have become really good at making the right seem out of touch or silly, while arguing these issues. Whether these are or are not silly issues (to some they are not...I get this) is not the point. the left chooses the gay marriage issue because they KNOW the right is easily beaten on it. They avoid the hard figure issues like the plague...because they know they are dead wrong and will never win these issues...period.
It is high time the right stops playing the left's game. Stop being Charlie Brown when Lucy puts the football up for a kick...ok?
You want to win...don't you?
Me? I am tired of losing...to losers.
The majority of the public is against gay marriage.
They get stuff done because they do it. We vote republicans in 2012, and they do nothing while baner tells Obama he's ready to be lead. What a ****ing tool, literally being used by the dems. And people keep voting for him because of what he says.
R
The majority of the public is against gay marriage.
I wouldn't phrase it like that exactly. It is not that anyone is against "gay marriage", it is instead that no such thing exists, or can exist.
The government and courts can force the states to redefine a dog's tail to be a fifth leg, but that will never make it so.
Or perhaps a better example: Bernie Sanders: Respect American Gun Owners. Ban “Semi-Automatic Assault Weapons” http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/07/robert-farago/bernie-sanders-respect-american-gun-owners-ban-semi-automatic-assault-weapons/
No such thing exists as a "semi-auto assault weapon". It is as incoherent a term as "gay marriage" or even "married bachelor".
As one commentator put it.
I Do Not Oppose Gay Marriage
I do not oppose gay marriage for the simple reason that there is nothing to oppose. It is impossible for me to oppose what does not and cannot exist. It is for this reason that I do not oppose the tax edicts of the Roman emperor Augustus. Neither he nor his edicts exists, so there is literally nothing for me to oppose.
The state has not the competence to define the substance of marriage. It may pass all the laws it wants, but it lacks the ability to change the reality of the thing. In his article "The Audacity of the State," Dr. Douglas Farrow writes,
"[T]he advent of same-sex marriage has transformed marriage from a pre-political institution conferring “divine and human rights,” as the Roman jurist Modestinus put it, into a mere legal construct at the gift and disposal of the state.
Replaced by a kaleidoscope of transient sexual and psychological configurations, which serve chiefly to make children of adults and adults of children, the declining family is ceding enormous tracts of social and legal territory to the state. At law, parent-child relationships are losing their a priori status and privilege. Crafty fools ask foolish fools, “What harm does same-sex marriage do to your marriage, or to your family?” The truthful answer is: Same-sex marriage makes us all chattels of the state, because the state, in presuming to define the substance rather than the accidents of marriage, has made marriage itself a state artifact." http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-01-028-f
What I must, as a consequence, oppose is the Emperor's-new-clothes logic of leaders who would try to make me see what does not exist. A government may point to a homosexual couple and say, "Look at that married couple," yet I cannot pretend that this is what I see any more than could the child in the Hans Christian Andersen story. Surely, when someone who evidently does not know better makes a statement that is inaccurate, I have a charitable duty to point that out. Surely, when the city of Chicago revokes its own ordinance prohibiting protests at places of worship to allow homosexuals to protest at Holy Name Cathedral, I must speak out. Surely, when a company like Chick-Fil-A stands by its Christian ethos I must stand with them and decry the homosexual activists who would deny its right to do so.
Therefore, let me clear. I do not oppose gay marriage because there never has been nor ever can be such a thing to oppose.
Right. What I meant is that the majority of Americans want to keep marriage defined as between a man and a women, based on state votes. The judges just overruled in many states. I worded that poorly. Good article.
brickboy240
07-10-15, 12:26
But if this is true that most Americans oppose gay marriage...how DO we reinstate DOMA? Nope...I have not heard any plans to do so.
Don't get me wrong...I don't care if gays marry or not. Nor would I shed a tear if DOMA was brought back from the dead. In reality..I think the govt has no business in the marriage business and maybe this is a decision that needs to be settled at the state level.
I do know that on issues like race and gays....the left has designed the argument so that the right will never win. The mainstream media helps them in this endeavor as they are basically one in the same. Same thing is going on in SC with that silly flag - GOP'ers are blasting the flag - hoping this will garner them the black vote. However this is once again, playing THEIR game and it will not get the black vote for the GOP...no way...no how.
If you want to win this one...the right is going to have to develop better tactics and stop playing the left's game on these issues.
How DOES the right bring back DOMA? Well...I don't know.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-10-15, 13:04
I agree with BrickBat's thoughts that there are bigger issues. I was in a waiting room last week forced to watch CNN and all it was about was the Confederate flag, the two escaped convicts and their issues with bugs and It Jenner.
DOMA was ruled unconstitutional IIRC, so unless you want to start an amendment process- a new law won't change anything. Even if you did get an Amendment, I'd put the SCOTUS as saying that the 14th overpowers the new one or some horse shit. Look at Prop 8 in CA.
brickboy240
07-10-15, 13:51
Glad someone else sees this as one of many "distraction issues" that the left hopes to keep the right entangled in while bigger issues rot.
Yes, DOMA was ruled unconstitutional but of you were to reinstate marriage as one man and one woman...wouldn't you need a DOMA-like bill to do so and actually have it stick?
What happened in CA was crazy - they voted it down but then they basically ignored the will of the people.
In order to have it "stick" and stick nationwide...you'd have to have one hell of a plan and that I have not seen yet.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-10-15, 14:17
I don't think you can take back 'gay marriage'. To me the issue is more protecting people's free speech and association rights to oppose gay marriage.
Just because something is legal doesn't mean that it has to be protected by the govt.
I don't think the Religious Protection acts are the right way to go either- I'm not opposed them, but they put us on the defensive again. With Gay Marriage, they manipulated the issue so that they were the default and we had to stop them- which was brilliant. Some how they got their position to be entrenched rather than the historical one-man/one-woman setting. we had to prove that they shouldn't have the right, versus making them fight for the right. It isn't that clear, but it was close.
Going forward I think the key is to make sure that the queer isn't the new black. If they get protected status, it is all over. Questioning the gay lifestyle will become like denying slavery was bad.
We need to get back to the "What happens in the bedroom is no ones business."
We need to get the religion aspect out of our arguments.
Sorry, this isn't really coherent, but the 'gayns' they made this week are really pissing off a lot of forward thinking people. It is only a matter of time before these decisions start impacting more people- and the tranny's and the rest of circus is coming to town- and people aren't going to be down with it.
That and I think Pat is right.
http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/the-coming-era-of-civil-disobedience/
Digital_Damage
07-10-15, 14:41
With everything going to shit everywhere no one else finds if funny this and the whiskey thread are the ones with the most pages?
wildcard600
07-10-15, 17:19
With everything going to shit everywhere no one else finds if funny this and the whiskey thread are the ones with the most pages?
some have been posting the same BS over and over. its not hard to rack up the pages like that.
Moose-Knuckle
07-11-15, 01:03
If you are maybe 2-3% of the total population...how can you take over and become totalitarian?
Why is it that 2-3% of the total population get to dictate status quo to the other 98-97%?
Some just cannot let the homo thing go...I guess.
I cannot speak for others but the "homo" thing is not the problem, SCOTUS legislating from the bench and defining things like marriage is though however.
Slippery slope and all that . . .
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-11-15, 09:33
Like almost all Progressive "Rights", this one imposes restrictions and obligations on other people. It isn't that gays can marry, it's now that you can't oppose the gay lifestyle. It's not so much a 'right' to healthcare- its an obligation for others to pay for yours. With gun control it's not your 'right' to be 'safe' as much as it is a taking away the right of others to protect themselves. The 'right to choose' is really just taking away the life of someone else. They tried to pass a law to protect mothers who have their babies cut out of them by psychos- babies that would survive outside of the womb- babies just days from being born and it was shot down by the Progressives inteh name of Choice- even though it protected abortions.
Progressives are crazy.
Roof killed nine people in cold blood after he he was given a gun by the FBI and walked into a gun free zone- but the answer is to take down the confederate flag? WTF? Do people not see that is literally crazy?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.