Same Sex Marriage Legal in all US States

[shades]

What bothers me the most about this decision is that the SCOTUS has apparently decided that its role is now to determine the intent of the law, rather than to determine if the law itself is actually constitutional or not. This far exceeds the Marbury versus Madison decision, and changes the court's scope from judicial review to quasi legislating ability.So one extra person voting on a panel to make the vote 5-4 for gay marriage overrules 300 million people in the country. Maybe we should start a new country.

Might wanna ask those 300 million people because last I heard the majority agreed.

not sure where you "heard" that, but there are other channels besides CNN just so you know

trust me, you put it to a private vote and it gets shot down everywhere but the two loony states

Is this like the time you told me that if the Earth moved a mile closer to the sun we'd all burn to death?

if the earth moved a mile or two off of its GOD made orbit around the sun then yes.

that was the point, but like the other little girls on here you get your little tee hees out of the stupidist fuckin nonsense.

loosen your bra

[Black Sabbath]

Verbal attacks are usually the first sign of losing an argument.

Let's keep it clean.

[magisme]

What bothers me the most about this decision is that the SCOTUS has apparently decided that its role is now to determine the intent of the law, rather than to determine if the law itself is actually constitutional or not. This far exceeds the Marbury versus Madison decision, and changes the court's scope from judicial review to quasi legislating ability. So one extra person voting on a panel to make the vote 5-4 for gay marriage overrules 300 million people in the country. Maybe we should start a new country.

Exactly, we have ceased to live in a democracy. 5% of a population whines about something and the next thing you know we leave it up to 9 SCJ, 4 of which have completely lost all sense of duty.

You put this up to vote and 48 states vote it down. The other two aren't really part of the US, Massachusetts and California don't count.

Some loon shoots 9 people in a church and next thing you know liberals want to redefine the meaning of a flag. Which is no better than the hate mongers that want to redefine it to mean racism.

I'm really worried about the direction of this country, PC rules the day.

We have a Constitution. The 14th Amendment to that Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law and due process - both procedural and substantive - under that law. It is within the power of the judiciary and the judiciary alone to define what constitutes a fundamental right subject to those protections, and that is what the Supreme Court did today. What on God's green earth are you going on about? 5% of the population? Last poll I saw had 60% or more of the US in favor of marriage equality. And yeah, we don't live in a democracy. You're right. We're a constitutional republic. You get to legislate some things, but the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. So no, you don't get to vote on things or legislate things that are mandated by the Constitution. The Supreme Court did its job. This ruling is consistent with a long line of cases interpreting the 14th Amendment - Loving, Lawrence, Zablocki, and Windsor have all built to this, and it is the logical outgrowth of their reasoning. This is how our government works and how our Constitution intended it to work. You're right, sometimes it's not "democratic" in the sense of majority rules, but it is intended to protect our essential basic freedoms from tyranny of the majority. And if you don't like it, your problem is with the Constitution, not the court.

this is what I'm dealing with, ^^^^ they actually walk among us too.

thankfully it is still a very small segment of the population,

and he believes what he writes too

What part do you disagree with?

[Dazey]

What bothers me the most about this decision is that the SCOTUS has apparently decided that its role is now to determine the intent of the law, rather than to determine if the law itself is actually constitutional or not. This far exceeds the Marbury versus Madison decision, and changes the court's scope from judicial review to quasi legislating ability.So one extra person voting on a panel to make the vote 5-4 for gay marriage overrules 300 million people in the country. Maybe we should start a new country.

Might wanna ask those 300 million people because last I heard the majority agreed.

not sure where you "heard" that, but there are other channels besides CNN just so you know

trust me, you put it to a private vote and it gets shot down everywhere but the two loony states

Is this like the time you told me that if the Earth moved a mile closer to the sun we'd all burn to death?

if the earth moved a mile or two off of its GOD made orbit around the sun then yes.

Not true. Simply NOT true. Edited June 26, 2015 by Dazey

[Black Sabbath]

Honestly for people against it, it always comes down to the Bible and God as to "why not". Very silly.

[Dazey]

Honestly for people against it, it always comes down to the Bible and God as to "why not". Very silly.

Shut your whore mouth or I'll, kidnap you, drive a mile north and watch god burn/freeze you to death!

[Mansin Humanity]

I read Dazey's first post and laughed, then proceeded to read the rest of the thread and see him proved correct.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Mansin Humanity

[bacardimayne]

Does this mean the hooray for tolerance! filter can be removed? Since they're legal and everything?

[shades]

The Bible is silly?

So we part ways at the very beginning of a lot of conversation then.

What I find ironic is religion is being trampled on more and more by the same lot that say I'm trampling on their "rights" to change institutions because a small segment of the population says so.

The further you drift away from God the harder it is to recognize such hypocritical thought.

but to each his own, not saying it's wrong to be gay, that's for God to judge. But I have an opinion on it.

I even offered you should have civil union rights that make you 100% equal. So not sure where you pick up I'm anti gay.

But you cant be married, that's just silly.

[Gordon Comstock]

All of shades comments =

[Słash]

Weddings are kinda gay to begin with.

I only go to weddings to eat food.

[shades]

I read Dazey's first post and laughed, then proceeded to read the rest of the thread and see him proved correct.

so why don't you two get married , seems cute

[Dazey]

The Bible is silly?

Well, when it comes to astrophysics it's not the first text I'd be tempted to refer to....... Edited June 26, 2015 by Dazey

[DieselDaisy]

Honestly for people against it, it always comes down to the Bible and God as to "why not". Very silly.

Probably because the western notion of marriage is inherently informed by Christianity. There is no getting away from this fact (''so they are no longer two, but one'').

[Mansin Humanity]

I read Dazey's first post and laughed, then proceeded to read the rest of the thread and see him proved correct.

so why don't you two get married , seems cute

@Dazey if you and the missus ever run into some trouble you know where to find me

[classicrawker]

The Bible is silly?

So we part ways at the very beginning of a lot of conversation then.

What I find ironic is religion is being trampled on more and more by the same lot that say I'm trampling on their "rights" to change institutions because a small segment of the population says so.

The further you drift away from God the harder it is to recognize such hypocritical thought.

but to each his own, not saying it's wrong to be gay, that's for God to judge. But I have an opinion on it.

I even offered you should have civil union rights that make you 100% equal. So not sure where you pick up I'm anti gay.

But you cant be married, that's just silly.

nobody's changing anything mate other than further separating church from state which is what our forefathers intended. I am pretty sure this does not force your church to marry gays.

[shades]

I don't think that is at all what they meant by separation of church and state, but if that's what CNN told you then must be true

[OmarBradley]

I don't think that is at all what they meant by separation of church and state, but if that's what CNN told you then must be true

They meant they didn't want Puritanical or Evangelical views dictating policy, at the very least. At the very most, they meant that no religious views should dictate policy. I'm fonder of the latter. Though I'm also fond of the idea of the complete eradication of religion (not via violence).

[shades]

I don't think that is at all what they meant by separation of church and state, but if that's what CNN told you then must be true

They meant they didn't want Puritanical or Evangelical views dictating policy, at the very least. At the very most, they meant that no religious views should dictate policy. I'm fonder of the latter. Though I'm also fond of the idea of the complete eradication of religion (not via violence).

where on earth did you come up with that? Nancy Pelosi, is that you?

Edited June 26, 2015 by shades

[DieselDaisy]

By what means would you remove something which has billions of passionate adherents, other than violence? Secondly, why would you want to?

[Georgy Zhukov]

Is Shades trolling? Because how can anyone type up the crap he is typing and managed to be so illiterate?

[OmarBradley]

I don't think that is at all what they meant by separation of church and state, but if that's what CNN told you then must be true

They meant they didn't want Puritanical or Evangelical views dictating policy, at the very least. At the very most, they meant that no religious views should dictate policy. I'm fonder of the latter. Though I'm also fond of the idea of the complete eradication of religion (not via violence).

where on earth did you come up with that? Nancy Pelosi, is that you?

Yeas of public schooling..... New Jersey and Maryland. Are those looney states too? You're a smart guy shades, you have the ability to critically think. It's a shame you waste it on twisted views and ridiculous superstition.

[downzy]

What bothers me the most about this decision is that the SCOTUS has apparently decided that its role is now to determine the intent of the law, rather than to determine if the law itself is actually constitutional or not. This far exceeds the Marbury versus Madison decision, and changes the court's scope from judicial review to quasi legislating ability. So one extra person voting on a panel to make the vote 5-4 for gay marriage overrules 300 million people in the country. Maybe we should start a new country.

About this decision? This has been happening for over a century....

American citizen here. PM me with offers, fellas. Cash preferred.

I'll give you MYGNRFORUM if you can convince Shades to marry you

[Dazey]

I'll give you MYGNRFORUM if you can convince Shades to marry you

I'll wank you off with a smile on my face if you can find the link to that thread with him banging on about the Earth around the sun and all that from ages ago.

[downzy]

What bothers me the most about this decision is that the SCOTUS has apparently decided that its role is now to determine the intent of the law, rather than to determine if the law itself is actually constitutional or not. This far exceeds the Marbury versus Madison decision, and changes the court's scope from judicial review to quasi legislating ability. So one extra person voting on a panel to make the vote 5-4 for gay marriage overrules 300 million people in the country. Maybe we should start a new country.

Some loon shoots 9 people in a church and next thing you know liberals want to redefine the meaning of a flag. Which is no better than the hate mongers that want to redefine it to mean racism.

You do realize that the Confederate flag was never really meant to represent "The South" in the way you presume it to be. It was a battle flag, nothing more. This was the actual Flag of the Confederate:

The Confederate flag was re-purposed by the Dixiecrat party in 1948 as "states rights" symbol. This was never its original intent.

So if you're going to talk about "redefin[ing] the meaning of the flag," I would suggest you know what your'e talking about.