U.S. Supreme Court rules same sex marriages legal.

[plove35]

We are looking at this in the wrong. We trout out the bible, how the gov't is the devil, how liberals are soft and conservatives are not caring.

We need to look at this from a human factor...it is about time for equal protection for gays, straights, whomever. Do any of want to live in a country where the gov't denies rights to group of people just because they do not fot the "status quo". We went through that already and do not need to go through it again.

Gay people pay taxes, get speeding tickets, go to.work, buy cars, homes and all other american things...why shouldnt theh be able to get married too? And do not spout some bible rhertoric...as murderers, child molesters, adulterers (ha) can get married and all those are major sins

[Prolongus]

Originally Posted by thathottnurse

What if homosexuality is just nature's way of passive population control?

Discuss...

Or a reduction in divorce rates, less return of gifts, sharing of clothing and toiletries...?

There goes the economy...

[Guest092216]

Gay wedding receptions held by wealthy male couples will easily offset those losses.

[NTXReggie]

Originally Posted by thathottnurse

Gay wedding receptions held by wealthy male couples will easily offset those losses.

LOL

I always thought straight Catholic receptions were the cat's meow, but THN you have just introduced a new contender for the title!

Although this ruling also reminded me of how many gay and lesbian couple friends I have. Fuck! If they all rush to get married, my "extracurricular" funds for the second half of 2015 will get severely dented by all the wedding gifts I am going to be on the hook for!!! Now THAT is a valid reason to be against the SCOTUS ruling!!!

[jdkees]

Originally Posted by thathottnurse

Gay wedding receptions held by wealthy male couples will easily offset those losses.

https://youtu.be/B_hyT7_Bx9o?t=1m58s

[bojulay]

Originally Posted by jdkees

And yet you're the one here parrotting the words of worthless blowhards from tv and radio. You're the one who can't answer a simple challenge and can only come back with more unearned self-righteous (and empty) mixed up talking points. You're the one who has yet to produce a point that hasn't been hashed and rehashed and handed to you on an angry (and shallow) little platter in the form of radio and cable news rants.

Might want to get that plank out of your eye first, buddy.

I don't listen to those people and could care less what they say.

It is Rex-Lex masquerading as Lex-Rex
Separation of Church and State???
How about separation of Democracy from Centralized Totalitarian Rule???
Unaccountable to the people.

[jdkees]

You're boring now, dude. You can't even make a cogent argument on how the Supreme Court performing their duties exactly how the Constitution mandates is somehow totalitarian. Your word salad has gone stale.

[bojulay]

Originally Posted by jdkees

You're boring now, dude. You can't even make a cogent argument on how the Supreme Court performing their duties exactly how the Constitution mandates is somehow totalitarian. Your word salad has gone stale.

You have nothing I see.

Good try though.

Have fun with your overlords, and continue trying to convince
yourself it is freedom. Frog in the pot.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by bojulay

Like any good liberal you totally missed the point of my argument
which had nothing to do with religion. Why does every liberal seem
to try and relate everything to religion if someone disagrees with them??

It was about a group of UN-ELECTED JUDICIARY OFFICIALS wielding
the power they have over the constitution and the laws in this country,
and promoting the idea of a constitution and laws that are subject to the
evolving whims of contemporary political and social mores.

There is little to no accountability under such a system, it is isolationist,
centralizing, and totalitarian.

It is eliminating of the democratic system.

My argument is about the overreaching authority of an isolated
group of UN-ELECTED government officials in relation to the
constitution, which is a document concerned first and foremost
with the limiting of government power and control.

You are trying to spin it into something else, but I'll be darn,
I'm not letting you.

I don't know why, but I'll bite. Who do you want to interpret the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause if not the judicial branch?

And Constitutional rights are inherently antimajoritarian. A Constiturauonal right, whether Free Speech, Jury Trial, Equal Protection, Due Process, etc., carves out areas where the political process and elected government can't go.

[Lust4xxxLife]

Originally Posted by bojulay

Daft still, you are the one that keeps talking about the gays.

What I oppose has been clearly stated several times, a small group of
UN_ELECTED JUDICIARY OFFICIALS that promote the idea of an
"EVOLVING CONSTITUTION" holding the power they do over the
constitution and laws of the land. It eliminates the democratic
process by handing over such power to such an entity.

UN_ELECTED......UN_ELECTED.... .UN_ELECTED......UN_ELECTED

BELIEF IN AN EVOLVING CONSTITUTION.....BELIEF IN AN EVOLVING CONSTITUTION

There should have been reform to the supreme court a long time ago.

You enjoy being a child that needs a controlling overlord??

We ELECT Presidents that nominate Supreme Court Justices. We ELECT members of Congress that review and approve/reject the nominations.

WE – THE PEOPLE – are therefore in control of the Supreme Court. So shut the fuck up and stop your whining. If you don't like the makeup of the Supreme Court, stop voting for retarded Republicans and maybe we'll get more intelligent Justices than Scalia.

[pyramider]

Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

We ELECT Presidents that nominate Supreme Court Justices. We ELECT members of Congress that review and approve/reject the nominations.

WE – THE PEOPLE – are therefore in control of the Supreme Court. So shut the fuck up and stop your whining. If you don't like the makeup of the Supreme Court, stop voting for retarded Republicans and maybe we'll get more intelligent Justices than Scalia and Thomas.

You forgot one idiot.

[Alastair]

So we're all cool with gay marriage then, right? That's the consensus?

We all agree that the Supreme Court acted within the law and did what they were designed to do (meaning they didn't take a vote from everyone in the country before making their decision, in which case, why bother with any elected officials if we can just legalize or make illegal by a phone vote i.e. American Idol, leaving everything open to advertisers.) I think we can also agree that whether being gay is a choice or not is irrelevant to whether two consenting people have a right to get married. Any religious arguments should be nullified because Martin Luther changed the "sanctity" of marriage a long time ago when he declared it was no longer a sacrament.

[rexdutchman]

gay marriage has always be fine, ( you know - civil unions) the issue is the federal gov telling people what to think ( liberals telling church 's they have to marry people)

[Fawlty]

Originally Posted by rexdutchman

gay marriage has always be fine, ( you know - civil unions) the issue is the federal gov telling people what to think ( liberals telling church 's they have to marry people)

Really, are you serious? Do you really think Rev. Hagee is going to be forced by law to marry two homosexuals?

[Alastair]

Church ministers can refuse to marry anyone - and do, always have.
But city employees, like county clerks are supposed to work for the city, that means everyone in their city.