ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
You aren't allowed to say those things or think those thoughts, Heisman. You are this close to being thrown in jail or hung by your britches in town square where the people will stone you to death in the name of fairness and equality.
 
Marriage is a Constitutional right now according to the Supreme Court, if I was a polygamist I would be heading down to the court house in Utah/Arizona and make it all legal now.

There should be little doubt that laws against polygamy would have to be taken down if an advocate had the fortitude to get a case to the Supreme Court.
 
Roberts is talking out of both sides of his ass and has been since he was appointed. His dissent today is truly hilarious given his actions / votes over the last few years, most recently yesterday's.

While I respect gay people's desire to be married and do support it, I've also always agreed with Cosby that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all.
 
Kasich get it. This guy, however:

"I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat," Huckabee said in a statement.
 
Cosby certainly predicted that one

Yeah I was way off. Who would have thought love, rainbows and fairy tails trump the Consitution of the United States.

Roberts certainly had no problem changing sides with absolutely zero logical way to reconcile his opinions from yesterday and today. Haven't read Kennedy's opinion from today yet (but apparently it was love, rainbows and fairy tails).
 
1. You're starting from the premise that marriage is a basic human right. Which is dumb. No one is being denied anything.

Not sure how you can state that homosexuals are not being denied the the same rights afforded to heterosexuals by the government as a lawfully wedded couple as long as gubment is involved. Not arguing if marriage is a basic human right, but there was obvious discrimination against homosexual couples who desired to be lawfully wed.

1. You probably aren't going to find many people here who give a shit one way or the other about gay marriage per se. You'll find more people who think the fed gov should get out of marriage entirely. And if gay marriage is allowed by reason of the Constitution, you cannot logically prevent other groups from getting married. Incest, polygamy, etc. So the federal government should stop discriminating against unmarried people (or married people in some case) and just back out of the marriage business altogether.

This is where you lost me. Most people here give a shit one way or the other about gay marriage. People are going to bitch about this for days. And it appears that most on this thread want the government involved, either state or federal, in banning lawful same sex marriage.

Sure you can logically discriminate. Kids aren't allowed to drive, makes sense, yeah? I do agree that government should get out of marriage entirely, or if gubmt continues to issue licenses they should allow incestuous or polygamous consenting adults the same right (we're still going to discriminate against kids and say they can't legally marry).
 
1. We're just back to the "anyone should be able to marry the person they love" emotional argument. Do you actually think it's a basic right to marry the person you love (you say you don't above, I know)? But a man could marry a woman, that was the law. And a man could marry a woman whether he was gay or straight. Everyone had the same rights. Unless it's just a matter of love. Which is ridiculous.

2. Go back and read through the thread (or maybe it was another thread). There was a LENGTHY discussion on this topic. And I think the vast majority of the posters (this board obviously shades right) were of the opinion the government should just be out of marriage, and didn't care about gay marriage per se. Just that if you're saying gays have the right to marry, you're a biggot if you discriminate against any person who wants to marry anyone.

And yes, you can legally discriminate, but there's a high high threshold when it comes to Constitutional rights.
 
Everyone has had the ability to marry someone of the opposite sex. What this is, is a group wanting the government and society to recognize their sexual attraction and validate it and create new "rights." What this does though, is open up pandoras box.

Not surprised by the decision though. This country has been ran by leftist ideologues for awhile now and the vocal minority is always the one catered to when social issues arise.
 
Mime, I think it's got to do with over reach of the federal govt in my opinion.
The decision appears to have no basis in law and just on popularity. The icing on the cake was yesterday's decision which that ruling basically opens laws up to change intent to whatever it takes to get past the courts.

And why are some state laws ok even the federal govt deems it illegal, but others not?
What if a state refuses to enforce this ruling, while Colorado openly sells pot which is against federal law? What's the difference? We are a nation built on the rule of law, not man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KingOfBBN
When California votes against gay marriage in 2008 only to have their opinion thrown out, that spoke volumes.
 
Polling indicated that 80% of Americans opposed Citizens United. Just lay back and take it.

Nothing surprises me anymore. When UC Irvine students vote to take down the American flag because it's "offensive" just shows things are completely different now. Everything is based on feelings.
 
Going to be open season on Christian businesses now. You'll see massive amounts of lawsuits even more than what we currently get. Everyone remember the lesbian couple who drove 3 hours from New Jersey to a Christian family's farm in New York and secretly recorded their conversation of them turning down to host their wedding and then inevitably suing?

Also, what happens when a church refuses to marry two homosexuals? Does the church's tax exempt status get threatened? If they do comply then how long before attendance significantly declines?
 
Last edited:
2. You probably aren't going to find many people here who give a shit one way or the other about gay marriage per se. You'll find more people who think the fed gov should get out of marriage entirely. And if gay marriage is allowed by reason of the Constitution, you cannot logically prevent other groups from getting married. Incest, polygamy, etc. So the federal government should stop discriminating against unmarried people (or married people in some case) and just back out of the marriage business altogether.

Good response (no sarcasm). However, I think you can still logically stop incestuous marriage between close relatives given the easy-to-prove risk of birth defects. But, I absolutely agree that this opens a logical argument for polygamy between consenting adults.
 
Good response (no sarcasm). However, I think you can still logically stop incestuous marriage between close relatives given the easy-to-prove risk of birth defects. But, I absolutely agree that this opens a logical argument for polygamy between consenting adults.


So can't get married because of possible birth defects. OK.

How are two gay guys or gay women going to have a child? Assuming biological children is a reason to fall on one side of the marriage issue or the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drawing_dead
When California votes against gay marriage in 2008 only to have their opinion thrown out, that spoke volumes.
Honestly, what would have been the vote in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia to integrate schools in the 1960's??? Civil rights should never be put on a ballot. Gay marriage became a civil rights issue when local, state and the federal govt intermingle tax, property and privacy laws and marriage status.
 
  • Like
Reactions: We-Todd-Did
Honestly, what would have been the vote in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia to integrate schools in the 1960's??? Civil rights should never be put on a ballot. Gay marriage became a civil rights issue when local, state and the federal govt intermingle tax, property and privacy laws and marriage status.

Aw yes. The ridiculous comparison of one's skin and the atrocities they endured compared to a group who prefers to have sex with the same gender. You're right. They're completely the same.
 
It would've happened, integration was already moving southward. Just like gay marriage would've eventually been nationwide. But when you make a majority of people do something they're not ready for yet, it drives a wedge.

Not to mention the precedence it sets legally for other rulings. It's like we don't see past the end of our nose anymore, we all call this nation home and love it. But we're slowly eroding the power of a states population to decide its direction. Which was not the intent of the constitution.
 
Roberts is talking out of both sides of his ass and has been since he was appointed. His dissent today is truly hilarious given his actions / votes over the last few years, most recently yesterday's.

While I respect gay people's desire to be married and do support it, I've also always agreed with Cosby that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all.

No matter what the pseudo-lawyer Cosby says, the state's don't have the authority to override the Constitution of the United States. I'll admit that gay marriage is not something I have lost any sleep over, but I recall when Tennessee put their proposed law on the ballet banning gay marriage several years ago. The entire text of the bill was on the ballet for you to read when you voted. I started reading it and the verbiage was freighting. It referred to a certain class of people that "shall not have the right" to do this or that. I thought hell that flys in the face of the US Constitution that protects individual freedoms and liberties as well as the Declaration of Independence's reference to the god given inalienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Bans on gay marriage were attempts by governments to impose religious or moral values on the populace as a whole. I said immediately after the Tennessee law was passed that this law and all the others would one day be overturned by the Supremes on Constitutional grounds. That day is today.
 
Not surprised that Defense still doesn't understand the arguments. No one was arguing the states can override the Constitution of the United States.
 
No matter what the pseudo-lawyer Cosby says, the state's don't have the authority to override the Constitution of the United States. I'll admit that gay marriage is not something I have lost any sleep over, but I recall when Tennessee put their proposed law on the ballet banning gay marriage several years ago. The entire text of the bill was on the ballet for you to read when you voted. I started reading it and the verbiage was freighting. It referred to a certain class of people that "shall not have the right" to do this or that. I thought hell that flys in the face of the US Constitution that protects individual freedoms and liberties as well as the Declaration of Independence's reference to the god given inalienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Bans on gay marriage were attempts by governments to impose religious or moral values on the populace as a whole. I said immediately after the Tennessee law was passed that this law and all the others would one day be overturned by the Supremes on Constitutional grounds. That day is today.

Do you leftists not use the government to try and push your ideas and values on others? Your side is for an "anything goes" mentality unless it is anyone or anything who disagrees with your ideology. You have what you think is "right" as do others. You get upset at someone apparently "promoting religious values" but have no issue of stripping away their rights and promoting a system of "our way or the highway" and force an ideology on others, which is ironic considering that is apparently what you guys hated so much.
 
Do you leftists not use the government to try and push your ideas and values on others? Your side is for an "anything goes" mentality unless it is anyone or anything who disagrees with your ideology. You have what you think is "right" as do others. You get upset at someone apparently "promoting religious values" but have no issue of stripping away their rights and promoting a system of "our way or the highway" and force an ideology on others, which is ironic considering that is apparently what you guys hated so much.

Government overreach is a huge debate that would fill up volumes. I'm not taking that on today:)

I'm talking about this particular decision that the SCOTUS made today. In this instance the court has not imposed anything on the public, instead they have acted in such a manner as to protect the Constitutional rights of a class of citizens that had been discriminated against legally by a series of state laws enacted to restrict their rights. There are certain legal benefits that go with marriage that had historically been denied this particular class of citizens. This is a separate issue from the religious components of marriage which are also protected by the Constitution.

Your rights, liberties and religious freedoms are not effected by this. If you belong to a church that opposes gay marriage the govment ain't gonna make you marry them. You have the right to oppose gay marriage on moral or religious grounds as an individual or as a member of a faith. What you no longer have the ability to do is to mandate your values on others by law.

I can't speak for "leftists" but all I can say is I personally have to problem with you articulating your religious and moral believes. That's your Constitutional right to do so, you and others do it all the time on here without objection. I might disagree with some of your points but not your right to speak them as much as you want.

The last point I would make is IMO there is nothing ambiguous about opposing gay marriage on religious or moral grounds but also recognizing that they have the same Constitutional rights as any other citizen.
I don't agree with the KKK but I recognize their right to assemble and hold rallies and articulate their message of hate, so long as they have the proper local permits to do so. That's the nature of the country we live in. We have to respect the rights of others even if we strongly disagree with them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fuzz77
Do you leftists not use the government to try and push your ideas and values on others? Your side is for an "anything goes" mentality unless it is anyone or anything who disagrees with your ideology. You have what you think is "right" as do others. You get upset at someone apparently "promoting religious values" but have no issue of stripping away their rights and promoting a system of "our way or the highway" and force an ideology on others, which is ironic considering that is apparently what you guys hated so much.

Is the government forcing you into a gay marriage?
How does gay marriage affect you?
How does gay marriage strip you of any of your rights???
Why should anyone else be bound by your religious values? Should Buddhist, Muslims, Atheist, Hindu's all be required to adhere to your values???

I just cannot understand anyone claiming that gay marriage infringes upon their personal rights in any way.
 
..... the state's don't have the authority to override the Constitution of the United States.

That is a strange formulation. Neither the federal government nor the state governments can act in ways unconsitutional. The 10th amendment should be referenced.....
 
At the end of the day, this was the right legal decision. Maybe you think its morally, or religiously wrong. But legally, people should not be treated differently based on their sexual preference.

What really shocks me, is how fast this happened. We went from this being only a far left concept, to being mainstream in about 2 years. It was just a few years ago, KY and other states started passing the religious freedoms acts. Then this past year, the attorney general refuses to appeal a legal loss relating to SSM. Thats social change, moving at light speed.

Good response (no sarcasm). However, I think you can still logically stop incestuous marriage between close relatives given the easy-to-prove risk of birth defects. But, I absolutely agree that this opens a logical argument for polygamy between consenting adults.

Right. This medical testimony would be enough to satisfy the compelling state interest to uphold the restriction. I also think polygamy restrictions would be struck down, based on this ruling.

You KNOW this is coming.

If the IRS can target conservatives its no stretch to say that churches are next.

I also agree with this. If nothing else, this administration has been consistent on one thing: they will attack anyone not ideologically in step with them. I expect more of the same here.
 
Aw yes. The ridiculous comparison of one's skin and the atrocities they endured compared to a group who prefers to have sex with the same gender. You're right. They're completely the same.
You must believe that the preference is a choice...I do not.
 
You must believe that the preference is a choice...I do not.

I forgot you're born already screwing the same sex. My bad. I guess they didn't choose to do that.

The BS that you're a slave to desires as justification to do whatever you want is ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mashburned
The BS that you're a slave to desires as justification to do whatever you want is ridiculous.
Isn't that a basic tenet of liberalism?
Discipline and moral values don't exist in the liberal world... do what you want and justify it later... usually by blaming someone else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KingOfBBN
Is the government forcing you into a gay marriage?
How does gay marriage affect you?
How does gay marriage strip you of any of your rights???
Why should anyone else be bound by your religious values? Should Buddhist, Muslims, Atheist, Hindu's all be required to adhere to your values???

I just cannot understand anyone claiming that gay marriage infringes upon their personal rights in any way.

Really? Because there are thousands of lawsuits where gays have already infringed upon Christian rights.

And don't act like it doesn't affect us especially in schools with our kids and not to mention the total disregard for our Constitution this week. You have no idea what this has opened us up to.
 
So two brothers can't get married because their babies might be retards. Two unrelated guys' babies have a statistically better chance of not being retards so they can get married. Got it.
You know they might never allow a brother and a sister to marry because of the DNA risk to their children. Unfortunately Cos, right now, I think the courts would deny two brothers (or two sisters) the right to get married based on a general broad brushed approach to incest marriage. It took a long time for the courts to come around to legalizing Gay Marriage.Those of you who lament this lack of fairness to same-sex incestuous couples need to be patient, you're time will come.
 
But.. but....but......Ernie Fletcher and David Williams saved our freedoms by making gay marriage double-secret illegal several years ago. There's NO WAY that that was just election hype and anyone who says it is don't know nothing about liburdy!
 
What about the healthcare shit? That's the important thing here. How many young people understand that? I sure as hell do not. How many old people do? How can the government fine you for not having insurance? Do young people understand that? I assume young people will basically be paying for old peoples shit. Is that the whole plan? To keep the shit so confusing and out of the spotlight so young people (once again) can be butt-touched for the same of old, greedy people. Meanwhile, the young are sucking and cheering on the administration - the one f'ng their future - because of the gay and racist stuff...that the government should've be involved with in the first place...take that last part out if it upsets you. That's just my opinion. I understand if you believe governments job is to end racism and shit. I think you're very gullible and sad, but you have that right. I understand. It sounds good. But this healthcare stuff? Nothing sounds good.

Am I wrong? I know in dumb, but I don't see what's it in for the young folks, and I damn sure don't understand the penalty part. I think once the millenial crowd digests all this stuff, they won't like it. All you hear is the "equality!!!! Yay!!! Free care for allll!!!".
 
  • Like
Reactions: drawing_dead
Really? Because there are thousands of lawsuits where gays have already infringed upon Christian rights.

And don't act like it doesn't affect us especially in schools with our kids and not to mention the total disregard for our Constitution this week. You have no idea what this has opened us up to.
Please go on some more about these "thousands of lawsuits" and "in schools with our kids"...What, are you afraid that the schools won't teach your kids to hate the queers? Tell me how are kids are in danger?
 
Please go on some more about these "thousands of lawsuits" and "in schools with our kids"...What, are you afraid that the schools won't teach your kids to hate the queers? Tell me how are kids are in danger?

We played smear the queer everyday on the recess fields. TS. None of them boys became gay. Just sayin...
 
So can't get married because of possible birth defects. OK.

How are two gay guys or gay women going to have a child? Assuming biological children is a reason to fall on one side of the marriage issue or the other.

They can adopt unwanted children since the church doesn't believe in birth control.
 
ADVERTISEMENT