SCOTUS: Same Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide

[juansavage1]

Remember:  Liberals don't care about marriage in general. These are the same guys who used to say it was a piece of paper. They advocated for no-fault divorce and supported alternative living arrangements. Ask one of them what they think marriage is and why they think that. They won't have a clue. 

 

As for the Supreme Court, had McCain won, we probably wouldn't have this decision. Liberals couldn't care less what the constitution says and see it as mostly a tool for advancing their agenda. Things that are actually in the constitution, like gun rights, free speech, and religious freedom are fudgible, but things that are nowhere to be found are absolute. 

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Sounds like a trip to Vegas

 

Hey, I haven't seen any goats or sheep outside the wedding chapels here.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

From a strictly legal standpoint, what's to prevent polygamists from asserting a right to marry?

 

That's a hell of a lot of nagging to endure.

 

The Sister Wives bunch already lives here. Have seen them around town a few times.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Remember:  Liberals don't care about marriage in general. These are the same guys who used to say it was a piece of paper. They advocated for no-fault divorce and supported alternative living arrangements. Ask one of them what they think marriage is and why they think that. They won't have a clue. 

 

Generalize much?

[InsideThePark]

Remember: Liberals don't care about marriage in general. These are the same guys who used to say it was a piece of paper. They advocated for no-fault divorce and supported alternative living arrangements. Ask one of them what they think marriage is and why they think that. They won't have a clue.

As for the Supreme Court, had McCain won, we probably wouldn't have this decision. Liberals couldn't care less what the constitution says and see it as mostly a tool for advancing their agenda. Things that are actually in the constitution, like gun rights, free speech, and religious freedom are fudgible, but things that are nowhere to be found are absolute.

LOL

[TobiasFunke]

Where did I say that it does? Before you ignorantly put words in my mouth again, why don't you go back and read my posts.

Put words in your mouth? I literally quoted what you said.

[Tank]

Only stupid (fundamentalist) Christians, like the Bryan Fischers of the world. I know many Christians who would be appalled by what he said.

 

so why not post what he said instead of lumping all Christians together? let's look at that specifically instead of saying disparaging things about all people of faith.

[juansavage1]

Generalize much?

Who are the people generalizing about fundamentalists? Also, feel free to answer the question of what marriage is and where you got that definition. 

 

What I said is generally very very true, unlike the untrue thing about fundamentalists who, I'm sure, are about as smart as the general public.

[TobiasFunke]

Is that how you decide laws? For example, assuming you work, how will cutting welfare impact your life? Would somebody marrying their dog and killing their one-year old impact your life?

Most people decide laws on the common good and what they think its right.

Phil brought up abortions affected other people's lives and the topic of discussion in here is gay marriage.

But I'm glad to see you're thinking about murdering 1 year olds and marrying dogs...

[juansavage1]

Also, I don't think liberals are dumb in the IQ sense. Many are good at their job or whatever. But, when you talk to them about this kind of stuff, you get...not smart or logical stuff. 

[juansavage1]

Phil brought up abortions affected other people's lives and the topic of discussion in here is gay marriage.

But I'm glad to see you're thinking about murdering 1 year olds and marrying dogs...

How would a mother murdering her 1 year old affect you? How would somebody marrying their dog affect you? 

 

See, this is what I mean by people being dumb. You bring up a standard for policy decisions- affecting other people. I bring up an example and now its not the standard anymore. Why did I know that would happen? Because you only wanted a reason to justify your opinion and reached out for that one. 

[TobiasFunke]

See, this is what I mean by people being dumb.

More than you know

[the dude abides]

What did Bryan Fischer say that was stupid?

Everything.

[wopphil]

Put words in your mouth? I literally quoted what you said.

You are an absolute fu%#ing liar. Quote the post in which I said anything close to what you are attributing to me.

Edited June 27, 2015 by wopphil

[Rico]

Who are the people generalizing about fundamentalists? Also, feel free to answer the question of what marriage is and where you got that definition. 

 

Marriage as an institution has been around since before the Egyptians built the pyramids. There is also historical evidence of gay marriage back then. Marriage doesn't necessarily have to be a religious thing since two atheists could wish to marry. My definition of marriage is two consenting adults coming together and telling their friends, family, the world they are bound together for the foreseeable future.

[Rico]

Remember:  Liberals don't care about marriage in general. These are the same guys who used to say it was a piece of paper. They advocated for no-fault divorce and supported alternative living arrangements. Ask one of them what they think marriage is and why they think that. They won't have a clue. 

 

As for the Supreme Court, had McCain won, we probably wouldn't have this decision. Liberals couldn't care less what the constitution says and see it as mostly a tool for advancing their agenda. Things that are actually in the constitution, like gun rights, free speech, and religious freedom are fudgible, but things that are nowhere to be found are absolute.

You put your helmet on a little too tight today.

[Jay]

You put your helmet on a little too tight today.

maybe so, but he's absolutely correct

[Rico]

But what if the Supreme Court issued a decision you didn't agree with? What if, for example, they said that the unborn have the right to life and all abortion is unlawful? Would you, at that point, believe that 9 judges are best equipped to make decisions which impact the other 320 million of us? Would you not be calling for states, through their citizens, to have the right to decide their own abortion policy?

Are you seriously questioning the merits of the supreme court?

[wopphil]

Are you seriously questioning the merits of the supreme court?

Are you seriously contending the nine members of the Supreme Court should make law that affects 300,000,000+? Why even pass laws...why not just let judges make all of the important decisions? And for that matter, why have juries?

Serious question: where would you draw the line as to what judges, rather than legislators, should decide?

[TobiasFunke]

You are an absolute fu%#ing liar. Quote the post in which I said anything close to what you are attributing to me.

My bad Phil, I read your hypothetical situation backwards.

[wopphil]

My bad Phil, I read your hypothetical situation backwards.

Ok. You are man enough to admit it.

[Don]

Are you seriously contending the nine members of the Supreme Court should make law that affects 300,000,000+? Why even pass laws...why not just let judges make all of the important decisions? And for that matter, why have juries?

Serious question: where would you draw the line as to what judges, rather than legislators, should decide?

The SCOTUS doesn't make laws, they simply review them. Our system isn't perfect, but it's good to have a group of people that are experts on the Constitution (and don't have to worry about re-election) make sure legislators (who aren't necessarily experts on the Constitution, but do care about re-election) don't get out of hand.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

[halobob]

What a great day this is to read the internet.

Edited June 27, 2015 by halobob

[Rico]

Are you seriously contending the nine members of the Supreme Court should make law that affects 300,000,000+? Why even pass laws...why not just let judges make all of the important decisions? And for that matter, why have juries?

Serious question: where would you draw the line as to what judges, rather than legislators, should decide?

As pointed out, judges don't make laws. States, for the most part, do govern themselves. The court is there for checks and and balances because sometimes the majority isn't always right. So yeah, I've never questioned the worthiness of having the supreme court.