🌈 Supreme Court hearing on Gay Marriage 🌈

[Grace Under Pressure 165]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

Well, you are proving my point about the Constitution.  There is no enumerated federal power regarding marriage, so it technically defaults to the states.

Guess we'll see.   

I do agree that the 14th amendment protection may have been a bit of a stretch. I said as much, but that’s not the point.

Here is what I’m clearly saying: There is no good reason to be challenging the ruling. No one should be challenging it. Gays have the protection, given the ruling. So just leave it alone.

If someone challenges the ruling, they are attacking gay rights. I’m saying leave it be. Let them have the protection. Challenging the ruling is an attack on gay people, hearing the case is an attack on gay people. Leave them alone.

[The Real timschochet 7,436]

1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Yup.

Nope. 
 

Government cannot stay out of marriages because marriage is a legal contract that has bearing on property, loans, parental rights, ownership rights, health rights, etc. etc. etc. the state has to be involved. 

[jerryskids 7,079]

53 minutes ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

I do agree that the 14th amendment protection may have been a bit of a stretch. I said as much, but that’s not the point.

Here is what I’m clearly saying: There is no good reason to be challenging the ruling. No one should be challenging it. Gays have the protection, given the ruling. So just leave it alone.

If someone challenges the ruling, they are attacking gay rights. I’m saying leave it be. Let them have the protection. Challenging the ruling is an attack on gay people, hearing the case is an attack on gay people. Leave them alone.

I've been meaning to start a thread called "The Great Feminization."  It's a fascinating article written by a woman who argues that the feminization of our institutions is destroying them.  Here is a relevant excerpt:

Quote

The threat posed by wokeness can be large or small depending on the industry. It’s sad that English departments are all feminized now, but most people’s daily lives are unaffected by it. Other fields matter more. You might not be a journalist, but you live in a country where what gets written in The New York Times determines what is publicly accepted as the truth. If the Times becomes a place where in-group consensus can suppress unpopular facts (more so than it already does), that affects every citizen.

The field that frightens me most is the law. All of us depend on a functioning legal system, and, to be blunt, the rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female. The rule of law is not just about writing rules down. It means following them even when they yield an outcome that tugs at your heartstrings or runs contrary to your gut sense of which party is more sympathetic. 

Your take, the liberal take, is what the author fears.  Despite having majorities in both houses and the presidency in the past, you Lefties never explicitly added sexual orientation to the Civil Rights Act.  Much like you never codified abortion.  So there is a risk that this court will follow the Constitution.  I hope they don't though, because it would become a rallying point for the Left.

[Grace Under Pressure 165]

"They left gays out of the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, so too bad for them!! Your fault liberals!!" 

Follow the Constitution lol? By saying what, "hey, we decided instead the 14th Amendment doesn't apply after all!". 

It's already been decided. Challenging it, by definition, is saying "no, you don't have these rights after all". Instead of just doing nothing. That's an active vs. passive approach. You think they have the rights? Do nothing. You don't think they have the rights? Challenge. It's not that difficult to follow frankly. People can logic pretzel it all they want.

[Strike 6,014]

32 minutes ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

"They left gays out of the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, so too bad for them!! Your fault liberals!!" 

Follow the Constitution lol? By saying what, "hey, we decided instead the 14th Amendment doesn't apply after all!". 

It's already been decided. Challenging it, by definition, is saying "no, you don't have these rights after all". Instead of just doing nothing. That's an active vs. passive approach. You think they have the rights? Do nothing. You don't think they have the rights? Challenge. It's not that difficult to follow frankly. People can logic pretzel it all they want.

So you think that if the SC makes an incorrect decision they shouldn't ever rectify it?  Or just when they change something you don't want changed?

[jerryskids 7,079]

24 minutes ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

"They left gays out of the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, so too bad for them!! Your fault liberals!!" 

Follow the Constitution lol? By saying what, "hey, we decided instead the 14th Amendment doesn't apply after all!". 

It's already been decided. Challenging it, by definition, is saying "no, you don't have these rights after all". Instead of just doing nothing. That's an active vs. passive approach. You think they have the rights? Do nothing. You don't think they have the rights? Challenge. It's not that difficult to follow frankly. People can logic pretzel it all they want.

It's like you didn't read a word I've said.  Several reasons why POTUS would hear a case? Ignored.

Gays could have been added to the Civil Rights protected group list after 1964.  Several other groups have been.

Quote

Since 1964, the Civil Rights Act has been expanded to include protections for groups based on disability, age, and sex through later legislation. Key laws include the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (1967), Title IX of the Education Amendments (1972), the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), and the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act). These laws broadened the original act's protections beyond race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. 

The 13th-15th amendments were written specifically to protect former slaves. The 13th made slavery officially illegal throughout the land.  The 14th made them citizens.  The 15th codified their right to vote.

You are arguing like the hysterical women that the author of that article fears.

[Maximum Overkill 2,435]

I'm all for gay marriage. But one cannot procreate from buttsex, and that's probably why some people have issues with it, not I. Love who you want to love. 

Except for Trannies, they are perverted mental patients who have no idea what they are. 

[MDC 7,881]

There it is.  

[Maximum Overkill 2,435]

1 minute ago, MDC said:

There it is.  

You know who else likes buttsex? 

Say it 

[MDC 7,881]

Just now, Maximum Overkill said:

You know who else likes buttsex? 

Say it 

Judging from your posts? You, on the bottom.  

[Maximum Overkill 2,435]

Just now, MDC said:

Judging from your posts? You, on the bottom.  

Nope, say her name..

Or I will 

[MDC 7,881]

1 minute ago, Maximum Overkill said:

Nope, say her name..

Or I will 

Go ahead. Hopefully you get yourself banned again.  

[Maximum Overkill 2,435]

Just now, MDC said:

Go ahead. Hopefully you get yourself banned again.  

Try me

[HellToupee 2,210]

You 2; gents need to get a room and commence to focking

[MDC 7,881]

4 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

You 2; gents need to get a room and commence to focking

Max O isn’t interested. I’m not trans.  

[TBayXXXVII 2,668]

2 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

Nope. 
 

Government cannot stay out of marriages because marriage is a legal contract that has bearing on property, loans, parental rights, ownership rights, health rights, etc. etc. etc. the state has to be involved. 

Wrong.  None of those have anything to do with deciding who can or can't get married.  The government need not be involved.  Virtually everything you've noted, can apply to people who aren't married.

For example

• Two (or more), random people who are friends can buy a house together.  They could go to court over the dispersal if something were to go awry.
• Two (or more), random people who are friends can take out a joint loan.  They could go to court over those loan agreements.
• Two (or more), random people who are friends can be involved in taking over parental rights of children.

Being married doesn't exclusively tie people to those reasons you mentioned.

[Maximum Overkill 2,435]

7 minutes ago, MDC said:

Max O isn’t interested. I’m not trans.  

I'm just busting your ballz, calm down Fishtown 

[MDC 7,881]

Just now, Maximum Overkill said:

I'm just busting your ballz, calm down Fishtown 

I’m just busting yours Jamal.  

[Maximum Overkill 2,435]

2 minutes ago, MDC said:

I’m just busting yours Jamal.  

I'll be busting something else on your baby girl tonight, Fishtown 

[MDC 7,881]

3 minutes ago, Maximum Overkill said:

I'll be busting something else on your baby girl tonight, Fishtown 

Rut roh.  

[easilyscan 1,013]