Page 57 of 88 FirstFirst ... 747555657585967 ... LastLast
Results 561 to 570 of 880

Thread: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

  1. #561
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    12-11-17 @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by SENSIBLE PATRIO View Post
    The justices didn't take up the case on appeal, leaving it up to the states, they didn't rule in favor.
    What??????????

    The Justices let stand the rulings of the 10th, 7th, and 4th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals which OVERTURN State bans.

    That is not a "ruling" in favor of States being able to ban Civil Marriage based on gender.


    Quote Originally Posted by SENSIBLE PATRIO View Post
    And yes the very liberal 9th circus court of assholes did rule against the states which should be illegal as states had ballot referendums. The people voted against, so the only recourse was to go to queer liberal judges. So a panel of what 5 6 judges vot3d in favor of the queers and tried to help democrats
    The cases were from the 10th, 7th, and 4th Circuit courts. None of the cases rejected Monday was from the 9th Circuit.

    None of the dozen or so Judges (District or Appeals) was queer.

    The judges represented a mixture of "liberal" and "conservative" judges appointed by both Democrat and Republican Presidents. Judges such as Posner, long considered to be a conservative judge in the 7th Circuit court and appointed by Ronald Reagan.




    >>>>

  2. #562
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,775

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Well then, that's were we differ, I see no Constitutional authority for the Feds to get involved.
    are you saying the Supreme Court didn't have the authority to overturn interracial marriage bans in loving?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  3. #563
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,775

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by SENSIBLE PATRIO View Post
    The justices didn't take up the case on appeal, leaving it up to the states, they didn't rule in favor. And yes the very liberal 9th circus court of assholes did rule against the states which should be illegal as states had ballot referendums. The people voted against, so the only recourse was to go to queer liberal judges. So a panel of what 5 6 judges vot3d in favor of the queers and tried to help democrats
    Um, no, you are wrong. This dismissal means that every circuit court to date has overturned state bans. The states had their ban overturned, that's not leaving it to the states.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  4. #564
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,545

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    14th amendment. Case closed.
    Nope, doesn't work. Doesn't give the Federal government any authority to act on SSM.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  5. #565
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    are you saying the Supreme Court didn't have the authority to overturn interracial marriage bans in loving?
    Under the 13th, yes they did.

  6. #566
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,545

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Again, keep stomping, it isn't reality.
    I think I found it. You are going by the Soviet Union Constitution, circa 1930. Sorry, that one doesn't apply here. Yet. We are trying to fend you guys off.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  7. #567
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    12-11-17 @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Under the 13th, yes they did.

    Contrary to what some might believe Civil Marriage is "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude".



    >>>>

  8. #568
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    Stonewall, Matthew Shephard, "mental illness"/APA, DADT, "DOMA", reparative "therapy", excommunication, expulsion, fired, eviction, harassment of all kinds, blackmail, ostracism.
    A single incomplete sentence blurting out a bunch of buzzwords is not a rational argument. But it is just the kind of "debate" I've come to expect on this subject.

    Yes, even today in most states, it's totally legal to fire or deny housing based on sexuality.
    If so, I'm glad to hear it. Because I believe any private person has a right to refuse to hire or do business with anyone, for any reason, I am against public accommodations laws. I don't question the authority of a state to make a law like that, within the limits of the Constitution, but I don't believe anything in the Constitution authorizes Congress to prohibit discrimination, of any kind, by private persons.

    If it's up to you, there would be no progress ever because for that, you need to start by acknowledging there's a problem, which you refuse.
    No one is preventing homosexuals from using the democratic process to try to change laws and policies to suit their preferences. But a lot of us strongly object to federal courts issuing diktats and concocting constitutional "rights." No result is so noble and wonderful that it justifies arbitrary, unlawful actions by government.

    The marriage struggle itself is no different from interracial marriage bans, except actually it's even worse, since to my knowledge people can be attracted to their own race.
    The argument based on Loving v. Virginia seems to have caught the imagination of the promoters of the homosexual agenda. I've seen it quite a few times, here and elsewhere, and I think it's very lame. The criminal statutes the Lovings had been convicted of violating were flagrantly unconstitutional, as the Court found. As Justice Stewart noted, "it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor."

    When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, the U.S. had just had several hundred thousand men killed in the Civil War--equivalent, as a proportion of the population, to roughly three million today. Like the Thirteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the Fourteenth was meant to make very sure that they hadn't died for nothing. Like them, it was aimed directly at discrimination against blacks by the former Confederate states. It was not meant to make homosexuals a specially protected class, any more than it was meant to make one of the left-handed.
    Last edited by matchlight; 10-09-14 at 02:44 PM.

  9. #569
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,545

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    are you saying the Supreme Court didn't have the authority to overturn interracial marriage bans in loving?
    Where do you see that? Not sure how you can even get that idea, means to me that your understanding is way off.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  10. #570
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    Contrary to what some might believe Civil Marriage is "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude".



    >>>>
    Heh. you might be right. Should have said 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. Otherwise known as the reconstruction amendments.

Page 57 of 88 FirstFirst ... 747555657585967 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •