Page 105 of 193 FirstFirst ... 55595103104105106107115155 ... LastLast
Results 1,041 to 1,050 of 1930

Thread: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

  1. #1041
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    16,329

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    No he calls you out on what you said can't happen. maybe it is you that don't get it.

    the court just slammed the door on the 1st amendment that protects peoples religious freedoms and practices.
    no they would be citing the majority ruling. as the majority ruling did not put freedom of religion in their majority writing.
    There is a reason they are called opinions. Roberts has his opinion, just as the majority has theirs. The majority opinion, as they stated it, is the First amendment protects religious organizations from being compelled to perform same sex marriages. Robert's opinion is that the crap will hit the fan. Only time will tell which opinion is correct.

  2. #1042
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:40 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    40,218

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by WCH View Post
    I know what Satan likes and he's loving today's ruling.
    So, you know what something that does not exist likes? Interesting.

  3. #1043
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,105

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    You didn't pay attention to what I said, guy. In the view of the anti-mixed-race marriage crowd - the conservatives of the time - miscegenation WAS against "God's laws", and against nature. The arguments were not much different.

    And as time goes on and people become more educated, the sky-is-falling outrage among the anti-SSM crowd will fade as they - or at least their children and children's children - come to realize that YES, people really are "born that way", and that there's no good reason why someone who was born that way should be disallowed from marrying a consenting adult who was also born that way.

    Okay? Get over it.
    Oh, I paid attention, guy. It was just wrong. So, move on.
    "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

  4. #1044
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:40 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    40,218

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    No he calls you out on what you said can't happen. maybe it is you that don't get it.

    the court just slammed the door on the 1st amendment that protects peoples religious freedoms and practices.
    no they would be citing the majority ruling. as the majority ruling did not put freedom of religion in their majority writing.
    The court did not deny religious freedom. They banned states from discriminating against consenting adults who wish to marry.

  5. #1045
    Educator

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,035

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Another loss for social conservatism.

  6. #1046
    Tavern Bartender
    #NeverTrumpOrClinton tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 08:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    33,335

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    <snip> I will state it for you...churches will not be required to marry same sex couples. Case closed.
    Forgive me for snipping your post. All of it was interesting but that stands out for me. I'm not willing to bet my mortgage payment that your statement is correct. I don't think it's quite as simple as you make it out to be, and I'll venture to guess I'm not alone in that thinking. Unless religious exemption is guaranteed forever, this is debatable, IMO.
    Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

  7. #1047
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    16,329

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    I don't need to look up that case, I know it's not about redefining marriage, it's about discrimination against blacks. It never attempts to say marriage is no longer just between a man and a woman, it actually tries to cut it down. Exact opposite of SSM, which is redefining marriage to expand it to multiple meanings, not just one.

    The Court in that case defended marriage, the opposite of what was done to it today.
    "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

    -Judge Bazile in Loving v. Virginia

    History does not seem to agree with you.

  8. #1048
    Tavern Bartender
    #NeverTrumpOrClinton tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 08:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    33,335

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Puigb View Post
    Another loss for conservatism.
    Uh, no. I'd consider myself conservative in a lot of ways. I didn't lose anything today.

    You must confuse "conservative" with "religious". They aren't the same thing. And remember, 7 short years ago, Barack Obama believed marriage was between a man and a woman. He probably still does, but he's no fool. He won't get away with making that statement anymore.
    Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

  9. #1049
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,105

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by EnigmaO01 View Post
    And if they had ruled the opposite you would have been saluting them. See how that works?
    Really? You figured that out all on your own? They give power to the federal government, that is no where in the Constitution, so they make it up, they are idiots. If they make the right decision, I salute them. Hmm... that's brilliant, give yourself a gold star!
    "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. #1050
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,411

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    They've never been explained. In fact, I know better than to ask you what those costs are because I know from years of experience that no answer would be coming.
    I gave up too. It just doesn't compute for me. It's not even that I disagree , I can't figure out the actual argument so that I can agree or disagree. I watched all of an hour long presentation the other night on why I should oppose SSM and was just as confused afterward as I was when I started. I'm missing something key, and can only guess it relates back to a religious argument, that SSM defiles the entire institution of marriage, in a way that Rush Limbaugh's 4 marriages doesn't, or something.

Posting Permissions

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