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

Originally Posted by Hatuey

The 'power of the states' to decide whether they got to discriminate based on race, sexuality, etc has been in jeopardy for quite some time.



It's an example of the decline of the state right to discriminate.

They seem to forget the 14th was added specifically to check the power of the states, after that minor inconvenience known as the civil war

Originally Posted by NIMBY

If Justice Ginsburg doesn't make it to the next President, as she meets her Creator, with this term Creator used in our Constitution;
The USSC will only have eight Justices at the start of the next Presidency, as this Senate will never approve another Obama appointee.

And until then and after, the conundrum of a 4-4 USSC on rulings like today will be in effect.

With the defection of Roberts and Kennedy to what I believe is their Libertarian view of the Constitution,
we may not see a ninth Justice for many years to come.

Unless the Senate and Presidency are held by the same party and the 51-vote nuclear option is instituted .

i would expect before the SCOTUS gave up too much authority along the lines of NO confirmations at all, they would declare the 60 vote rule unconstitutional

the senate won't refuse to confirm *someone* because each party has a (roughly) 50/50 shot at president and they don't want the favor returned once they have the white house. In the end, the other two branches lose even more power

Originally Posted by chromium

right like SSM is going to have any meaningful impact on birth rate...

maybe you should blame the 70% who are hetero christians and have stopped breeding, or god forbid, acknowledge that we're overpopulated and there is no way 300 million shar'ia muslims will be added to the voter rolls.

How are we overpopulated?

One attempt at conciliation from the majority ruling i have to take issue with:
"Marriage, in their view, is by its nature a gender-differentiated union of man and woman. This view long has been held—and continues to be held—in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world. "

Really, i'm pretty sure SCOTUS released the decision today to avoid throngs of loonies from kansas having time to swarm into D.C., so he must not think too highly of them. In fact, like them i suspect, i wasn't paying attention at all, figuring the decision comes monday-tuesday

Also this is a perfect representation of the hysteria from "reasonable and sincere people" and the kind of voter ted cruz covets and scalia's #1 fan:







Comparisons to 9/11, jihad, and nazis - I bet the resident bigots are *real* proud to share their 'cause' with this guy

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Democrats have every right to be like:

Dems had *what* to do with this exactly? This is several federal court decisions followed by a majority ruling penned by a reagan appointee. They have no right to be proud, when they stood aside meekly while bush and romney did everything possible to ban gay rights. And hillary being in your pic is damn funny, when her husband voted in DADT and DOMA

Aside from a handful of state legislatures, the dems have been impotent while true activists led the public and court battle

Originally Posted by WCH

I, for one, have indicated my religious and legal opinion on the subject. The religious aspect trumps man's law though.

You don't like this ruling from SCOTUS because it goes against your beliefs? Tough.
We don't like the ruling from DC v Heller because it goes against our beliefs, but conservatives are happy to support the SCOTUS when it makes decisions they agree with.

At least gay marriage won't enable countless deaths.

Originally Posted by chromium

They seem to forget the 14th was added specifically to check the power of the states, after that minor inconvenience known as the civil war

The thirteen amendment covers slavery just fine. The fourteenth amendment was a power grab by the federal government.

Originally Posted by Peter Grimm

The fact that you can marry means I will not be asking my girlfriend to marry me...I don't want to share the same institution as you.

You may have won a court case, and the left-leaning folks on this site may support you, but you will NEVER be socially accepted by mainstream America.

I never had a problem with gays before today, but this is too much. I will not be your friend.

I feel sorry for you man. I don't know why you have so much hate in you, but I hope you someday find peace and happiness.

You share lot's of things with gay people (or people, as I prefer to call them): The nation, the flag, restaurants, free speech, the constitution. Marriage will just be another one.
Do you hate gays more than you love your girlfriend? If the answer is no, then marry her.

Originally Posted by Henrin

The thirteen amendment covers slavery just fine. The fourteenth amendment was a power grab by the federal government.

It may have also had something to do with what the country was going to do with all those freed slaves and how they would be treated in the states that had once enslaved them.