Page 173 of 193 FirstFirst ... 73123163171172173174175183 ... LastLast
Results 1,721 to 1,730 of 1930

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

  1. #1721
    Sage
    Paperview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    The Road Less Travelled
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:51 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,122

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

    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    I posted the exact pages and start of sentences, from the link turbo posted.
    Yes. I know. It doesn't say what you say it does.

    Fin.

    If you think you're doing a good job of making your case, I'm here to tell you,

    you ain't.

  2. #1722
    Sage
    Paperview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    The Road Less Travelled
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:51 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,122

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

    Oh, and you referring to page 13 "A second principle" is not even the right page -- that sentence starts on page 18

    -- there is no "A third principle," on page 16 - in fact that term does not appear at all anywhere in the ruling.

    A third basis does, on page 19.

    "A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it
    safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning
    from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education."

    And your "Fourth and finally," appears on page 21.

    Fourth and "Fourth and finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s
    traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of our social order.
    Alexis de Tocqueville recognized this truth on his travels through the United States almost two centuries ago:
    “There is certainly no country in the world where the
    tie of marriage is so much respected as in America..."


    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...4-556_3204.pdf

    Nothing there in your "go looksee" makes your case.

  3. #1723
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,342

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Yes, it is a problem now. It wasn't before.
    It's actually not a problem at all. Incest and incestuous marriages are as illegal today as they were a month ago.

    And if opponents of it can't come up with objective reasons to ban incestuous marriages, they should be legal. But I don't see coming up with good reasons to ban such marriages would be hard for anyone with 10 minutes to give it some thought.

  4. #1724
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,027

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

    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    I posted the exact pages and start of sentences, from the link turbo posted.

    None of those said anything about incest which you said was specifically authorized now in the opinion.


    Not there.


    >>>>

  5. #1725
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    11-09-16 @ 12:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,227

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

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    He lived in Hollywood since the 30s and was president of the Screen Actor's Guild. Of course he didn't have any problem whatsoever with behind the scenes homosexuality. And by the time he "outspokenly opposed" Bryant it was all the political rage to do so. This is Clayfoot Reagan you're talking about.
    so why is he so venerated by today's anita bryant (all repub candidates)?

    as for it being "all the rage" to write op-eds condemning bryant in 1978 (as reagan did), i highly doubt it, since gay relationships were still illegal in many states - in fact, the supreme court had just upheld those laws - and the military reagan would soon preside over would keep its strict ban on gay members for another 15 years.

    So if you ask me, it was a legitimate risk he took, and hell, no republican would lay into, say, the FRC or pat robertson even today.
    Last edited by chromium; 07-03-15 at 02:59 PM.

  6. #1726
    Guru
    99percenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,712

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

    Now that is legal I believe many republican will start ****ing their dogs. I believe many of them said that gay marriage being illegal was the only thing stopping them.
    bears, bulls, white sox fan 4 life!!!

  7. #1727
    Guru
    scatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    09-20-15 @ 09:25 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Paperview View Post
    Oh, and you referring to page 13 "A second principle" is not even the right page -- that sentence starts on page 18


    Quote Originally Posted by Paperview View Post
    Yes. I know.
    Then read them....

  8. #1728
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,912

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

    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    They specifically work like that. Over-broad rulings can have ripple effects over other laws.
    This one was not "overly broad". And it doesn't take any laws down until they are challenged. Then they will see if their arguments are good enough for the SCOTUS or not, if they make it that far.

    Really though I don't care if incest laws are struck down, I simply think ya'll are going overboard trying to make it like the slippery slope is already here. It isn't.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  9. #1729
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,912

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    There is something seriously wrong when we need a Constitutional amendment to prevent siblings from marrying. That is the road this court has set us on.
    We don't need one at all. Eventually it may come to pass that this is allowed. Especially siblings. (It could be just down the road without any help in Rhode Island, where no incestuous relationships are specifically illegal, although they do not allow close relations to marry.)
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  10. #1730
    Guru
    scatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    09-20-15 @ 09:25 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    This one was not "overly broad".
    Sure it is, because the basis for his argument is any two people.

Posting Permissions

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