Another failed attempt at characterization. Your take on my education and constitutional knowledge is as weak as your supposed knowledge of the constitution. You have demonstrated zero respect for the constitution and clearly have no problem ignoring it in toto as long as your desires are slaked.
That last bit of yours is highly hilarious considering you're the one taking the position that this decision is A-Okay despite the fact that the Chief of the Judicial Branch is telling you it is NOT consistent with the constitution at all.
It is ABSOLUTELY consistent not only with the Constitution but stare decisis/jurisprudence, i.e., Loving v. Virgina.
Wasn't the Constitution originally intended to protect the white landowners and not the blacks?
I support same sex marriage, as I don't care whether two people of the same sex want to get married. And yes, polls showed this sentiment to be in the majority. Of course, those polls also painted a different picture when the question involved the use of the word "marriage". But the point is moot now.
However, you mentioned things that are more important to the masses, and I responded with an example related to immigration. Not sure why you ignored that to repeat something about SSM.
Oh, and really, liberal/progressives need to stop pushing the lie about the Supreme Court giving Bush the White House. It just makes them look ignorant and foolish. Multiple recounts by multiple sources showed Bush won. What the Supreme Court did do, however, was stop Gore and the Florida Legislature from re-writing voting laws after the vote was cast. Perhaps you could educate yourself on those facts so you won't make the same mistake again.
I've been married twice. The last one for longer than you may have been alive. Legally civil unions and marriage are about the same thing. The push for gay marriage wasn't about the institution of marriage. It was about gay people appearing to be as normal as everyone else in society. I've always considered it to be a non issue and now with a little luck we won't have to hear about it anymore.
"A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”
“The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003."
And that is true too.....
It was never an issue before because it was never brought up......
That is your belief. There is no evidence of this, no proof. You have to have faith in that fact. I don't, as many others don't.
Another failed attempt at characterization. Your take on my education and constitutional knowledge is as weak as your supposed knowledge of the constitution. You have demonstrated zero respect for the constitution and clearly have no problem ignoring it in toto as long as your desires are slaked.
That last bit of yours is highly hilarious considering you're the one taking the position that this decision is A-Okay despite the fact that the Chief of the Judicial Branch is telling you it is NOT consistent with the constitution at all.
So you're bigoted against people with Objectum-Sexuality..... poor poor Eija-Riitta Berliner-Mauer and Sal9000.
You can't see an electrical current, but you can feel it if you stick your finger in a light socket.
Yeah, sorry, with the lack of knowledge you've demonstrated thus far and the fact that the Chief Justice, whom you supposedly consider an authority on the matter, says otherwise, your take on it is incorrect and useless.
LOL......and yet 5 other Justices say otherwise. Sorry dude.....you lose. The Chief Justice doesn't have any more sway/authority than any other Justice.
Let me put this another way: Even if the constitution flat out stated "same sex is a right in every state," you would STILL be throwing tantrums. Once again, you're not fooling anyone
Not at all. Legal marriage in the US involves a legal contract, as well as forms a legal kinship. You cannot sign a contract with an inanimate object or with an animal, or even with a minor. You cannot form a legal kinship of any kind with an inanimate object or an animal. None of those things can be claimed, ever on your taxes as a dependent, many legal relatives can, especially your closest legal relative, your spouse.
Those 5 look tired. They need some time off.
AFTER obama is replaced with a conservative President.
LOL......and yet 5 other Justices say otherwise. Sorry dude.....you lose. The Chief Justice doesn't have any more sway/authority than any other Justice.
You have never demonstrated any ability to read my mind, and in this you show you definitely cannot. If you managed in some fictional universe to add that hot mess of a statement to the constitution, I'd have been all for it. In fact, I'll go a bit further, come up with a textually sound constitutional amendment that allows free and equal access to marriage and I will wholeheartedly support it.
But until you do, this decision was entirely outside the constitution and is the sign of a system that has abandoned the constitutional model and strayed into social engineering by a robed panel. Star chamber.
So you believe Loving v. Virginia was also outside the Constitution?
You are probably going to have to wait several election cycles before another Republican makes it into the whitehouse.
And you claim to know all about law and constitution. :lamo
Do a little reading, learn something and catch up to your claims.