Gay Marriage everywhere, mass hysteria ensues

[Big Blitz]

 

Please provide an example whereby a marriage license fee is blocking a couple from marriage? Is ther ONE legal example? However, if for example, there is fee that could be a clear and unreasonable impetiment to marriage, then yes, it would unconstitutional. So far, I am not aware that has happened recently.

 

 

 

If you extrapolate the marriage license fee to the polling taxes, or other paid forms of registration to vote, then yes, fees have been used as a hypothetical reason to be deemed discriminatory.

 

And if it needs to be repeated again, few people are arguing against the concept of giving the same legal rights to homosexual couples. The argument is about the process, where the judiciary just made up a law. There's a long established process in this country where change is affected through legislation. And although at times it's cumbersome and time consuming, the process works well, and Americans accept the legislative decisions. With "evolving" public opinion, gay marriage would have been legislated in nearly every state in short order. But the SCOTUS decision short circuits the natural process, and galvanizes the opposition, which will lead to a worse outcome and further fights in the states.

 

This is not about a moral position, but about upholding a process that's been enduring in the US. This is what separates this country from the lunatics in Europe where the losing side takes to the ramparts in a hissy fit and gums up the gears. In the US, the losing side accepted defeat and worked the system to get the outcome down the road. And that process of building up the voting blocks is vital to our democratic process.

 

In this case, the victory was handed down based on an emotional reading of the times, and that is in a stark contrast to how things used to get done. We're beyond the slippery slope where we're moving away from a country of laws.

 

 

This is spot on. And I'd add that they "created" a right that just does not exist in the process.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Then why did my wife and I have to show the minister a government-issued marriage license before we could be ecclesiastically hitched?

Because the government interjected itself, as it nearly always does, into places it has no business.

[Max Fischer]

Do you realize how patently retarded it is to keep throwing that out at people who are openly stating that they disagree with the Supreme Court?

Retarted? Are you in 2nd grade?

 

You seem to get angry over facts.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Retarted? Are you in 2nd grade?

 

You seem to get angry over facts.

I haven't seen you argue facts as relates to historical precedent or a nation of laws.

 

You have managed to toss around a good deal of equivocation and logical fallacy, however, so there's that.

Edited June 30, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[B-Man]

PROGRESSIVES NEED PERSPECTIVE: . . .according to Bari Weiss, who writes about “Love Among the Ruins.”

 

On Friday my phone was blowing up with messages, asking if I’d seen the news. Some expressed disbelief at the headlines. Many said they were crying.

 

None of them were talking about the dozens of people gunned down in Sousse, Tunisia, by a man who, dressed as a tourist, had hidden his Kalashnikov inside a beach umbrella. Not one was crying over the beheading in a terrorist attack at a chemical factory near Lyon, France. The victim’s head was found on a pike near the factory, his body covered with Arabic inscriptions. And no Facebook friends mentioned the first suicide bombing in Kuwait in more than two decades, in which 27 people were murdered in one of the oldest Shiite mosques in the country.

 

They were talking about the only news that mattered: gay marriage.

 

Unlike President Obama, I have always been a staunch supporter of gay marriage, and I cheered the Supreme Court’s ruling making gay marriage legal in all 50 states. But as happy as I was, I was equally upset on Friday—and not just with the Islamists who carried out those savage attacks.

 

Moral relativism has become its own, perverse form of nativism among those who stake their identity on being universalist and progressive.

 

How else to explain the lack of outrage for the innocents murdered on the beach, while vitriol is heaped on those who express any shred of doubt about the Supreme Court ruling? How else to make sense of the legions of social-justice activists here at home who have nothing to say about countries where justice means flogging, beheading or stoning?

 

How else to understand those who have dedicated their lives to creating safe spaces for transgender people, yet issue no news releases about gender apartheid in an entire region of the world? How else to justify that at the gay-pride celebrations this weekend in Manhattan there is unlikely to be much mention of the gay men recently thrown off buildings in Syria and Iraq, their still-warm bodies desecrated by mobs?

 

It is increasingly eerie to live in this split-screen age. Earlier this week I received an email from a progressive Jewish organization about how Judaism teaches “that the preservation of human dignity is important enough to justify overriding our sacred mitzvot.” The rest of the email was about respecting dignity by using preferred gender pronouns.

 

On my other computer screen, I looked at a photograph of five men in orange jumpsuits, their legs bound. They were trapped like dogs inside a metal cage and hanging above a pool of water. They were drawing their final breaths before their Islamic State captors lowered the cage into the pool and they drowned together.

 

What was that about human dignity?

 

The barbarians are at our gates. But inside our offices, schools, churches, synagogues and homes, we are posting photos of rainbows on Twitter. It’s easier to Photoshop images of Justice Scalia as Voldemort than it is to stare evil in the face.

 

 

You can’t get married if you’re dead.

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Rob's House]

Retarted? Are you in 2nd grade?

 

You seem to get angry over facts.

I did not feel a scintilla of anger when writing that post or reading yours. I was amused by how impressed you were with yourself for pointing out the obvious.

[Max Fischer]

This is spot on. And I'd add that they "created" a right that just does not exist in the process.

Equal protection is a right under the constitution, it's inherent and not "created." You might ignore something you don't believe, but it's still there.

 

Perhaps you don't believe gay couples should have same rights as straight couples? Do you believe interracial couples should have the same rights as straight couples?

[Rob's House]

You disagree with the Supreme Court?

 

Well the Supreme Court disagrees with you. BOOM!!! y'all just got lit up! <drops mic and walks off the stage>

You just can't argue with that logic. Edited June 30, 2015 by Rob's House

[TakeYouToTasker]

Equal protection is a right under the constitution, it's inherent and not "created." You might ignore something you don't believe, but it's still there.

 

Perhaps you don't believe gay couples should have same rights as straight couples? Do you believe interracial couples should have the same rights as straight couples?

"Equal protection" is inherent? Inherent to what exactly?

[Max Fischer]

PROGRESSIVES NEED PERSPECTIVE: . . .according to Bari Weiss, who writes about “Love Among the Ruins.”

 

On Friday my phone was blowing up with messages, asking if I’d seen the news. Some expressed disbelief at the headlines. Many said they were crying.

 

None of them were talking about the dozens of people gunned down in Sousse, Tunisia, by a man who, dressed as a tourist, had hidden his Kalashnikov inside a beach umbrella. Not one was crying over the beheading in a terrorist attack at a chemical factory near Lyon, France. The victim’s head was found on a pike near the factory, his body covered with Arabic inscriptions. And no Facebook friends mentioned the first suicide bombing in Kuwait in more than two decades, in which 27 people were murdered in one of the oldest Shiite mosques in the country.

 

They were talking about the only news that mattered: gay marriage.

 

Unlike President Obama, I have always been a staunch supporter of gay marriage, and I cheered the Supreme Court’s ruling making gay marriage legal in all 50 states. But as happy as I was, I was equally upset on Friday—and not just with the Islamists who carried out those savage attacks.

 

Moral relativism has become its own, perverse form of nativism among those who stake their identity on being universalist and progressive.

 

How else to explain the lack of outrage for the innocents murdered on the beach, while vitriol is heaped on those who express any shred of doubt about the Supreme Court ruling? How else to make sense of the legions of social-justice activists here at home who have nothing to say about countries where justice means flogging, beheading or stoning?

 

How else to understand those who have dedicated their lives to creating safe spaces for transgender people, yet issue no news releases about gender apartheid in an entire region of the world? How else to justify that at the gay-pride celebrations this weekend in Manhattan there is unlikely to be much mention of the gay men recently thrown off buildings in Syria and Iraq, their still-warm bodies desecrated by mobs?

 

It is increasingly eerie to live in this split-screen age. Earlier this week I received an email from a progressive Jewish organization about how Judaism teaches “that the preservation of human dignity is important enough to justify overriding our sacred mitzvot.” The rest of the email was about respecting dignity by using preferred gender pronouns.

 

On my other computer screen, I looked at a photograph of five men in orange jumpsuits, their legs bound. They were trapped like dogs inside a metal cage and hanging above a pool of water. They were drawing their final breaths before their Islamic State captors lowered the cage into the pool and they drowned together.

 

What was that about human dignity?

 

The barbarians are at our gates. But inside our offices, schools, churches, synagogues and homes, we are posting photos of rainbows on Twitter. It’s easier to Photoshop images of Justice Scalia as Voldemort than it is to stare evil in the face.

 

 

You can’t get married if you’re dead.

.

Thank you for keeping things in perspective. We should ignore and downplay historic domestic Supreme Court rulings that could make us forget we live in a dangerous world. We should never let the discussion of these issues overcome the gripping fear and paralyzation the terrorist crave. If we demonstrate the the US can walk and chew gum at the same time, the terrorists win.

 

We look forward to the next Bills win so you could give us some perspective by posting the horrible things that have happened to remind us of what's really important.

"Equal protection" is inherent? Inherent to what exactly?

You don't know what inherent means?

I did not feel a scintilla of anger when writing that post or reading yours. I was amused by how impressed you were with yourself for pointing out the obvious.

You seem to miss the obvious quite often.

"Equal protection" is inherent? Inherent to what exactly?

As in -- Perhaps you don't believe gay couples should have same (inherent) rights as straight couples? Do you believe interracial couples should have the same (inherent) rights as straight couples?

[TakeYouToTasker]

You don't know what inherent means?

Actually, in a rare showing of unusual kindness, I'm giving you a second chance to demonstrate that you do.

 

Explain to me how "equal protection", a concept that originated in 1868, was reinterpreted in 1954, and finally, but certainly without any closure, has been reinterpreted again in 2015; exists as "a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute".

 

Go.

[3rdnlng]

Equal protection is a right under the constitution, it's inherent and not "created." You might ignore something you don't believe, but it's still there.

 

Perhaps you don't believe gay couples should have same rights as straight couples? Do you believe interracial couples should have the same rights as straight couples?

Just preserving this.

[Big Blitz]

You don't know what inherent means?

Actually, in a rare showing of unusual kindness, I'm giving you a second chance to demonstrate that you do.

Explain to me how "equal protection", a concept that originated in 1868, was reinterpreted in 1954, and finally, but certainly without any closure, has been reinterpreted again in 2015; exists as "a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute".

Go.

 

For the record, I do not oppose gay marriage. I oppose big government and judicial overreach from the left and right. No one will be able to tell me that those things did not happen in the gay marriage ruling and Obamacare ruling (the absolute worst of the 2).

 

The 14th Amendments intention was specifically meant to ensure God given rights to newly freed slaves would not be denied. Not to become a green light for the Federal Government to stick it's nose into every single aspect of our lives. The bastardizing of the 14th has done this. It's done some good I'm sure you'll argue.....but it likely would have happened without it.

 

But in America, #LawyersWin

[3rdnlng]

Retarted? Are you in 2nd grade?

 

You seem to get angry over facts.

Pure gold. It is ironic that the person criticizing another person for using the word "retarded" can't even spell the word correctly.

[LeviF]

Actually, in a rare showing of unusual kindness, I'm giving you a second chance to demonstrate that you do.

 

 

Why? He clearly has no idea how the judiciary in this country works, or why you said that the equal protection clause has been reinterpreted again, or why someone could possibly disagree with five lawyers in funny-looking outfits.

[GG]

Your argument assumes that the equal protection act does not prohibit the laws in question. I disagree and so does the Supreme Court. There is no slippery slope when it comes to basic human rights. The "times" caught up to what has always been correct. The "times" did not make slavery wrong, it was always wrong. The "times" did not make a ban on interracial marriage wrong, it was always wrong. Their are countless other examples, it's what makes our system work.

 

Sometimes bills are passed, sometimes courts make decisions, but in the end, it's about getting to the right decision.

 

Ah yes, the right side of history argument. Sucks for you that the main reason this country has been kicking ass for 4 centuries is the long standing adherence to a Constitution and letting the legislative process play itself out. Go visit the other hot topic on this page and see how nearly two centuries later the debate still rages on because of a short-circuit in the Constitutional process.

 

No one here is arguing whether gays should have the same legal rights as heterosexuals.

[B-Man]

Thank you for keeping things in perspective. We should ignore and downplay historic domestic Supreme Court rulings that could make us forget we live in a dangerous world. We should never let the discussion of these issues overcome the gripping fear and paralyzation the terrorist crave. If we demonstrate the the US can walk and chew gum at the same time, the terrorists win.

 

 

 

 

Thank you Maxi,

 

for demonstrating the point of the article so completely.

 

Perspective is not something you seem to possess.

 

neither is there an ability to use sarcasm effectively

 

 

 

.

 

 

.

Edited June 30, 2015 by B-Man

[Azalin]

 

No one here is arguing whether gays should have the same legal rights as heterosexuals.

 

Apparently we are, or else we'd all be fine with the judicial activism apparent in the court's decision.

[Dorkington]

 

Apparently we are, or else we'd all be fine with the judicial activism apparent in the court's decision.

[DC Tom]

 

Apparently we are, or else we'd all be fine with the judicial activism apparent in the court's decision.

 

Did anyone catch the portion of the opinion where the Supreme Court justifies same-sex marriage with the rationale that it's related to the individual right of procreation? That logic is more tortured than William Wallace.

 

The three bizarro decisions the court's handed down the past several days (the third is the lethal injection decision, where the court argues that "Well, it could be cruel and unusual, but we don't have anything less cruel and unusual, so it's not cruel and unusual." And two justices argue that the death penalty itself is cruel and unusual which - true or not - wasn't even the issue under consideration), I'm seriously job-hunting, if not considering a complete career change. I can no longer work in support of a government that's abandoned the rule of law and governs on whimsy.

Edited June 30, 2015 by DC Tom