It is just disgusting

[syaigh]

Section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to our Constitution reads something like this: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

They always had the same rights as others.
Each gay man has right to marry gay woman.
The same as all normal people.
This is just abomination. Who's next? Zoophiles? Pedophiles? They are also citizens of US and i am sure they are also want some rights.

All of you cheering about FREEDOM. Posting 1984 here... :)
But this is strange freedom for me.
If most of people of some state are against allowing gay marriages, but government order them to allow it. Is it freedom?
It is totalitarism like in 1984 wich bennyonesix likes to quote :)

This is not one step further away from being a theocracy. It is one step further away from being a normal society.

Why? Two people want to consolidate their assets and support one another for the purpose of family, business, joint assets, medical power of attourney, power of attourney, etc. Should one group be able to do that with one legal act while others have to seek all those things independently at great expense?

It really doesn't make sense. Gay couples have children, raise children, adopt children (when they can), why should they have more legal limitations on them than other couples simply because of the distribution of penises and vaginas?

Not trying to be ugly. Gay sex makes a lot of heteros uncomfortable and that's okay. Lots of things make us feel uncomfortable. i just don't think its grounds to grant one group legal rights and keep others from having those same rights.

Utterly disingenuous. All non-"marriage" options were rejected by the Left. As was clear from Tony K's decision. The democratic process and the rule of law was also rejected by the Left and SCOTUS REX.

You're superficial rationales are about 10 years out of date. You need to be careful or you will get dragged under by the flood.

I didn't reject them. IMO, marriage happens in a church, civil unions are recognized by law. Honestly, I'd be cool if gay couples could just have a civil union and if they find a church that officiates the ceremony, so be it. That's how the rest of us do it. But, honestly, we should have a legal only option for the legal benefits of marriage for people who don't subscribe to the limitations of religious marriage definitions.

You think I'm a liberal? I used to think I was a liberal. Just like many here thought they were conservatives before it became the great war of "thou shalt not offend" vs "legislate my version of morality!".

[Turdacious]

? Zoophiles? Pedophiles? They are also citizens of US...

This is not one step further away from being a theocracy. It is one step further away from being a normal society.

A percentage of the population being gay is what is normal. A population of 100% hetero would be an outlier. Think about that.

This stuff has gone on since forever. Our society is just now taking a wide stance on the issue and being honest about it and not pretending it doesn't happen.

Uh, the courts are taking the stance, not our society. It's been shot down on pretty much every ballot out there. There's a sizeable silent majority on this issue.

It would be much better for gays and lesbians if it were settled by elected representatives or on the ballot, even if it took a little longer. It's a much better way to get the details right.

You do not understand. This is a supra-democratic and supra-legal issue. Read Tony's opinion. The Dignity Right can not be subjected to the disgrace of either.

Or I just disagree with him. The courts screw things up because they ignore significant interest groups and political majorities. They did it with civil rights (restrictive covenants, separate but equal, school busing, etc...)-- none of those things (with the possible exception of restrictive covenants) made things better for blacks.

This should be handled at a state level, which is where the issue belongs.

[bennyonesix]

Section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to our Constitution reads something like this: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

They always had the same rights as others.
Each gay man has right to marry gay woman.
The same as all normal people.
This is just abomination. Who's next? Zoophiles? Pedophiles? They are also citizens of US and i am sure they are also want some rights.

All of you cheering about FREEDOM. Posting 1984 here... :)
But this is strange freedom for me.
If most of people of some state are against allowing gay marriages, but government order them to allow it. Is it freedom?
It is totalitarism like in 1984 wich bennyonesix likes to quote :)

This is not one step further away from being a theocracy. It is one step further away from being a normal society.

Why? Two people want to consolidate their assets and support one another for the purpose of family, business, joint assets, medical power of attourney, power of attourney, etc. Should one group be able to do that with one legal act while others have to seek all those things independently at great expense?

It really doesn't make sense. Gay couples have children, raise children, adopt children (when they can), why should they have more legal limitations on them than other couples simply because of the distribution of penises and vaginas?

Not trying to be ugly. Gay sex makes a lot of heteros uncomfortable and that's okay. Lots of things make us feel uncomfortable. i just don't think its grounds to grant one group legal rights and keep others from having those same rights.

Utterly disingenuous. All non-"marriage" options were rejected by the Left. As was clear from Tony K's decision. The democratic process and the rule of law was also rejected by the Left and SCOTUS REX.

You're superficial rationales are about 10 years out of date. You need to be careful or you will get dragged under by the flood.

I didn't reject them. IMO, marriage happens in a church, civil unions are recognized by law. Honestly, I'd be cool if gay couples could just have a civil union and if they find a church that officiates the ceremony, so be it. That's how the rest of us do it. But, honestly, we should have a legal only option for the legal benefits of marriage for people who don't subscribe to the limitations of religious marriage definitions.

You think I'm a liberal? I used to think I was a liberal. Just like many here thought they were conservatives before it became the great war of "thou shalt not offend" vs "legislate my version of morality!".

I don't know what you are? I don't know you. I know that your opinion as just stated has nothing to do with the reasoning that has led to the changes in the last year and the most recent SCOTUS decision. Your policy preferences are an historical anomaly at this point.

This right here and right now is about raw power which means stroking the Id until it lights up like The Las Vegas Strip. It is about the end of one America and the beginning of another. It is the end of History as an important factor in the life of this country. It has nothing to do with bennies at work. That is silly.

Just like many here thought they were conservatives before it became the great war of "thou shalt not offend" vs "legislate my version of morality!".

I do not know what that means.

[bennyonesix]

? Zoophiles? Pedophiles? They are also citizens of US...

This is not one step further away from being a theocracy. It is one step further away from being a normal society.

A percentage of the population being gay is what is normal. A population of 100% hetero would be an outlier. Think about that.

This stuff has gone on since forever. Our society is just now taking a wide stance on the issue and being honest about it and not pretending it doesn't happen.

Uh, the courts are taking the stance, not our society. It's been shot down on pretty much every ballot out there. There's a sizeable silent majority on this issue.

It would be much better for gays and lesbians if it were settled by elected representatives or on the ballot, even if it took a little longer. It's a much better way to get the details right.

You do not understand. This is a supra-democratic and supra-legal issue. Read Tony's opinion. The Dignity Right can not be subjected to the disgrace of either.

Or I just disagree with him. The courts screw things up because they ignore significant interest groups and political majorities. They did it with civil rights (restrictive covenants, separate but equal, school busing, etc...)-- none of those things (with the possible exception of restrictive covenants) made things better for blacks.

This should be handled at a state level, which is where the issue belongs.

You do not understand. This is a supra-democratic and supra-legal issue. Read Tony's opinion. The Dignity Right can not be subjected to the disgrace of either.

[Blaidd Drwg]

Turd, I hold you responsible for giving this conversation any credence. Bill's a double threat of retard and Russky....the rest of this idiots I can't speak for but you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that idea of settling a Federal Constitutional issue at the ballot box is nonsense.


SCOTUS, like them or not, are THE authority period. full stop. on whether or not it is constitutional to deny American's the right to enter into marriage contracts.

[Turdacious]

Turd, I hold you responsible for giving this conversation any credence. Bill's a double threat of retard and Russky....the rest of this idiots I can't speak for but you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that idea of settling a Federal Constitutional issue at the ballot box is nonsense.


SCOTUS, like them or not, are THE authority period. full stop. on whether or not it is constitutional to deny American's the right to enter into marriage contracts.

I've left my personal feelings completely out of this discussion. The primary responsibility is at the state level, as established by the Constitution. A marriage in one state must be honored by all the others.

SCOTUS's responsibility should be to affirm or deny whether individual states have this right, and whether other states have to respect that authority-- and little more.

[Wild Bill]

Blaidd Drwg.
First of all, when i said "disgusting" it was only about rainbow flags on FB.
this whole debate about gays in general and you in particular, was initiated not by me.

[DrDonkeyLove]

What's done is done. Gays now have the marriage based medical and inheritance rights they've craved. Whether you hate it or love it, there is no changing it, period.

What interests me is what comes next because live and let live will not stand. My Donkey predictions are:
1) The right will rail and wail to no result except to raise money and garner votes from the religious right.
2) The left will be much more active since support of traditional marriage is now full on hate akin to racism, nothing less. As a result, we can expect the following:
>>>Religious universities who don't bow will start to face attacks on accreditation and gov't funding - especially student loans.
>>>Clergy will keep their rights to refuse to participate in gay nuptials but lay believers will be universally forced to provide any and all services under threat of criminal or civil sanction. If that doesn't work, several small business will be subjected to well financed civil suits until the recalcitrant get the message and quit or recant their evil ways.
>>>Professors and others will literally have to sign on to codes of conduct that include belief and support clauses regarding all things considered by the left to be gay rights. Expect Roman Catholic and evangelical professors to be publicly called out and eventually subjected to tribunals.
>>>Parents who don't immediately accept their pre-teen or early teen child's transgender identity or ass fuckery will be considered abusive and experience all the tender ministrations the state cares to bestow on child abusing heretics.

Whether my predictions are specifically right or wrong, there is much more excitement en route.

[Blaidd Drwg]

SCOTUS's responsibility should be to affirm or deny whether individual states have this right, and whether other states have to respect that authority-- and little more.

That's a conveniently narrow misinterpretation of the role SCOTUS. Their role is crystal clear....whether I like the decisions they extrude or not...The Constitution is a document that sets forth the bright line between state and universal rights. No armchair legal wonkery (the logic of which defies incredibly broadly accepted legal expertise) changes the central fact that the States may not preclude this fundamental right.

WASHINGTON — In a long-sought victory for the gay rights movement, the Supreme Court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote on Friday that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage.

“No longer may this liberty be denied,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority in the historic decision. “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.”

Bill, you ignorant backward Russian dupe....when you call the celebration of one of the strongest affirmations of American Civil Liberties disgusting...you should expect to reap a whirlwind of contempt. If SCOTUS had affirmed the universal right to concealed carry, you'd get a similar outpouring of joy...If you shit on that one, you'd get it three fold.

Civil Rights are good...even the ones that make your skin crawl.

And yes...I'm making it personal because you're acting the fool and deserve to be shit on for it...it's the only way you people learn.

[DARTH]

Civil liberties are civil liberties. A civil union smacked too much like " Separate but equal". I am pretty right wing but I don;t see why so many Conservatives are crying over this?

Seriously, I see it also as a ruling that said " Fuck your feelings, the Constitution says people have rights and queers are people too!" So Fuck Troy's feelings about my guns, the Constitution says I can have them.

Don't like the Battle Flag of the CSA? Tough shit, fuck your feelings you Lib turd or broke down farm machinery mush mouth low I.Q. motherfucker, I can fly it as per the 1st Amendment and if you come on my property to mess with it I will get in your way and any further movement will be seen as a threat and I will shoot you in the pelvis and gut with the guns the 2nd Amendment protects.

Queer marriage does not effect my relationship with my woman. Queer marriage does not devalue your marriage. The divorce rates since the 1960s have done more to hurt it than any ring on another cocksuckers finger.

That said, I find all the Rainbow Fag bullshit on FB annoying and though there are those who do it out of a strong feeling of "Fuck yeah!" a lot of people are just being bandwagon douchebags, trying to say " I am so enlightened!" with the little app Zuckerfuk put on his site. Click and you are cool with the IN crowed. Fuck those fags, they also listen to pop music more than Rock and Roll.

[nafod]

What's done is done. Gays now have the marriage based medical and inheritance rights they've craved. Whether you hate it or love it, there is no changing it, period.

What interests me is what comes next because live and let live will not stand. My Donkey predictions are:
1) The right will rail and wail to no result except to raise money and garner votes from the religious right.
2) The left will be much more active since support of traditional marriage is now full on hate akin to racism, nothing less. As a result, we can expect the following:
>>>Religious universities who don't bow will start to face attacks on accreditation and gov't funding - especially student loans.
>>>Clergy will keep their rights to refuse to participate in gay nuptials but lay believers will be universally forced to provide any and all services under threat of criminal or civil sanction. If that doesn't work, several small business will be subjected to well financed civil suits until the recalcitrant get the message and quit or recant their evil ways.
>>>Professors and others will literally have to sign on to codes of conduct that include belief and support clauses regarding all things considered by the left to be gay rights. Expect Roman Catholic and evangelical professors to be publicly called out and eventually subjected to tribunals.
>>>Parents who don't immediately accept their pre-teen or early teen child's transgender identity or ass fuckery will be considered abusive and experience all the tender ministrations the state cares to bestow on child abusing heretics.

Whether my predictions are specifically right or wrong, there is much more excitement en route.

As always, the military has been out ahead on this. It's been a big "meh" as near as I can tell. A few conscientious objectors who refuse to serve with gays yelling about it, but they become civilians once they fail to obey a lawful order.

Hopefully some republicans won't have to overcompensate for their gayness by being hypocritical homo bashers and some dems won't have to be so blatantly out and proud about it in pursuit of the gay-vote, as we move on to other things to divide us into Us and Them.

[Turdacious]

SCOTUS's responsibility should be to affirm or deny whether individual states have this right, and whether other states have to respect that authority-- and little more.

That's a conveniently narrow misinterpretation of the role SCOTUS. Their role is crystal clear....whether I like the decisions they extrude or not...The Constitution is a document that sets forth the bright line between state and universal rights. No armchair legal wonkery (the logic of which defies incredibly broadly accepted legal expertise) changes the central fact that the States may not preclude this fundamental right.

As usual, you're missing my point. I'm not suggesting that SCOTUS doesn't have the ability to make this ruling, I'm suggesting that we would all be better off if they exercised restraint and didn't. I don't think we really disagree here.

[bennyonesix]

Turd, I hold you responsible for giving this conversation any credence. Bill's a double threat of retard and Russky....the rest of this idiots I can't speak for but you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that idea of settling a Federal Constitutional issue at the ballot box is nonsense.


SCOTUS, like them or not, are THE authority period. full stop. on whether or not it is constitutional to deny American's the right to enter into marriage contracts.

More of the disingenuous argumentation. You just uttered a tautology: SCOTUS has the power therefore they has the power.

First off, did you read Tony K's decision? Serious question. What did you think of it in general? What do you think the "legal" arguments were? Did you read any of the dissents?

No one has defended (or can defend) this decision on "legal" or "constitutional" grounds. There is quite literally no "right" to same-sex marriage in the US Constitution. There is no requirement that marriage be defined ANY WAY in the US Constitution. The "fundamental right" to marry is itself a fiction of the US Supreme Court.

But now, there is a fundamental right to marry (which is a pure creation of the US Supreme Court) and now there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage (which is also a pure creation of the US Supreme Court) based on a "Dignity Right" which was manufactured out of whole cloth by Tony K.

This decision is the definition of nonsense on stilts. It is turtles all the way down baby...

There is no other conclusion but that SCOTUS usurped the power of the Legislatures to determine by democratic process the extent of marriage...

You will allege this is crazy talk but you know I am correct: SCOTUS is now our Guardian Council.

[bennyonesix]

SCOTUS's responsibility should be to affirm or deny whether individual states have this right, and whether other states have to respect that authority-- and little more.

That's a conveniently narrow misinterpretation of the role SCOTUS. Their role is crystal clear....whether I like the decisions they extrude or not...The Constitution is a document that sets forth the bright line between state and universal rights. No armchair legal wonkery (the logic of which defies incredibly broadly accepted legal expertise) changes the central fact that the States may not preclude this fundamental right.

As usual, you're missing my point. I'm not suggesting that SCOTUS doesn't have the ability to make this ruling, I'm suggesting that we would all be better off if they exercised restraint and didn't. I don't think we really disagree here.

SCOTUS does not possess the ability or power to make this decision. Tony K says it does, but it does not. It is quite literally ultra vires.

SCOTUS is not able to create rights that are nowhere in the Constitution. It is a legal institution and not a legislature.

It is not a Guardian Council.

[bennyonesix]

SCOTUS's responsibility should be to affirm or deny whether individual states have this right, and whether other states have to respect that authority-- and little more.

That's a conveniently narrow misinterpretation of the role SCOTUS. Their role is crystal clear....whether I like the decisions they extrude or not...The Constitution is a document that sets forth the bright line between state and universal rights. No armchair legal wonkery (the logic of which defies incredibly broadly accepted legal expertise) changes the central fact that the States may not preclude this fundamental right.

WASHINGTON — In a long-sought victory for the gay rights movement, the Supreme Court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote on Friday that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage.

“No longer may this liberty be denied,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority in the historic decision. “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.”

Bill, you ignorant backward Russian dupe....when you call the celebration of one of the strongest affirmations of American Civil Liberties disgusting...you should expect to reap a whirlwind of contempt. If SCOTUS had affirmed the universal right to concealed carry, you'd get a similar outpouring of joy...If you shit on that one, you'd get it three fold.

Civil Rights are good...even the ones that make your skin crawl.

And yes...I'm making it personal because you're acting the fool and deserve to be shit on for it...it's the only way you people learn.

You are the one full of shit on this. Do you not feel shame that you are using your expertise to lie to the ignorant?

This is amazing. You are applauding SCOTUS for not only creating "Rights" out of whole cloth and claim that this is their purpose? That is patently wrong and you know it.

The US Supreme Court was not created to create "rights" that is not its job. You know that "creating rights" is legislating from the bench. It goes against the core principle of the Republic: Separation of Powers.

Look, I get it, you like the outcome. WE ALL GET IT. Stop dressing your position up as anything other than that. You know better by training, intellect and decency.

[nafod]

SCOTUS does not possess the ability or power to make this decision. Tony K says it does, but it does not. It is quite literally ultra vires.

SCOTUS is not able to create rights that are nowhere in the Constitution. It is a legal institution and not a legislature.

It is not a Guardian Council.

The SC has waded into the marriage issue before. From Loving -vs- Virginia, where the decision to overturn a VA law banning marriages relied on the Due Process clause and Equal Protection clause

Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

[bennyonesix]

What's done is done. Gays now have the marriage based medical and inheritance rights they've craved. Whether you hate it or love it, there is no changing it, period.

What interests me is what comes next because live and let live will not stand. My Donkey predictions are:
1) The right will rail and wail to no result except to raise money and garner votes from the religious right.
2) The left will be much more active since support of traditional marriage is now full on hate akin to racism, nothing less. As a result, we can expect the following:
>>>Religious universities who don't bow will start to face attacks on accreditation and gov't funding - especially student loans.
>>>Clergy will keep their rights to refuse to participate in gay nuptials but lay believers will be universally forced to provide any and all services under threat of criminal or civil sanction. If that doesn't work, several small business will be subjected to well financed civil suits until the recalcitrant get the message and quit or recant their evil ways.
>>>Professors and others will literally have to sign on to codes of conduct that include belief and support clauses regarding all things considered by the left to be gay rights. Expect Roman Catholic and evangelical professors to be publicly called out and eventually subjected to tribunals.
>>>Parents who don't immediately accept their pre-teen or early teen child's transgender identity or ass fuckery will be considered abusive and experience all the tender ministrations the state cares to bestow on child abusing heretics.

Whether my predictions are specifically right or wrong, there is much more excitement en route.

As always, the military has been out ahead on this. It's been a big "meh" as near as I can tell. A few conscientious objectors who refuse to serve with gays yelling about it, but they become civilians once they fail to obey a lawful order.

Hopefully some republicans won't have to overcompensate for their gayness by being hypocritical homo bashers and some dems won't have to be so blatantly out and proud about it in pursuit of the gay-vote, as we move on to other things to divide us into Us and Them.

You are the one who scares me the most. BD hides his squareness to be a cool kid. Syaigh is a condescending blowhard who means well but has no idea what is going on. But you, you are the real deal. You are the monster hiding behind the grinning face and the hearty handshake and the slap on the back. You are the middle manager who looks sad and tells you he is sorry buddy but the rules are the rules and he didn't make them and he's caught as much as you and all the while thrilling at putting the screws to you... Lulz I see you.

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.”
― George Orwell, 1984

[bennyonesix]

SCOTUS does not possess the ability or power to make this decision. Tony K says it does, but it does not. It is quite literally ultra vires.

SCOTUS is not able to create rights that are nowhere in the Constitution. It is a legal institution and not a legislature.

It is not a Guardian Council.

The SC has waded into the marriage issue before. From Loving -vs- Virginia, where the decision to overturn a VA law banning marriages relied on the Due Process clause and Equal Protection clause

Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

You are out of your depth. Read my first reply to BD. And go away.

[Blaidd Drwg]

SCOTUS's responsibility should be to affirm or deny whether individual states have this right, and whether other states have to respect that authority-- and little more.

That's a conveniently narrow misinterpretation of the role SCOTUS. Their role is crystal clear....whether I like the decisions they extrude or not...The Constitution is a document that sets forth the bright line between state and universal rights. No armchair legal wonkery (the logic of which defies incredibly broadly accepted legal expertise) changes the central fact that the States may not preclude this fundamental right.

WASHINGTON — In a long-sought victory for the gay rights movement, the Supreme Court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote on Friday that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage.

“No longer may this liberty be denied,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority in the historic decision. “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.”

So....let's get this straight...SCOTUS decided to take up the argument because they DO NOT have the right to hear it?
Bill, you ignorant backward Russian dupe....when you call the celebration of one of the strongest affirmations of American Civil Liberties disgusting...you should expect to reap a whirlwind of contempt. If SCOTUS had affirmed the universal right to concealed carry, you'd get a similar outpouring of joy...If you shit on that one, you'd get it three fold.

Civil Rights are good...even the ones that make your skin crawl.

And yes...I'm making it personal because you're acting the fool and deserve to be shit on for it...it's the only way you people learn.

This is amazing. You are applauding SCOTUS for not only creating "Rights" out of whole cloth and claim that this is their purpose? That is patently wrong and you know it.

The US Supreme Court was not created to create "rights" that is not its job. You know that "creating rights" is legislating from the bench. It goes against the core principle of the Republic: Separation of Powers.

Look, I get it, you like the outcome. WE ALL GET IT. Stop dressing your position up as anything other than that. You know better by training, intellect and decency.

Recognizing that equal protection applies to marriage is not the creation of a right. You know this. 5 of 9 of the duly appointed legal minds agree. You disagree. To the plus side, you're in some good company. Scalia is, IMHO a dicknosed POS, but is also a brilliant legal mind. To the downside, the argument you're directing at me is most applicable to you. ...you're sharp enough to be embarrassed but choose not to.

Your interpretation of the law failed muster. Deal with it and take heart in the fact it will be leveraged to extend other liberties you might enjoy.

[bennyonesix]

SCOTUS's responsibility should be to affirm or deny whether individual states have this right, and whether other states have to respect that authority-- and little more.

That's a conveniently narrow misinterpretation of the role SCOTUS. Their role is crystal clear....whether I like the decisions they extrude or not...The Constitution is a document that sets forth the bright line between state and universal rights. No armchair legal wonkery (the logic of which defies incredibly broadly accepted legal expertise) changes the central fact that the States may not preclude this fundamental right.

WASHINGTON — In a long-sought victory for the gay rights movement, the Supreme Court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote on Friday that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage.

“No longer may this liberty be denied,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority in the historic decision. “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.”

So....let's get this straight...SCOTUS decided to take up the argument because they DO NOT have the right to hear it?
Bill, you ignorant backward Russian dupe....when you call the celebration of one of the strongest affirmations of American Civil Liberties disgusting...you should expect to reap a whirlwind of contempt. If SCOTUS had affirmed the universal right to concealed carry, you'd get a similar outpouring of joy...If you shit on that one, you'd get it three fold.

Civil Rights are good...even the ones that make your skin crawl.

And yes...I'm making it personal because you're acting the fool and deserve to be shit on for it...it's the only way you people learn.

This is amazing. You are applauding SCOTUS for not only creating "Rights" out of whole cloth and claim that this is their purpose? That is patently wrong and you know it.

The US Supreme Court was not created to create "rights" that is not its job. You know that "creating rights" is legislating from the bench. It goes against the core principle of the Republic: Separation of Powers.

Look, I get it, you like the outcome. WE ALL GET IT. Stop dressing your position up as anything other than that. You know better by training, intellect and decency.

Recognizing that equal protection applies to marriage is not the creation of a right. You know this. 5 of 9 of the duly appointed legal minds agree. You disagree. To the plus side, you're in some good company. Scalia is, IMHO a dicknosed POS, but is also a brilliant legal mind. To the downside, the argument you're directing at me is most applicable to you. ...you're sharp enough to be embarrassed but choose not to.

Your interpretation of the law failed muster. Deal with it and take heart in the fact it will be leveraged to extend other liberties you might enjoy.

My interpretation of the law did not fail. You do not meaningfully argue against it. Your position is: the continued unconstitutional arrogation of power by the US Supreme Court is a good because I agree with the outcome.

Is it really your opinion that the methodology and tactics of the Judicial Left on the Court has been anything other than the enforcement of created rights? Griswold, Roe etc... I am not talking about wisdom or prudence or rightness or justness. I am talking about what happened...

This is why I cite to 1984: your opinion seems ahistorical. It requires one to assent that what has happened and is happening is not and has not.

How does your understanding of the role of the US Supreme Court differ from the role of The Guardian Council in Iran?

[Blaidd Drwg]

Cute.

You really need the decision on legal weed to come out...you're blowing more gaskets than the Russian Closet case.

[nafod]

? Zoophiles? Pedophiles? They are also citizens of US...

This is not one step further away from being a theocracy. It is one step further away from being a normal society.

A percentage of the population being gay is what is normal. A population of 100% hetero would be an outlier. Think about that.

This stuff has gone on since forever. Our society is just now taking a wide stance on the issue and being honest about it and not pretending it doesn't happen.

Uh, the courts are taking the stance, not our society. It's been shot down on pretty much every ballot out there. There's a sizeable silent majority on this issue.

It would be much better for gays and lesbians if it were settled by elected representatives or on the ballot, even if it took a little longer. It's a much better way to get the details right.

You do not understand. This is a supra-democratic and supra-legal issue. Read Tony's opinion. The Dignity Right can not be subjected to the disgrace of either.

Who the fuck is Tony K?

[bennyonesix]

? Zoophiles? Pedophiles? They are also citizens of US...

This is not one step further away from being a theocracy. It is one step further away from being a normal society.

A percentage of the population being gay is what is normal. A population of 100% hetero would be an outlier. Think about that.

This stuff has gone on since forever. Our society is just now taking a wide stance on the issue and being honest about it and not pretending it doesn't happen.

Uh, the courts are taking the stance, not our society. It's been shot down on pretty much every ballot out there. There's a sizeable silent majority on this issue.

It would be much better for gays and lesbians if it were settled by elected representatives or on the ballot, even if it took a little longer. It's a much better way to get the details right.

You do not understand. This is a supra-democratic and supra-legal issue. Read Tony's opinion. The Dignity Right can not be subjected to the disgrace of either.

Who the fuck is Tony K?

Jesus Fuck!

[Blaidd Drwg]

Oi.....Anthony Kennedy.....

this is Doyle Kenady....

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuXsDU6CsLk[/youtube]

[nafod]

? Zoophiles? Pedophiles? They are also citizens of US...

This is not one step further away from being a theocracy. It is one step further away from being a normal society.

A percentage of the population being gay is what is normal. A population of 100% hetero would be an outlier. Think about that.

This stuff has gone on since forever. Our society is just now taking a wide stance on the issue and being honest about it and not pretending it doesn't happen.

Uh, the courts are taking the stance, not our society. It's been shot down on pretty much every ballot out there. There's a sizeable silent majority on this issue.

It would be much better for gays and lesbians if it were settled by elected representatives or on the ballot, even if it took a little longer. It's a much better way to get the details right.

You do not understand. This is a supra-democratic and supra-legal issue. Read Tony's opinion. The Dignity Right can not be subjected to the disgrace of either.

Who the fuck is Tony K?

Jesus Fuck!

I googled it.

http://www.tonykofficial.com/