Outstanding! It's now officially legal for Bruce to marry Bruce!

[Drama Queen]

Haha

At least someone on this board knows how to read pussy.

[Overbrook]

Only "read"?

Haha

At least someone on this board knows how to read pussy.

666

[Riccardo]

They do

jealous!

[Maniac]

Makes sense to me that you should be able to have a legal partner of any sex. No problem at all with hunting although I have zero interest in participating.

Because there are legal ramifications to marriage, I think same-sex marriages should fall under Constitutional equal rights protection. Glad to see the Supremes end the debate. States can't opt out of the Constitution.

[slag]

You continue to completely ignore the point.

[slag]

igitis

[slag]

And BTW - there are plenty of things that have significant legal ramifications but which do not encompass fundamental rights to which equal protection applies.

[slag]

But the last thing I'm posting here is that the only point I was making is that I didn't see how Scalia was rejecting democracy by favoring the right of states to decide the issue.

He wanted the citizens of each state to exercise it on this issue ... and the fact that, by doing so, he was promoting something you disagree with doesn't change this.

[Maniac]

And BTW - there are plenty of things that have significant legal ramifications but which do not encompass fundamental rights to which equal protection applies.

Sure. But the Court just ruled that equal protection applies to marriage.

As RSE pointed out, many justices let their personal biases color their decisions. In my opinion, Scalia is one of the most blatant and disingenuous offenders.

I was trying to address your post. You did bring up hunting and all that.

[Maniac]

But the last thing I'm posting here is that the only point I was making is that I didn't see how Scalia was rejecting democracy by favoring the right of states to decide the issue.

He wanted the citizens of each state to exercise it on this issue ... and the fact that, by doing so, he was promoting something you disagree with doesn't change this.

Agree. But my counterpoint is that Scalia will argue state's rights when it suits his bias and constitutional rights when it suits it. So I don't find his opinions very interesting.

He obviously wouldn't argue majority rule on gun control or campaign contributions or voters rights.

[FuriousXGeorge]

But the last thing I'm posting here is that the only point I was making is that I didn't see how Scalia was rejecting democracy by favoring the right of states to decide the issue.

He wanted the citizens of each state to exercise it on this issue ... and the fact that, by doing so, he was promoting something you disagree with doesn't change this.

Right, and State's rights are an ironclad principle for Scalia. He applies that belief equally on all issues because it's the right thing to do by the constitution.


hahahahahahaha, no. He operates on politics just like all of them. Look up Gonzales v. Raich. Scalia justifies his decision with whatever is convenient, it's pointless to analyze the principles behind his decisions because he has none.

[slag]

You're being ridiculously simplistic ... what happened here is that he doesn't see same sex marriage as a fundamental right ... and it's not because he thinks all constitutional matters are a state right.

Like I posted before, a Justice who voted for the ACA thinks thinks the majority took a shit on the constitution today.

[Overbrook]

Fundamental right my ass.

You're being ridiculously simplistic ... what happened here is that he doesn't see same sex marriage as a fundamental right ... and it's not because he thinks all constitutional matters are a state right.

Like I posted before, a Justice who voted for the ACA thinks thinks the majority took a shit on the constitution today.

The asshole voted his religion. He as much as said so with his "ruler" statement.

Fundemental? More like fundamentalism.

[CCPete]

This has nothing to do with the minority wanting the States to decide. It has to do with their personal opinions that gay marriage should not be allowed. Justice Kennedy nailed it. The Constitution is very clear. It's an inconvenient truth for for the bigots.

[Joegrane]

....
In a dissenting opinion, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said the decision shows the court is a "threat to American democracy." The ruling "says that my ruler and the ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court," Scalia said

Hey douchebag, the USA is a Democracy, not a Theocracy. Get that through your pimple sized brain! What a hateful piece of shit.

It looks like you need a refresher in Grade School Social Studies.

The US has had a representative democracy where the people elect representatives--congressmen and women--who vote on legislation.

We've not had a true or "direct" democracy where each person votes on legislation.

However there are rare instances in our country of direct democracy. They are called referendums.

For example, a few years ago in California there was a referendum--true democracy--on whether to redefine marriage. The majority voted to NOT redefine marriage.

However, since California does NOT have a democracy, a little group of liberal judges told the majority of the people of Ca to bleep off. The liberal judges run the state, not the people.

The current ruling at the Supreme Court level is similar. The liberal judges pretend that the constitution says something about gay marriage and pontificates their liberal dogma.

The result is that what was our representative democracy is further deteriorated. The Socialists and Communists in our government move closer to their goal--full destruction of democracy so the liberal elites can become dictators. They will tell people what to think and believe and secure their political power in the process.

There was NO need to attack marriage by redefining it. Gays could have used their freedom to create their own tradition, called it whatever they liked and then asked their representatives to provide appropriate privileges--hospital visitation rights, inheritance and tax law modifications, etc.

Clearly their goal was not just to gain privileges, tax breaks and medical benefits but to use big Socialist government to impose their opinions on the nation.

Now the gays and heterosexuals are "discriminating" against the polygamists. The polygamists will have to attack marriage and get it redefined. They'll have to find some liberal judges to pretend the constitutions say something about polygamy, then pontificate some rights on the polygamists.

This is the new normal as long as we let the liberal judges run the country.