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

[slag]

I'm not remotely bigoted on this issue you braying jackass.

Now show me where the Constitution clearly states that same sex marriage is a fundamental right.

[FuriousXGeorge]

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 democracy where each person votes on legislation.

However there are rare instances in our country of true 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 non-sense.

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 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.

lol. Conservative justices literally told a state they had to stop counting votes so they could appoint a President instead. He was literally the worst President in history and the reason people currently under 35 will never again vote for a Republican. He was monstrously incompetent in domestic and foreign affairs and left the economy a smoking fucking crater. If that is what conservative justice means instead, you can look forward to nobody ever voting on a national level for your retarded incompetent bigoted party ever again.

[FuriousXGeorge]

I'm not remotely bigoted on this issue you braying jackass.

Now show me where the Constitution clearly states that same sex marriage is a fundamental right.

What it states is that people have equal protection under the law. If you want marriage to be a thing, it has to be an equal thing under the law.

[FuriousXGeorge]

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.

A justice who thinks the federal government can tell states if people can grow plants or not said it can't tell people if they can marry or not. Why? *gibberish gibberish gibberish* He's a giant political dumbshit.

[slag]

So if you want to marry your sister you have a fundamental right to do so?

[slag]

Well, in light of the recent decision, let me rephrase ... So if you want to marry your brother you have a fundamental right to do so?

[Overbrook]

Imbecile #1 has shown up; now where's that Walrus moron?

Yup, it's those gay loving liberal judges that are just destroying America and everything that's good.

Honestly, shouldn't your hate filled body be in church praying for the country to somehow recover from this blasphemy?

[FuriousXGeorge]

Well, in light of the recent decision, let me rephrase ... So if you want to marry your brother you have a fundamental right to do so?

Let me ask you a question, how much lead paint did you eat as a child?

How about this: Q: The justices ruled in DC v. Heller that the DC handgun restrictions were unconstitutional. What is the impact of this ruling on the status of the personal right to own nuclear weapons?

Answer: Nothing, the law does not work that way.

[harls]

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 non-sense.

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.

The saddest thing about all of this is Scalia doesn't realize we are NOT a democracy. We are a constitutional republic. If 90% of Americans wanted to ring back slavery it wouldn't matter because it's unconstitutional.

So you wanted seperate but equal? Sorry that has been deemed unconstitutional so popular opinion doesn't matter.
You want to deny them the right to marry because they are gay, sorry 14th ammendment says that is unconstitutional.

It is sad the 4 of the justices on the Supreme Court can't read the constitution and follow it.

[slag]

Yeah, the lawsuit against the landlord for not removing the lead-based paint from the apartment where I grew up paid for law school.

[Eagle Road]

I don't care if you are for or against Gay Marriage, but this comes off as a bit childish?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/white-house-lights-up-rainbow-colors-to-celebrate-scotus-ruling/ar-AAcck3b?ocid=HPCDHP

[Overbrook]

BWAhahahaha.........look out Bosco!

I don't care if you are for or against Gay Marriage, but this comes off as a bit childish?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/whi...3b?ocid=HPCDHP

They're coming for you next. Better lock your doors.

[FuriousXGeorge]

I don't care if you are for or against Gay Marriage, but this comes off as a bit childish?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/whi...3b?ocid=HPCDHP

No, why in Christ would it? Celebrating the expansion of freedom is deeply American.

Here, enjoy this too: https://twitter.com/johnnyxberrios/s...09612294234112

Oh, and this: https://twitter.com/samsteinhp/statu...59217647403008

A message from God?

[slag]

Re: your edit

You wrote that today's same sex marriage decision is about equal protection and that "If you want marriage to be a thing, it has to be an equal thing
under the law."

I imply that your statement is too broad because it indicates that there can be no limits a state can impose on the equal right to marriage.

You then insult my intelligence and later add Heller and the connected concept that although Heller held gun ownership is a fundamental right, the state can still impose gun control limits.

Which actually supports my position that your statement was too broad.

[slag]

PS - The dissenters in Heller were as concerned about state's rights vis a vis gun control as the dissenters were today about marriage.

Which proves RSE's point about all them having politically driven positions.