Started By
Message
re: Supreme Court listening arguments today
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:20 pm to Duke
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:20 pm to Duke
quote:
Can they exercise their right to marry outside of that church? If so, they have no standing. They would be suing to violate the church's right to free exercise when the church isn't restricting their ability to get married in the state.
Would never make it to appeal
You have greater faith in the Court system's respect for the First Ammdt than I do. And believe me, I want you to be right.
2
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:20 pm to RoyalAir
quote:
Why shouldn't that chimp be allowed to marry a human?
Go try to stick your dick in a chimp and see what happens.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:21 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Go try to stick your dick in a chimp and see what happens.
Sex happens, Rog. Sweet monkey sex.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:22 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Roger Klarvin
quote:
quote:
If this passes then the real pervs will come out of the woodwork and will be allowed to marry sheep, children, dogs, mannequins, sisters, etc.
Hahaha wouldnt it be funny if a much of Muslims applied for marriage licenses for for their goat.
(and I am not stalking you and replying to everything you comment on. You are very funny and you make me laugh (:nohomo)
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:22 pm to alphaandomega
quote:
Hahaha wouldnt it be funny if a much of Muslims applied for marriage licenses for for their goat.
Good lord.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:22 pm to Gradual_Stroke
Maybe, but it will be the monkey pleasuring himself with you severed penis
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:23 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Go try to stick your dick in a chimp and see what happens.
Said idiot would probably lose their ability to reproduce, thus making their main argument against gay marriage irrelevant.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:24 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Maybe, but it will be the monkey pleasuring himself with you severed penis
Goddamn that is hot.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:25 pm to Gradual_Stroke
quote:
Gradual_Stroke
quote:
A lot of people would die, so...not really funny?
Yeah a bunch of weirdo, democrat, progressive hippies would die.
Sorry not sorry
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:26 pm to RoyalAir
There's just a very long tradition of very strict scrutiny for any restrictions to the 1st amendment. They'd have to find a way to logic around centuries of rulings keeping a strong 1st amendment.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:26 pm to alphaandomega
That's pretty cold, man.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:27 pm to CatFan81
quote:
I like how you think.
Ditto
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:28 pm to RoyalAir
quote:
You have greater faith in the Court system's respect for the First Ammdt than I do. And believe me, I want you to be right.
Well it's seemed to have worked ok for the Catholic Church. They don't have any problem turning down people from marrying in their churches if they don't go through the pre-marriage counseling.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:29 pm to Pavoloco83
quote:
It really shocks me with all the trouble this country has, that this is even a topic. Such bullshite. Two people love each other and want to formalize it. Why is that such a big deal. If its a problem for God, then let God judge.
Well said. That lifestyle is weird for me but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to live their life that way.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:32 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Some of the smartest men in history were religious.
Exceptions to the rule.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:36 pm to Duke
quote:
quote:
To me, the important court case comes when a homosexual couple sues a church for refusing to perform the service on religious grounds. As it is now, the state allows churches to perform the ceremony on the state's behalf. Some on here have said that such a thing will never happen, but I expect it within five years. *That* is the landmark case.
Did the 1st amendment evaporate while I was asleep last night?
Actually you are saying it should indirectly by saying the SC should create a "right" out of thin air. The 1st Amendment is no different than the 10th. The 10th says essentially that unless it is specifically stated in the Constitution then the right to legislate is held by the states or the people. A ruling creating a "right" which is really just legislation from the bench is ignoring the Rule of Law itself. It makes the 9 folks on the SC able to ignore the very Constitution they are supposed to be protecting if they simply decide to. Do you not grasp the danger in that?
Of course the SC has already been doing this for a long time. Hell you have folks like Ginsberg and Breyer that have openly admitted they look to international law to essentially trump the Constitution where they see fit. Sorry but I would rather the SC stick to the Constitution and stick to the letter of the law. Allow the people and the states to decide on what new laws or "rights" (as though somehow that isn't a law as a newly created "right" out of thin air) should or should not be enacted. That's what a Republic is supposed to be (and no, we are not a Democracy). If the people want gay marriage they can make it happen and as I have stated they have my vote.
I also find it incredibly naive that so many of you dismiss that this decision could not lead to many unintended consequences. Do you not know any attorneys? Law is built on precedent and argument based upon that precedent. It won't take long at all to take a precedent like this and take it much farther. Don't worry though, you don't have to bother yourself with what your representatives or your own vote will try and enact because there are 9 old people in a courtroom in DC that are appointed for life that will tell you what you can and cannot do.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:42 pm to scrooster
quote:
If this passes then the real pervs will come out of the woodwork and will be allowed to marry sheep, children, dogs, mannequins, sisters, etc.
No they won't.Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:43 pm to Stonehog
quote:
Exceptions to the rule.
It pains me to agree with you, but yeah.
Friedrich Nietzsche, Ayn Rand, Jean-Paul Sartre, Richard Dawkins, Mark Twain, Stephen Hawking, Steven Weinberg. The greatest minds tend to be Atheist or, at the very least, Agnostic.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:50 pm to CatFan81
quote:
The greatest minds tend to be Atheist or, at the very least, Agnostic.
Same damn thing. If you are uncertain, you cannot believe, making you an atheist by default -- whether or not you are still trying to attain your conclusion.
Unless you meant it in the literal "it cannot be known" sense, but even then how can someone believe in something that cannot be proven?
So anyway, Atheists.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 4:03 pm to aggressor
quote:
The 10th says essentially that unless it is specifically stated in the Constitution then the right to legislate is held by the states or the people.
Sure it does, then we fought a war over states rights (among other things) and the 14th amendment happened. The gist being you have x,y,z rights as United States citizens and the states can't restrict those rights.
quote:
A ruling creating a "right" which is really just legislation from the bench is ignoring the Rule of Law itself.
So Loving v Virginia is a sham because they said marriage is a fundamental right and therefore states should be allowed to ban interracial marriage if they want to?
quote:
It makes the 9 folks on the SC able to ignore the very Constitution they are supposed to be protecting if they simply decide to.
It seems to me they would be upholding a right that already exists. They are in fact upholding the constitution in not allowing a state to restrict the rights of a certain group of people without grounds to do so.
quote:
Do you not grasp the danger in that?
I grasp we have a vastly different interpretation of what's happening here.
quote:
Sorry but I would rather the SC stick to the Constitution and stick to the letter of the law. Allow the people and the states to decide on what new laws or "rights" (as though somehow that isn't a law as a newly created "right" out of thin air) should or should not be enacted. That's what a Republic is supposed to be (and no, we are not a Democracy). If the people want gay marriage they can make it happen and as I have stated they have my vote.
That's the strongest argument the other side produced. It's not a bad point either. It's just the legal precedent is there for marriage as a right and there's a legal framework that gives protections and privileges to married couples. The states are saying "that certain group of people can't access those because the majority (who isn't effected by this one bit) doesn't like the paring of two consenting adults." If there was no public structure to marriage, I think you have a much stronger point.
quote:
Do you not know any attorneys?
I married one.
quote:
Law is built on precedent and argument based upon that precedent. It won't take long at all to take a precedent like this and take it much farther.
Where exactly do you see this slippery slope leading?
quote:
Don't worry though, you don't have to bother yourself with what your representatives or your own vote will try and enact because there are 9 old people in a courtroom in DC that are appointed for life that will tell you what you can and cannot do.
If the people don't like what they rule, we can always pass a constitutional amendment. It's not like the court is untrumpable.
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News