Gay Marriage ruling

[Brooklyn Jet]

Sorry for your loss. I'm heading home to see if my marriage is OK.

Good luck FF... I looked for a greeting card that imparted "Here's hoping your marriage survived DOMA". Couldn't find one.

[long island leprechaun]

Respectfully, none are particularly worthy of response at this point.

Your "replying" is worse than normal today. Once again I find that I'm not even sure you're reading the content my posts before you immediately wargarbl in some vague related but non-reply-to-me way at them.

Probably time to simply say good day my friend.

Oh, and lame dig at Deen btw.

Really? I would have expect something substantial from you. Instead I get the "exit stage right" response. Should have known. Evolutionary theory 101 class is over. Time to move to a graduate level course.

[PlumberKhan]

Impossible; there are few latent polygamists; not enough to make a difference. I see where you are going, but it would be tabled ad anuseum

What about FFM threesomes?

Not a way of life but more like a "nice! You're old college friend is staying the weekend, hun? Sounds great. I'll grab 3 boxes of cheap wine instead of 2 for this weekend" sort of thing?

Is that being tabled?

[Jungle Shift Jet]

Sorry for your loss. I'm heading home to see if my marriage is OK.

Drive as fast as you can on 128. Have a few pops before you buckle up too.

[JetPotato]

We are in agreement on the
ruling. You have obviously not read the literature on evolution. Or at least not more than a very cursory account. You are looking at homosexuality in a narrow band rather than as an element of a larger local community. It may in fact serve to promote the survival of the group at the expense of the individual homosexual's procreation. Among the Cheyenne, homosexual males were the most daring warriors in the tribe, engaging in high-risk attack. A version a altruism seen in many areas of nature that could actually serve to protect the males who are most viable for procreation. It's a very complex topic, as even Darwin was quick to realize. You're a bit too dismissive in my opinion.

Re the financial issues, so be it. It's just.

I'm quite certain I'm more versed on Darwinism than you are. Reading some isolated, unproven postulate with an obvious agenda means little in the grand scheme.

Those Cheyenne surely rose to dominance, by the way. Can't wait for the moment the men of Bravo come to rescue me from the apocalypse.

Bottom line is without those supposed mighty gay warriors, the straight dudes would have survived. Switch it all, and the Cheyennes wouldn't have made it past a single generation. The fact that you believe otherwise reveals how deeply buried you are in propaganda, not science.

[FF2®]

Drive as fast as you can on 128. Have a few pops before you buckle up too.

I don't drink.

Donuts are my vice.

[Jungle Shift Jet]

You miss the point.

You have no "point". You can't ok SSM and ban polygamy and NAMBLA couplings now based on some arbitrary rate of practice. Because there are 1-5% Americans who could be SSM ready and .001 are polygamists.

Despite the lib losers in these parts and your vested interest in the ruling, most Americans didn't want to bless either and Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg, Unwise Latina and It's Pat just blessed this abomination anyway.

More troubling, the will of people through referendum (Prop 8) is being swept aside in favor of executive branch decision.

[shakin318]

More troubling, the will of people through referendum (Prop 8) is being swept aside in favor of executive branch decision.

This is the most disturbing aspect of what happened. Whatever anyone thinks about gay marriage or any other issue, the fact that judicial tyranny overruled the will of the people is horrendous. But that's the way the left rolls; lose on an issue within the parameters of the democratic process, just sue and count on overreaching activist courts to legislate (unconstitutionally) from the bench.

[OBENjet]

This is the most disturbing aspect of what happened. Whatever anyone thinks about gay marriage or any other issue, the fact that judicial tyranny overruled the will of the people is horrendous. But that's the way the left rolls; lose on an issue within the parameters of the democratic process, just sue and count on overreaching activist courts to legislate (unconstitutionally) from the bench.

Same sex marriage is a civil rights issue. We don't let the will of the majority trump the rights of the minority.

[shakin318]

Same sex marriage is a civil rights issue. We don't let the will of the majority trump the rights of the minority.

It has nothing at all to do with the issue. It has to do with the process. And how that process was usurped and subverted. As an American, this should trouble you. I guess it won't trouble you as long as "your side" is in power and your pet issues are benefiting from the trashing of the Constitution. But the pendulum swings and the Republicans will one day be jamming their own will using the same backdoor methods, and if this is the way sh:t's going to go down, this country is f-cked.

[OBENjet]

It has nothing at all to do with the issue. It has to do with the process. And how that process was usurped and subverted. As an American, this should trouble you. I guess it won't trouble you as long as "your side" is in power and your pet issues are benefiting from the trashing of the Constitution. But the pendulum swings and the Republicans will one day be jamming their own will using the same backdoor methods, and if this is the way sh:t's going to go down, this country is f-cked.

How was this a back door method? It was argued before the Supreme Court. That's pretty much the opposite of back door.

The referendum passed in California. The constitutionality was challenged and it was determined to be unconstitutional. This is why we have checks and balances. The people and/or congress have the power to pass laws, but the courts determine if they're constitutional.

This didn't trash the constitution one bit. Seems to me it was the constitution working.

[MnJetFan]

The perverts win another round. When is a man having two wives be ok. Equal justice!

[shakin318]

How was this a back door method? It was argued before the Supreme Court. That's pretty much the opposite of back door.

The referendum passed in California. The constitutionality was challenged and it was determined to be unconstitutional. This is why we have checks and balances. The people and/or congress have the power to pass laws, but the courts determine if they're constitutional.

This didn't trash the constitution one bit. Seems to me it was the constitution working.

The ruling trashed state's rights, in yet another power grab by the federal government. To strict constitutionalists, this is troubling. You're free to interpret and celebrate the decision however you choose. I'll agree to disagree.

[JetPotato]

The ruling trashed state's rights, in yet another power grab by the federal government. To strict constitutionalists, this is troubling. You're free to interpret and celebrate the decision however you choose. I'll agree to disagree.

Actually, to strict constitutionalists, the DOMA decision is correct and serves to strengthen states rights. I'm not troubled in the least. It was a great day for the 10th. Not sure how anyone could say the federal government was strengthened rather than checked today, unless you don't understand what happened.

And the Prop 8 decision threw out the 9th circuit decision and returned it to the state courts. Outrage in this case should be reserved for the California court and the governor who refused to appeal the decision. Legally, it appears the Supreme Court's refusal to rule was the right call.

[DDNYjets]

Outrage in this case should be reserved for the California court and the governor who refused to appeal the decision. Legally, it appears the Supreme Court's refusal to rule was the right call.

Yes but this case will serve as a blueprint or precedent for other Governors to basically get rid of a laws they don't agree with by not defending them. They are basically circumventing the democratic process which is guaranteed by the Constitution, something the Supreme Court is supposed to protect.

[JetPotato]

Doggin, you out there?

I'm curious about this claim that Prop 8 actually still stands based on the CA Constitution requiring an appellate decision, which now does not exist ( yet), as the Ninth's was vacated.

In fact, prior to that decision, the CA Supreme Ct ruled it constitutional.

[doggin94it]

It's interesting from an historical perspective that cultures have dealt with homosexuality in so many different ways. It's not a matter of current PC at all, but the dominance of Judeo-Christian beliefs in our culture that have imposed "sin" on virtually all practices that don't lead to procreation. That includes the dreaded "onanism" practiced by Noah.

You've got your bible wrong, as the very term "Onanism" (derived from the name of Judah's son Onan) ought to tell you

[shakin318]

Yes but this case will serve as a blueprint or precedent for other Governors to basically get rid of a laws they don't agree with by not defending them. They are basically circumventing the democratic process which is guaranteed by the Constitution, something the Supreme Court is supposed to protect.

This. The point is that the decision on these two cases have to be taken in context together. Constitutional amendments/barriers to same-sex marriage passed by states can now be overridden.

[doggin94it]

It's been redefined diluted and adulterated by libs ex post facto to include immoral, idiotic, unnatural qualities it hadn't heretofore
to suit social climbing closet cases. Whole Milk is not the same as 1% Milk and is not labelled as such, now my wholesome marriage has to be degraded
for the sake of the sausage smuggling 1%? Bah!

Any other bright questions?

So, to be clear:

Your marriage includes immoral, idiotic, and unnatural qualities?

Surprising.

[doggin94it]

Several points:

5. As for the Biblical moral arguments, they are as primitive and useless as slavery, not eating pork, avoiding combining milk and flesh, and other stupidities of a dead age.

Care to debate that rather idiotic point?