By June....one way or the other? Do we all agree?

Boo hoo, I guess some don't like state rights.

 

And look, your ignoring me, we are halfway there. Now quit with your disgusting gay parades all over the country and things will really be looking up for we the people.

 

My guess is hat they're gonna leave it up the the states.

And by that I mean they're gonna leave it open for people to bring challenges against the bans in each state.

That seems to be their course so far.

 

I keep giving you opportunities to be reasonable and rational.....to lay out an argument against same sex marriage and you keep failing. Rather, you present an hysterical, irrational and quite frankly moronic homophobic rant. What the hell do you mean when you say that the movement has become embolden? Anybody who has ever achieved anything in this country -blacks , women , anybody had to be embolden because the forces of bigotry and hate do not give up ground easily.

As far as anything "being in your face" goes, heterosexuality in popular culture and entertainment is a whole lot more prevalent. Apparently it's ok for your children to witness that? If you don't want to see gay sexual acting out, you can avoid it for the most part by staying away from gay pride parades, staying out of the gay bars and off of the gay porn sites.

You can go now. Come back when you're ready to make some sense.

 

My guess is that is exactly what will not happen. The question before the court is whether or not gays have the right to marriage under the 14th amendment. It's a yes or no question. It's gone to far to turn it back to the states. The vast majority of states that now have marriage equality have it as the result of the action of federal judges. SCOTUS has turned away appeals from the states and has allowed those federal rulings to stand They would have preferred it to be settles at the circuit court level, but given the circuit split, had to step up now. The whole idea is to settle it now.

- - - Updated - - -

Boo hoo I guess we don't like ( or understand) the constitution or the concept of a Federal Republic.

 

Based upon their history, I could see four of these Justices ruling based solely upon their political ideology. I expect a slim majority to make a legal ruling instead.

 

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/blog/...mmitment-to-the-freedom-to-marry-in-state-of-

 

Except 1) such challenges are exactly what got us to the point where we are now, and 2) the Court has refused to intervene on behalf of states whose challenges haven't been heard, but found their bans struck down anyway as the outcome of other states' challenges within their circuit.

After dismissing appeals from several states of rulings favorable to same-sex couples, why would the Court suddenly reverse course with the opposite outcome for the 6th circuit? Why would the Court say that these four states (Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee) get to ban same-sex marriages, after issuing dismissals, etc. that effectively tells states like Idaho, Kansas, and South Carolina, that they don't?

I suppose the Court could issue a narrow ruling that leaves the door open for appeals from the 5th, 8th, or 11th circuits, but why bother? Given the accelerated path their previous actions have put us on, it makes little sense for them to suddenly apply the brakes, leaving in place a patchwork of laws that treat same-sex couples' unions as recognized in this state, but not in that one.

 

I believe that there is a high probability that we will see a 5-4 ruling in favor of equality with Kennedy joining the 4 in the liberal wing of the court. We might even see a 6-3 split for equality if Roberts wants to preserve his legacy, and joins the majority.

 

Governments have no business telling any human being who they can or cannot marry.

 

Well thank you for your permission, it was my life long goal to prove my position to you .

It is what it is, Equating a perverse behavior to being a Woman or being black is just sick. Like I said do what ever you want in your bedroom, but when you push your perverse behavior into the main stream, into main street, into our tvs, into our Holy ceremonies then we have a problem. Yes perhaps, a small majority is ok with this, thanks to years of Brain washing, but it will lead to very harsh consequences. When they do, hopefully people wake the hell up, and take a stand against the social civic cancers like the gay movement.

 

Which no one with half a brain does. Noting the parallels that exist between discrimination against various groups does not equate what you subjectively judge to be "perverse behavior" with characteristics of sex or race.

I'm not going to restrict my behavior in ways that straight people don't. The main street belongs to us as much as it does anyone else. Maybe this will come as a shock to you, but gay people watch TV, too. What makes you think you have the right to control other people's viewing habits? If you don't like what's being broadcast, you have the ability to turn your TV off and find something else to do with your time.

As for 'your holy ceremonies', some gay people also hold religious beliefs, and there are churches that will marry them in accordance with those beliefs. You don't own religion. You don't own 'holy ceremonies'. That's up to the church to decide. I fully support the right of any church to refuse to provide the religious rites of 'holy matrimony'. I don't support them running tax-free business interests and trying to hide behind religion as an excuse to illegally discriminate against certain groups of the very taxpayers whose money they're taking in the form of tax breaks and government subsidies. If a church wants to keep their 'holy ceremonies' untainted by gayness, then let them serve their members only as a private organization. Once you start taking money from the public, it's a different ballgame.

What harsh consequences would those be? This is vague fearmongering on your part. Not to mention the hyperbole of charaterizing persuasive argument as "brainwashing".

What action do you propose they take? I'm very interested to know.

As for 'social civic cancers', I would categorize institutionalized discrimination as such.

If you have a problem with gay people, then it's your problem. Not theirs, and you should stop trying to make your problem theirs.

 

I'm not really clear on what the 'premise' is other than they'll vote one way or the other.

If I had to put money on it though I'd wager the USC will rule that the bans are unconstitutional for two reasons. First, marriage is a natural right and states have no right to exclude persons from engaging in it and second, even if there is no natural right to marriage the state has no ground to exclude people from marriage. The second point is further underscored by the fact that there are state sanctioned benefits that come with marriage and there is no basis on which to keep people from accessing those benefits.

 

That is your opinion that it is immoral, but having that opinion doesn't mean you have the right to ban something because you feel it is immoral. There are lots of things LEGAL in this country that you and others would consider immoral. Simple truth is, if you think it is immoral, don't do it then. Why do you and others hate freedom so much?

 

I believe in this case the States right trumps percieved personal rights. Just like when they prohibit driving prior to 18, or drinking prior to 21.

 

Of course you think that. Thankfully, you and others like you will be proven incorrect. Freedom will prevail versus the bible thumper's hatred for freedom.

I love how some bible thumpers say they don't like Sharia Law, but they have no problem with trying to institute THEIR form of Sharia law on the U.S. Why do bible thumpers hate Freedom?

 

I am not Christian btw, and my position is not religious in nature. As far as who will prevail, well I think Gay Agenda is winning and will continue to do so, but like all things which are wrong, in the end they fall flat.

 

Not sure I understand your reasoning on that?

If the Supreme Court rules against gay marriage bans....why would the Evangelical Right not vote Republican? Republicans in the House and Senate or running for President didn't do it....the Supreme Court did it?

 

They would vote Republican, just not in the right numbers. Many will simply be disenfranchised and not show up to vote.

 

Well that's it. We are done here. The topic is the legal aspects of same sex marriage but you cannot must a single relevant or intelligent thing to say about that. All that you can do is rant about perversion and obsess about the sex. You don't even relate to gays as human beings, just these creatures who have sex in a way that you disapprove of, and have no real worth in the world. You live in a dark and bizarre alternate universe where reason and logic, and all sense of humanity go to die. It must be hard being you. Hate and fear takes it toll on the mind and body. Have a nice day.

 

People already equate a gay couple to a straight couple regardless of SSM being legal or not. Again, you and others just want to force others to your morality. Noone is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex, however, you and others want to force a ban on SSM. All you have displayed is that you hate freedom and wish to force your morality on others.

I do love how you pathetically think that you are somehow "patriotic" for opposing gay marriage.

 

Read my quote on what unlimited freedom means. people who support perverts think they are social warriors and martyrs, when in reality they are losers and will be laughed at by history.

 

Actually that has been proven the opposite, like those that opposed interracial marriage are laughed at. So will you.

Also, are you currently rallying your crowd to oppose porn and strip clubs, those are also immoral to your crowd. Oh wait, your crowd secretly likes the porn and strip clubs.

 

Why?

If the USSC takes down the gay marriage bans....the GOP then goes to the Evangelicals and says-

"This was a travesty. Elect us and we'll get traditional value judges and Justices on the Courts and they'll overturn it. Help us defeat the Democrats and get a solid Republican majority and a Republican President....and we'll get judges in there who'll overturn that ruling!"

If the Evangelicals "give up" and "stay home"....then they are "surrendering to the Forces of Evil"....plus, it makes their complaints (on blogs and Talk Radio) meaningless blather since the first question will be-

"Okay, you hate that gays can now get married nation-wide....what do you plan on DOING about it?"....and what can they answer "Uh...we're going to stay home, not vote Republican, let Democrats win elections, because there's nothing we can do about it."?

I think the reverse. If the USSC rules against the bans?....it will provide an opportunity for Republicans to pander to the Religious Right and claim "Elect me and we'll get it overturned!"

Naturally, this is a FALSE promise...as once elected, the GOP (neither Congress or a President) would do no such thing.....they see the polls.

But if the ruling goes FOR the bans....then the issue is "off the table" for Republicans and they lose a cheap pander that they can make to GET the Religious Right to the polls in 2016. No real incentive to rush out and vote Republican on gay marriage....if the Supreme Court has already made it illegal again, is there???

 

I think the GOP has been looking for an excuse to kick the social conservatives to the curb. Since the social conservatives started to invade the Tea Party ranks, they have been nothing but a thorn in the side of the GOP.

This would finally give them that excuse I think. The GOP have been softening their stance towards gays lately. I will be very interested to seeing the GOP platform for 2016 and to see if they still list it as something to fight against. If they do take their anti-gay stance out of their platform in 2016 I think that is a good sign they are ready to kick the social conservatives to the curb.

Just all my opinion of course.