Ex-Judge Roy Moore Files Supreme Court Brief to Urge End to Marriage Equality

Okay then - so no examples of awful things that we can see. Just the ones we imagine to be there. Good enough reason to overturn I suppose.

 

This just in:

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post...-equality-national-organization-for-marriage/

These people are sick and disgusting. Who the hell do they think that they are to try to tell others who they can love and marry? They have to be deeply disturbed and insecure individuals.

 

I don't want to leave 3-person unions out in the cold. I think we should refuse to recognize same gender unions as marriages until polyamorous unions are recognized too.

 

There is that red herring again. The topic is same sex marriage between TWO consenting adults .Answer the damned question!

 

Oh good grief!! I think that you are full of ****. You are just putting that out there as another red herring to derail the issue of same sex marriage . I'm willing to be that you would not support plural or same sex marriage under any circumstances

Are you implying that if we support same sex marriage but not plural marriage we are hypocrites? I'll tell what else it is besides a red herring :
\

Plural marriage is a separate issue which most of us have not taken a position either way. Cut the crap and deal with the issue. How has same sex marriage been a detriment to you or society as a whole?

 

PS. Here is a news bulletin for you .SAME SEX MARRIAGE HAS BEEN RECOGNISED FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

 

Well here’s a thought, one being miss by both sides of the partisan divide, if Barrett actually follows originalist methodology for her opinion development, those expecting Armageddon and overturned rulings following the druthers of the GOP might be disappointed. An originalist doesn’t take political sides in formulating an opinion. I have a pretty fair grasp of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the political philosophic writings that influenced the Founding Fathers and the context of the historic framing of reference of the time and would suggest the same sex issue won’t be interpreted by any direct reference to anyone’s idea of what constitutes a ‘proper and legal marriage’ anymore than it would if the marriage was between those of different racial determinant (what ever that might mean) , but on the same criteria that marriage can’t be denied to two of differing races...;it is the same issue... gender, nor any other criteria can be used as a discriminatory vehicle.
Barrett’s Catholic beliefs have nothing to do with issues of the state and she has stated that. As someone that advocates in originalist interpretations, it’s an issue I previously studied. I see no means of assailing the law as it stands except if an originalist perspective is abandoned for a partisan activist interpretation.

 

No one is forced to have sex with people they're not attracted to, and no one is forced to get married.

 

LOL

 

It's not about equal rights, it's all about SPECIAL rights. How long before the Left start supporting the NAMBLA crowd, already clamoring for their perverted "rights"? Or how long before Godly pastors are silenced for proclaiming the Truth about Homosexuality and God's universal condemnation of it? Already seeing it in Canuckistan.

 

The hardest part for them will be finding standing to go before SCOTUS. Without being able to show harm from SSM being allowed, the cases will never reach the federal level, yet alone SCOTUS.

 

That's like saying that we should have refused to recognize black rights until women's rights were recognized at the same time. It's just plain stupid. You take the forward steps that you can when you can.

I noticed that you failed to respond to anything in my last post to you.

 

I believe that is rather his point. No one is forced into these things, and only by being forced into them would there be a legitimate grievance, thus there can be no legitimate grievance.

 

So what special rights are those entering into same sex marriage receiving that those entering into opposite sex marriage not receiving?

 

Perverting the true and proper meaning of marriage for one. Second, how long before the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ crowd are going to try and stop Godly preachers from proclaiming God's universal condemnation of Homosexuality just like they do in Canuckistan?

 

Given that the definition of marriage has varied across time and culture, with same sex as well as poly marriages having always existed, there is no one true meaning outside of the merging of individuals for the purpose of establishing an new independent family. Furthermore, since this is the USA where the use of religion as a basis of law is forbidden by the Constitution, any claim of what God supposedly condemns is irrelevant to law. On top of all that, how many Christians and other opposite sex married couples have perverted the "true and proper meaning" of marriage with their divorces, and open marriages, and cheating, and swinging and such? Given that last, now same sex couples have the same right to pervert marriage as only opposite sex couples had before.

So once again, what special legal rights are those entering into same sex marriage receiving that those entering into opposite sex marriage not receiving?

 

Good grief!! I wish that I had a dime for every time someone invoked that "special rights " and NAMBLA crap without even knowing what they are talking about. Do you happen to have any coherent and original thoughts to share? And do tell, what is the "truth" about homosexuality?

 

LOL? When did you choose your sexual orientation and gender identity??

 

What right do gay people have that you don't?

 

Don't hold your breath waiting for a coherent answer from http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?members/bassman.40985/

 

When did the schizophrenic choose to be crazy?

It isn't a choice in the sense you seem to be implying.

 

Yes I realise that was his point - I was helping him make it.

Prior to marriage equality laws, no one was forced to marry or have sex with people they weren't interested in. Therefore, according to the poster in question, there can have been no legitimate grievance.

 

never happen, too many already married to change it now

and seriously? Roy Moore is gonna represent the right on this, lol, mr family values candidate himself, lol

 

no one is allowed 3 person unions, if any group ever is, it would be discriminations not to allow everyone

you can have a 3-person religious only marriage, course not many cares about religious marriages anymore, now they only care about civil marriages