Whole new age I guess.
And that's a good thing....
Yeah, everything is swell.
As far as the Supreme Court, why don't we just let these nine (unelected) judges, appointed for life, start writing their own laws and forcing the States into doing whatever they feel like. That would be neat, and we could even get rid of State lines being that they would be pretty useless anyway. Heck, maybe we should let these nine unelected judges just run everything.
Claim any item they want is a "right," change a definition here and there, and presto! What could ever go wrong with that?
Sour grapes makes for terrible whine.
Whole new age I guess.
And that's a good thing....
Yeah, everything is swell.
As far as the Supreme Court, why don't we just let these nine (unelected) judges, appointed for life, start writing their own laws and forcing the States into doing whatever they feel like. That would be neat, and we could even get rid of State lines being that they would be pretty useless anyway. Heck, maybe we should let these nine unelected judges just run everything.
Claim any item they want is a "right," change a definition here and there, and presto! What could ever go wrong with that?
You wouldn't have posted this had their decisions this week agreed with your beliefs. The SC has functioned this way for how many years? Did you criticize the decision of 9 unelected judges in their Citizens United decision & any other decisions that fell your way?
Are you really that adamant and narrow minded about gay marriage & rights? Geez!!!!!!!!!!!!!
An article in the Chicago Tribune showed why this is important. Even though same sex marriage was legal in Illinois, if that couple traveled to Michigan, their marriage was not recognized - so if one went to the hospital, the other was not legally seen as a spouse and did not have the same rights..... people in a same sex marriage had to know the laws of any state they visited or traveled through......... this makes it so they are recognized as married everywhere in the US - a good thing, I think...........
Amen to that! This decision will also have a huge impact on people working for corporations who's spouse was only recognized (for benefits like health insurance) if you lived in a State where marriage was legal.
This is a great and important ruling.
You wouldn't have posted this had their decisions this week agreed with your beliefs. The SC has functioned this way for how many years? Did you criticize the decision of 9 unelected judges in their Citizens United decision & any other decisions that fell your way?
Are you really that adamant and narrow minded about gay marriage & rights? Geez!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Its hard to believe this is the same court that gave corporations personhood. That ruling is a travesty.
Whole new age I guess.
And that's a good thing....
Yeah, everything is swell.
As far as the Supreme Court, why don't we just let these nine (unelected) judges, appointed for life, start writing their own laws and forcing the States into doing whatever they feel like. That would be neat, and we could even get rid of State lines being that they would be pretty useless anyway. Heck, maybe we should let these nine unelected judges just run everything.
Claim any item they want is a "right," change a definition here and there, and presto! What could ever go wrong with that?
You wouldn't have posted this had their decisions this week agreed with your beliefs. The SC has functioned this way for how many years? Did you criticize the decision of 9 unelected judges in their Citizens United decision & any other decisions that fell your way?
Are you really that adamant and narrow minded about gay marriage & rights? Geez!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes of course he would because people want their opinion to have more value then someone else's civil rights...all of these arguments are always about someone wanting their opinion to be greater than another persons civil rights
some of these issues shouldn't be at all. Everyone is an all encompassing word....it's sad we have such confusion about it....
A lot of big historical things happening right now....huge social changes.....now if we can stop thinking the only solution to every problem is to shoot someone......A uniquely American issue.....
Great day in the US and a sad day all the same......burying that pastor and the start of the funerals...but then huge changes in civil rights....amazing things happening with all the SCOTUS decisions
Nice post gold top. Thank you.
Whole new age I guess.
And that's a good thing....
Yeah, everything is swell.
As far as the Supreme Court, why don't we just let these nine (unelected) judges, appointed for life, start writing their own laws and forcing the States into doing whatever they feel like. That would be neat, and we could even get rid of State lines being that they would be pretty useless anyway. Heck, maybe we should let these nine unelected judges just run everything.
Claim any item they want is a "right," change a definition here and there, and presto! What could ever go wrong with that?
You wouldn't have posted this had their decisions this week agreed with your beliefs. The SC has functioned this way for how many years? Did you criticize the decision of 9 unelected judges in their Citizens United decision & any other decisions that fell your way?
Are you really that adamant and narrow minded about gay marriage & rights? Geez!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I get it. 9 unelected officials in DC shouldn't sit around and make laws.
By the same token, a state shouldn't be allowed to tell some people they are allowed to do something, but tell other people they can't do the same thing, even if the majority thinks that's OK. That goes for sitting in the front of a bus, going to the same school, eating in the same restaurant, and getting married. The state cannot treat people differently.
This is about equal protection
Whole new age I guess.
And that's a good thing....
Yeah, everything is swell.
As far as the Supreme Court, why don't we just let these nine (unelected) judges, appointed for life, start writing their own laws and forcing the States into doing whatever they feel like. That would be neat, and we could even get rid of State lines being that they would be pretty useless anyway. Heck, maybe we should let these nine unelected judges just run everything.
Claim any item they want is a "right," change a definition here and there, and presto! What could ever go wrong with that?
You wouldn't have posted this had their decisions this week agreed with your beliefs. The SC has functioned this way for how many years? Did you criticize the decision of 9 unelected judges in their Citizens United decision & any other decisions that fell your way?
How did the Citizens United decision fall my way?
Whole new age I guess.
And that's a good thing....
Yeah, everything is swell.
As far as the Supreme Court, why don't we just let these nine (unelected) judges, appointed for life, start writing their own laws and forcing the States into doing whatever they feel like. That would be neat, and we could even get rid of State lines being that they would be pretty useless anyway. Heck, maybe we should let these nine unelected judges just run everything.
Claim any item they want is a "right," change a definition here and there, and presto! What could ever go wrong with that?
You wouldn't have posted this had their decisions this week agreed with your beliefs. The SC has functioned this way for how many years? Did you criticize the decision of 9 unelected judges in their Citizens United decision & any other decisions that fell your way?
How did the Citizens United decision fall my way?
Only you know the answer but chose to answer a question with a question?
The original questional was framed in a way to leave an opening for you to provide an answer; not knowing if you were in agreement with CU or other decisons that fell your way?
Great non-answer on your part.
I stand by the original statement. If the justices would have ruled against gay marriage, it would be more than logical to conclude you wouldn't have been in an uproar based upon all of your complaints.
Whole new age I guess.
And that's a good thing....
Yeah, everything is swell.
As far as the Supreme Court, why don't we just let these nine (unelected) judges, appointed for life, start writing their own laws and forcing the States into doing whatever they feel like. That would be neat, and we could even get rid of State lines being that they would be pretty useless anyway. Heck, maybe we should let these nine unelected judges just run everything.
Claim any item they want is a "right," change a definition here and there, and presto! What could ever go wrong with that?
You wouldn't have posted this had their decisions this week agreed with your beliefs. The SC has functioned this way for how many years? Did you criticize the decision of 9 unelected judges in their Citizens United decision & any other decisions that fell your way?
How did the Citizens United decision fall my way?
Only you know the answer but chose to answer a question with a question?
I don't know, and that's why I'm asking. How did the Citizens United decision fall my way?
I stand by the original statement. If the justices would have ruled against gay marriage, it would be more than logical to conclude you wouldn't have been in an uproar based upon all of your complaints.
Oh, stop it. You already know I don't care what our gay friends and neighbors do. Couldn't care less.
However, being a huge States rights proponent, I don't like the over reach. And I don't like the definition of a word being revised to pave the way for some political agenda. Just about anything the Feds want to impose is possible once you start going down these roads.
I stand by the original statement. If the justices would have ruled against gay marriage, it would be more than logical to conclude you wouldn't have been in an uproar based upon all of your complaints.
Oh, stop it. You already know I don't care what our gay friends and neighbors do. Couldn't care less.
However, being a huge States rights proponent, I don't like the over reach. And I don't like the definition of a word being revised to pave the way for some political agenda. Just about anything the Feds want to impose is possible once you start going down these roads.
This is business as usual for the SCOTUS Alloak so not sure how you think some precedent has been set? The briefs cited the appropriate amendment in the Constitution so how is the an over reach?
I stand by the original statement. If the justices would have ruled against gay marriage, it would be more than logical to conclude you wouldn't have been in an uproar based upon all of your complaints.
Oh, stop it. You already know I don't care what our gay friends and neighbors do. Couldn't care less.
However, being a huge States rights proponent, I don't like the over reach. And I don't like the definition of a word being revised to pave the way for some political agenda. Just about anything the Feds want to impose is possible once you start going down these roads.
This is business as usual for the SCOTUS Alloak so not sure how you think some precedent has been set? The briefs cited the appropriate amendment in the Constitution so how is the an over reach?
Business as usual, huh.
Great.
I stand by the original statement. If the justices would have ruled against gay marriage, it would be more than logical to conclude you wouldn't have been in an uproar based upon all of your complaints.
Oh, stop it. You already know I don't care what our gay friends and neighbors do. Couldn't care less.
However, being a huge States rights proponent, I don't like the over reach. And I don't like the definition of a word being revised to pave the way for some political agenda. Just about anything the Feds want to impose is possible once you start going down these roads.
This is business as usual for the SCOTUS Alloak so not sure how you think some precedent has been set? The briefs cited the appropriate amendment in the Constitution so how is the an over reach?
Business as usual, huh.
Great.
Yes there is nothing unusual about the SCOTUS ruling on this case and I am not seeing where they are suddenly setting legislation. Go back and look at the landmark rulings where their ruling overturned State laws. There are even cases where they overturned earlier rulings by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_States
You may not like the result but it is nothing unusual IMHO. So why do you feel this is some precedent ruling here?
I stand by the original statement. If the justices would have ruled against gay marriage, it would be more than logical to conclude you wouldn't have been in an uproar based upon all of your complaints.
Oh, stop it. You already know I don't care what our gay friends and neighbors do. Couldn't care less.
However, being a huge States rights proponent, I don't like the over reach. And I don't like the definition of a word being revised to pave the way for some political agenda. Just about anything the Feds want to impose is possible once you start going down these roads.
This is business as usual for the SCOTUS Alloak so not sure how you think some precedent has been set? The briefs cited the appropriate amendment in the Constitution so how is the an over reach?
Business as usual, huh.
Great.
Since you are someone who has said many times here that gridlock in congress is a sign that the system is working exactly as it should, no one should be surprised that you apparently confused about how SCOTUS is supposed to work as well.
[Edited on 6/29/2015 by gondicar]
I stand by the original statement. If the justices would have ruled against gay marriage, it would be more than logical to conclude you wouldn't have been in an uproar based upon all of your complaints.
Oh, stop it. You already know I don't care what our gay friends and neighbors do. Couldn't care less.
However, being a huge States rights proponent, I don't like the over reach. And I don't like the definition of a word being revised to pave the way for some political agenda. Just about anything the Feds want to impose is possible once you start going down these roads.
This is business as usual for the SCOTUS Alloak so not sure how you think some precedent has been set? The briefs cited the appropriate amendment in the Constitution so how is the an over reach?
Business as usual, huh.
Great.
Since you are someone who has said many times here that gridlock in congress is a sign that the system is working exactly as it should, no one should be surprised that you apparently confused about how SCOTUS is supposed to work as well.
[Edited on 6/29/2015 by gondicar]
The system was designed for gridlock.
At least one justice has wondered out loud what the hell they were doing even involved in this ruling.
I stand by the original statement. If the justices would have ruled against gay marriage, it would be more than logical to conclude you wouldn't have been in an uproar based upon all of your complaints.
Oh, stop it. You already know I don't care what our gay friends and neighbors do. Couldn't care less.
However, being a huge States rights proponent, I don't like the over reach. And I don't like the definition of a word being revised to pave the way for some political agenda. Just about anything the Feds want to impose is possible once you start going down these roads.
This is business as usual for the SCOTUS Alloak so not sure how you think some precedent has been set? The briefs cited the appropriate amendment in the Constitution so how is the an over reach?
Business as usual, huh.
Great.
Since you are someone who has said many times here that gridlock in congress is a sign that the system is working exactly as it should, no one should be surprised that you apparently confused about how SCOTUS is supposed to work as well.
[Edited on 6/29/2015 by gondicar]
The system was designed for gridlock.
At least one justice has wondered out loud what the hell they were doing even involved in this ruling.
That's what I thought.
So, Texas AG has said state workers can legally discriminate by denying marriage licenses to same sex couples base on religious objections. If it is my job to issue marriage licenses, which are a legal document, how in the world are my religious beliefs compromised by issuing a marriage license to a same sex couple? Could I then turn around and decide to issue a license a hetero couple if one or both have been divorced, hetero couples who have had pre-martial sex or hetero couples have children out of wedlock. Do people get to just pick what parts of the bible to back & ignore the rest? Sounds like "religious freedom" is being co-opted into code for "legal discrimination" to me.
Texas AG: State workers can deny licenses to gay couples
BETSY BLANEY, Associated PressLUBBOCK, Texas (AP) — Texas' conservative Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton called the Supreme Court decision giving same-sex couples the right to marry a "lawless ruling" and said state workers can cite their religious objections in denying marriage licenses.
He warned in a statement Sunday that any clerk, justice of the peace or other administrator who declines to issue a license to a same-sex couple could face litigation or a fine.
But in the nonbinding legal opinion requested by Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Paxton says "numerous lawyers" stand ready to defend, free of charge, any public official refusing to grant one.
In its 5-4 opinion Friday, the Supreme Court did nothing to eliminate rights of religious liberty, Paxton's opinion states.
"This newly minted federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage can and should peaceably coexist with longstanding constitutional and statutory rights, including the rights to free exercise of religion and freedom of speech," the AG wrote.
While many Republicans have said they disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling, officials in most states have said that they will abide by it. Paxton's comments echoed those Friday of Gov. Greg Abbott, who said Texans can't be forced by the court ruling to act contrary to their religious beliefs.
"Despite the Supreme Court's rulings, Texans' fundamental right to religious liberty remains protected," Abbott said Friday.
In his two-page memo, Abbott ordered agency leaders that no one in their ranks could take "adverse action" against someone acting on their religious beliefs, including "granting or denying benefits." That led to early confusion and questions over whether state agencies might deny health or retirement benefits to the spouses of gay employees.
Abbott spokesman John Wittman later issued a clarifying statement Friday, saying the directive doesn't order the denial of benefits to same-sex couples. He said it only "ensures that individuals doing business with the state cannot be discriminated against because of their religious beliefs."
Paxton in his statement Sunday says the justices "weakened the rule of law" and "fabricated a new constitutional right."
Texas was not part of the case before the Supreme Court. A federal judge in 2013 ruled that the state's ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional but declined to enforce the ruling while it was on appeal. Since Friday's ruling, a federal district court in Texas has prohibited Texas from enforcing state laws that define marriage as exclusively a union between one man and one woman.
[Edited on 6/29/2015 by gondicar]
heck, I have spiritual objections to certain behaviors every day of my life, as any Christian would or does. Doesn't keep me from living my life. I could cite numerous quotes in the Bible that say the same thing. Hate the sin, not the sinner.
as for the SC making its ruling, I still think it should've gone to the legislature.
life goes on...
I stand by the original statement. If the justices would have ruled against gay marriage, it would be more than logical to conclude you wouldn't have been in an uproar based upon all of your complaints.
Oh, stop it. You already know I don't care what our gay friends and neighbors do. Couldn't care less.
However, being a huge States rights proponent, I don't like the over reach. And I don't like the definition of a word being revised to pave the way for some political agenda. Just about anything the Feds want to impose is possible once you start going down these roads.
This is business as usual for the SCOTUS Alloak so not sure how you think some precedent has been set? The briefs cited the appropriate amendment in the Constitution so how is the an over reach?
Business as usual, huh.
Great.
Since you are someone who has said many times here that gridlock in congress is a sign that the system is working exactly as it should, no one should be surprised that you apparently confused about how SCOTUS is supposed to work as well.
[Edited on 6/29/2015 by gondicar]
The system was designed for gridlock.
At least one justice has wondered out loud what the hell they were doing even involved in this ruling.
Scalia complains about every ruling he does not agree with, even throwing his colleagues under the bus in the process, so I take his ranting's with a grain of salt. He is the Donald Trump of the SCOTUS.
I don't understand why some folks think this was a Congressional matter.
There were two questions before the Court, the first asked whether states could ban same sex marriage, the second asked whether states had to recognize lawful marriages performed out of state.
The relevant cases were argued earlier this year. Attorney John Bursch, serving as Michigan's Special Assistant Attorney General, defended four states' bans on gay marriage before the Court, arguing that the case was not about how to define marriage, but rather about who gets to decide the question.
The case came before the Supreme Court after several lower courts overturned state bans on gay marriage. A federal appeals court had previously ruled in favor of the state bans, with Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals writing a majority opinion in line with the rationale that the issue should be decided through the political process, not the courts.
14 couples
Fourteen couples and two widowers challenged the bans. Attorneys Mary Bonauto and Doug Hallward-Driemeier presented their case before the Court, arguing that the freedom to marry is a fundamental right for all people and should not be left to popular vote.
Regardless. I don't want Congress legislating morality. I don't want any religious beliefs imposed on me. Why don't the religious folks just leave it up to God to take care of the judgement? Where's the faith?
I stand by the original statement. If the justices would have ruled against gay marriage, it would be more than logical to conclude you wouldn't have been in an uproar based upon all of your complaints.
Oh, stop it. You already know I don't care what our gay friends and neighbors do. Couldn't care less.
However, being a huge States rights proponent, I don't like the over reach. And I don't like the definition of a word being revised to pave the way for some political agenda. Just about anything the Feds want to impose is possible once you start going down these roads.
This is business as usual for the SCOTUS Alloak so not sure how you think some precedent has been set? The briefs cited the appropriate amendment in the Constitution so how is the an over reach?
Business as usual, huh.
Great.
Since you are someone who has said many times here that gridlock in congress is a sign that the system is working exactly as it should, no one should be surprised that you apparently confused about how SCOTUS is supposed to work as well.
[Edited on 6/29/2015 by gondicar]
The system was designed for gridlock.
At least one justice has wondered out loud what the hell they were doing even involved in this ruling.
The system was designed for equal representation for all. Gridlock is the opposite, a few people (Congress) deciding to do nothing.
Its hard to believe this is the same court that gave corporations personhood. That ruling is a travesty.
Personhood was recognized for corporations by SCOTUS in 1886.
I stand by the original statement. If the justices would have ruled against gay marriage, it would be more than logical to conclude you wouldn't have been in an uproar based upon all of your complaints.
Oh, stop it. You already know I don't care what our gay friends and neighbors do. Couldn't care less.
However, being a huge States rights proponent, I don't like the over reach. And I don't like the definition of a word being revised to pave the way for some political agenda. Just about anything the Feds want to impose is possible once you start going down these roads.
This is business as usual for the SCOTUS Alloak so not sure how you think some precedent has been set? The briefs cited the appropriate amendment in the Constitution so how is the an over reach?
Business as usual, huh.
Great.
Since you are someone who has said many times here that gridlock in congress is a sign that the system is working exactly as it should, no one should be surprised that you apparently confused about how SCOTUS is supposed to work as well.
[Edited on 6/29/2015 by gondicar]
The system was designed for gridlock.
At least one justice has wondered out loud what the hell they were doing even involved in this ruling.
Scalia complains about every ruling he does not agree with, even throwing his colleagues under the bus in the process, so I take his ranting's with a grain of salt. He is the Donald Trump of the SCOTUS.
When it was time to strike down DOMA, four liberal judges ruled that it was a State matter. Remember? Now they reverse their very own ruling a few years later. So much for consistency.
I stand by the original statement. If the justices would have ruled against gay marriage, it would be more than logical to conclude you wouldn't have been in an uproar based upon all of your complaints.
Oh, stop it. You already know I don't care what our gay friends and neighbors do. Couldn't care less.
However, being a huge States rights proponent, I don't like the over reach. And I don't like the definition of a word being revised to pave the way for some political agenda. Just about anything the Feds want to impose is possible once you start going down these roads.
This is business as usual for the SCOTUS Alloak so not sure how you think some precedent has been set? The briefs cited the appropriate amendment in the Constitution so how is the an over reach?
Business as usual, huh.
Great.
Since you are someone who has said many times here that gridlock in congress is a sign that the system is working exactly as it should, no one should be surprised that you apparently confused about how SCOTUS is supposed to work as well.
[Edited on 6/29/2015 by gondicar]
The system was designed for gridlock.
At least one justice has wondered out loud what the hell they were doing even involved in this ruling.
Scalia complains about every ruling he does not agree with, even throwing his colleagues under the bus in the process, so I take his ranting's with a grain of salt. He is the Donald Trump of the SCOTUS.
When it was time to strike down DOMA, four liberal judges ruled that it was a State matter. Remember? Now they reverse their very own ruling a few years later. So much for consistency.
They did no such thing. As a matter of law, the two cases are very different.
Back then, they seemed concerned about marriage and States rights. Pretty amazing reversal...
Back then, they seemed concerned about marriage and States rights. Pretty amazing reversal...
Times change, people change. It is called evolution.
Republicans are flip floppers,
Democrats are EVOLVING.
Funny how that works.
I'm sickened more and more each day hearing people claim "religious freedom".....the clerks in TX don't have to sign the licenses. Ugh, how gross. These same people curse everyday, drink, wear wool, etc, the list goes on. But when it comes to gay rights, all of a sudden they are religious. Horrible.
Republicans are flip floppers,
Democrats are EVOLVING.Funny how that works.
Well, maybe if Republicans had a better handle on science and would stop denying evolution, they could evolve too.
The gross generalizations people on both sides of these issues is what disturbs me the most, and a huge part of the problem IMO. Generalizing, labeling, judging, and condemning individuals or groups of people one doesn't even know and the bigotry that accompanies that frame of mind is like a cancer that is spreading across our country and impairing our judgement, decision making, and the way we talk about and treat each other in an ever widening circle of disdain for those who think or act differently than we do. I'm very thankful for the people in my life and those on this board that rarely go there. In a land of laws one cannot be discriminated against on the basis of race, gender, religion, or sexual preference. period. That is part of the foundation of our country, and it is amazing it is talking so long to extend those basic rights to all of our people.
