SCOTUS strikes down gay marriage bans, legalizing marriage equality nationwide

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kinsei said:
I don't think you understand why I was telling them to fuck off. They are telling trans women that they are men.
Click to expand...

I don't think Nintendo ever cleared up what gender Birdo is at all, and Yoshi's sexuality as never brought up either(because why the fuck would you bring that up) so that IGN tweet is just weird in general.
 
I want to thank Utah for meddling in California with their prop 8 that was overrulled and got other dumb sates to try the same thing and when they also were overturned they decided to hit the issue into high gear all the way to the supreme court. They can all fuck off now.
 
Euron Crow's Eye said:
Here's a list of reactions from some of the many presidential candidates: http://time.com/3937636/supreme-court-gay-marriage-presidential-candidates/

Some of the worst:








Why the hell do these people think gay marriage interferes with Christianity? Where in the gospels does Jesus condemn it? I see some Christians reference Leviticus but that's from the OLD testament. Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus, which are based on loving the world and others. These politicians don't understand that they're doing the farthest from the work of Christ, who, according to the gospels, feasted with tax collectors, lepers, and more of the most discriminated members of society. To live the teachings of Christ is to help those who are discriminated against as much as possible.

As President, your goal should be to make the lives of every American the best they can possibly be. Being against Gay Marriage does nothing but harm to others. If your goal is discrimination and wasting your time on deliberately harming the lives of others, good riddance. But sadly they need to appeal to many voters who are bigots.

Got a little off topic there but nevertheless, great job America!
Click to expand...

These politicians are simply a product of the people they represent. It's the constituents that are still living in the 1800s.
 
GameGuru59 said:
Both parties are the same tho!
Click to expand...

On many things...they are. Hillary wasn't touting gay marriage until a year after Obama which in Obama's tenure as president should have been something he was touting from the start. There's some speech of Hillary's in the senate railing against gay marriage. A lot of these politicians have no spine to stand up for things that aren't popular(even when it's people's rights) and only jump on the bandwagon when they see public opinion change. That's good for a representative democracy but pretty bad when it means denying people their liberties and happiness. People's rights shouldn't be up for public opinion. Most national democrats done goofed for years and years by acting like Republicans.
 
alr1ght said:
Texas
CIcBDHbUYAArrgf.jpg:orig


CIb99aCUEAANgN7.jpg:orig


CIcBjAhUYAAmTQC.jpg:orig


CIb_lm8UcAAmdL3.jpg:orig
Click to expand...

the second couple is from Hidalgo county in South Texas where I am from

Hidalgo County ‏@HidalgoCounty 7m7 minutes ago
Cantu and Jones having their 72 hour waiting period waved by Judge Rudy Gonzalez County Court at Law One.
 
Not too long ago homosexuality was officially viewed as a mental disease here. Now gay people can get married anywhere in the US. What an incredible civil rights leap in such a short period of time.
 
Kinsei said:
I don't think you understand why I was telling them to fuck off. They are telling trans women that they are men.
Click to expand...

I don't know if that's the case. It didn't imply Yoshi and Birdo's union to be a homosexual one. This ruling should mean that transsexual individuals, regardless of their state in transition, can now get married, right? Some states didn't legally accept someone as being their identified gender unless they had reassignment surgery done. Now those individuals may get married regardless.
 
RE: People inexplicably talking about Obama being nominated for the Supreme Court (which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, sorry for continuing what might be construed as a derail)

It is true that Taft was the Chief Justice and nothing technically disqualifies a future President from nominating a past President to the court. That being said, the trend in recent years has been towards nominating Appellate court justices; when GWB nominated Harriet Miers, beyond the overwhelming reaction that she was unqualified, it was viewed as a baffling move because she was not a lower court judge. The one exception on the current court is Kagan, who was nominated after being Solicitor General and Dean of Harvard Law but no other judgeship experience (although she was previously nominated). By contrast, in the past, non-Judges were routinely appointed if they had some legal experience (often as prosecutors, members of the Justice Department, noted public legal minds, etc.) The last time someone whose primary experience was as a member of the executive branch was nominated was Arthur Goldberg, by Kennedy.

Obama is a lawyer, but not a noted legal mind. It's true he was for some period a lecturer at a law school. He doesn't have scholarship on constitutional issues. In contrast to Taft, he hasn't revealed a particular interest in court issues or in being a judge. Taft had been very public about wanting to be on the Supreme Court--in fact, when Teddy Roosevelt was President, Taft had told him that he didn't want to succeed Teddy, he wanted an appointment to the Supreme Court. That didn't work out so well, so we got President Taft. After leaving the presidency, Taft also continued his engagement in legal issues. There's no evidence Obama has ever expressed anything like this his whole tenure.

Moreover, the confirmation process has changed and become more divisive and more of a public spectacle than it once was. The single most salient insight into what a nominee should do during the nomination process is pretend to know nothing about anything and have no opinions about anything, dodge questions as much as possible, and basically look like a moderate blank slate. Lower court judges distance themselves from their rulings by appealing that they had to apply precedent; non-judge nominees like Kagan say they were "only working for their boss". The idea that a President could argue in good faith that he doesn't have public policy positions is absurd.

It's totally the wrong thing to take from this to go "Obama is good and I am happy about this, therefore Obama should be appointed to the Supreme Court".
 
Uhhh...so who is this "Bryan Fischer" guy? A lot of people in my twitter timeline retweet him with a snide remark but I kinda can't believe he is for real.

"June 26, 2015: the day the twin towers of truth and righteousness were blown up by moral jihadists." Really? Come on, that has to be some joke I don't get.
 
Thread is moving so fast. Governor of Mississippi is beyond salty. Threatening to stop giving licenses completely.

State Could stop giving marriage licenses altogether

"One of the options that other states have looked at is removing the state marriage license requirement," Gipson said. "We will be researching what options there are. I personally can see pros and cons to that. I don't know if it would be better to have no marriage certificate sponsored by the state or not. But it's an option out there to be considered."
Click to expand...

Quote isn't the governor, but from the article.
 
ivysaur12 said:
Scalia's dissent got... personal. Wow.

CIbprebUwAIQIHJ.png
Click to expand...

I mean how can they make rulings on anything, then? Is he arguing for the Supreme Court to be dissolved and reconstituted through some unsaid means that results in a more representative selection of justices? He's off his rocker.
 
Stumpokapow said:
RE: People inexplicably talking about Obama being nominated for the Supreme Court (which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, sorry for continuing what might be construed as a derail)

It is true that Taft was the Chief Justice and nothing technically disqualifies a future President from nominating a past President to the court. That being said, the trend in recent years has been towards nominating Appellate court justices; when GWB nominated Harriet Miers, beyond the overwhelming reaction that she was unqualified, it was viewed as a baffling move because she was not a lower court judge. The one exception on the current court is Kagan, who was nominated after being Solicitor General and Dean of Harvard Law but no other judgeship experience (although she was previously nominated). By contrast, in the past, non-Judges were routinely appointed if they had some legal experience (often as prosecutors, members of the Justice Department, noted public legal minds, etc.) The last time someone whose primary experience was as a member of the executive branch was nominated was Arthur Goldberg, by Kennedy.

Obama is a lawyer, but not a noted legal mind. It's true he was for some period a lecturer at a law school. He doesn't have scholarship on constitutional issues. In contrast to Taft, he hasn't revealed a particular interest in court issues or in being a judge. Taft had been very public about wanting to be on the Supreme Court--in fact, when Teddy Roosevelt was President, Taft had told him that he didn't want to succeed Teddy, he wanted an appointment to the Supreme Court. That didn't work out so well, so we got President Taft. After leaving the presidency, Taft also continued his engagement in legal issues. There's no evidence Obama has ever expressed anything like this his whole tenure.

Moreover, the confirmation process has changed and become more divisive and more of a public spectacle than it once was. The single most salient insight into what a nominee should do during the nomination process is pretend to know nothing about anything and have no opinions about anything, dodge questions as much as possible, and basically look like a moderate blank slate. Lower court judges distance themselves from their rulings by appealing that they had to apply precedent; non-judge nominees like Kagan say they were "only working for their boss". The idea that a President could argue in good faith that he doesn't have public policy positions is absurd.

It's totally the wrong thing to take from this to go "Obama is good and I am happy about this, therefor Obama should be appointed to the Supreme Court".
Click to expand...

Good stuff. I did have a thought after reading the earlier calls for Obama on the SCOTUS that it would be a good idea, but you made me realize that he would need more law and 'judging' experience. ^_^
 
Disappointed that Roberts voted that way. I don't agree with him, but I also think think he's a legitimate jurist as opposed to a conservative mouthpiece.

Scalia can go die under a tree, fuck that guy.
 
Dear god I just read some tweets regarding the 10th amendment.

Do these bigots have any fucking clue how our government works? You know, SCOTUS is the one who interputes the fucking law you god damn bigots stfu about your "10th amendment" superceding the SCOTUS. That's not how it works and they need to go back to the Stone Age and read some books on US government because clearly they failed their civics classes.
 
ErasureAcer said:
On many things...they are. Hillary wasn't touting gay marriage until a year after Obama which in Obama's tenure as president should have been something he was touting from the start. There's some speech of Hillary's in the senate railing against gay marriage. A lot of these politicians have no spine to stand up for things that aren't popular(even when it's people's rights) and only jump on the bandwagon when they see public opinion change. That's good for a representative democracy but pretty bad when it means denying people their liberties and happiness. People's rights shouldn't be up for public opinion. Most national democrats done goofed for years and years by acting like Republicans.
Click to expand...
Do you have a link to Clinton's speech?
 
thenight11 said:
the second couple is from Hidalgo county in South Texas where I am from

Hidalgo County ‏@HidalgoCounty 7m7 minutes ago
Cantu and Jones having their 72 hour waiting period waved by Judge Rudy Gonzalez County Court at Law One.
Click to expand...

I literally can not understand how someone can look at these pictures and think today's ruling was a bad thing.
 
Aylinato said:
Dear god I just read some tweets regarding the 10th amendment.

Do these bigots have any fucking clue how our government works? You know, SCOTUS is the one who interputes the fucking law you god damn bigots stfu about your "10th amendment" superceding the SCOTUS. That's not how it works and they need to go back to the Stone Age and read some books on US government because clearly they failed their civics classes.
Click to expand...

This statement implies that the Supreme Court has always ruled correctly and interpreted all laws justly. The court of a nation which was founded with legal slavery and only white male landowners having the right to vote. Riiiight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Dave Grohl announces daughter outside of his marriage
2 3
143
9K
Dr.Morris79 replied
20 injured after Mexican Navy training ship strikes Brooklyn Bridge
News  2
56
463
Major Insano replied
Tragic News: Destiny open marriage fails
2 3 4
171
36K
Deleted member 1159 replied
  • Poll
The pull-down ad bar thing
Community 
44
544
AgatonSax replied
Microsoft is finally shutting down Skype in May
41
2K
MakeMudosGreatAgain replied
Top Bottom