Add a Comment See all 460 Comments
- A summation of your posts:
You bible thumpers
Posted by slownewsday_05 at 11:30 AM : Jun 15, 2009
I'll be back after lunch, moron.
Posted by slownewsday_05 at 11:25 AM : Jun 15, 2009
You religious nutjobs
Posted by slownewsday_05 at 11:18 AM : Jun 15, 2009
I can go look at your posts over the last 60 pages and find more of the same. You really don't have anything worthwhile to say... - Reply to this comment
- So, it has been established as a precedent. Go fish.
Posted by slownewsday_05 at 11:27 AM : Jun 15, 2009
Not at the federal level..which is what the actual story is about. On the federal level we have DOMA. - Reply to this comment
- They do now, and won't reject the case.
Posted by slownewsday_05 at 11:25 AM : Jun 15, 2009
Yeah, I'm sure your in close personal contact with all twelve judges.
And keep calling people names closeted one..you might think you're smart but I bet people know something about you just by reading your posts that you won't admit to yourself!
LOL! - Reply to this comment
- God bless this great country of ours and our President!
A marriage has been defined as a relationship between ONE man and ONE woman since colonial times. Neither the 9th or 14th Amendments criticized,challenged or changed the definition of marraige that existed at that time. That's because the existing definition WAS constitutional.
Consider that the 14th banned discrimination but women still couldn't vote. That's because women were constitutionally barred from voting until the 19th Amendment was passed.
Slavery was legal when the Constitution was drafted and
even thought the Constitution doesn't say "slavery is legal"
slavery WAS legal and constitutional by default. Slavery continued to be constitutional until the 13th Amendment was passed.
There was no income tax during colonial times or from
1776-1787. The Constitution had to be amended because the power to tax income WAS NOT THERE, at least not until the 16th Amendment was passed.
If the 14th applied, the USSC could have made a judgement back in the 70's when those 2 gay guys from
Minnesota sued Minnesota because they couldn't get a
marriage license. The Court didn't do that, because there was no Federal issue. Because a marriage is between
ONE man and ONE woman!
Limiting "marriages" to real marriages and not alternative lifestyles is legal, reflects good common sense and is the right thing for society. If there is public consensus about extending some benefits to alternative lifestyles, we can talk about civil unions. - Reply to this comment
- SCOTUS didn't try the case. But that doesn't mean it was a proper rejection.
Posted by slownewsday_05 at 11:16 AM : Jun 15, 2009
They refused to get involved because there was NO FEDERAL ISSUE! Show me the legal definition of a "proper rejection." The fact that they refused to get involved means that at least one and probably three judges actually read the petition, considered it and decided not to take the case. Don't worry, it was "proper."
They didn't take the case because there was no federal issue--because a marriage is between a man and a woman and the 14th amendment DOESN'T APPLY!
LOL-LOL!! - Reply to this comment
- That's all the time I have for you right now, junior.
Posted by slownewsday_05 at 11:12 AM : Jun 15, 2009
Go ahead, run away! LOL!
You've only posted the same thing at least 3 or 4 times.
Psst...I can do that too!
LOL - Reply to this comment
- ArmyoftheDaft -
Posted by slownewsday_05 at 11:07 AM : Jun 15, 2009
And there you go again calling names! No wonder that it's only you posting on this forum....I guess you like to read your own posts don't you??
-LOL! - Reply to this comment
- MN supreme court - not SCOTUS.
Posted by slownewsday_05 at 11:07 AM : Jun 15, 2009
WRONG AGAIN! This issue went up the USSC and the court refused to get involved because there was no federal issue. That's because a marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman.
-LOL, LOL!!!!!
Not only do you not know the law. You can't read the posts on this forum. That's the trouble with being a monomaniac. - Reply to this comment
- Civil unions aren't the equivalent of the marriage license -
Posted by slownewsday_05 at 11:02 AM : Jun 15, 2009
As usual, you miss the point. There is no reason to make something equal with a nonequivalent.
The larger issue is how to accomodate people's choices in a way that doesn't bankrupt businesses or break government budgets. - Reply to this comment
- Whine and flail all you want - the facts and law remain.
Posted by slownewsday_05 at 10:57 AM : Jun 15, 2009
You don't posess the law or the facts...I'm sure you don't waste as much time as you do on this forum while you're clerking for Justice Ginsburg either.
If the USSC creates a hidden "right" to same sex "marriage," we are just that much closer to losing our democracy. - Reply to this comment
- Eventually, this country might have a reasoned debate regarding civil unions. Obviously, that isn't the case on forums like this...
- Reply to this comment
- 3)one group - with a LEGAL sexuality
The USG doens't have a law legalizing homosexuality.
The only way you can argue that it's legal is to say that it must be because it happens and there is no law bannning it.
Following the same logic: Marriage has been defined as a relationship between ONE man and ONE woman since colonial times. Neither the 9th or 14th Amendments criticized,challenged or changed the definition of marraige that existed at that time. That's because the existing definition WAS constitutional
If the 14th applied, the USSC could have made a judgement back in the 70's when those 2 gay guys from
Minnesota sued Minnesota because they couldn't get a
marriage license. The Court didn't do that, because there was no Federal issue. Because a marriage is between
ONE man and ONE woman! - Reply to this comment
- 2) heterosexuals are allowed to obtain this license to marry the person they love; homosexuals are excluded from marrying the person they love in many states
Posted by slownewsday_05 at 10:43 AM : Jun 15, 2009
When you get a marriage license NO ONE asks you if you are in love. You could get married for any reason except love and still get a marriage license.
ANYONE can get married, to someone of the opposite gender--because that is what a marriage is! - Reply to this comment
- Nobody said it was unconstitutional, anyway.
Posted by slownewsday_05 at 10:43 AM : Jun 15, 2009
Gee, if you're arguing that the status quo violates the 14th then I guess that means that you are.... - Reply to this comment
- Contrary to what you might read on this forum, there is nothing unconstitutional about traditional marriage.
Marriage has been defined as a relationship between ONE man and ONE woman since colonial times. Neither the 9th or 14th Amendments criticized,challenged or changed the definition of marraige that existed at that time. That's because the existing definition WAS constitutional.
Consider that the 14th banned discrimination but women still couldn't vote. That's because women were constitutionally barred from voting until the 19th Amendment was passed.
Slavery was legal when the Constitution was drafted and
even thought the Constitution doesn't say "slavery is legal"
slavery WAS legal and constitutional by default. Slavery continued to be constitutional until the 13th Amendment was passed.
There was no income tax during colonial times or from
1776-1787. The Constitution had to be amended because the power to tax income WAS NOT THERE, at least not until the 16th Amendment was passed.
Limiting "marriages" to real marriages and not alternative lifestyles is legal, reflects good common sense and is the right thing for society. If there is public consensus about extending some benefits to alternative lifestyles, we can talk about civil unions. - Reply to this comment
- As I've said, I personally have no objection whatsoever. I would have voted against Prop 8. We're not talking about whether gay marriage should be legal. We're talking about whether it is, in fact a "right".
Let the people decide, not some judge. - Reply to this comment
- as one group - with a LEGAL sexuality - is denied this license, it is, by law, discrimination
________________________________________________
lmao...blind people cna;t get a license to drive either. you make me laugh.
hey did ever consider the 10th amendment which states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Since marriage is unaddressed in the constitution it isn't a federal issue. it falls to the states to regulate it. cool huh?
Since gay marriage - Reply to this comment
- it cracks me up when libs are unable to clearly refute an argument but keep up their meaningless bluster!
- Reply to this comment
- two guys one straight, one gay...they are each permitted to marry exactly the same subset of the population. namely the full subset of eligible women. sorry you lose. they have identical rights when it comes to marriage.
sorry, slow..i'm begging to see why they call you "slow". - Reply to this comment
- answer the question. what "protection" do you seek? cite the law that applies.
if i have a gay person and a straight person or the same sex they are both permitted to marry precisely the same segment of the population.
where does this amendment say there's a right to make any choice we want? - Reply to this comment
