Breaking: Supreme Court rules SSM a legal right

[SteveRogers]

Similarly, today's opinion could easily be applied in the context of polygamous marriage or same-sex incestuous marriage.  Is that next? 

I haven't read the ruling but other people who have read it led me to believe that it was fairly skilfully tailored in such a way as to not easily be expanded into these sorts of outcomes.

Yes and no. Though Kennedy's opinion couches the holding in both due process and equal protection language, the opinion approaches the question more from the fundamental rights due process angle (which I thought was an odd choice given the direction Kennedy went in Windsor).  If we're talking about people 20-30 years from now looking at what this case's precedent means for polygamy, I think both sides could spin this ruling their way. On the one hand, you could look at this opinion and say that the fundamental right to marriage articulated is limited in scope to a union between two people. On the other hand, basing the holding on a full-fledged equal protection analysis that expressly applied heightened scrutiny to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation would have made this precedent largely inapplicable to the polygamy issue.

[CountryClassSF]

Someone please restrain me from answering that question. Someone please restrain me from answering that question. Someone. Please.

Go ahead and answer it, because I'm ready to put the "He's not really gay, because he CAN'T have those positions if he's gay" meme to bed.

Honestly, tell me now, so we can put this to rest.

Just explain to me what you would like me to do within reason without revealing my name.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

The Supreme Court of the country formerly known as the United States of America has overruled God, usurped their authority as impartial jurists, and rewrote three laws this week to match with their ideological crusade.  

It is APPALLING that two justices who are ACTIVELY supporters of the entirety of the gay agenda, and have PERFORMED same-sex weddings, were able to cast a vote today.

There is no hope - it is all over. We no longer have a republic, or even a democracy. We are ruled by black-robed ideological radicals, with support from corporate America, Hollywood, and the "news" media.

I'm afraid that very soon, they will soon go after the churches and start imposing penalties on those who refuse to perform unions they have a moral disagreement with. Justice  Alito warned of pending vilification.

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Right-wing despair is my nourishment.

[CountryClassSF]

Right-wing despair is my nourishment.

Because that's tolerant and accepting or something. 

[afleitch]

You're asking me to prove that I am gay? What would you like me to do exactly?

Out yourself on Free Republic.

[CountryClassSF]

Out yourself on Free Republic.

Really? And then get a zot?

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

I am under no obligation to accept bigoted little sh[inks]s.

And because you probably had that stupid talking point loaded up and ready to go, no, you spiteful little man, there is nothing about homosexuality that is an "affront to decency" or whatever bullsh**t you're about to spout. Love is love, regardless of what you think or what your pastor told you.

[CountryClassSF]

I am under no obligation to accept bigoted little sh[inks]s.

And because you probably had that stupid talking point loaded up and ready to go, no, you spiteful little man, there is nothing about homosexuality that is an "affront to decency" or whatever bullsh**t you're about to spout.

Did I say that? I suggest you read the above posts.

[DrScholl]

In this post from FreeRepublic, CountyClassSF said this

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3304515/posts?page=20#20

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That doesn't seem like something a gay person would say.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Just like there are women who oppose abortion, there are gays who oppose SSM. Deal with it, liberals. It's not going to go away just because you delude yourself into believing they don't exist.

[CountryClassSF]

In this post from FreeRepublic, CountyClassSF said this

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3304515/posts?page=20#20

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That doesn't seem like something a gay person would say.

Please straightsplain to me what a gay person should say. Yes, I'm not out at FreeRepublic because yes, they don't accept out gays. Happy?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Someone please restrain me from answering that question. Someone please restrain me from answering that question. Someone. Please.

Go ahead and answer it, because I'm ready to put the "He's not really gay, because he CAN'T have those positions if he's gay" meme to bed.

OK, there is no way this isn't intentional.

[CountryClassSF]

Just like there are women who oppose abortion, there are gays who oppose SSM. Deal with it, liberals. It's not going to go away just because you delude yourself into believing they don't exist.

I had posted on article on this awhile back from Pew/Washington Post.  There was silence.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

In this post from FreeRepublic, CountyClassSF said this

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3304515/posts?page=20#20

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That doesn't seem like something a gay person would say.

It's all part of the 11th-dimensional chess by the Gay Mafia to accomplish...er...something...something...NO BUTT STUFF!

[DrScholl]

In this post from FreeRepublic, CountyClassSF said this

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3304515/posts?page=20#20

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That doesn't seem like something a gay person would say.

Please straightsplain to me what a gay person should say. Yes, I'm not out at FreeRepublic because yes, they don't accept out gays. Happy?

The question is, are you putting on a show there or putting on a show here? I think you are putting on a show here.

[RR1997]

Wonderful news! This made my day.

[CountryClassSF]

Well you can think all you want.  It is against the rules in that forum to be out.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

In this post from FreeRepublic, CountyClassSF said this

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3304515/posts?page=20#20

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That doesn't seem like something a gay person would say.

Wat. I could have sworn Country Class's right wing garbage was a troll account?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

In this post from FreeRepublic, CountyClassSF said this

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3304515/posts?page=20#20

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That doesn't seem like something a gay person would say.

Please straightsplain to me what a gay person should say. Yes, I'm not out at FreeRepublic because yes, they don't accept out gays. Happy?

The question is, are you putting on a show there or putting on a show here? I think you are putting on a show here.

He is "putting on a show" in both places. And that isn't going to change. No one except the most pitiful of low-information people changes their personal viewpoint on a political issue according to the whims and moods of the courts. Opponents have and will continue to admit that SSM is settled and unchangeable law now, as I have already done. But that doesn't mean mine or their personal opinion is affected.

[Badger]

I think the bible clearly does not encourage same gender marriages.  On the topic of homosexuality, I think it's ambiguous and difficult to decipher.

You're asking me to prove that I am gay? What would you like me to do exactly?

You're equating my opposition to gay marriage to automatic opposition to homosexuality.

I can not under any circumstances comprehend anyone truthfully saying the Bible prohibits gay marriage, but is ambiguous on homosexuality itself. I am aware of the Scriptures you were saying, and that is borderline impossible to believe. I would love to hear your rationale how.
or perhaps you merely overstepped in your outrage over this decision, and finally let your mask slip that you're simply trolling about actually being gay. Let's look at the evidence shall we,?first, yes opposition to gay marriage is a bit of a red flag. While not utterly and absolutely impossible, it is in fact you must concede almost unheard of. Even among gay conservatives it is almost unheard of to oppose gay marriage.next, you have on FreeRepublic referred to gays as if I recall correctly deviance and similar terms. Try claiming you meant merely the deviance in the gay movement, whatever the hell that means, but the language from Europe FreeRepublic post, in contact, make it quite clear you were referring to gays as a whole. could a gay person actually be so self hating that they that only oppose gay marriage, but actually consider themselves, quite legitimately, to be deviance and the like? Almost impossible to any rational person. Now this decision was against God because the Bible, whilst obviously a marriage, is only, & I quote, ambiguous on gate relationship and homosexuality in general.if I ask any tree in the country to find beyond any reasonable doubt that you are not, nearly and arch conservative who happens to be gay, and now he opposes gay marriage but believes thatgays are deviants and the Bible opposes homosexuality, or excuse me, just gay marriage. Or on the other hand but you are simply rolling in yohat the verdict would, I have little doubt what the verdict would be. At best, you are one seriously seriously messed up dude who hides pinea bearhug embrace - - no pun intended - - of conservatism as a means of justifying the fact you live everyday of your life orderly and completely uncomfortable in your own skin. I would say that I pity you, but I just don't believe any more that you are gay as opposed to just a troll.

[Badger]

In this post from FreeRepublic, CountyClassSF said this

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3304515/posts?page=20#20

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That doesn't seem like something a gay person would say.

Please straightsplain to me what a gay person should say. Yes, I'm not out at FreeRepublic because yes, they don't accept out gays. Happy?

The question is, are you putting on a show there or putting on a show here? I think you are putting on a show here.

He is "putting on a show" in both places. And that isn't going to change. No one except the most pitiful of low-information people changes their personal viewpoint on a political issue according to the whims and moods of the courts. Opponents have and will continue to admit that SSM is settled and unchangeable law now, as I have already done. But that doesn't mean mine or their personal opinion is affected.

you are factually incorrect. When the Court struck down segregation, or when the Civil Rights Act passed and broke it down, opinions notably even dramatically changed to a weakened opposition of segregation very soon afterwards. The law in the US Army sorry I mean legitimacy that holds, does create social norms and expectations. It will may not eliminate opposition, but it totally transforms societal standards. Whether you oppose or support this ruling, that cannot be denied

[CountryClassSF]

Badger, I feel that continuing to explain would thus do nothing for you since you have yourself convinced of these things.  I'm happy to have a full discussion about it, but in order to have that discussion, the other person has to be willing to have it. If there's no way I can change your preconceived notions, it would be a waste of time for me and for you.

If you want to center everything about FreeRepublic, I would point you to this post where I openly said that I read GayPatriot - and that I was fine with conservative gays coming to CPAC. There, I also distinguished between gays and gay marriage. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3124712/posts?page=108#108


Here, I posted my concern for gay couples who wish to enter into a domestic partnership and not call it a marriage for religious purposes: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3124121/posts?page=5#5

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Drop the ban hammer Badger. Expunge this troll from the Atlas.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

In this post from FreeRepublic, CountyClassSF said this

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3304515/posts?page=20#20

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That doesn't seem like something a gay person would say.

Please straightsplain to me what a gay person should say. Yes, I'm not out at FreeRepublic because yes, they don't accept out gays. Happy?

The question is, are you putting on a show there or putting on a show here? I think you are putting on a show here.

He is "putting on a show" in both places. And that isn't going to change. No one except the most pitiful of low-information people changes their personal viewpoint on a political issue according to the whims and moods of the courts. Opponents have and will continue to admit that SSM is settled and unchangeable law now, as I have already done. But that doesn't mean mine or their personal opinion is affected.

you are factually incorrect. When the Court struck down segregation, or when the Civil Rights Act passed and broke it down, opinions notably even dramatically changed to a weakened opposition of segregation very soon afterwards. The law in the US Army sorry I mean legitimacy that holds, does create social norms and expectations. It will may not eliminate opposition, but it totally transforms societal standards. Whether you oppose or support this ruling, that cannot be denied

What does the US Army have to do with any of this? They don't create laws or define norms for all of society, they are not a governing body.

[WVdemocrat]

Drop the ban hammer Badger. Expunge this troll from the Atlas.

Seconded.