MARRIAGE EQUALITY NATIONWIDE

[Ace]

[Iroscato]

Fuck me, is this thread still going? Bigotry lost, equality won. Get the fuck over it and focus on the important issues of today.

[Metis]

Fuck me, is this thread still going? Bigotry lost, equality won. Get the fuck over it and focus on the important issues of today.

B-B-But what could be more important in the universe and all planes of higher spiritual existence than where the icky icky gay people shove their pee pee or vajajay?!?!

[Ace]

What complaining to complainers about complaining?

[Pyrrho]

Petitioners’ “fundamental right” claim falls into the most sensitive category of constitutional adjudication.  Petitioners do not contend that their States’ marriage laws violate an enumerated constitutional right, such as the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. There is, after all, no “Companionship and Understanding” or “Nobility and Dignity” Clause in the Constitution. See ante, at 3, 14. They argue instead that the laws violate a right implied by the Fourteenth Amendment’s requirement that “liberty” may not be deprived without “due process of law.”

This is the blue in the face part. You're just going to have to get over it, the decision won't change.

As far as enumeration, remember that there was a loud camp that argued against a bill of rights simply because they thought that if certain rights were enumerated that some would interpret this as limiting rights to just those enumerated. I think you're guilty of this here.

Some people really need to read the 9th Amendment.  And then read it again.  And again.  Until it sinks in.  According to the Constitution, people have rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.  So, when someone makes a judgement based on that, they are not necessarily just making things up; it is part of the Constitution (as amended) that people have rights that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

[Athene]

Clearly, you go on online in between posts and frantically search the web for information to back up whatever point your trying to make. That's hardly impressive and I seriously doubt anyone under the age of nine would believe that you are well-versed in matters of the law. Seems to me that if you actually understood the law and the Constitution, you would understand why the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, even if you personally disagree with it.

The internet?  If you have to go to the internet to learn that you clearly did not learn anything from 8th grade civics and history class.  Are you honestly telling me you did not know how we amend the constitution of the United States (They even have cartoons on it) and that the amendments require approval of State legislatures and 2/3 of the States in the union?  Or how African Americans were granted freedom, citizenship, and rights?  Wow, our education system really is going to shit.

Regrettably I am better versed than most in regards to the law and the constitution.  Which is why I know the ruling is not supported by precedence in regards to the subject of marriage, separation of powers, and constitutional interpretation.  

But pray tell.  What is your understanding of why the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage?  I hope you do not state something utterly stupid like the government does not have the right to discriminate (as it can, must, and does under various levels of scrutiny).  Or some foolish notion of universal equality without consideration of quality (since we are treating some equal while still not treating others).

  You need to read my last post again. I never stated that I have to run to the internet to shore up any particular argument. That was directed towards you. That being said, I freely admit that I am not a Constitutional law scholar nor have I ever pretended to be. I just don't accept that the ability to post various portions of the Constitution on a forum can be considered expertise. It simply isn't.
  You can argue all day as to whether all people are equal or not, but that really isn't the issue.  This case, to my understanding was about whether lesbians and gays are entitled to equal protection under the law. States rights and laws become a non-issue if  Constitutional rights are being violated.  I'm certain you'll disagree and post yet another lengthy argument, so have at. It doesn't change the fact that this matter has already been decides by justices who actually have true knowledge and insight into the Constitution. That's why they're sitting on the Supreme Court and you're posting shit online, pretending that you're a damn lawyer.

[Ace]

[Ace]

So we are to not talk or debate any idea we want? We are to just sit around talk about the sky and jerk each other off on who agrees the most in everything?

No I agree, no I truly agree, no I agree so much more, but I agreed first.


What the matter not getting a good jerk- off at home? Hmmm?

[Ace]

Wow it is funny how free thinkers don't want others to think freely or speak against their ideas.
Easy there kill bears I think you need to go eat some fucking honey!

[Ace]

[quote='Ace' pid='1001424' dateline='1437526645']
Wow wow wow