Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide

a reply to: Dfairlite

The constitution had nothing to do with the decision made.

The Bill of Rights abides by the Constitution, read Amendment 14 Section 1 of the Bill of Rights. This was the entire argument FOR gay marriage and what was the deciding factor on the issue.

I think you know what he meant.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yaaay Thanks

still a lot to fight for though, workplace discrimination is a huge one, the states that allow discrimination, equal protection and still a lot more.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yaaay Thanks

still a lot to fight for though, workplace discrimination is a huge one, the states that allow discrimination, equal protection and still a lot more.

Agreed. However, Obergefell takes direct aim via the Fourteenth Amendment at any inequitable treatment and legal structures.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Not I. Do as you will, but don't call unequal things equal.

Yeah, right. I'm sure you've got lot's of really good gay friends who just adore spending time with you.

The constitution had nothing to do with the decision made.

Sure it did. Equal protection under the law which protects everyone from having laws applied to to some different than others.
That and protecting the right of everyone to peruse happiness in the same way as everyone else.

a reply to: Gryphon66

There is hope, and i hope people don't complacent and feel this is the end for Equality. the ENDA has been turned down by congress multiple times, so hopefully we can get this going

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Not I. Do as you will, but don't call unequal things equal.

Yeah, right. I'm sure you've got lot's of really good gay friends who just adore spending time with you.

The constitution had nothing to do with the decision made.

Sure it did. Equal protection under the law which protects everyone from having laws applied to to some different than others.
That and protecting the right of everyone to peruse happiness in the same way as everyone else.

Except it doesn't even pass muster that the law was being applied unequally. As any man could marry any woman. four supreme court justices came right out and said it had nothing to do with the constitution, they never say that much, they disagree but they don't say there is no constitutional basis.

I don't expect your side to understand. Afterall your side doesn't even understand logic in any way I mean; according to the liberals here me standing up for my beliefs which are contrary to yours makes me a bigot. However you standing up for your beliefs which are contrary to mine makes you.... tolerant?

It's really a sad state of mind that the left has taken in this country. They're stuck in this world of black and white, there is no in between. You're either with them or your the enemy. There can be no progress with that mindset on either side (and it is seen on both sides but far more on the left).

For some that are arguing that the States have a right to regulate marriage in the form of traditional religious marriage, that smacks close to State sponsored religion. Catholic this or that, Protestant this or that, indeed any religious undertones have no place in local, state, federal or world rules, laws and regulations. If you are human, born or created, you have equal rights.

This is almost as ridiculous as the Sunnis vs. Shiites in the Middle East. They are still fighting from a religious agrument some 1,400 or so years ago. I mean, carrying a blood grudge 1,400 years makes no sense.

As our technology advances what will we do if machines become self aware? Will we go though the whole denial of the rights as well? Will they be slaves? Will they be 2/3 a individual? Will they be required to sit in cargo? Will they be equal but separate? Will some morons scream they don't have a soul so they can't be equal?

What if we finally meet Aliens? Now I know a bunch of you guys would have no problem with green Orion animal women if there was any. What about marriage or even messing around? What about citizenship?

Corporate religion is the bane of the world and thankfully it seems to be dying more and more with each new generation.

As people become more educated they no longer need to cling to mythical beliefs.

Heck, a lot of married folk have comtempt and disdain if you are successful and single. How dare a woman be successful without a male boat anchor dragging her down.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Dfairlite

The constitution had nothing to do with the decision made.

The Bill of Rights abides by the Constitution, read Amendment 14 Section 1 of the Bill of Rights. This was the entire argument FOR gay marriage and what was the deciding factor on the issue.

I think you know what he meant.

And that's not part of the bill on rights btw. The bill of rights is the first ten amendments.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Riiigghhhht.....

I understand logic just fine. I have yet to hear a logical reason from people who oppose marriage though. I've heard all manner of religious fear based reasons and those aren't logical. I've heard some emotional crybaby arguments and those aren't logical. I've even heard fictional hypothetical arguments about possible future chaos too and those aren't logical.

It's not so much that the left is taking over but that the radical religious right is losing their grip on society and control over other peoples lives. That is actually a great thing and something that I hope continues too.

originally posted by: Bramble Iceshimmer
For some that are arguing that the States have a right to regulate marriage in the form of traditional religious marriage, that smacks close to State sponsored religion. Catholic this or that, Protestant this or that, indeed any religious undertones have no place in local, state, federal or world rules, laws and regulations. If you are human, born or created, you have equal rights.

This is almost as ridiculous as the Sunnis vs. Shiites in the Middle East. They are still fighting from a religious agrument some 1,400 or so years ago. I mean, carrying a blood grudge 1,400 years makes no sense.

As our technology advances what will we do if machines become self aware? Will we go though the whole denial of the rights as well? Will they be slaves? Will they be 2/3 a individual? Will they be required to sit in cargo? Will they be equal but separate? Will some morons scream they don't have a soul so they can't be equal?

What if we finally meet Aliens? Now I know a bunch of you guys would have no problem with green Orion animal women if there was any. What about marriage or even messing around? What about citizenship?

Corporate religion is the bane of the world and thankfully it seems to be dying more and more with each new generation.

As people become more educated they no longer need to cling to mythical beliefs.

Heck, a lot of married folk have comtempt and disdain if you are successful and single. How dare a woman be successful without a male boat anchor dragging her down.

Lol at ignorance. It's all I can do. You don't have a clue what ssponsored religion is.

LOL ... Some of this rhetoric being spewed reminds me of a conversation I once overhead ...



Mr. Kettle: "Mr. Pot, you are black!"

Mr. Pot: "Well, Mr. Kettle, what of it? You are black too!"

Mr. Kettle: "Yes, but I am not as black as you. You're the blackiest of the blackedy-blacks."

Mr. Pot: "What is blacker than black?" Hmmmmm ....

(Soon after, Mr. Pot reached enlightenment and entered Nirvana after considering such a pointless meaningless question.)

The End

a reply to: Dfairlite

They are an extension of the Bill of Rights, they are the law of the land and should be abided by. Either way, Amendment 14 makes it clear that the banning of gay marriage is against the law. Even Amendment 14 abides by the Constitution, all of them do.

a reply to: Dfairlite

It's funny how you toss around "Liberal" without knowing anyone's party affiliation. also people can think outside of the Political Party, i know people like to think that this group thinks this way and that group thinks that way, but people can think outside of the Binary

a reply to: Dfairlite

Ok. So you don't mind gay people. Then why would you mind gay marriage? It does not in any way harm you unless you LET it harm you...which you seem to have done. I can't fathom how shaky your foundation of faith/spirituality/self is that two dudes getting married legally can rock you that much.

a reply to: Dfairlite

The law WAS applied unequally, as heterosexuals could marry the consenting adult of their choice, but homosexuals could not - for no other reason than that they were homosexuals. The gender of the consenting adult of your choice should make no difference. The same with interracial marriage, except in that case the race of the consenting adult of your choice shouldn't make a difference. If a state passed a law that Jews couldn't marry Christians, then it would be a case of the religion of the consenting adult of your choice shouldn't make a difference. The state isn't allowed to use personal judgments of people's race, gender or sexual orientation as the basis of their laws. Because that is a little thing called d-i-s-c-r-i-m-i-n-a-t-i-o-n.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Dfairlite

Riiigghhhht.....

I understand logic just fine. I have yet to hear a logical reason from people who oppose marriage though. I've heard all manner of religious fear based reasons and those aren't logical. I've heard some emotional crybaby arguments and those aren't logical. I've even heard fictional hypothetical arguments about possible future chaos too and those aren't logical.

It's not so much that the left is taking over but that the radical religious right is losing their grip on society and control over other peoples lives. That is actually a great thing and something that I hope continues too.

Here is the bare logic for you. One man and one woman is not equaled by one man and one man or one woman and one woman. If you disagree you don't understand logic.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
One man and one woman is not equaled by one man and one man or one woman and one woman.

Well, apparently they do now!

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Dfairlite

The law WAS applied unequally, as heterosexuals could marry the consenting adult of their choice, but homosexuals could not - for no other reason than that they were homosexuals. The gender of the consenting adult of your choice should make no difference. The same with interracial marriage, except in that case the race of the consenting adult of your choice shouldn't make a difference. If a state passed a law that Jews couldn't marry Christians, then it would be a case of the religion of the consenting adult of your choice shouldn't make a difference. The state isn't allowed to use personal judgments of people's race, gender or sexual orientation as the basis of their laws. Because that is a little thing called d-i-s-c-r-i-m-i-n-a-t-i-o-n.

Omh, no it wasn't. As a heterosexual male I could not marry another male. As a homosexual male I could not marry another male. As either male I could marry a female. Equality.

originally posted by: Dfairlite


Sure it did. Equal protection under the law which protects everyone from having laws applied to to some different than others.
That and protecting the right of everyone to peruse happiness in the same way as everyone else.

Except it doesn't even pass muster that the law was being applied unequally. As any man could marry any woman. four supreme court justices came right out and said it had nothing to do with the constitution, they never say that much, they disagree but they don't say there is no constitutional basis.

I don't expect your side to understand. Afterall your side doesn't even understand logic in any way I mean; according to the liberals here me standing up for my beliefs which are contrary to yours makes me a bigot. However you standing up for your beliefs which are contrary to mine makes you.... tolerant?

It's really a sad state of mind that the left has taken in this country. They're stuck in this world of black and white, there is no in between. You're either with them or your the enemy. There can be no progress with that mindset on either side (and it is seen on both sides but far more on the left).

Do you read what you write?

In this set of paragraphs you said that we're stuck in black or white thinking. Before that you state "Well shucks, that gay guy could marry that gay girl any time he wanted! How was that discrimination?"

You've parroted that concept a couple times. So I will make an attempt to lodge a bit of logic into your mind...here we go

1. You are telling me that the bans on homosexual marriage were not discriminatory
2. You are telling me that any man could marry any woman (consensual of course), hence still no discrimination
3. However, a gay man, as his nature, would not want to marry a woman
4. That gay man, in those remaining states DID NOT HAVE A CHOICE TO MARRY A MAN
5. Ergo...discrimination

Just because you have this ridiculous idea that if I were gay, (which I am not...I play ALL sides...giggidy), but if I WERE strictly gay you are sitting there and telling me, "Well Kyo, I am not discriminating against you. You can marry anyone you want...so long as she is a woman."

So I return and say. "But...I am gay. I want to marry a man (again...consensual)"

And you say "but you CAN marry....a woman."

It's like you go out of your way to ignore the reality. I don't mind so much that you disagree with gay marriage. I may not like it, but again I am always for free speech. The part I don't get is how you have this idea that saying I can either marry a woman, or nobody, isn't discriminatory when you know darn well that as a gay man, my only preference for marriage would be a man.

AGAIN...if you want to all it dirty, sinful, or unequal...fine...but don't pretend that isn't discrimination.

I'm gonna say this as if I were a five year old...

I ask dad if I can have Starburst. He agrees. I only want the pink Starburst. He agrees and says, "you can have any Starburst you want, as long as it is the red Starburst."

But I have explained that I do want one, but I want the pink. In your weird idea of "logic," I am totally getting what I want despite asking for pink and only being allowed to have red

I mean seriously...someone help me out. Am I missing something?

a reply to: Dfairlite

How is that logic? how are we not equal when we are still people?

can you please explain to me?