Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide

a reply to: Dfairlite

Sexual orientation is not a protected class therefore states that discriminate based on that are ok. The Supreme Court said they're not, therefore creating a new protected class.

Sexual orientation IS NOT a protected class YET. The Supreme Court merely said that banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional, therefore, states don't have the right to prohibit same sex petitioners from receiving a state issued marriage licence.

No new laws or protected classes have been created by this ruling. I would expect there to be repercussions though, a backlash against those who still think that LGBTQ people are less and deserve abuse. For those people, things will get tougher.

a reply to: Gryphon66

It took awhile, i had to figure everything out on my own, to my "parents i was a sickness, a disease.. i couldn't be around other people, i was thrown in closets and locked in rooms, i didn't have birthdays because we can't celebrate a sickness.. when i was on the streets my Sexuality and my Genderfluidity were something i had to find out on my own..

my story is forever, i mean, i could tell you stories that are hard to believe, and hard to relive...

but thank you, i am proud to be part of this Family also!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Dfairlite

1 Read Article VI Clause 2 again.

2 Read the Fourteenth Amendment.

3 Read the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges instead of parroting what you hear on right-wing media.

4 Repeat from 1 until you get it.

I didn't realize four dissenting justices were the right wing news. I also didn't realize the five justices absolutely got it right. I guess the left needs to remember that the judges in the majority are right . Don't use critical thought or attempt to disagree.Supreme court justices are perfect and infallible. They are our new government. Get rid of the rest.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

I saw a number that there are around 400 million guns in the hands of private Americans now.

I have heard of no gun confiscations anywhere in the US that are not part of arresting criminals.

How is it again that the 2nd Amendment is in trouble? How it it that someone is coming to take your guns?

What does that have to do with marriage equality?

a reply to: Dfairlite

1 Read Article VI Clause 2 again.

2 Read the Fourteenth Amendment.

3 Read the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges instead of parroting what you hear on right-wing media.

4 Repeat from 1 until you get it.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Gryphon

Oh, Ok.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Dfairlite

Sexual orientation is not a protected class therefore states that discriminate based on that are ok. The Supreme Court said they're not, therefore creating a new protected class.

Sexual orientation IS NOT a protected class YET. The Supreme Court merely said that banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional, therefore, states don't have the right to prohibit same sex petitioners from receiving a state issued marriage licence.

No new laws or protected classes have been created by this ruling. I would expect there to be repercussions though, a backlash against those who still think that LGBTQ people are less and deserve abuse. For those people, things will get tougher.

The four dissenting justices disagree with you. And so far they've been right about every step of progress on this issue. They've called the next move, every time.

a reply to: Dfairlite

It doesn't matter what the losers think about losing.

a reply to: Dfairlite

So, is it the Five that you don't like or the Four you do like that are perfect and infallible ?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I saw a number that there are around 400 million guns in the hands of private Americans now.

I have heard of no gun confiscations anywhere in the US that are not part of arresting criminals.

How is it again that the 2nd Amendment is in trouble? How it it that someone is coming to take your guns?

What does that have to do with marriage equality?

It/this is about the Federal Government interjecting an all encompassing law over 50 States what should be an individual State by State jurisdiction judgment. You are not going to hear about illegal gun seizures; but it is happening. I have a case pending. If the Federal Government can take something as simple as same sex marriage and override State Laws, it can do anything. The ATF took my guns disregarding what the State had to say about my legal status to own them.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Dfairlite

So, is it the Five that you don't like or the Four you do like that are perfect and infallible ?

I don't trust any 5-4 decision. None of them are infallible. Just take a gander through the dissenting opinions and tell me when you've ever read such warnings in a supreme court dissension.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Dfairlite

It doesn't matter what the losers think about losing.

It doesn't matter what the winners think about winning either. Don't exit your echo chamber and actually read the opposition. It might scare you. it might make you realize that the ends don't justify the means.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

If we don't hear about these gun seizures, how do we know that they're happening? You are one person out of 322 million, and there are 400 million guns in private hands.

You are involved in a case in which all your guns have been seized by the Government? ATF? Were you trafficking? On what basis did they seize your weapons?

The Supreme Court fulfilled its Constitutional duties and ruled on a case brought before it citing the Constitution and case law precedents. State laws are and have been secondary to the Constitution and Federal law (again, COTUS, Article VI, Clause 2).

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Dfairlite

It doesn't matter what the losers think about losing.

you would make a grand little puppet for a tyrannical government.

a reply to: Dfairlite

.. and such (childish, partisan) warnings were based not on any law, not on the Constitution, but only upon their own petulant political beliefs.

YOU were the one who said your Four dissenters had been "right every time." That's another meaning of infallible, in case you didn't recognize it. If you're going back on that now, I understand.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Dfairlite

.. and such (childish, partisan) warnings were based not on any law, not on the Constitution, but only upon their own petulant political beliefs.

YOU were the one who said your Four dissenters had been "right every time." That's another meaning of infallible, in case you didn't recognize it. If you're going back on that now, I understand.

Such a cherry picker you are. it's kind of pathetic. I said "they have been right on the next step in the progression of this issue every time". That's not infallible but you aren't quite bright enough to understand that, are you?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Dfairlite

.. and such (childish, partisan) warnings were based not on any law, not on the Constitution, but only upon their own petulant political beliefs.

YOU were the one who said your Four dissenters had been "right every time." That's another meaning of infallible, in case you didn't recognize it. If you're going back on that now, I understand.

Also funny to heat you call the dissenters childish and not based in the Constitution because that's exactly what the majority did with their decision.

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Dfairlite

.. and such (childish, partisan) warnings were based not on any law, not on the Constitution, but only upon their own petulant political beliefs.

YOU were the one who said your Four dissenters had been "right every time." That's another meaning of infallible, in case you didn't recognize it. If you're going back on that now, I understand.

Such a cherry picker you are. it's kind of pathetic. I said "they have been right on the next step in the progression of this issue every time". That's not infallible but you aren't quite bright enough to understand that, are you?

Perhaps you should Google ad hominem again. Maybe bookmark it.

Fine, if you want to go back on your worshipful appreciation for Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas, it's fine by me. You've been inconsistent with most of your argument thus far, so it's not really surprising. No skin off me.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Don't exit your echo chamber and actually read the opposition.

Have you read the Decision?

“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

Read more: www.politico.com...

a reply to: Dfairlite

You're merely misrpresenting the truth now. Grossly so.

Obergfell v. Hodges, Majority Opinion

(b) The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. Pp. 10–27.
(1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries.

When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed. Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. For example, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12, invalidated bans on interracial unions, and Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 95, held that prisoners could not be denied the right to marry. To be sure, these cases presumed a relationship involving opposite-sex partners, as did Baker v. Nelson, 409 U. S. 810, a
one-line summary decision issued in 1972, holding that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage did not present a substantial federal question. But other, more instructive precedents have expressed broader principles. See, e.g., Lawrence, supra, at 574. In assessing whether the force and rationale of its cases apply to same-sex couples,
the Court must respect the basic reasons why the right to marry has been long protected. See, e.g., Eisenstadt, supra, at 453–454. This analysis compels the conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.

Notice the very clear argument starting with the Constitution itself and proceeding through case law. You won't find anything like that in Scalia or Roberts' so-called dissensions.