Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide

I'm done wasting my time on fools who would follow a dictator over a cliff if he would just tell them what they want to hear. There are too many people on here devoid of critical thought when it comes to their ideology, even when it's blatantly pointed out to them. Enjoy the tyranny headed your way.

a reply to: Dfairlite

LOL, yeah 'cuz equal rights always equals tyranny!

HAHA!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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).

I have the right to bear arms if not a felon or mentally incapacitated. What is trafficking to your mindset/a garage sale wherein this county people can gather and sell Grandpas ranch relics? Yes ATF raided my home; because (undisclosed name as yet even in court paperwork) "concerned citizen was CONCERNED". ATF will take the inch a MILE. You do not understand; the Federal Government has a plan to disarm you.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
I'm done wasting my time on fools who would follow a dictator over a cliff if he would just tell them what they want to hear. There are too many people on here devoid of critical thought when it comes to their ideology, even when it's blatantly pointed out to them. Enjoy the tyranny headed your way.

That's a hoot. Who here has repeatedly quoted the Constitution and legal precedents nad case law? Who has repeatedly pointed out the facts of the matters at hand, and reasonably responded to any contrary evidence?

Hint: not you.

Best.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

I can understand that you'd be a bit sore. I hope if your case has merits you will prevail.

Your case does not imply any sort of widespread gun seizures in this country. The number is 400 million increasing at better than 10 million a year.

The 2nd is safe.

Best.

a reply to: Dfairlite

So now that Amendment 14 is the Constitution, are you taking back your statement that this ruling had nothing to do with the Constitution?

But yeah, let's add an amendment that contradicts the 14th Amendment. Why stop there? Let's make an amendment that bans free speech, I mean who cares if it contradicts the First Amendment? If it's made an amendment it's constitutional!

Do you see the glaring problem with your "logic" here?

It is all about president settings. Whether BATFE has the right to raid a law abiding citizens home and essentially 'mousetrap' them legally using State laws that were/or are not clear enough to thwart that action (RAID/confiscation of guns). My case is ONLY about the 'mousetrap'. Its interesting; and the reason I mention this is the Federal Governments overreach upon the individual States to now dictate/impliment a gay/lesbian marriage mandate. What if they dictate "no one can own a firearm".

a reply to: Dfairlite

As long as it's a Gay Tyranny right

i mean wait until your forced to wear body glitter...

I am totally confused this is about same-sex marriage . Yet there is tons of people in here fighting about gun rights and 1st, 2nd amendment. Why does this always happen? I am starting to believe alot of members join ATS just so they can fight with other members ..... Unreal.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

But this is not a "dictate."

A case worked it's way through the American judicial system.

The Supreme Court heard the argument brought, and agreed that, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to all Americans (regardless of their sex) the right to enter into a state-ordained contract and then have that contract recognized in all of the US states. This was already the law in 37 states.

Truly, go read it. Links are provided above.

a reply to: apoc36
Its just a community of people that agree in a trusted environment (but really cannot stand one other but still maintaining a best friend status). I get it: its called being polite/diplomatic and magnanimous; and hopefully making some lifelong friends along the way.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: veteranhumanbeing

Gryphon66: But this is not a "dictate."
A case worked it's way through the American judicial system.

The Supreme Court heard the argument brought, and agreed that, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to all Americans (regardless of their sex) the right to enter into a state-ordained contract and then have that contract recognized in all of the US states. This was already the law in 37 states.

Truly, go read it. Links are provided above.

I understand this. My problem is with the Supreme Court. On principle, just like a normal Jury of 12 hearing a case is/has to be a unanimous decision. If four Justices were against how does this become law? Its not even close. Why does this not translate to our local jury system; you have one member that can hang the verdict. I do not care if they are Judges as in so being should know better than to render a decision with so many of their own in objection.

On a side note... i haven't heard of any violent attacks yet.. or maybe they just haven't been reported on.. and with the high statistics rate of GLBTQ deaths it may be harder to tell if it's because the ruling, or just because they live

a reply to: Darth_Prime
I think love prevails in whatever form it takes and is valuable and to be cherished; if it means a legal certificate that defines that love, some one else will eventually make money on the unbinding of that "declaration of love certificate". Its worth it.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Yeah, but it doesn't stop people from being Violent.. GLBTQ people die daily before the ruling, my fear was that it would increase attacks

originally posted by: Dfairlite
I'm done wasting my time on fools who would follow a dictator over a cliff if he would just tell them what they want to hear. There are too many people on here devoid of critical thought when it comes to their ideology, even when it's blatantly pointed out to them. Enjoy the tyranny headed your way.

This is richer than snorting a pile of raw
powdered dark chocolate laced with gold dust.

Equal rights = tyranny!!!!

originally posted by: JohnFisher

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JohnFisher

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JohnFisher

Not foolish at all. Again I bring up the Loving v Virgina ruling in 1967. How many religious liberties have been trampled since then in reference to that ruling?

That's different. Interracial marriage is not against biblical principles, and the churches largely fixed the apostisy within the church thereby mitigating any infringements that might have otherwise come to pass. There is however clear and concise teachings about homosexuality and what marriage is. Though some churches willingly ignore these teachings, it does not negate how obviousvthe teachings are.

HAHAHA! You actually think that is different? Did you miss the article I posted earlier in the thread that showed that literally the EXACT same arguments were used against interracial marriage as are being used against gay marriage? The only reason you think it is a different issue is because you grew up with interracial marriages being legal and acceptable and probably weren't as exposed to the anti-arguments. Just go study history. Heck, I've already posted plenty of links in the thread about it. It shouldn't even be hard to do the research. Just click on all my links.

Pretending like they are different arguments is just straight up cognitive dissonance. Sorry, but you are wrong.

Yes, I DO think they are different. Don't assume that I'm so ignorant of history. You can laugh, and you can point out similarities, but I'm not wrong on this one. I easily could be wrong about a few points, but this is in fact different.

Explain how they are different then. I showed my side of the argument as to why they are the same. You can't just say, "nuh huh! I disagree you are wrong they are different," and think that is acceptable as an argument. If you think they are different arguments, then explain yourself. Where is the difference?

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Greathouse

I'm confused as to what this has to do with Islam at all... This country isn't under Sharia Law and it isn't illegal to draw a picture of Mohammad.

We become more 'infidelized' with this law. Now we are in real trouble with the long (head beheading) arms of "across continents" Sharia Law.
What happened to common law long term relationships/it takes care of this issue.

What? Is this being ironic or funny? Because it doesn't make sense as a serious post.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Great exit. Way to bow out.

I didn't bow out. You started your argument with the point that gays already had equality because a gay man was free to marry a woman. See?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
under state law any man (gay or straight) can marry any woman (gay or straight).
...
The supreme court changed the definition of marriage, the essence of the relationship. They didn't establish equality, because it already existed.

And I proved that untrue with this post. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then you immediately changed your argument to "gay marriage will destroy society!". And now, you're sourcing FRC, an anti-gay hate group, as your proof...

I just refuse to debate with someone who keeps changing the goalposts.

Wish I could be happier for this, but I keep on thinking it's just something they're doing to keep us from looking at something else. But at least they shouldn't be able to use this to distract people anymore.