Supreme Court Rejects Gay Marriage Appeals From 5 States

That is, with the exception of Colorado and Oregon. Nevada and Wisconsin don't count because their versions didn't include the same state rights as marriage.

I would say the issue with Colorado and Oregon is that they are creating a second-tier "marriage" which isn't recognised either federally or internationally, and denies federal benefits. Basically, it can't even be considered "separate but equal". It's unequal.

For all the other states no such consideration applies. There is only marriage.

 

The courts didn't create a "separate but equal" institution, the people of the state did, and they did it in support of gay rights. The courts could remove discrimination easily by equating civil unions to marriage at every level and minute detail, except in name. My point is even if that happened, it wouldn't satisfy the gay community because they want their definition of a union to be "marriage".

- - - Updated - - -

Ah but it's not Colorado's fault the Federal government doesn't recognize civil unions, that's the Federal government's discrimination.

 

Signs and symptoms? You want a list? I have a list.

Benghazi.
Ebola.
Obama.
Osama.
Black people being President.
Occupy Wall Street.
Benghazi.
Class warfare against the rich.
Benghazi.
Gays.
War on Christmas.
No more prayer at baseball games.
Benghazi.
The left wing, racist attacks against Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, our intellectual heroes.
Derrick Rose missing the 2014 season.
Benghazi.

 

The legislative push for marriage equality in states that had civil unions or equivalent (usually consisting of limited/enumerated rights) was largely due to the Supreme Court's striking down of DOMA in 2012, meaning that these unions represented an actual, tangible denial of federal rights. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are granted no federal recognition. So the easiest thing to do rather than waiting for Congress to act was to upgrade it to marriage - the growing consensus.

As for the courts, I'm not sure what you mean by "equating civil unions to marriage at every level". In Utah, the only institution of this nature that exists is marriage. The court cannot act as a legislature and impose a new institution called "civil unions", it can only remove the discrimination from the one and only institution of that kind that exists in that state: marriage.

 

Sounds all gay to me. Like a mandate. President Obama likes man dates. And BENGHAZI

 

It's not the federal government's fault that Colorado decided to create a separate but equal institution, either. The government recognises marriage and no longer defines it any way. The only tangible discrimination is created by the states who wilfully choose to restrict that definition to opposite-sex couples.

 

But Benghazi... and gays

 

Really? I for one couldn't give two (*)(*)(*)(*)s what "your gawd" thinks, for if he is as described in the buybull, he's a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*). Regardless, religious rules are irrelevant when it comes to secular law.

 

Ben Gaz EEEEEEEEEEE

 

Which is relevant to religion how, exactly??

 

If you can't refute Benghazi, how can you ever refute the sanctity of my marriage? If gays are allowed to marry, me and my wife might just have to get a divorce.

 

Not my problem. If you feel it's necessary, then do so. I, myself, love my wife very much, so homosexuals being allowed to marry will never cause me to divorce her phat ass.

 

I'm pretty sure he's joking around DentalFloss... You know, doing a 'Colbert' >_>

 

WELL gues what dude YOU WILL MISS OUT ON THE KINGDOM OF GOD FOR YOUR SINS gays will ruin the earth with their wickedness lolol

- - - Updated - - -

Benghazi.

 

Don't forget, some Christians almost had to make the gays a cake.

 

Well thats just not cool

 

Sorry I am late. Have you got a current passport? http://www.skyscanner.com/flights-to/mct/airlines-that-fly-to-muscat-airport.html

 

Whether the supreme court ruled against same sex marriage or for it, it won't really matter. Several states have opted for it. Some states allow same sex couples to get married but insist that they are civilly united and it's different. It will only gain homosexuals more standing. Churches are accepting it, conservatives are staining to support it. There will never be a real back lash, there rarely is, when those occur they tend to be inthe twilight of the nation's life.

More and more young people agree. It's inevitable.

Besides all of that, there will still be just as many gay people.

 

I can't say I'm really surprised at this point.

The Supreme Court seems like they are not going to rule on the issue, but rather allow each state court to make a ruling.

It's pretty simple math people. The SC will simply boot the appeals to state court rulings in favor of legalized gay marriage as there is no legitemate state interest in prohibiting gay marriage.

It allows for gay marriage to remain a state issue and it means sides with gay marriage as every ruling so far has come out in favor of gay marriage.

Are we having fun yet bigots?

 

You can pretend that my unequivocal advocacy of equality under law, regardless of race, religion, or gender is some sinister stratagem, and you can even extoll sharia law's embrace of discrimination in marriage law if that is your preference, but progress is indifferent to such sniveling.

Now, stop fretting over other folks being accorded the same treatment as you, and have a cookie.





.

 

Well we can certainly see if you actually HAVE an unequivocal advocacy of equality under law if you want. But I assure you that it will do nothing more than point out your blatant hypocrisy.

As far as sniveling... don't worry, I still live in NC and we have a constitutional amendment against homosexual marriage and still don't allow it... much like most states and when the supreme court justices rule that marriage is a state function... I'll be there to rub it in your face

BTW your idea of "progress" is going to have a 50 year old man legally pounding out a 12 year old boy in a few decades. I'm sure you'll be just as proud of that and extoll the virtues of "progress" afterwards too.

 

You seem terribly angry that advanced nations and states are increasingly respecting the equal rights of their citizens, and upset that such progress, where it has occurred, has not evidenced any of the cataclysmic consequences you fear.

What a "50 year old man legally pounding out a 12 year old boy in a few decades" has to do with equality escapes me - unless, in your state, a 50 year old man legally pounding out a 12 year old girl is permissible.

You may feel safe from the majority's acceptance of the government treating you and your neighbours alike in North Carolina - or in Saudi Arabia if you should ever require such a refuge - but most folks in Christendom just don't get in such a dither over what has now been amply demonstrated to have no adverse impact upon them.

Persisting in gnashing your teeth and scaring yourself with your imaginary monsters is just silly.

 

What liberals fail to realize is being for SSM is different than simply not caring.

I personally couldn't care less as long as they keep their garbage out of my face. Don't gratuitously announce it, don't put on silly public parades glorifying it, and don't fly juvenile flags. Keep it to yourself UNLESS I ASK. If I don't ask, I probably don't think it matters. Gays would probably have hissy fits if people started walking up to them asking if they're gay. "Ohhhhhhhhhhh, how RUDE!" They would screech that they're being compartmentalized, set apart, noticed for their demeanor. I can visualize the flouncy outrage.

I'll make a deal with gays: You shut up about your private life (keep it to yourself in case it's difficult to understand), and I won't give a rip.

 

State law dictated to them by the FEDERAL courts

 

These arent state courts making the rulings, they are FEDERAL courts.