Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage nationwide

I don't know that it has been properly honored in anti-gun places like New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, etc... but now it's wide open for a conceal carry licensed person to challenge one of those areas and solidify the right across all the states. You simply cite the Gay Marriage License precedent decided yesterday where all states have to honor the license of other states.

 

That is what I have been asking and how about the gutting of The Voting Rights Act?

 

Citizen's United was a horrible decision. The Voting Rights Act was ridiculousness and a quest by "Progressives" to gain political advantage.

>>>MOD EDIT Rule 8 Removed<<<

 

The gutting of The Voting Rights Act made it more difficult for particular groups of people to vote, so please explain how making voting easier and accessible is a bad idea.

 

Again, that is off-topic. Please start your own thread or find one that applies. Tag me on that thread and I will be happy to reply. I don't fault you due to the title change which certainly can cause confusion and apparently has.

Thanks,

HB Surfer

 

You are correct. In state after state, "gay marriage" was voted down, over and over. Then, Federal judges overturned the results of the elections that banned these unnatural relationships from being recognized as marriage in the foundational sense that civilizations throughout history have recognized them. Now, to trump all that, the Supreme Court has thrown open the last pathways for recognition of these deviant, mentally-defective relationships. Next will come the legalization of polygamy, which will become a useful tool for selective breeding, but that will be the topic of a different thread.

In truth, "gay marriage" may not be an altogether bad thing, and here's what I think is REALLY behind all of it: overpopulation! The living human population of the planet has J-curved in the last 100 years -- in spite of numerous wars, diseases, disasters, etc. The globalist "insiders" who have been running more and more of human affairs since the end of World War II first began their attempts at population control by making it more and more expensive to have children, but that is really only working in some of the more advanced, densely-populated parts of the U. S., Europe, Japan, etc., and meanwhile, the population had gone on skyrocketing upwards to today's count of more than 7.33 BILLION people.

It was therefore seen as necessary to launch a "crash" program to promote acceptance of homosexual lifestyles and relationships, because, obviously, homosexuals do not contribute to the overpopulation problem. It will take years before the population-reducing benefits are realized, of course, mainly because most of today's population growth is in the Third World countries, where there are economic, cultural, and religious factors that heavily influence breeding behavior.

But, these social experimenters figured, accurately, that you have to start somewhere, and the best place to begin is in the world's richest, most advanced countries. So, the logical first step would be to legalize, and promote, "gay marriage". What has been instinctively repulsive and rejected by all of the world's great civilizations will now become socially acceptable, and even elevated into being something that is admirable, and celebrated in movies, TV shows, on and on.

The ironic thing is that by this point, medical science should have focused on the real root-causes of the homosexual deviancy, at first involving a defective sense of smell at birth! This has been known for decades, but the last thing that social-behavior manipulators want is a cure for homosexuality! Some of you may find the following interesting if you haven't already been brain-washed into thinking that homosexuality is "normal":
http://www.inforefuge.com/science-of-smell-same-sex-attraction
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...sexual-orientation-study-reveals-6146507.html
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/05/09/3436087/gay-pheromone-smell-study/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0510_050510_gayscent.html

Curious about what else these "insiders" have mapped out in their social engineering plan for us all? Re-read George Orwell's masterpiece, "1984" -- especially paying close attention to a section in it called, "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_and_Practice_of_Oligarchical_Collectivism

 

someone else can test out those legal waters, not me

 

Nature is most likely the hand that intervenes in cutting down on population...

Female rabbits reabsorb embryos into their bodies if conditions are not favorable for adding to their population, so why would nature not step in to intervene with humans? It would, but with fertility treatments and the constant medical innovations and interventions in that area and more treatments to prevent miscarriages, how can nature do its job? It has crossed my mind that this is natures way of finding a way...by more homosexual children being born. This theory makes much more sense to me than a conspiracy theory.

 

As I said before, eventually conservatives will regain power. A conservative will win the presidency again. Liberals won't be in power forever, but they have opened the door for absolutely anything to be rammed through against the will of the people. I wonder if they'll be dancing in the streets if the next republican president eliminates all gun laws, overturns obamacare, and eliminates welfare. Impossible? Just appoint a few very conservative judges to the supreme court and see.

 

The court is majority conservative now. All they did here was follow the constitution. The 14th amendment precludes discrimination based on gender. That's why you lost.

 

The hysterical wacko birds are going berserk, but savvy Republicans realize they ducked two bullets this week, as the conservative rag of the establishment elites has noted:

The pamby-pamby GOP pols will issue something along the line of, "I personally believe that marriage is, ideally, a sacred union between a decrepit old geezer and a smokin' hot babe, but the law is the law," and they'll indulge in their vapid kvetching about nationalized RomneyCare without making any serious attempts to repeal it.

Of course, they'll all now want to take a racist murderer's repugnant flag away, but, never, never, never his gun.

Why should they"

Bullets miss them.

​

 

It has a lot to do with it.

 

Who was discriminated against based on gender?

 

They ruled it was a protected right under the 14th Amendment and a fundamental right to be married, that is enough, the odds of this being overturned is low. You do understand we are not technically a Democracy but a Republic under a Constitution it not mob rule the minority has in principle the same rights as everyone else. I don't understand the issues of the critics gays are citizens, they want to marry a status under government interest so they are treated just like straight couples.

 

So a case where 5 unelected dictators decided who was going to be President and another where 5 unelected dictators decided that corporations are people and money is speech (even though 2 of those dictators had wives who worked for the plaintiffs and didn't recuse themselves) had nothing noteworthy of comment?

 

There was no such case.

That would be like "deciding" gravity propels massive objects toward rather than away from each other.

Spending money to disseminate ideas is an exercise of the right of free speech, obviously.

Statements of the obvious never do. You're welcome.

 

I notice you deliberately cut out my statement about Scalia and Thoas refusing to recuse themselves. What is it? Is the Right unable to defend the obvious corruption and conflict of interest?

 

Lack of relevance to the issues. You're welcome.

 

I had to chuckle when I read John Roberts' dissent.

He mused that heterosexual marriage ...

"... has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen (his pejorative term) and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?"

Well, Jacko, I suppose most of us think we are more like 21st century Argentinians, Belgians, Brazilians, Canadians, Danish, Dutch, Finnish, French, Icelanders, Irish, Luxembourgers, Mexicans, New Zealander, Norwegians, Portuguese, Slovenians, South Africans, Spanish, Swedish, and Uruguayans.

Of course, in the the primitive societies cited, polygamy was common - especially among privileged elites ... like our Supreme Court justices.

Jacko! You randy old dog, you!

​

(Yep, those Aztecs who not only had multiple-partner unions, but enslaved folks and indulged in human sacrifice as well, set the standard for you, JR, not those contemporary, democratic Mexicans that do not discriminate by gender in their marriage laws.)


.

 

In my opinion it isn't gays doing anything to add to the disintegration, it's the government-enforced view that marriage is primarily about the happiness of two individuals vice the health of the family. I think you're right that adultery, divorce - particularly no-fault divorce - have done more to erode the status of family in society; but this is another nail in the coffin rather than a dose of antidote.

 

"has formed the basis of human society for millennia"......he's right there.

"Kalahari Bushmen (his pejorative term)"......nothing derogatory there.

"Of course, in the primitive societies cited".....Seems like an insensitive, racist comment. Don't you know all societies and cultures are equal.

"I suppose most of us think we are more like 21st century Argentinians, Brazilians, Mexicans, and Uruguayans."....Well, we are now.

 

That's a fair criticism. I think (or thought) it was the states' jobs to enforce a view of family that was in their interests. According to this ruling, they are required to enforce a view of family as defined by political activists and endorsed by five justices of the Supreme Court.

 

Strange, I agree with the rationale of Justice Roberts on both accounts. The intent of the ACA was clear, even if the language of certain sections seemed to paint the law into a corner.

On the marriage issue, I agree with the conservatives this time - state recognition of marriage is not a "fundamental right" for anyone, gay or straight. The only fundamental right is the freedom to marry. We do not need approval from states or governments to exercise the freedom to marry. In fact, we do not need approval from states or governments to exercise any of our fundamental rights. That's what makes them fundamental rights! According to the majority opinion here, the government is the source of people's rights - meaning without the government we don't have them! What??? That is in complete contradiction to the founding documents of our nation! If that view takes hold like it did here, it will spread like a cancer.... it is a much more serious step toward socialism than the ACA anything else President Obama ever did.

 

Indeed, slavery, polygamy, and human sacrifice were commonplace for ages.

The term &#8216;Bushmen&#8217; (Boschimanner) was given in the 17th century by the Dutch settlers to the diminutive hunting peoples of South Africa. It has also been used to describe the handlers of George W "Dubya" Bush.during his regime.

Sorry, if you are an Aztec or a Carthaginian. Roberts seemed to be dredging up ancient people, those of indisputably primitive eras.

Welcome to 2015, Mr Aztec (or Carthaginian, as the case may be.) I hope you are not too upset by progress

 

You could be right! Nevertheless, the world's population achieved a total of approximately 2 billion live human beings by the year 1927. Now, a mere 88 years later, the total is moving up rapidly from today's figure of 7.25 billion (a sliver less than I had posted earlier) -- a stupendous increase! Surely medical "interventions", which are only affordable and generally available in the First World, cannot account for this meteoric rise in human population worldwide! Anyway, my hat's off to the rabbits... now, if only we had a "rabbit in our hat".