Win for the Gays

Twinkies Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:25 am

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court/?hpt=hp_t1

Look for legalized gay marriage coming to a state near you.

BladeRunner Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:31 am

Twinkies wrote:http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court/?hpt=hp_t1

Look for legalized gay marriage coming to a state near you.

Good for you.

I know someone who wants to marry his dog. That will be next. You know, because it's perfectly natural.

According to RWB, EVERY species in nature has homosexuality in it.

Darth Cheney Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:37 am

Who will wear the garter belt...Twinks or Whinnar?

BladeRunner Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:06 am

Darth Cheney wrote:Who will wear the garter belt...Twinks or Whinnar?

Are they really gay or is it a joke?

Darth Cheney Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:14 am

BladeRunner wrote:
Darth Cheney wrote:Who will wear the garter belt...Twinks or Whinnar?

Are they really gay or is it a joke?

Yes:tongue:

Twinkies Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:17 am

BladeRunner wrote:
Darth Cheney wrote:Who will wear the garter belt...Twinks or Whinnar?

Are they really gay or is it a joke?

Its a joke Darth made up. Everyone who isnt against gay marriage is all of a sudden gay too.

Freedom Forever Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:46 am

Redefining marriage, a cultural pillar, will have no negative effect on said culture. Just keep repeating it.

God have mercy on us .............................. please forgive us.

BladeRunner Wed Jun 26, 2013 12:56 pm

Freedom Forever wrote:Redefining marriage, a cultural pillar, will have no negative effect on said culture. Just keep repeating it.

God have mercy on us .............................. please forgive us.

You remember the discussion Abraham had with the Lord and two angels, don't you? And how many righteous people were at the ill-fated place his nephew lot was living it. God is patient, but not forever.....

Gomezz Adddams Wed Jun 26, 2013 1:00 pm

Not unexpected. Not surprising.

Scalia said it best in his dissent:

"But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority's judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to "disparage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race."

What a travesty. What a farce.

BladeRunner Wed Jun 26, 2013 1:02 pm

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/26/hold-on-doma-wasnt-totally-thrown-out-heres-the-provision-that-could-lead-to-another-gay-marriage-battle/

Section 2, which was not considered by the Supreme Court in the Windsor case, declares that states and territories of the United States have the right to deny recognition of same-sex marriages that originated in other states or territories.

Same-sex couples face several major problems that arise from Section 2 of DOMA. If a same-sex couple is married in Vermont, for example, and moves to Pennsylvania, their marriage is no longer valid.

Sec. 2 reads, “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”

RedWhiteBlue Wed Jun 26, 2013 1:41 pm

BladeRunner wrote:http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/26/hold-on-doma-wasnt-totally-thrown-out-heres-the-provision-that-could-lead-to-another-gay-marriage-battle/

Section 2, which was not considered by the Supreme Court in the Windsor case, declares that states and territories of the United States have the right to deny recognition of same-sex marriages that originated in other states or territories.

Same-sex couples face several major problems that arise from Section 2 of DOMA. If a same-sex couple is married in Vermont, for example, and moves to Pennsylvania, their marriage is no longer valid.

Sec. 2 reads, “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”

Yes. That part was not acted upon. Do you think it should be? Do you think it will be?

Darth Cheney Wed Jun 26, 2013 2:24 pm

RedWhiteBlue wrote:
BladeRunner wrote:http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/26/hold-on-doma-wasnt-totally-thrown-out-heres-the-provision-that-could-lead-to-another-gay-marriage-battle/

Section 2, which was not considered by the Supreme Court in the Windsor case, declares that states and territories of the United States have the right to deny recognition of same-sex marriages that originated in other states or territories.

Same-sex couples face several major problems that arise from Section 2 of DOMA. If a same-sex couple is married in Vermont, for example, and moves to Pennsylvania, their marriage is no longer valid.

Sec. 2 reads, “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”

Yes. That part was not acted upon. Do you think it should be? Do you think it will be?

Why not allow states to own slaves? What do you think DA?

There is no second class citizen class in this nation and every state, town, county and church will be required to marry, promote gay diversity, etc., etc. The liberals have achieved their goal of destroying the greatest nation ever known with their social experimentation. I only hope they will be judged in the end harshly and without mercy.

sodaknomad Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:22 pm

RedWhiteBlue wrote:
BladeRunner wrote:http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/26/hold-on-doma-wasnt-totally-thrown-out-heres-the-provision-that-could-lead-to-another-gay-marriage-battle/

Section 2, which was not considered by the Supreme Court in the Windsor case, declares that states and territories of the United States have the right to deny recognition of same-sex marriages that originated in other states or territories.

Same-sex couples face several major problems that arise from Section 2 of DOMA. If a same-sex couple is married in Vermont, for example, and moves to Pennsylvania, their marriage is no longer valid.

Sec. 2 reads, “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”

Yes. That part was not acted upon. Do you think it should be? Do you think it will be?

No. Marriage is a SACRAMENT. Do you understand sacrament? It is NOT a function of government. It IS a function reserved solely to the synagogue and church. Next, you're going to want to force pastors and rabbis to perform your unnatural "marriages."

God have mercy on our nation. 3 "men" and 2 "women" have sold us to Satan.

Twinkies Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:44 pm

sodaknomad wrote:

No. Marriage is a SACRAMENT. Do you understand sacrament? It is NOT a function of government. It IS a function reserved solely to the synagogue and church. Next, you're going to want to force pastors and rabbis to perform your unnatural "marriages."

God have mercy on our nation. 3 "men" and 2 "women" have sold us to Satan.

You are right! We agree. Marriage shouldnt have anything to do with the Government. It should all be up to the Church. If your church believes in a certain type of marriage so be it. But the Government shouldnt be part of it. And there should be no benefits or negatives tax wise for being married or un married. Government should get out of the business of marriage.

Darth Cheney Thu Jun 27, 2013 6:32 am

Twinkies wrote:
sodaknomad wrote:

No. Marriage is a SACRAMENT. Do you understand sacrament? It is NOT a function of government. It IS a function reserved solely to the synagogue and church. Next, you're going to want to force pastors and rabbis to perform your unnatural "marriages."

God have mercy on our nation. 3 "men" and 2 "women" have sold us to Satan.
You are right! We agree. Marriage shouldnt have anything to do with the Government. It should all be up to the Church. If your church believes in a certain type of marriage so be it. But the Government shouldnt be part of it. And there should be no benefits or negatives tax wise for being married or un married. Government should get out of the business of marriage.

Marriage tax benefits are minimal if at all. The government receives benefits from stable married couples having children and growing a stable society. Look at the problems created by single parents, absent dads, and baby mommas.

pse1124 Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:15 am

I always thought DOMA was unconstitutional. There is nothing in the constitution that gives the federal government the power to regulate marriage, therefore it should fall to the states to regulate. After all, you don't buy a federal marriage license.

But why is it that I was always under the impresion that a republican president signed this thing into law? Because the gays never seem to mention that it was the first black president (Bill Clinton) that signed DOMA into law. They always seem to leave that part out.

Darth Cheney Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:03 am

pse1124 wrote:I always thought DOMA was unconstitutional. There is nothing in the constitution that gives the federal government the power to regulate marriage, therefore it should fall to the states to regulate. After all, you don't buy a federal marriage license.

But why is it that I was always under the impresion that a republican president signed this thing into law? Because the gays never seem to mention that it was the first black president (Bill Clinton) that signed DOMA into law. They always seem to leave that part out.

Their moral shallowness knows no bounds.

Gomezz Adddams Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:21 am

Twinkies wrote:
sodaknomad wrote:

No. Marriage is a SACRAMENT. Do you understand sacrament? It is NOT a function of government. It IS a function reserved solely to the synagogue and church. Next, you're going to want to force pastors and rabbis to perform your unnatural "marriages."

God have mercy on our nation. 3 "men" and 2 "women" have sold us to Satan.
You are right! We agree. Marriage shouldnt have anything to do with the Government. It should all be up to the Church. If your church believes in a certain type of marriage so be it. But the Government shouldnt be part of it. And there should be no benefits or negatives tax wise for being married or un married. Government should get out of the business of marriage.

Then government should get out of estate planning. If it hadn't been for a bitchy ol' lesbo crabbing about her tax bill, the Supreme Court would have shown her the door just as they would have if the case had involved two siblings who had lived together and combined their resources. The simple fact is marriage laws and estate laws were designed to encourage families to have children in order to further the State's interest in maintaining at a minimum the replacement rate in the population. Absent this, the government should do away with all inheritance taxes and put everyone on equal footing.

Confused18 Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:53 pm

Good for GLBT's!!!

Proud to see gov't take there hands off one more thing it doesn't belong on in the first place. Marriage first and foremost is a contractual agreement and traditionally has NOTHING to do with religion. So, EQUALITY for EVERYONE, is naturally the only way to have marriage set up and endorsed by the gov't. I how ever think we should ban ALL marriage from a legal stand point. If you want to change your name and be married, fine, but there should be no legal binding between any two humans IMO.

Either way, glad to see U.S. taking steps in the right direction to TRUE equality for EVERYONE!

Jammer Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:56 pm

Same sex marriage will have an absolutely devastating effect on our society. By any measurable standard, children fare best when they are raised by both a father and a mother. There are enough stresses on the traditional family unit today as the result of progressive liberal mentality. Adding the additional perverted progressive liberal agenda of same sex marriage will only go one giant step further in the wrong direction.

Natural marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation for a strong and stable society. If we allow progressive liberals to redefine God’s design of nature, we end up destabilizing society. Strong traditional families result in strong stable societies. Studying nature helps to show us what is right in the world. Natural marriage between a man and a woman matters and we must do everything we can to protect it.

Twinkies Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:14 pm

Whats a traditional family? How many single parents are there now days? Far more than gay parents I would assume. Are they ruining society too?

Confused18 Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:40 pm

Darth Cheney wrote:
Twinkies wrote:
sodaknomad wrote:

No. Marriage is a SACRAMENT. Do you understand sacrament? It is NOT a function of government. It IS a function reserved solely to the synagogue and church. Next, you're going to want to force pastors and rabbis to perform your unnatural "marriages."

God have mercy on our nation. 3 "men" and 2 "women" have sold us to Satan.
You are right! We agree. Marriage shouldnt have anything to do with the Government. It should all be up to the Church. If your church believes in a certain type of marriage so be it. But the Government shouldnt be part of it. And there should be no benefits or negatives tax wise for being married or un married. Government should get out of the business of marriage.
Marriage tax benefits are minimal if at all. The government receives benefits from stable married couples having children and growing a stable society. Look at the problems created by single parents, absent dads, and baby mommas.

Because a straight couple getting married 2-3-4 times is SOOOOOOO much more stable for children...

Darth you got such a grasp on reality it hard to argue...

Confused18 Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:46 pm

Jammer wrote:Same sex marriage will have an absolutely devastating effect on our society. By any measurable standard, children fare best when they are raised by both a father and a mother. There are enough stresses on the traditional family unit today as the result of progressive liberal mentality. Adding the additional perverted progressive liberal agenda of same sex marriage will only go one giant step further in the wrong direction.

Natural marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation for a strong and stable society. If we allow progressive liberals to redefine God’s design of nature, we end up destabilizing society. Strong traditional families result in strong stable societies. Studying nature helps to show us what is right in the world. Natural marriage between a man and a woman matters and we must do everything we can to protect it.

REALLY?!?!!? At one point it was also illegal for blacks and whites to get married. It wasn't '"traditional" as you put it, and caused a lot of stress. Maybe we should ban that again too...

God's design... PLEASE, WTF does god have to do with it? Who's god? Your god? Please tell me in the bible where it defines marriage? Please show me in the constitution where it says we're a christian nation, and should design our laws around the bible...

Confused18 Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:50 pm

sodaknomad wrote:
RedWhiteBlue wrote:
BladeRunner wrote:http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/26/hold-on-doma-wasnt-totally-thrown-out-heres-the-provision-that-could-lead-to-another-gay-marriage-battle/

Section 2, which was not considered by the Supreme Court in the Windsor case, declares that states and territories of the United States have the right to deny recognition of same-sex marriages that originated in other states or territories.

Same-sex couples face several major problems that arise from Section 2 of DOMA. If a same-sex couple is married in Vermont, for example, and moves to Pennsylvania, their marriage is no longer valid.

Sec. 2 reads, “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”

Yes. That part was not acted upon. Do you think it should be? Do you think it will be?

No. Marriage is a SACRAMENT. Do you understand sacrament? It is NOT a function of government. It IS a function reserved solely to the synagogue and church. Next, you're going to want to force pastors and rabbis to perform your unnatural "marriages."

God have mercy on our nation. 3 "men" and 2 "women" have sold us to Satan.

Marriage is NOT a sacrament. Marriage predates christianity dumb ass... It's a legal binding contract, no more no less.

Sacrament defined here>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=sacrament+definition&oq=sacr&aqs=chrome.1.57j59j0l2j62l2.1681j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

try again...

Darth Cheney Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:52 pm

Butt sex and killing babies...the pillars of liberalism.

Sponsored content

Win for the Gays

Win for the Gays

Re: Win for the Gays

Re: Win for the Gays

Re: Win for the Gays

Re: Win for the Gays

Re: Win for the Gays

Re: Win for the Gays

Re: Win for the Gays

Re: Win for the Gays

Re: Win for the Gays

Re: Win for the Gays

Re: Win for the Gays

Re: Win for the Gays

Re: Win for the Gays

Re: Win for the Gays

Re: Win for the Gays

Re: Win for the Gays

Re: Win for the Gays

Re: Win for the Gays

Re: Win for the Gays

Re: Win for the Gays

Re: Win for the Gays

Re: Win for the Gays

Re: Win for the Gays

Re: Win for the Gays

Re: Win for the Gays