This will pry tick off some one.

Confused18 wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote: I could care less about how you feel.  

Isn't this the problem in a nut shell?  You can't make everyone happy, and I get that, but to simply dismiss some one because you don't agree with them is fairly irresponsible as human IMO.  I love to engage all walks of life, even when I disagree.  That's how you should evolve your opinions.

Darth Cheney wrote:

Confused18 wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote: I could care less about how you feel.  

Isn't this the problem in a nut shell?  You can't make everyone happy, and I get that, but to simply dismiss some one because you don't agree with them is fairly irresponsible as human IMO.  I love to engage all walks of life, even when I disagree.  That's how you should evolve your opinions.

 You mean like dismissing heterosexuals defining marriage as between one man and one woman? Why, you must be irresponsible!

Confused18 wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Confused18 wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote: I could care less about how you feel.  

Isn't this the problem in a nut shell?  You can't make everyone happy, and I get that, but to simply dismiss some one because you don't agree with them is fairly irresponsible as human IMO.  I love to engage all walks of life, even when I disagree.  That's how you should evolve your opinions.

 You mean like dismissing heterosexuals defining marriage as between one man and one woman? Why, you must be irresponsible!

You mean hetero's cant get married now?  They can continue to do as they please?   Remember at one point we also defined women and people of color as less than a normal system, with no voting rights, as well as many other short comings.  We as white men have been trampled on terribly!!!!

Darth Cheney wrote:

Confused18 wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Confused18 wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote: I could care less about how you feel.  

Isn't this the problem in a nut shell?  You can't make everyone happy, and I get that, but to simply dismiss some one because you don't agree with them is fairly irresponsible as human IMO.  I love to engage all walks of life, even when I disagree.  That's how you should evolve your opinions.

 You mean like dismissing heterosexuals defining marriage as between one man and one woman? Why, you must be irresponsible!

You mean hetero's cant get married now?  They can continue to do as they please?   Remember at one point we also defined women and people of color as less than a normal system, with no voting rights, as well as many other short comings.  We as white men have been trampled on terribly!!!!

 Have you watched Travon's girlfriend testifying?

Darth Cheney wrote:Sitting on the fence all the time must be tiring...

I see absolutely zero fault with Zimmerman shooting and killing this thug...zero.  There are legally armed people all around so before you want to go ultimate fighting on somebody keep in mind you might end up dead.

Trevon's girlfriend testimony was a text book case of the liberal failure of protecting union teachers and keeping blacks on the plantation. This girl, and most blacks, have absolutely zero chance of making anything of their lives which has all been orchestrated by the democrats to maintain an idiot voting base.

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Darth - What rights were taken away from heterosexual married couples in that SC decision?

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Darth - What rights were taken away from heterosexual married couples in that SC decision?

Darth Cheney wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Darth - What rights were taken away from heterosexual married couples in that SC decision?

 The most precious and sacred institution between a man and woman was bastardized by a bunch of sexual deviants an social misfits.  Also, "Rights" are not given by government...they are given by God or natural for you atheists.  To a liberal I am sure that doesn't make any sense but that is only because your brain doesn't function correctly. The homos are being used by the left but there is going to be severe pushback.

Freedom Forever wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Darth - What rights were taken away from heterosexual married couples in that SC decision?

 The most precious and sacred institution between a man and woman was bastardized by a bunch of sexual deviants an social misfits.  Also, "Rights" are not given by government...they are given by God or natural for you atheists.  To a liberal I am sure that doesn't make any sense but that is only because your brain doesn't function correctly. The homos are being used by the left but there is going to be severe pushback.

 Nails it. There's a name for people like us. people who like marriage just the way it is. Can you guess before I get insulted by a lib  

Scalia went after the jurisdictional question with his customary laser. So “hungry” were the five members of the majority to pontificate about the merits of same-sex marriage, he wrote, that they skipped blithely over “a technicality of little interest to anyone except the people of We the People” — namely, that there was no case or controversy for the high court to resolve in Windsor. The “United States” of the case’s title agreed with the result at the appeals-court and district-court levels, which were both in Windsor’s favor. The plaintiff had long since been made whole. So what, Scalia asked, “are we doing here?”

The majority was showboating its enlightenment, that’s what. As Justice Alito observed, there is no constitutional resolution to the same-sex-marriage debate. Unlike other liberties found by the Court to inhere in the Due Process clause, it cannot conceivably be described as a “fundamental right deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition.” It belongs, accordingly, with the people and their elected representatives. But the majority will have none of that.

As many in the pro-marriage coalition have been arguing for two decades, the case for traditional marriage is not about hostility to homosexuality. It’s about halting the decay of the institution that undergirds everything else in our society. To enshrine same-sex marriage is to endorse the idea of marriage as adult fulfillment.

Marriage is much more than that. But the argument will have to continue outside the legislatures and the courts — because five members of the Supreme Court have taken our power, our franchise, and our sovereignty from us.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:Mona Charen knocks it out the park were her column:

Scalia went after the jurisdictional question with his customary laser. So “hungry” were the five members of the majority to pontificate about the merits of same-sex marriage, he wrote, that they skipped blithely over “a technicality of little interest to anyone except the people of We the People” — namely, that there was no case or controversy for the high court to resolve in Windsor. The “United States” of the case’s title agreed with the result at the appeals-court and district-court levels, which were both in Windsor’s favor. The plaintiff had long since been made whole. So what, Scalia asked, “are we doing here?”

The majority was showboating its enlightenment, that’s what. As Justice Alito observed, there is no constitutional resolution to the same-sex-marriage debate. Unlike other liberties found by the Court to inhere in the Due Process clause, it cannot conceivably be described as a “fundamental right deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition.” It belongs, accordingly, with the people and their elected representatives. But the majority will have none of that.

And

As many in the pro-marriage coalition have been arguing for two decades, the case for traditional marriage is not about hostility to homosexuality. It’s about halting the decay of the institution that undergirds everything else in our society. To enshrine same-sex marriage is to endorse the idea of marriage as adult fulfillment.

Marriage is much more than that. But the argument will have to continue outside the legislatures and the courts — because five members of the Supreme Court have taken our power, our franchise, and our sovereignty from us.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/352269/roe-any-other-name-mona-charen

BladeRunner wrote:Basically, 5 [liberal] lawyers fundamentally changed America.

Confused18 wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:Basically, 5 [liberal] lawyers fundamentally changed America.

I wouldn't say they are all Libs, but yes in a nut shell.  I don't like that the SC has this much power.  I agree with the decision, but they shouldn't get to have the final be all, end all, say on a matter like this.  I actually think the state should've been force to vote again.  The state should decide the law IMO.  

Uh-Oh, here come the flip flop comments.   (I'd like to remind every one, I did say I agree with the ruling, but think the state should have its right to vote on the matter again...)

BladeRunner wrote:

Confused18 wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:Basically, 5 [liberal] lawyers fundamentally changed America.

I wouldn't say they are all Libs, but yes in a nut shell.  I don't like that the SC has this much power.  I agree with the decision, but they shouldn't get to have the final be all, end all, say on a matter like this.  I actually think the state should've been force to vote again.  The state should decide the law IMO.  

Uh-Oh, here come the flip flop comments.   (I'd like to remind every one, I did say I agree with the ruling, but think the state should have its right to vote on the matter again...)

This is a states' rights issue.

They already voted. Why be forced to vote again?

Gomezz Adddams wrote:This ruling was pure BS. Both of the cases involved circumstances by which the Executive Branches declined to defend the laws through their attorney general's offices. Legal standing was refused to California's Prop 8 supporter's while standing was given to the House Representatives Republicans. WTF is that about?

Scalia was right to ask in his blistering dissent "What are we doing here?" There was no reason what so ever for the SCOTUS to even consider Windsor. She had been made whole by lower court rulings refunding her inheritance taxes so there was no case to decide. Instead the liberal judges plus Squishy Kennedy needed to grandstand and extend the Court's powers beyond which the Constitution had granted it. Bullshit X 10.

Confused18 wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Confused18 wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:Basically, 5 [liberal] lawyers fundamentally changed America.

I wouldn't say they are all Libs, but yes in a nut shell.  I don't like that the SC has this much power.  I agree with the decision, but they shouldn't get to have the final be all, end all, say on a matter like this.  I actually think the state should've been force to vote again.  The state should decide the law IMO.  

Uh-Oh, here come the flip flop comments.   (I'd like to remind every one, I did say I agree with the ruling, but think the state should have its right to vote on the matter again...)

This is a states' rights issue.

They already voted. Why be forced to vote again?

I've been forced to vote on abortion laws here in SD how many times??????  States do it all the time.  If it made it to the SC, then they should've had a re-vote IMO.

Twinkies wrote:Where in the Constitution does it say anything about marriage?

BladeRunner wrote:

Confused18 wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Confused18 wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:Basically, 5 [liberal] lawyers fundamentally changed America.

I wouldn't say they are all Libs, but yes in a nut shell.  I don't like that the SC has this much power.  I agree with the decision, but they shouldn't get to have the final be all, end all, say on a matter like this.  I actually think the state should've been force to vote again.  The state should decide the law IMO.  

Uh-Oh, here come the flip flop comments.   (I'd like to remind every one, I did say I agree with the ruling, but think the state should have its right to vote on the matter again...)

This is a states' rights issue.

They already voted. Why be forced to vote again?

I've been forced to vote on abortion laws here in SD how many times??????  States do it all the time.  If it made it to the SC, then they should've had a re-vote IMO.

What you are saying makes no sense.

Why should the SC mandate another vote when the vote took place already?

I can see the state themselves taking it up for another vote through proper channels (legislation/petition/etc). But why should the SCOTUS be allowed to mandate another election? Just because it "made" it to the supreme court?

Darth Cheney wrote:

Twinkies wrote:Where in the Constitution does it say anything about marriage?

 It doesn't...thanks for proving my point.