What the Supreme Court justices said on gay marriage

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/supreme-court-justices-said-gay-marriage/

[boutons_deux]

Kennedy is the the typical suck-ass jurist from the Repugs. His "for millennia" comment is incredibly, but predictably, ignorant and stupid, just like his "America is post-racial" bullshit.

His fellow Repug/VRWC hack would have been a criminal 50 years ago in many states for marrying his white wife, committing miscegenation. American married women in the 19th had to yield nearly all property and custody rights to the husband, etc, etc. no, marriage hasn't budged "for millennia". :lol

My guess is 5-4 for s-s-m, with all but two of the Catholic men voting against s-s-m, and two Catholic men + 3 Jewish women voting for.

But, as with ACA, there will be some kind of "states rights" angle, pandering to the secessionists, Confederates, racists, Bible humping haters. the "states rights" angle will be anti-Constitutional and pro-hate populism.

Roberts' comment about the difference between hetero and same-sex marriage being gender distinction, meaning denying s-s-m would be illegal gender discrimination could put him on the legal side of s-s-m (but against his Catholicism).

[boutons_deux]

Jon Stewart destroys

Jon Stewart schools Justices Roberts and Alito: ‘Marriage has almost never not been changing’

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/04/jon-stewart-schools-justices-roberts-and-alito-marriage-has-almost-never-not-been-changing/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

Roberts sure sounds like "states rightists" should vote on (against) s-s-m, rather than have the (right wing extremist political hack) "court" impose Constitutional non-discrimination law upon their hating, racist Bible humping souls.

Thanks, Repugs!

[Drachen]

Kennedy is the the typical suck-ass jurist from the Repugs. His "for millennia" comment is incredibly, but predictably, ignorant and stupid, just like his "America is post-racial" bullshit.

His fellow Repug/VRWC hack would have been a criminal 50 years ago in many states for marrying his white wife, committing miscegenation. American married women in the 19th had to yield nearly all property and custody rights to the husband, etc, etc. no, marriage hasn't budged "for millennia". :lol

My guess is 5-4 for s-s-m, with all but two of the Catholic men voting against s-s-m, and two Catholic men + 3 Jewish women voting for.

But, as with ACA, there will be some kind of "states rights" angle, pandering to the secessionists, Confederates, racists, Bible humping haters. the "states rights" angle will be anti-Constitutional and pro-hate populism.

Roberts' comment about the difference between hetero and same-sex marriage being gender distinction, meaning denying s-s-m would be illegal gender discrimination could put him on the legal side of s-s-m (but against his Catholicism).

He also said later to those arguing against marriage equality that if tradition is their only argument, they don't have a compelling argument. I would say Kennedy is probably the most fair minded judge because he attempts to see all sides.

But what do I know, I'm a pussy easter. Right?

[MultiTroll]

Will Green Bay have to change the name of it's team the "Packers"?
This could be viewed as insensitive.

[Blake]

Smh fabbs

[angrydude]

When gay marriage is finished being legalized nationwide, polygamy is obviously next. There would be no logical reason for it not to be except that it's not popular enough--but that's no reason at all.

[boutons_deux]

He also said later to those arguing against marriage equality that if tradition is their only argument, they don't have a compelling argument. I would say Kennedy is probably the most fair minded judge because he attempts to see all sides.

But what do I know, I'm a pussy easter. Right?

yep, in his "brilliance", Kennedy was all over the map, tradition isn't a sufficient argument AND marriage is a tradition unchanhged for "millennia". :lol Thanks, Repugs.

and "America is post-racial" so gut the VRA


and from Kenney's C-U opinion:

" The First Amendment (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmenti) protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages."

:lol

Kennedy is fucking VRWC tool

[ElNono]

When gay marriage is finished being legalized nationwide, polygamy is obviously next. There would be no logical reason for it not to be except that it's not popular enough--but that's no reason at all.

Except polygamy is illegal?

also from above:
Stewart also knocked down Justice Samuel Alito’s suggestion that letting same-sex couples marry would open the door to polygamy.
“Why should gay people have to account for anyone who’s ever going to want to get married after they get the right to marry?” the host asked. “When women fought for suffrage, no one was like, ‘What if one day a dog wants to vote, how ’bout that ladies?'”

[boutons_deux]

If people want polyamory or make it legal as polygamy, why not? consenting adults, where's the harm?

The problem with polygamist cults, ostensibly CHRISTIAN cults, has been the men screwing the little girls and boys.

[Blake]

Polygamy...incest....

If they're consenting adults, whogas

[boutons_deux]

Mike Huckabee: Supreme Court 'cannot overrule God' (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/30/1381466/-Mike-Huckabee-Supreme-Court-cannot-overrule-God)

It's the season for Republican presidential candidates to fluff evangelical conservatives. This means exceptionally blowhardish speeches delivered to packed rooms of unapologetic theocrats, speeches in which we all get an earful of just what the candidates would do to the rest of us—the insufficient believers—if they were put in charge. For one thing, Mike Huckabee says, we'd make it clear who's really in charge around here (http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/29/politics/mike-huckabee-god-election-2016-supreme-court/index.html).


"I respect the courts, :lol but the Supreme Court is only that -- the supreme of the courts. It is not the supreme being. It cannot overrule God," he said. "When it comes to prayer, when it comes to life, and when it comes to the sanctity of marriage, the court cannot change what God has created."

And whose interpretation of God should we exclusively listen to on these weighty subjects? Yours or mine? Oh, yours and yours alone?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/30/1381466/-Mike-Huckabee-Supreme-Court-cannot-overrule-God?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

Huckabee and other Christian Taliban supremacists, supported, inflamed by the SCOTUS5' Hobby Lobby abortion, are really agitating for civil disobedience, justified by whatever made-up shit "sincere belief", to break any laws you sincerely believe your God doesn't want, or even better, simply what YOU don't want obey.

Now, who are the anarchists? :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

When gay marriage is finished being legalized nationwide, polygamy is obviously next. There would be no logical reason for it not to be except that it's not popular enough--but that's no reason at all.

:lol and fucking dog's too right. Come on Yoni.

Gay marriage is victimless while the exploitation by polygamists is well known.

Anyway what logic do you have for the other? Could it be God stuff? Fuk you religion clown!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

yep, in his "brilliance", Kennedy was all over the map, tradition isn't a sufficient argument AND marriage is a tradition unchanhged for "millennia". :lol Thanks, Repugs.

and "America is post-racial" so gut the VRA


and from Kenney's C-U opinion:

" The First Amendment (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmenti) protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages."

:lol

Kennedy is fucking VRWC tool

Your a fag partisan so of course you would think that. He is likely to vote for your interest group by all accounts so put your purse down.

[spurraider21]

Supreme Court Justice Didn’t Know Marriage Can’t Legally Involve Churches or Religion (https://youreadygrandma.wordpress.com/2015/04/28/supreme-court-justice-didnt-know-marriage-cant-legally-involve-churches-or-religion/)

[spurraider21]

When gay marriage is finished being legalized nationwide, polygamy is obviously next. There would be no logical reason for it not to be except that it's not popular enough--but that's no reason at all.
you're right.

they should make heterosexual marriage illegal too. because if they keep it legal, it opens to floodgates to same sex marriage

[admiralsnackbar]

they should make heterosexual marriage illegal too. because if they keep it legal, it opens to floodgates to same sex marriage Winner.

[spursncowboys]

I like Kennedy's point on millenia. It was a long conversation and it made a good point, that I've never really thought of or atleast glossed over. With Breyer joining in on the side he normally doesn't join, I don't think gay marriage advocates will be happy.

[boutons_deux]

"Kennedy's point on millenia" was pure, risible, ignorant bullshit, standard fare for political Repug judges, "conserving" some myth because conserving, retrogressing, not PROGRESSing, is what conservatives do.

[spursncowboys]

"Kennedy's point on millenia" was pure, risible, ignorant bullshit, standard fare for political Repug judges, "conserving" some myth because conserving, retrogressing, not PROGRESSing, is what conservatives do.





breyer spoke on the same point.

[Spurminator]

I think Jon Stewart's point on Kennedy's "point" was better.

Marriage has never not been changing.

[baseline bum]

We should have traditional marriage like the Mormons do.