Breaking: Per SCOTUS, Same-Sex Marriage is now law of the land.

[Lebowski]

Actually I don't mind this. I don't consider myself 'for' or 'against' gay marriage. I don't think the gov should be involved anyhow and I don't think married couples deserve any sort of benefit or incentive for being married.

Just go find someone who makes you happy and be with them.

 

[Arthur Dent]

First time I've ever head the GOP referred to as the "stupid" party. IMO, partisan silliness not worthy of being posted. I imagine divorce lawyers are licking their chops. Over the years I have observed that gay relationships have a relatively short shelf life.

The actual divorce rate among same sex couples is about half the rate of opposite sex couples. http://www.marke****ch.com/story/do-gay-marriages-have-a-lower-rate-of-divorce-2014-12-16

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The actual divorce rate among same sex couples is about half the rate of opposite sex couples. http://www.marke****ch.com/story/do-gay-marriages-have-a-lower-rate-of-divorce-2014-12-16

to those wanting to visit the link, fill in "market watch"

 

[Arthur Dent]

Yeah, when I pasted the link it was auto-moderated.

 

[gstanley102]

This is social engineering by Big Brother.

It is also another chink out of states sovereignty.

We are well on the way to UTOPIA!!!

What's the name of that group of men that love youngsters?
Do you suppose they are watching?

There is no way this should have been heard by the SC.
It should have been left to the states.
But every Chief SCJ wants to leave a legacy.

I'm guessing Alinsky would approve.

All around this was a bad week for the USA.

 

[Arthur Dent]

This is social engineering by Big Brother.

It is also another chink out of states sovereignty.

We are well on the way to UTOPIA!!!

What's the name of that group of men that love youngsters?
Do you suppose they are watching?

There is no way this should have been heard by the SC.
It should have been left to the states.
But every Chief SCJ wants to leave a legacy.

I'm guessing Alinsky would approve.

All around this was a bad week for the USA.

The Supreme Court doesn't take up cases out of the blue, the cases are brought to them. It's all part of our judicial process. Don't blame the court, blame the people arguing the case. The state attorneys couldn't get the job done.

 

[gstanley102]

I thought they could refuse to hear a case. In fact I vaguely remember them refusing in the past.

 

[96firephoenix]

Maybe now both sides will STFU and focus on the economy.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Maybe now both sides will STFU and focus on the economy.

Don't count on it. Much like abortion, the public was on their way to making that decision but the SCOTUS decided to skip all of that legislative process and speak for the public. Had they done so, I would like to think alot of people are like me, they may not have liked the result but at least it was decided by the people and not a small group of popularity contest judges.

I am quite confident, the agenda is not fulfilled yet. There's more court mandated diversity yet to come.

 

[KG1]

Never really understood this... Justices of the Peace do perform marriages, churches perform weddings... Marriage is a legally binding "contract" and status, a wedding is a religious ceremony...

Historically you are correct in your definitions and they should be kept as such without any force being brought to bear against the church to recognize a "marriage" as anything other than a civil union. Holy wedlock represents something entirely different and the church should continue to practice that doctrine according to their beliefs which they are entitled to do. On the flip side of the coin the church should also do their fair diligence to recognize the historical differences.

 

[cobber]

Just look and see what's boiling on the campuses now, and anything being disowned by Dems, as Obama did gay marriage. An election cycle down the road, and the Progs will begin pushing the idea in the media. After token resistance, it will become part of the Democrat platform.


For instance, integration of principles of Sharia into US jurisprudence. Because American law is just too monocultural and arrogant. I'm taking bets now...

 

[spec4]

Then you've not been paying attention. Hell, even Kirk has called them the stupid party before. It's a very old term, nothing new.

Origin of "Stupid Party" & "Evil Party" | RedState

Looks like you're right. I've followed politics since the 60's and never heard either term, or if I did I wasn't listening. Now back to our regularly scheduled thread...

 

[jbombelli]

"states' rights" - our right to use our local governmental entities to step on those we don't approve of, and force them to live the way WE want.

 

[spec4]

Just like heterosexual relationships?

In my family and circle of friends there has been very little divorce. Just my experience. In my working life I have encountered gay couples and have seen the breakups. When we were apartment dwellers many years ago we had two gay guys for neighbors across the hall. One night one came home late, his partner was waiting on the stairs and he proceeded to beat him up. It was about 10 PM. Wife told me to stop it, I said no way. Also worked with a gay guy who did an excellent job. He went through several relationships in the years I knew him. More, but you get the drift.

 

[cobber]

Looks like you're right. I've followed politics since the 60's and never heard either term, or if I did I wasn't listening. Now back to our regularly scheduled thread...

Well, Mr. J for once didn't coin his snark himself. I am mildly astonished. Even a blind squirrel...

 

[spec4]

The actual divorce rate among same sex couples is about half the rate of opposite sex couples. http://www.marke****ch.com/story/do-gay-marriages-have-a-lower-rate-of-divorce-2014-12-16

No question on the stats. I am just posting what I have observed.

 

[Arthur Dent]

I thought they could refuse to hear a case. In fact I vaguely remember them refusing in the past.

They can and most often do, either ruling on the spot without a hearing or deferring a case back to a lower court.

 

[Woobie]

The Supreme Court doesn't take up cases out of the blue, the cases are brought to them. It's all part of our judicial process. Don't blame the court, blame the people arguing the case. The state attorneys couldn't get the job done.

SCOTUS can grant certiorari or deny it as they please. Whether you agree or disagree with their decision, the buck stops with them.

 

[MisterChester]

Just look and see what's boiling on the campuses now, and anything being disowned by Dems, as Obama did gay marriage. An election cycle down the road, and the Progs will begin pushing the idea in the media. After token resistance, it will become part of the Democrat platform.


For instance, integration of principles of Sharia into US jurisprudence. Because American law is just too monocultural and arrogant. I'm taking bets now...

Yeah, because Sharia law is totally okay with abortion and gay marriage.

 

[MisterChester]

Don't count on it. Much like abortion, the public was on their way to making that decision but the SCOTUS decided to skip all of that legislative process and speak for the public. Had they done so, I would like to think alot of people are like me, they may not have liked the result but at least it was decided by the people and not a small group of popularity contest judges.

I am quite confident, the agenda is not fulfilled yet. There's more court mandated diversity yet to come.

The same way they skipped the public in Brown vs Board of Ed.? The tyranny of the majority can only be struck down by the court to defend the rights of the minority. Mob rule and all that. The same way they defended gun owners, who tend to be shamed by the public and media.