BREAKING: SCOTUS denies review in all SSM petitions

[mrjarrell]

Courts ruling on marriage equality? OMG! Activist judges.

Same court rules against Chicago gun laws and they're all the best people in the world. Did everything just the way they're supposed to.

The disconnect is palpable.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Courts ruling on marriage equality? OMG! Activist judges.

Same court rules against Chicago gun laws and they're all the best people in the world. Did everything just the way they're supposed to.

The disconnect is palpable.

Boy howdy!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Then explain this to me: Over the last 100 years, most conservatives agree that our nation is morally decaying. And yet, age of consent laws have become more restrictive and more consequential.

If gay rights represent a march towards moral decay, and child abuse is on the same path as gay rights, why has one become more accepted by society while the other has become more stigmatized?

Has it? We're encouraging our kids to be sexualized at younger and younger ages.

 

[mrjarrell]

Has it? We're encouraging our kids to be sexualized at younger and younger ages.

Then you should stop doing that.

 

[Mark 1911]

Shall I get you a butthurt form? The cases brought before the courts couldn't make their case, in anything like a rational manner, (as we saw from the earlier cases). "'Cause, our stoneage ancestors did it this way" is not a compelling argument. Neither is mythology. None of the opponents, including Indiana and Wisconsin, could make a cogent argument to uphold their discriminatory laws. So, justice prevailed and equal Rights wins the day.

It's not that the opponents didn't have cogent arguments, the SC simply did not hear the arguments one way or another.

You say this is a win for equality, and you say that with no regard for equality, especially equality for others with views other than your own. Your stance that only people with your ideas can be considered enlightened, and all others are ignorant, is at best shortsighted. Your idea of equality seems to be disrespect and contempt. The other side must accept your new and radical concepts without regard for history, blowing 6000 years of tradition off as meaningless without a care or concern for future implications which at this point are at best unknown.

I can see where this is kind of "equality", this total lack of tolerance, will take us as a nation, when you can not bring yourself to show any semblance of respect for those who hold to traditional beliefs. Am I butthurt? No. I just don't accept it, as the vast majority do not. I don't need the government, or judges with the same lack of insight to tell me how I must believe. That was never their intended function. You may buy into that nonsense hook line and sinker, but I am a free man, I will think for myself.

If that concept is stone age, or ancient or outdated to you, I think that view of history on your part is rather arrogant. There is much we could learn from the past, and if we don't, we will suffer for it. It's only a matter of time before all of this nonsense crashes down in flames and implodes upon itself. The question is what will it cost in terms of our freedom before then.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Then you should stop doing that.

The efforts of the few (us) can not outweigh the decay already in-place in society.

It's alright to be on the moral high-horse and say everyone around you is doing it wrong... but society, as a whole, can't be cured by the few.

It's the route we're on, it's the path we've unwillingly taken. Morals and personal responsibility seem like a thing of the past.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Then you should stop doing that.

Not me. One only has to turn on the TV, peruse Facebook, etc. to see it. They're doing it to themselves to a large extent and the grownups are ignoring it (at best) and encouraging it (to a large extent).

 

[steveh_131]

Has it? We're encouraging our kids to be sexualized at younger and younger ages.

You're sidestepping. But yes, it has. Pre-teens used to get married and have sex all the time.

Your argument is that any allowance of gay rights will lead us on a path to an acceptance and legal sanction of adults having sex with minors.

If your argument had any validity, I would expect the two to demonstrate a direct correlation. As gay rights increase, so should the rights of pedophiles to have sex with young people.

Instead, the two are showing a distinctly inverse correlation. Gays have more rights and adult sex with minors is more restricted than ever in our history (possibly even human history).

What is your explanation?

 

[mrjarrell]

You're sidestepping. But yes, it has. Pre-teens used to get married and have sex all the time.

Your argument is that any allowance of gay rights will lead us on a path to an acceptance and legal sanction of adults having sex with minors.

If your argument had any validity, I would expect the two to demonstrate a direct correlation. As gay rights increase, so should the rights of pedophiles to have sex with young people.

Instead, the two are showing a distinctly inverse correlation. Gays have more rights and adult sex with minors is more restricted than ever in our history (possibly even human history).

What is your explanation?

Precisely. The very clear evidence states that the exact opposite of what they're saying will happen is happening. Back not too many years ago my home states age of consent was a mind blowing 12. That changed over the years and it's now much higher (16, the same as Indiana). Age of consent has been going up over the years, not down. And sentencing for those caught in sexual relationships with those under that age are rather harsh, where in years past they were not. This is a disingenuous argument and about all that the opponents of marriage equality have left. The world is not ending and society will not be caving in or re-enacting the Purge, because of this new day.

 

[JTScribe]

Courts ruling on marriage equality? OMG! Activist judges.

Same court rules against Chicago gun laws and they're all the best people in the world. Did everything just the way they're supposed to.

The disconnect is palpable.

Nice strawman.

Gun rights: in the Bill of Rights.

Marriage: not in the Bill of Rights, nor the Constitution. Not a Federal issue.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The disconnect is palpable.

I think you'd have a better time here if you didn't treat everyone like an enemy =/

I agree with you on a surprising amount of subjects. Maybe even this one? Dunno, I haven't made my stance clear here...

But being contrary gets everyone on the defensive... and makes the discourse less-than-enjoyable.

I sure you would admit that you make extraordinary exaggerations at times, and enter into some strawman yourself. It's hard to avoid. We're all on an even playing field here.


I could enjoy a beer with a MrJarrell.

 

[rw496]

Nice strawman.

Gun rights: in the Bill of Rights.

Marriage: not in the Bill of Rights, nor the Constitution. Not a Federal issue.

I really don't get what the argument is, and apparently none of the Circuits see an argument either. Gun Rights are in the Bill of Rights, yes, but the Bill of Rights only prevents the Federal Government from abridging those rights. They don't apply to the States. McDonald v. Chicago ​made the 2nd applicable to the states officially. Most of the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights are now incorporated to the States, not because they are in the Bill of Rights, but because they are considered so fundamental that the States may not deprive you of them without Due Process under the 14th. The 14th Amendment mentions no specific rights only life, liberty, and property. I fail to see how any one can not consider the right to marry as a fundamental right...not to mention the whole equal protection part.

 

[Echelon]

I don't see why the government is in the marriage business in the first place, but if they are going to be in it, everything should be equal for all.

That said, Churches/individual clergy should also be equally protected to do or not do any marriage they want.

 

[Denny347]

A few years ago a huge majority of Americans believed homosexuality was bad; they thought it was immoral and repugnant. There's no reason to believe any other sexual predispositional preference that's out there won't, sooner or later, become tolerated first and later championed. Refusal to admitting the possibility demonstrates an intellectual dishonesty.

Before that, mixed race marriages. Thinking that gay marriage=legal pedophilia is also intellectually dishonest.

 

[JTScribe]

I really don't get what the argument is, and apparently none of the Circuits see an argument either. Gun Rights are in the Bill of Rights, yes, but the Bill of Rights only prevents the Federal Government from abridging those rights. They don't apply to the States. McDonald v. Chicago ​made the 2nd applicable to the states officially. Most of the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights are now incorporated to the States, not because they are in the Bill of Rights, but because they are considered so fundamental that the States may not deprive you of them without Due Process under the 14th. The 14th Amendment mentions no specific rights only life, liberty, and property. I fail to see how any one can not consider the right to marry as a fundamental right.

I don't believe that was the original intention. The courts don't see an argument because with the periodic exception of Scalia they no longer hold to the concept of Federalism.

If the Amendments don't apply to the individual states, then could states permit slavery? Of course not, because the 13th Amendment outlaws it. Amendments apply to the States because the States had to affirm them for the Amendment to be passed! One could perhaps argue the Bill of Rights is different because not all states existed at that time, but that strikes me as silly.

What part of the Constitution grants the right to marry? The word isn't in there, it shouldn't be a Federal function. If a state thusly wants to permit gay marriage, perfectly fine under the 10th Amendment. The same holds true for the inverse situation.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Before that, mixed race marriages. Thinking that gay marriage=legal pedophilia is also intellectually dishonest.

The echo chamber is strong on this point. I give up.

 

[rw496]

The Constitution doesn't mention marriage; it is left to the States. However, marriage is considered to be a fundamental right, fundamental to us as Americans and human beings. Therefore, the State may not deprive us of that fundamental right without a necessary compelling government interest and Due Process. The .gov of the States simply cannot justify any reason compelling enough to deprive a citizen of the fundamental right to marry.

EDIT: When I say us I mean it generally. I'm not gay, just argumentative....not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[Denny347]

A few years ago a huge majority of Americans believed homosexuality was bad; they thought it was immoral and repugnant. There's no reason to believe any other sexual predispositional preference that's out there won't, sooner or later, become tolerated first and later championed. Refusal to admitting the possibility demonstrates an intellectual dishonesty.

The echo chamber is strong on this point. I give up.

There is no reason to think pedophilia will EVER be legal.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

There is no reason to think pedophilia will EVER be legal.

If my grandmother ever really sat around and thought about homosexuality, I would wager she never would have thought these days would have ever arrived. To rule anything out at this point, is void of reason.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

burp