BREAKING: SCOTUS denies review in all SSM petitions

[AA&E]

Good.

Any conservative-minded individual that desires a small, less intrusive government should hail any legal decision that reduces governmental meddling in the affairs of its citizens.

Uh oh. You went and tried to make sense. That isn't likely to make you many friends when discussing such a sensative topic.

 

[Expat]

Uh oh. You went and tried to make sense. That isn't likely to make you many friends when discussing such a sensative topic.

LOL... As the state starts up the machinery of enforcing their will on the people... We already see litigation beginning to enforce the new rights. I believe we will need lots of new legislation and regulators to enforce the state's will. So anyone claiming this is a step toward small government is dreaming.

 

[hornadylnl]

LOL... As the state starts up the machinery of enforcing their will on the people... We already see litigation beginning to enforce the new rights. I believe we will need lots of new legislation and regulators to enforce the state's will. So anyone claiming this is a step toward small government is dreaming.

Did you oppose the civil rights act on the grounds that it grew government?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Did you oppose the civil rights act on the grounds that it grew government?

Like me, he was probably too young to care but in retrospect, and speaking for myself, the civil rights act is among the all-time-greatest-hits of statist growth enablers ever to come out of Washington. You'd be hard pressed to point to a piece of legislation that trampled the rights of people more while trying to level the for others more than that act.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

LOL... As the state starts up the machinery of enforcing their will on the people... We already see litigation beginning to enforce the new rights. I believe we will need lots of new legislation and regulators to enforce the state's will. So anyone claiming this is a step toward small government is dreaming.

Yep...I was watching the news moments ago when they slowed an interview clip with some attorney. She was already talking about how employers that were refusing to provide domestic partner benefits would now likely have no legal leg to stand on to continue that practice. Enforcement and reeducation will be next on the agenda.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Yep...I was watching the news moments ago when they slowed an interview clip with some attorney. She was already talking about how employers that were refusing to provide domestic partner benefits would now likely have no legal leg to stand on to continue that practice. Enforcement and reeducation will be next on the agenda.

Correct, the battles on discrimination, polygamy, sex with minors are on the horizon: Debate over religious freedom looms ahead

Wait and see.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Correct, the battles on discrimination, polygamy, sex with minors are on the horizon: Debate over religious freedom looms ahead

Wait and see.

Folks had better cut all possible purse strings to the .gov, including tax exemptions for churches. Otherwise, they'll have to bend over and take this new equality.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

It wasn't a new Right. It was an existing Right that was being denied.

THAT is what I call hitting the nail on the head!

 

[mrjarrell]

Politico has a decent piece on why they think the court punted the issue. It comes down to the conservatives knowing they didn't really stand a chance. Makes sense, but I can see them returning to the issue one of these days, (especially if the Louisiana case is upheld at a higher level). But, if they do revisit it, this punting lets us know which way it will likely go.

Why the Supreme Court punted on gay marriage - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

 

[PistolBob]

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

I would disagree. The way things are going with regards to what's acceptable and what's not it'll just be a matter of time.

 

[mrjarrell]

I would disagree. The way things are going with regards to what's acceptable and what's not it'll just be a matter of time.

What actual evidence do you have to support that claim? The reality is that we've been going opposite to what you say will happen. What evidence do you have to the contrary?

 

[Crossbow Porpoise]

Here's a music video that sums up the logical arguments I've found on both sides of this debate:

[video=youtube;EXPcBI4CJc8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXPcBI4CJc8[/video]

 

[PistolBob]

Where is same sex marriage legal in Indiana Code? Anyone got the IC's we can read? I can't find it.

 

[PistolBob]

What actual evidence do you have to support that claim? The reality is that we've been going opposite to what you say will happen. What evidence do you have to the contrary?

Use google.

Meh.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Where is same sex marriage legal in Indiana Code? Anyone got the IC's we can read? I can't find it.

It's not. And after the 7th Circ's ruling is made effective, the code that makes it illegal will be void, so what's your point?

 

[Pooty22]

I know I'm late to the party but I just wanted to say congrats to all who fought for equality in Indiana and the other states involved.

As for the discussion on here, it went as it always does. A few happy people, a few that don't really care (because in reality it has no real effect on most people), and most who think that because SSM in now legal, we will soon be hearing arguments for the legalization of child marriage and beastiality. Not much has changed since the last time I was hanging around here.

 

[PistolBob]

It's not. And after the 7th Circ's ruling is made effective, the code that makes it illegal will be void, so what's your point?

My point is the Indiana General Assembly better get it's act together and start getting some legislation processed. The only thing overturned is the law forbidding same sex marriage. Now the state needs to rewrite the definitions.

 

[PistolBob]

I know I'm late to the party but I just wanted to say congrats to all who fought for equality in Indiana and the other states involved.

As for the discussion on here, it went as it always does. A few happy people, a few that don't really care (because in reality it has no real effect on most people), and most who think that because SSM in now legal, we will soon be hearing arguments for the legalization of child marriage and beastiality. Not much has changed since the last time I was hanging around here.

Why'd you bother to grace us with your presence this time?

 

[CathyInBlue]

My point is the Indiana General Assembly better get it's act together and start getting some legislation processed. The only thing overturned is the law forbidding same sex marriage. Now the state needs to rewrite the definitions.

Or just butt out of the marriage game altogether. Just ditch the marriage license entirely and say any two adults geneticly related to no common ancestor within two generations who makes a public claim of being married, is so. Any organization who chooses to provide ritual assistance to the general public for any ceremony to solemnize any such marriage claim is free to do so, or, if their assistance is based on membership in their own organization, not do so, as they see fit.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Or just butt out of the marriage game altogether. Just ditch the marriage license entirely and say any two adults geneticly related to no common ancestor within two generations who makes a public claim of being married, is so. Any organization who chooses to provide ritual assistance to the general public for any ceremony to solemnize any such marriage claim is free to do so, or, if their assistance is based on membership in their own organization, not do so, as they see fit.

Can't happen...makes too much sense.