The Supreme Court got it right this time

[forestdaledave]

Supreme Court decisions. Two biggies. Obamacare is here to stay. Now maybe the Republicans can move on to the Jobs agenda that they promised in 2013.

Plus same sex marriage is now the law of the land. People can marry who they want, not who some politicians say they can, based on some group's religious interpretation.
David

 

[adambweird]

Actually, they created jobs with gay marriage being the law of the land... plenty of openings for gay divorce lawyers now, lol. Seriously though, im happy they did this finally. Who you love is who you love and if you choose to marry that person, so be it, no one should ever tell you that you cant follow your heart.

 

[Bill Seward]

+1 on both decisions..

 

[dannymax]

I thought the White house lit with rainbow flood lights was a nice touch....:jerk it:

Whadda you s'pose THAT cost the taxpayers? :icon_rolleyes:

 

[caseyjones955]

The Gov't should have never had it's nose in marriage. Marriage is a religious ceremony and should be entirely up to churches to decide who should wed. Separation of church and state needs to be rigorously upheld to prevent disasters like gay marriage bans and other rights violations. Not to mention the huge savings to taxpayers. I stand proud as a libertarian minarchist and would love to see these sorts governmental intrusions permanently ended.

CONGRATULATIONS for a giant step forward for equality. As a straight male I'm delighted to see folks being allowed to be who they are and enjoy the same rights. This is a major victory for all free thinking Americans (yup, I'm a heterosexual atheist to haha).

 

[Biker Dash]

I am very pleased that the Supreme Court has made this decision on gay marriage. I have been saying all along that, a) the decision is a 14th Amendment issue, and such bans were a direct violation of said Amendment, and, b) these laws, based on religious doctrine, were a violation of the 1st Amendment, whereas governments shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion.

Also, I have always held the belief that love is love, whether the relationship is between a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

On a side note, they religious fundamentalists have always claimed that allowing gay marriage would destroy the institution of marriage. Gay and lesbian couples have been fighting long and hard to be accepted, enduring the bigotry and hatred from those who claim they are "sinfully living", and even have had to deal with violent acts directed towards them, yet they remain together. And then you look at straight marriages, with a divorce rate of over 50%.

I think it is straight couples who are doing more damage to marriage, and I suspect that most homosexual marriages will last for a good, long while, based on what I have stated above.

As for Obamacare, I suspect that the Court got it wrong, but at least they made a decision. Better than how they normally waffle and dance around the issues.

 

[caseyjones955]

Wright this down.

Obamacare will be dismembered, altered and/or hollowed out to be a shell of the word. The word is here to stay but the program as we know it will be short lived. If they could inject some common sense into it then it wont be to bad but having govt involved in healthcare is another money grab/disaster.

 

[Biker Dash]

Write this down.

Fixed it for you.

 

[caseyjones955]

Fixed it for you.

I goofed that one up, usually spell check is a great counter for dyslexia but sometimes one slips by. :bang head:

 

[Biker Dash]

As a writer, I find spell-check is something to NOT rely upon. And I have lysdexia as well, so I can empathize. lol

 

[Hellboy]

I no plenty of people with out dyslexia that cant spell to save there live. with computers these days instead of typewriters or pins too many people rely on spell check, get lazy or never learned coreclty in the 1st place. Dyslexia may be a good excuse but I here it so often that it has become like a fat person saying they have big bones or a metabolism problem.

Matt

 

[Rollie]

Obamacare was a very large fraud played against the American people. See Mr. Gruber and Obama himself for details on all the lies and deceit which are too many to list here.

Control a nations healthcare ( Gov't ) and you control the people.


I have two words for the gay marriage group. Sodom - Gomorrah

 

[MtnMax/Magniac]

+1 Rollie

Not a hater of anyone, but scientifically and logically, same-sex activities are not in the natural order of life. Humans are mammals. Mammals have 2 sexes, for the sole purpose of procreation. Two mammals of the same sex cannot procreate, therefore the intercourse of opposite sexes is the natural order of life.
In the wild, when any mammal's population outstrips the supply of food, shelter, or other necessity of life in their locale, nature sets about reducing that population. There will be disease, an increase of natural predators, or a number of other means of returning to a natural balance. Homosexual activity in other mammals has been known to increase as one method of population reduction.
This will not work with humans, however, due to our command of spoken/written language, and our propensity toward self-government and rule of law. We try to overcome nature, by building shelter against the elements, raising crops and domesticating animals for food, in lieu of foraging as we did in the early days of our existence. We call this progress, and it is. But it also allows for unintended consequences, such as when a population segment which is actually outside the natural order grows large enough to become an order of its own.
Gays and lesbians are not bad people simply because of their sexual activities, they have no control over their sexual preferences, they are simply averse to the natural order of procreation.
My only problem with the ruling of SCOTUS is that government has no business, and no right, being involved in any way. Homosexual activity is a result of something occurring in nature, and marriage is an institution of church, both of which are outside the purview of government. Not only did they get it wrong, they shouldn't have got it at all.

 

[jwerntl]

I am very pleased that the Supreme Court has made this decision on gay marriage.

Also, I have always held the belief that love is love, whether the relationship is between a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

On a side note, they religious fundamentalists have always claimed that allowing gay marriage would destroy the institution of marriage. Gay and lesbian couples have been fighting long and hard to be accepted, enduring the bigotry and hatred from those who claim they are "sinfully living", and even have had to deal with violent acts directed towards them, yet they remain together. And then you look at straight marriages, with a divorce rate of over 50%.

I think it is straight couples who are doing more damage to marriage, and I suspect that most homosexual marriages will last for a good, long while, based on what I have stated above.

I guess what you are saying is it's ok for brother and sister to marry? That's what's next.

The supreme court did not get it right. Marriage is between a man and a woman. They should worry about bigger things. Homosexuality is not right. It is wrong period. God said so.

The next thing to come is marriage between brother and sister. Under your 'thinking' it's ok for your children to have sex and get married. They say they love each other. It's ok.

 

[blaxmax]

I no plenty of people with out dyslexia that cant spell to save there live. with computers these days instead of typewriters or pins too many people rely on spell check, get lazy or never learned coreclty in the 1st place. Dyslexia may be a good excuse but I here it so often that it has become like a fat person saying they have big bones or a metabolism problem.

Matt[/QUOT

 

[Tex85]

The marriage thing was a good decision in my book. Regardless of your stance on the issue, separation of church and state is still in effect. When you remove religion from the equation there is no reason same sex couples shouldn't people able to marry in the eyes of the state. Religions and within religions churches are split on the issue. Religions and churches still have the right to not allow a same sex couple to marry at their church, so there should not be any problems there. In the end I personally am a Christian and my takeaway; hate the sin not the sinner, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and love your neighbor as yourself all seem like better reactions to the verdict to me.

Now for Obamacare... counting down the days until it implodes. My healthcare costs are exponentially more now that it is in place. I am already sick and tired of paying to support other people with the existing government programs and now I have to pay to support people aren't bothering to take care of themselves. It is one thing to donate to a charity to help people it is completely different when the government forces me to do so.

 

[Biker Dash]

God said so.

This right here is the reason the gay marriage bans in this nation was defeated. The 1st Amendment says the following:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

That and the bans are also a violation of the 14th Amendment, which reads as follows:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]

Specifically, Section 1:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

On another note, it was God himself who stated, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." In other words, God is telling us that there is but ONE Judge, and we sure as shit ain't got big enough shoes to fill that role. There is one who does... I suspect that you pray to him a lot. Jesus himself instructed us nit to judge. His words were, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Since we ALL are sinners, we do not have that right to cast that stone.

 

[MtnMax/Magniac]

On another note, it was God himself who stated, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." In other words, God is telling us that there is but ONE Judge, and we sure as shit ain't got big enough shoes to fill that role. There is one who does... I suspect that you pray to him a lot. Jesus himself instructed us nit to judge. His words were, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Since we ALL are sinners, we do not have that right to cast that stone.

Hmmm, let's look at that for a minute. Who was it who destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah? And just why did he do that? Seems to me that could be called judgement. And if it was wrong then, why not now?
Cherry-picking to prove your point will usually backfire on you.

 

[Biker Dash]

Hmmm, let's look at that for a minute. Who was it who destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah? And just why did he do that? Seems to me that could be called judgement. And if it was wrong then, why not now?
Cherry-picking to prove your point will usually backfire on you.

And whom was it that made that judgement, and carried out the sentence?
Also, cherry picking or circular arguments... case in point: the typical arguments I hear.
"IT'S WRONG!"
"Why is it wrong?"
"The Bible says so!"
"How do you know that what you read is the truth?"
"It says so in the Bible!"

 

[MtnMax/Magniac]

And whom was it that made that judgement, and carried out the sentence?

That's my point exactly. If HE made that judgement then and carried out the sentence, what has changed? Only society.