Implications of gay marriage ruling (page 10)

Junction-Guy

Exactly Rattigan350, I escaped the Watchtower where my life was ruled by a few men in Brooklyn, and where the people had no say in anything. There is no way I can support an agenda that attempts to pervert the legal system and the will of the people and place the power in the hands of the few. I detest it! There are many laws I disagree with, but at the end of the day all I can say is that the people have spoken and generally just deal with it.

Spectre

"I see. You are love illerate. Love ignorant."

Of course! I was raised a Jehovah's Witness.

Village Idiot

Spectre:

"I see no one here has seen South Park. Funny then how the term "cheesypoofs" is understood."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=jVuX1vrEQoc

Junction-Guy

I have seen Southpark a couple of times, but don't remember that term

OrphanCrow

Rat: Wow, I totally agree with Junction Guy. A first time for everything. He is making sense because it is not about religion but in how proper law should be enacted.

OrphanCrow

Spectre:
"I see. You are love illerate. Love ignorant."
Of course! I was raised a Jehovah's Witness.

That's no excuse.

So was I.

Rattigan350

Orphancrow, when you said "Those principles are exactly the principles that legalizing gay marriage is based upon - the right of the minority."

You are not right. The principles of the first amendment keeps the government away from people. Nothing to do with numbers. In fact the articles defined the government roles, but then they discovered that they forgot to elaborate the rights of the people. So they made the Bill of Rights. Those rights are to protect what the WTS does not give people, speech and religion.

But the gay marriage movement makes the government an integral part of their marriage by stating that they need to get permission to be married, just to get a name on a death certificate, as in one case. You mean he couldn't just go to his congressman and get help with that? That would be more personal and fulfilling.

The dissent also said, what I have been saying before I read that: "Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer."

garyneal

So let's see...

Gay marriage is popular now so of course most would think that the ruling is a good thing.

...and those mean bigoted people who think marriage is between one man and one woman, well damn them to hell.

Me, I have mixed feelings. I think of my own interracial marriage and how it was illegal until the Loving vs Virginia (the state I live in) case went to the Supreme Court. It was a victory for marriages like mine that fit the one man one woman template but somehow blacks and whites could not mix.

That was then and 50 years later gays now have that privilege. Great for them and in fact I opposed anti gay marriage laws that were being trotted out over the past decade. Still, though, using the courts to make laws frightens me. When it is not politically correct to voice an opposing opinion it worries me that free speech is being trampled on.

Rattigan350

any

DJS you said:

"JG and Rat,

Your whining is tedious and unflattering. You lost. Get over it. You are on the wrong side of history on this topic - not to mention that your kind,"

My whining? I posted an analysis and you call that whining and tedious? and I did not lose, America did. I fully support the reasoning of the dissent. And anytime the dissent is longer than the majority opinion, then there must be something wrong. As I said, the ruling is not to be taken seriously.

SecretSlaveClass

Goddamn OC, you're good!

Implications of gay marriage ruling

Share this