With the Supreme Court cramming the civilization-wrecking horror of gay marriage down America's throat until it tickled our epiglottis and coated our larynx with sweet, milky equality, we were expecting waves of hysterical overreactions from wingnuts everywhere. Sure, there were a few. Gay-panic vector Bryan Fischer worked himself into
The sweetest thing about the SCOTUS's sweet sweet action yesterday is that it basically amounted to them saying this:
States: youall come up with a law banning gay marriage that can make it through the appeals process in the most conservative federal circuit you can find, and we will <i>totes</i> reconcile that law with the 30+ state laws that now permit it. And at least 4 of us will reconcile in favor of your ban, if you give us anything at all to work with.
In other words: States Rights is being respected to the absolute max. Mysteriously, none of the states lately has had much luck writing a law that fits even a tiny bit within the Constitution.
Pesky document. Damn shame we didn&#039;t stick with the Articles of Confederation.
the principle of traditional marriage, &ldquo;a pillar of the party&rsquo;s founding in 1856.&rdquo; (Somewhere in the afterlife, John C. Fremont looked up and said, &ldquo;What?&rdquo;)
Now, on the other hand, if the court was going to tear up the trans-continental railway!
States do have the right to define marriage - hence age of consent laws, laws preventing incest and polygamy, etc if they advance a necessary state interest.
They do not have the right to discriminate based upon sexual orientation. They do not have the right to trample the Privileges and Immunities Clause, nor the Equal Protection clause. They do not have the right to create a &quot;separate, but equal&quot; form and then present it as &quot;just as good&quot; as marriage.
But hey, whatever gets the filthy lucre into your pockets.
I&#039;m not an expert, but if it&#039;s that hard-fought than I think you may not be doing it right.
You&#039;re saying that some of the people in a state can&#039;t vote to take rights away from other people?
What the hell kind of a democracy would that be?
Just ask Hillary
Hey, Ted. Shut up. Seriously. Just shut the fuck up. ~ America
Yes, your otherwise-cogent explanation left out wriggling. Wriggling around in excrement.
Looking forward eagerly to Ted&#039;s impassioned plea for a narrow interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
Fifty Shades of Derp.
Nope, all them folks is Blue Dawg Democrats now.
Hahahahaha. The faculty at Harvard Law School gets its shame gland removed as a condition of tenure.
Not to mention trucknutz.
The sweetest thing about the SCOTUS&#039;s sweet sweet action yesterday is that it basically amounted to them saying this:
States: youall come up with a law banning gay marriage that can make it through the appeals process in the most conservative federal circuit you can find, and we will <i>totes</i> reconcile that law with the 30+ state laws that now permit it. And at least 4 of us will reconcile in favor of your ban, if you give us anything at all to work with.
In other words: States Rights is being respected to the absolute max. Mysteriously, none of the states lately has had much luck writing a law that fits even a tiny bit within the Constitution.
Pesky document. Damn shame we didn&#039;t stick with the Articles of Confederation.
Really, the only way left to express one&#039;s deep patriotism and love of America is by trying to undermine the Constitution.
Give Cruz an enema and you could fit him in a matchbox afterwards.
the principle of traditional marriage, &ldquo;a pillar of the party&rsquo;s founding in 1856.&rdquo; (Somewhere in the afterlife, John C. Fremont looked up and said, &ldquo;What?&rdquo;)
Now, on the other hand, if the court was going to tear up the trans-continental railway!
Dear Texas, please come get your idiot.
No, not that one, this one.
Yes, I know you have many of them.
States do have the right to define marriage - hence age of consent laws, laws preventing incest and polygamy, etc if they advance a necessary state interest.
They do not have the right to discriminate based upon sexual orientation. They do not have the right to trample the Privileges and Immunities Clause, nor the Equal Protection clause. They do not have the right to create a &quot;separate, but equal&quot; form and then present it as &quot;just as good&quot; as marriage.
But hey, whatever gets the filthy lucre into your pockets.