Marriage Now Fabulous, SCOTUS Rules for Same Sex Marriage

[Divitaen]

I'm extremely disappointed with the Supreme Court.

Yeah, I know. It should have been a unanimous decision, and they should have clarified that individual states cannot ban same-sex marriage when they ruled on United States v. Windsor a few years back.

[Godular]

I would be surprised if anybody thought that it was not going to turn out this way.

[Laerod]

The timing couldn't be more relevant for us: Pride in London is tomorrow.

More importantly, the USA is playing China in the World Cup.

[Liriena]

im moving to uganda

so that i can help the local populace from poverty

Sure. And Scott Lively was just trying to teach sex ed.

[Divitaen]

I would be surprised if anybody thought that it was not going to turn out this way.

Everyone knew it would. After the US v. Windsor case and Proposition 8 being struck down, it was basically legal precedent. There is no other way this could have turned out.

[Autem Galacticus Nexum]

I'm extremely disappointed with the Supreme Court.

Yeah, I know. It should have been a unanimous decision, and they should have clarified that individual states cannot ban same-sex marriage when they ruled on United States v. Windsor a few years back.

no

it should've been put down like one of them white house hoes

[Yumyumsuppertime]

That was a sign of protest and support. Now that it's actually happening, it's a different sign for celebration.

the = sign doesn't look like some five year old barfed food coloring on it

I'm sorry that your aesthetic sensibilities will be offended during this period of celebration. Perhaps sunglasses would help.

[Neutraligon]

Indeed, as stated earlier churches can still say no to interracial marriages.

Well, I think the government has no right to dictate what religious organizations can and cannot do. But I do think it's stupid to not allow interracial marriages.

They aren't, this ruling specifically states that states must recognize ssm marriages from other states and that they are not allowed to ban it in their own state. It has nothing to do with religious organizations (unless of course that religious organization is classified as a business).

[Autem Galacticus Nexum]

im moving to uganda

so that i can help the local populace from poverty

Sure. And Scott Lively was just trying to teach sex ed.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Today my car ran perfectly, clearly the Omnissiah calmed its machine spirit as a blessing on my gay marriage.

Praise be to the Omnissiah, Praise be to the God-Emperor.

[Torisakia]

That was a sign of protest and support. Now that it's actually happening, it's a different sign for celebration.

the = sign doesn't look like some five year old barfed food coloring on it

Anyone who can vomit in a perfect straight line like that has talent though.

[Laerod]

Indeed, as stated earlier churches can still say no to interracial marriages.

Well, I think the government has no right to dictate what religious organizations can and cannot do. But I do think it's stupid to not allow interracial marriages.

Well, the government would need a compelling reason, as per legal precedent. Like, say, preventing a church from engaging in ritual human sacrifice.

[Autem Galacticus Nexum]

Today my car ran perfectly, clearly the Omnissiah calmed its machine spirit as a blessing on my gay marriage.

Praise be to the Omnissiah, Praise be to the God-Emperor.

no

khorne 4 lyf

blood for the blood god

skulls for the skull throne and skeletor

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I would be surprised if anybody thought that it was not going to turn out this way.

The ability of people to deny the obvious when it is occurring right in front of them, so long as it contradicts their personal views, never ceases to astound me (See also: Rove, Karl).

[The Rich Port]

Indeed, as stated earlier churches can still say no to interracial marriages.

Well, I think the government has no right to dictate what religious organizations can and cannot do. But I do think it's stupid to not allow interracial marriages.

So far, it's never made any attempts at doing so.

Churches, on the other hand, have actively lorded over their subjects, exactly the opposite of what any secular government has done in regards to sexual politics.

Irony? Irony.

[Autem Galacticus Nexum]

the = sign doesn't look like some five year old barfed food coloring on it

Anyone who can vomit in a perfect straight line like that has talent though.

my friend bobby can

bobby is confirmed gay

[Divitaen]

Yeah, I know. It should have been a unanimous decision, and they should have clarified that individual states cannot ban same-sex marriage when they ruled on United States v. Windsor a few years back.

no

it should've been put down like one of them white house hoes

You're not making your case any more credible. Especially if you're going to make sexist remarks on top of that.

[Ifreann]

i am going to stop before i give myself a heart attack.

If typing is so strenuous as to cause a heart attack, you really need to see a doctor! D=

Call an ambulance, but very carefully.

[The Rich Port]

I would be surprised if anybody thought that it was not going to turn out this way.

I'm a cynical bastard that grew up in a cynical conservative society where being a fairy boy was a cultural death sentence and we all tried to avert it like the Black Plague.

Sue me if I don't think the government can do something right for once.

[Autem Galacticus Nexum]

no

it should've been put down like one of them white house hoes

You're not making your case any more credible. Especially if you're going to make sexist remarks on top of that.

. . .

That was sexist? A man can be a prostitute too.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

Before this ruling a a majority of states already legalized ssm. More then that it would not get the votes it needs in Congress to pass.

Thirteen states is not a majority. A majority of states had SSM forced upon them by judicial activism. There is a HUGE difference.

Here was the status of the states on SSM before the tyranny:
http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2014/0220/20140220_015351_Same-Sex-Marriage-Footer.jpg


Light blue are states who acted on their right to define marriage as they saw fit, and added homosexuals.

White states are the ones that banned it.

Dark blue states had SSM forced on them at a federal level by unaccountable and crooked judges inventing rights that never existed.

Today, all white states are dark blue. and courts can rule in error. This is not over.

---

HERE are the states that voted against SSM:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marriage_amendment_animation.gif

---

There were thirteen states (twelve if you exclude DC) that allowed SSM under state initiatives.

Of these, Massachutses, Connecticut, and Iowa had SSM forced upon them by their state courts. It's sick and wrong, but perfectly within their states' rights to do so.

Vermont and New Hampshire legalized Civil Unions (which I have absolutely zero problems with), though NH fell to the slippery slope and wrecked marriage.

The legislatures (representatives of the people) in New York State, Rhode Island, and Delaware legalized SSM, which is fully in their rights to do so. The people wanted it here, so be it.

The people of Maine, Maryland, and Washington State explicitly voted in favor of SSM, and the people of Minnesota rejected a marriage protection amendment. The people wanted it here, so be it.

[Neutraligon]

Before this ruling a a majority of states already legalized ssm. More then that it would not get the votes it needs in Congress to pass.

Thirteen states is not a majority. A majority of states had SSM forced upon them by judicial activism. There is a HUGE difference.

Here was the status of the states on SSM before the tyranny:
http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2014/0220/20140220_015351_Same-Sex-Marriage-Footer.jpg


Light blue are states who acted on their right to define marriage as they saw fit, and added homosexuals.

White states are the ones that banned it.

Dark blue states had SSM forced on them at a federal level by unaccountable and crooked judges inventing rights that never existed.

Today, all white states are dark blue. and courts can rule in error. This is not over.

---

HERE are the states that voted against SSM:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marriage_amendment_animation.gif


[hr][/hr]

There were thirteen states (twelve if you exclude DC) that allowed SSM under state initiatives.

Of these, Massachutses, Connecticut, and Iowa had SSM forced upon them by their state courts. It's sick and wrong, but perfectly within their states' rights to do so.

Vermont and New Hampshire legalized Civil Unions (which I have absolutely zero problems with), though NH fell to the slippery slope and wrecked marriage.

The legislatures (representatives of the people) in New York State, Rhode Island, and Delaware legalized SSM, which is fully in their rights to do so. The people wanted it here, so be it.

The people of Maine, Maryland, and Washington State explicitly voted in favor of SSM, and the people of Minnesota rejected a marriage protection amendment. The people wanted it here, so be it.

13 states is sufficient to prevent a constitutional amendment. Regardless of how those states came to legalize it, the majority had legalized it.

[Cyrisnia]

Good to see this finally happening.

[Godular]

I would be surprised if anybody thought that it was not going to turn out this way.

Everyone knew it would. After the US v. Windsor case and Proposition 8 being struck down, it was basically legal precedent. There is no other way this could have turned out.

That's pretty much what I mean. With the vast majority of courts pretty much saying 'You idiots are pretty much proving why rule by majority is bad' and whatnot, even most of the conservative outlets have simply been yowling about what will happen after the ruling, even going so far as to be threatening about it.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Before this ruling a a majority of states already legalized ssm. More then that it would not get the votes it needs in Congress to pass.

Thirteen states is not a majority. A majority of states had SSM forced upon them by judicial activism. There is a HUGE difference.

Here was the status of the states on SSM before the tyranny:
http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2014/0220/20140220_015351_Same-Sex-Marriage-Footer.jpg


Light blue are states who acted on their right to define marriage as they saw fit, and added homosexuals.

White states are the ones that banned it.

Dark blue states had SSM forced on them at a federal level by unaccountable and crooked judges inventing rights that never existed.

Today, all white states are dark blue. and courts can rule in error. This is not over.

---

HERE are the states that voted against SSM:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marriage_amendment_animation.gif

---

There were thirteen states (twelve if you exclude DC) that allowed SSM under state initiatives.

Of these, Massachutses, Connecticut, and Iowa had SSM forced upon them by their state courts. It's sick and wrong, but perfectly within their states' rights to do so.

Vermont and New Hampshire legalized Civil Unions (which I have absolutely zero problems with), though NH fell to the slippery slope and wrecked marriage.

The legislatures (representatives of the people) in New York State, Rhode Island, and Delaware legalized SSM, which is fully in their rights to do so. The people wanted it here, so be it.

The people of Maine, Maryland, and Washington State explicitly voted in favor of SSM, and the people of Minnesota rejected a marriage protection amendment. The people wanted it here, so be it.

If you're calling the actions of courts performing their Contitutional duty through making rulings regarding the Constitutionality of laws a form of tyranny, then you don't understand our legal system at all.