I offer no opinion on the above. I'm sure some are stewing and some are happy.
This week in one picture
- Thread starter Game Well
- Start date
I offer no opinion on the above. I'm sure some are stewing and some are happy.
At least we can finally get married. I love you Game Well!!!!!
This has to be the photo of the week... This guy should win a Darwin Award for least likely to be selected.
Last edited by a moderator:
True. But I don't know that's a fireable offense. He has a fairly strong case.
This has to be the photo of the week... This guy should win an Darwin Award for least likely to be selected.
At least Hillary and bill can now legally be married...
I fvcking hate what has happened to this once great country.
I fvcking hate what has happened to this once great country.
I know, this country was so much better when only straight white men had rights.
Congrats on finally being able to marry Nigel.
I hope you two have a happy life together.
Serious question. Does this mean your fishing, hunting, and gun license will now be recognized in every state?
Sorry, I just interpreted what you wrote. That's literally what you said. That this country went to **** after de-segregation and women entering the workforce.
I hope I'm not as salty a person as you are when I'm your age.
I would like to see evidence for and against this. My feeling is that it really was, if you were white and straight.
Has the country improved since? Has it declined? Cite your sources.
pass legislation that lets the President have almost endless trade powers.. W/o amendment by Congress
Rewrite laws to fit a political agenda....should have known that States doe not equal " the State"
Ignore the constitution and create new rights ( right to intimacy?) should have left it to the states and voters as the founders planned.
Forget the issues... When we start fooling with first principals and the Constitution we are done..
The Stateists in DC and the political eliet won ! Screw them all as our destruction awaits.
FYI , read Scalia's opinion today , a magnificent piece.
Rewrite laws to fit a political agenda....should have known that States doe not equal " the State"
Ignore the constitution and create new rights ( right to intimacy?) should have left it to the states and voters as the founders planned.
Forget the issues... When we start fooling with first principals and the Constitution we are done..
The Stateists in DC and the political eliet won ! Screw them all as our destruction awaits.
FYI , read Scalia's opinion today , a magnificent piece.
What is the point in even having a constitution
The fourteenth amamenent of our beloved constitution states in its first clause,
"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."
The decision today states essentially that not allowing gay marriage abridges unfairly a gay person's privileges as a citizen of the Ubited States.
If we are not working towards equality under the law, what indeed is the point of even having a constitution?
No need to go read it. All powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government are left to the states. However you may recall that in the interim between the tenth and fourteenth amendments we fought a war that was based largely on the fact that a certain segment of states were into treating some of their citizens as property, and that the majority of citizens in those states were totally cool with that - not that they ever put it to a vote because black folks couldn't vote anyways so who cares?
Anyhow point is that the majority doesn't get to decide which civil rights a minority has or doesn't have.
I agree with you. Now explain to me the ACA ruling. The court basically said "I know what they wrote but what they meant to say was . . ." The reality is this saved the GOP a monster of a headache but I don't believe that is a good enough reason to uphold a utterly flawed piece of legislation.
Hm... I was mostly talking **** and sarcastically remarking on Munson's correlation of the decline of our country with advances in civil rights. I'm not actually sure how you would measure if life were better for white straight men in the post-war era than it is today.
My suspicion is that if you examined quantitative studies you would find that income levels for college educated straight white guys have held steady or grown. I think incomes for high school educated white men are probably worse due to more competition at home and abroad.
Other than that how would you measure it? Not being snarky - truthfully not sure.
Would you care to offer a reasoned opinion as to why I am trolling or do you plan to just stick to one-liners that don't actually say anything of substance?
There are no winners in this thread.
Webster's definition of "douchebaggery" should be rewritten to include dudes who debate the Constitution on a college sports message board on a Friday night
Webster's definition of "douchebaggery" should be rewritten to include dudes who debate the Constitution on a college sports message board on a Friday night
Yeah... I think that's a pretty fair summary of the ruling actually. I haven't read the text so I'm not sure what legal reasoning they used. I know they gave congress a hard time for writing the law so poorly. They basically had to try to interpret the part of the law in question using the context of the other parts of the law. Interesting that this ruling was 6-3 (reminder: conservative court...) and the gay marriage ruling was 5-4. The chief wrote the opinion on the ACA... seen some articles on how Roberts is really pro-business more than anything, as a ruling in favor of the plaintiff would have been a bad day for a lot of companies.
This is probably true. Sometimes I just can't resist a good argument, especially while watching A Few Good Men after the wife and the baby have gone to bed.
Soooooooooo.......
Other than technologically speaking, what we are discussing is ........what?
That our country, society, is better than it was 'back then'?
Dual race standards were and are despicable. Fact. We could go ad infinitum on that
But our (inner) cities are not safe, our children cannot play in their own yards (much less down the street), our national government spends way more than it takes in and growing, the family unit is distraught if not disrupted or dead, most/too many? people are upside down in debt, everything you care about: homes, cars, even stuff in the back of your pickup, must be locked down, we continue on the road of technology 'dehumanizing' us (watch people and their pad, ipods, or cell phones........is it really necessary) and you guys are focusing on one decision?
So how have we progressed as humans? More relative morality? That trumps everything else?
Other than technologically speaking, what we are discussing is ........what?
That our country, society, is better than it was 'back then'?
Dual race standards were and are despicable. Fact. We could go ad infinitum on that
But our (inner) cities are not safe, our children cannot play in their own yards (much less down the street), our national government spends way more than it takes in and growing, the family unit is distraught if not disrupted or dead, most/too many? people are upside down in debt, everything you care about: homes, cars, even stuff in the back of your pickup, must be locked down, we continue on the road of technology 'dehumanizing' us (watch people and their pad, ipods, or cell phones........is it really necessary) and you guys are focusing on one decision?
So how have we progressed as humans? More relative morality? That trumps everything else?
Last edited by a moderator:
So what does this mean to the man who wants to marry his car, or thinks it is his right to be able to marry 15 women now?
Fantastic week.
Moved forward by about 50 years.
Historic actually
Moved forward by about 50 years.
Historic actually
In my ideal world, the gov't would just stop supporting marriage altogether, let anyone marry anyone in the way that they choose without perks or benefits for anyone. (Also, they could institute a fair tax or flat tax while they are at it.) Personally, I married my wife in the biblical way, according to the scripture and as defined by biblical scripture. I could care less about the legal part. We did, of course have to sign the legal certificate for the marriage to be recognized by the gov't. What is inevitable at this point is that Christian Ministers, and probably Muslim clerics; in the very near future, will not be licensed by the gov't to perform or sign marriage certificates, because they cannot legally refuse to marry gays based on religious beliefs. Their license or certification will only be issued on their signature that they will not discriminate based on sexual orientation.
Again, let me reiterate that I could care less if any of you gays find some New Age Guru and stand in front of a crystal ball and get "married". I don't even care if you find a pastor of some denomination that will marry you. Marriage, for me is based on one thing, and one thing only, what God says it is. The rest of you folks are certainly free to, and have a right to define marriage any way you want. I just don't want the gov't defining it for anyone.
Again, let me reiterate that I could care less if any of you gays find some New Age Guru and stand in front of a crystal ball and get "married". I don't even care if you find a pastor of some denomination that will marry you. Marriage, for me is based on one thing, and one thing only, what God says it is. The rest of you folks are certainly free to, and have a right to define marriage any way you want. I just don't want the gov't defining it for anyone.
I don't think its my place to tell people what they can and can't do. My issue is political. Just think this was a state issue and each state should have the opportunity to vote on it. Like everything else, if my state voted for it, I can live with that. That's the way it should be IMO. If things get bad enough, I can just do what @Cabotiger did, I guess.