Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It hasn't dawned on you yet that the ultimate question of same-sex marriage isn't "if" but "when", has it?
States will continue to legalize same-sex marriage. California, Illinois. Delaware, Rhode Island. New Jersey, Hawai'i. Oregon, Michigan. Down the road, Colorado, Minnesota, Nevada, and more. Eventually, the USSC will issue a Loving v. Virginia-esque ruling, and that will be that. It will be all over but the gnashing of teeth from regressives such as yourself.
PS - Who were you before the election, Mr. "Join Date 11-13-2012"?
Lawrence v. Texas is the decision betweeen Loving v. Virginia and the USSC ruling that gays are entitled to equal protection under the law when it comes to marriage. As soon as Obama replaces a conservative judge that decision is sealed. Right now it would be a toss up.
The average lifespan is a full 20 years higher than it was a century ago. If you think gay marriage in the states is going to grind that to a halt, you need to close your mouth and try breathing through your nostrils for a change.
Lawrence v. Texas is the decision betweeen Loving v. Virginia and the USSC ruling that gays are entitled to equal protection under the law when it comes to marriage. As soon as Obama replaces a conservative judge that decision is sealed. Right now it would be a toss up.
Justice Scalia rightly predicted in his angry dissent in Lawrence that it paves the way for same-sex marriage.
Of course, Justice Scalia also says incessantly that all that matters is interpreting the law, and it is not for the high court to concern itself with the consequences of those interpretations -- but obviously, Antonin is a flaming hypocrite, as he makes clear in the dissent in which he argues that those consequences should bear on the ruling.
Must of hit a nerve with a lot tinker bells out there...
It's must HAVE (or even must've), not must of. Take a class please, preferably with a gay male professor, so you can get a crush on him and realize that yes, indeed, you are gay. There's no shame in that!
Due to the out right killing of female infants and abortion of them in China, there are now millions of males who will never have a female in their life and will never marry. Add in the one child state policy and you have a type of mayhem going on. Give it time and homosexuality will be encouraged in China. This messing with the natural mating process taking place in China has it's consequences. The consequence of so-called same sex mating in the west if totally normalized is the slippery slope to a place that humanity will regret tumbling into. It is almost like a bad science fiction movie where gender no longer exists.
Yes in time and I see it all around me, that sexuality and gender in general is under incremental attack by social engineers who are parting in an experiment that they really don't know what the out come will be. Sure it is all done in the name of equality and supposedly human rights..but as they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Think of the divorce rate...Think of the culture of human disposal that we are witnessing...and also think of the crass indoctrination of youth to world where sex is just some recreational thing much like a sport or hobby..where love and the commitment to bringing new and fresh life into the world no longer exists...It can happen unless those who are fanatical about sexual change and the warping of gender are not curbed.
Justice Scalia rightly predicted in his angry dissent in Lawrence that it paves the way for same-sex marriage.
Of course, Justice Scalia also says incessantly that all that matters is interpreting the law, and it is not for the high court to concern itself with the consequences of those interpretations -- but obviously, Antonin is a flaming hypocrite, as he makes clear in the dissent in which he argues that those consequences should bear on the ruling.
I tend to agree with Scalia's judicial philosophy that he proclaims to follow.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
