VIBE;8168498 said:
A lot people said the same shit about interracial marriage and homosexuality. Don't forget about
NAMBLA = NORTH AMERICAN MAN BOY LOVE ASSOCIATION
Afghan Pedophilia: A way of life, say U.S. soldiers and journalists
http://www.examiner.com/article/afghan-pedophilia-a-way-of-life-say-u-s-soldiers-and-journalists
Afghanistan’s ‘dancing boys’ are invisible victims
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...ible-victims/2012/04/04/gIQAyreSwS_story.html
We may not see the full effects of this in our lifetime but with the way shit is going I would never doubt what a group with a lot money can pull off in this country
Arya Tsaddiq
New member
D. Morgan;8172428 said:
I was unaware that that was happening over there. I thought all Muslims went hard on all sexual immorality....guess not....
Sick people in this world man.
Maximus Rex
New member
I think it's pretty fair to say that our of all of the people that have commented on this thread, that ole is the only one who's actually read all 103 pages the now landmark Obergefell v Hodges case in which a sharply divided court (in a 5-4 decision,) legalized fag and dykin' marriage.
There were four issues central to the case,
1) Does the 14th Amendment require states to issue a marriage license between two people of the same sex.
2) Do states have don't have fag marriage have to recognize a marriage license from state that did have gay marriage.
3) States allow fags and dykes to adopt children, however should an emergency arise, the state will treat the children as if they only have one parent. In other words, (if God forbid something were to happen to the child,) only one person would have decision making ability concerning the kids.
4) Can homos be listed as the surviving spouse on death certificates.
The 14th Amendment states that 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.
In the syllabus to the decision it is cited that the history of marriage is "one of continuity and change," and for matrimonial practices such as arranged marriages and the law of coverture are longer a part of marriage in the Western culture. Central to the majority's opinion is that the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause are that Due Process extends to certain personal choices, central to individual dignity, autonomy, and intimate choices. All of these schools of thought full under the bigger umbrella which is Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment which the SCOTUS has defined as a fundamental right and one those fundamental right is the right to marry. The SCOTUS goes on to say that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent to in the concept to individual autonomy, marriage is fundamental because it supports a two person union unlike any other in it's importance to committed individuals.
The third is The SCOTUS says that it protects families and children by providing the children with stability. The court says without this stability, the children of same sex couples "suffer with the stigma of knowing that their families are somehow lesser," and the marriage laws in question humiliate and harm the children of fags and dykes." Finally the Court says that due to precedent and the country's traditions marriage is the "keystone of the Nation's social order," and "states have contributed to the fundamental of the character of marriage by putting it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order.
Justice Kennedy, (who wrote the opinion for the majority,) begins by saying that, "The Constitution promises liberty to all within it's reach, a liberty, that includes certain specific rights, that allow persons within a lawful realm, to to define and express their identity". And that was part of the problem with this patchwork of fag and dykin' marriage laws, marriage gives individuals certain rights and privileges and under the principles freedom and liberty on which this country was founded, you can't just deny people certain rights and privileges. A rather profound statement in the opinion is when Justice Kennedy said, "The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our time own times. That those generations who ratified the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment did not presume to know the extent to of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn it's meaning." Opponents would say that this is nothing more than judicial activism.
Justice Kennedy goes on to cite Loving v Virginia the landmark decision which banned miscegenation laws in America, "marriage is one of the vital personal rights to essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." The four principles and traditions that the Court used to determine that marriage is a fundamental right under the Constitution are the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent under in concept of individual autonomy. The right to marry is fundamental because it supports a bond two-person bond unlike any other in importance to committed individuals, it safeguards families and children, and marriage is he keystone of our society.
Whether you agree with gays, their agenda or their right to marry, it's clear that under legal precedent and according to the 14th Amendment that the SCOTUS, had no other alternative to rule in the petitioners favor because (as you'll see,) in the dissent, (especially Chief Justice's Roberts,) the arguments are based in emotion and follow are losely based on court precedent and American jurisprudence.
There were four issues central to the case,
1) Does the 14th Amendment require states to issue a marriage license between two people of the same sex.
2) Do states have don't have fag marriage have to recognize a marriage license from state that did have gay marriage.
3) States allow fags and dykes to adopt children, however should an emergency arise, the state will treat the children as if they only have one parent. In other words, (if God forbid something were to happen to the child,) only one person would have decision making ability concerning the kids.
4) Can homos be listed as the surviving spouse on death certificates.
The 14th Amendment states that 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.
In the syllabus to the decision it is cited that the history of marriage is "one of continuity and change," and for matrimonial practices such as arranged marriages and the law of coverture are longer a part of marriage in the Western culture. Central to the majority's opinion is that the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause are that Due Process extends to certain personal choices, central to individual dignity, autonomy, and intimate choices. All of these schools of thought full under the bigger umbrella which is Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment which the SCOTUS has defined as a fundamental right and one those fundamental right is the right to marry. The SCOTUS goes on to say that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent to in the concept to individual autonomy, marriage is fundamental because it supports a two person union unlike any other in it's importance to committed individuals.
The third is The SCOTUS says that it protects families and children by providing the children with stability. The court says without this stability, the children of same sex couples "suffer with the stigma of knowing that their families are somehow lesser," and the marriage laws in question humiliate and harm the children of fags and dykes." Finally the Court says that due to precedent and the country's traditions marriage is the "keystone of the Nation's social order," and "states have contributed to the fundamental of the character of marriage by putting it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order.
Justice Kennedy, (who wrote the opinion for the majority,) begins by saying that, "The Constitution promises liberty to all within it's reach, a liberty, that includes certain specific rights, that allow persons within a lawful realm, to to define and express their identity". And that was part of the problem with this patchwork of fag and dykin' marriage laws, marriage gives individuals certain rights and privileges and under the principles freedom and liberty on which this country was founded, you can't just deny people certain rights and privileges. A rather profound statement in the opinion is when Justice Kennedy said, "The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our time own times. That those generations who ratified the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment did not presume to know the extent to of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn it's meaning." Opponents would say that this is nothing more than judicial activism.
Justice Kennedy goes on to cite Loving v Virginia the landmark decision which banned miscegenation laws in America, "marriage is one of the vital personal rights to essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." The four principles and traditions that the Court used to determine that marriage is a fundamental right under the Constitution are the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent under in concept of individual autonomy. The right to marry is fundamental because it supports a bond two-person bond unlike any other in importance to committed individuals, it safeguards families and children, and marriage is he keystone of our society.
Whether you agree with gays, their agenda or their right to marry, it's clear that under legal precedent and according to the 14th Amendment that the SCOTUS, had no other alternative to rule in the petitioners favor because (as you'll see,) in the dissent, (especially Chief Justice's Roberts,) the arguments are based in emotion and follow are losely based on court precedent and American jurisprudence.
