Ireland becomes first country to legalize gay marriage via pop vote

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(05-23-2015, 06:04 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You're not too sure the Supreme Court will declare the bans unconstitutional? If it happens it'll do the opposite of create of problems, really, as it will solve a dozen problems at once.

I can't think of a single negative thing that will come about when marriage equality becomes reality. I just don't see what negatives can come out of a group of people that are harming no one receiving rights that the rest of the country already have.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(05-23-2015, 06:22 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: I can't think of a single negative thing that will come about when marriage equality becomes reality.  I just don't see what negatives can come out of a group of people that are harming no one receiving rights that the rest of the country already have.

But it will destroy the institution of marriage even more than heterosexuals have managed to do so.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-23-2015, 06:04 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You're not too sure the Supreme Court will declare the bans unconstitutional? If it happens it'll do the opposite of create of problems, really, as it will solve a dozen problems at once.

No I am not.... And if they do then there wil be news laws drawn up. If a state doesn't want it then they will make it hard on them . Florida was doing gay marriage because of some court case and loads of counties refused to do them....

Besides this whole fight for/against gay marriage has nothing to do with marriage or "marriage equality" It has everything to do with tearing down the family and making everything a community thing. They can go get married by anyone who will marry them.... Then write up contracts and partnerships for everything else. So if they can do all this already then why are they trying to rewrite marriage? The only reason is to lower traditional marriage to where any combination is ok. Forgetting the fact that's marriage is for 1 sole purpose.... To have a family.

Yeah it's great Ireland can gay marry now. They can have at it ....

I bet in the end certain language will need adjusted in the state bills. or they will say that marriage is a state issue not a federal issue.

[SunsetBengal]

(05-23-2015, 06:07 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I sure WashPo and ABC's methods are pretty solid.

Gallup's too.

Apparently both released polls recently that show support is at 60% and 61%.

Are you positive that you trust Washington Post? In another thread, you were telling how they were putting out a story based only on Right Wing news sources.

[BmorePat87]

(05-23-2015, 09:50 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Are you positive that you trust Washington Post?  In another thread, you were telling how they were putting out a story based only on Right Wing news sources.

Washington Times. Veeeeeeeery different from WashPo

[BmorePat87]

(05-23-2015, 09:17 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: No I am not....  And if they do then there wil be news laws drawn up.   If a state doesn't want it then they will make it hard on them .   Florida was doing gay marriage because of some court case and loads of counties refused to do them....  

Besides this whole fight for/against gay marriage has nothing to do with marriage or "marriage equality"   It has everything to do with tearing down the family and making everything a community thing.   They can go get married by anyone who will marry them....  Then write up contracts and partnerships for everything else.  So if they can do all this already then why are they trying to rewrite marriage?  The only reason is to lower traditional marriage to where any combination is ok.    Forgetting the fact that's marriage is for 1 sole purpose.... To have a family.  

Yeah it's great Ireland can gay marry now.   They can have at it ....  

I bet in the end certain language will need adjusted in the state bills.   or they will say that marriage is a state issue not a federal issue.

Out of curiousity, how do you see them voting given the DOMA vote that was 5-4?

Also, how do you see them making new laws that ban gay marriage once gay marriage bans are unconstitutional?

[StLucieBengal]

(05-23-2015, 10:31 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Out of curiousity, how do you see them voting given the DOMA vote that was 5-4?

Also, how do you see them making new laws that ban gay marriage once gay marriage bans are unconstitutional?

Just a hunch. It's gonna come down to 1 guy and the last time he ventured outside of the norm... We got obamacare.... I don't see him going out on a limb again. Had he not screwed us on Obamacare then he would probably have gone ahead with this .... I really don't think it's appropriate when the courts weigh in on these matters.

Don't think they will "ban" gay marriage they will sort a way to let them do something and call it whatever.

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2015, 10:31 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Out of curiousity, how do you see them voting given the DOMA vote that was 5-4?

Also, how do you see them making new laws that ban gay marriage once gay marriage bans are unconstitutional?

I have heard there is a push to have the 2 female Justices recuse themselves because the have already presided over same-sex marriages.

Also it may be a matter of wording, but I think the issue is to determine if Same sex marriages are protected under the constitution.

[BmorePat87]

(05-24-2015, 12:03 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Just a hunch.   It's gonna come down to 1 guy and the last time he ventured outside of the norm... We got obamacare.... I don't see him going out on a limb again.   Had he not screwed us on Obamacare then he would probably have gone ahead with this ....  I really don't think it's appropriate when the courts weigh in on these matters.  

Don't think they will "ban" gay marriage they will sort a way to let them do something and call it whatever.

Roberts isn't one of the ones expected to side in favor. They're expecting Kennedy to side with the liberal justices. Maybe Roberts makes it 6-3.

[GodHatesBengals]

IT'S A SIGN OF THE END TIMES

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(05-24-2015, 05:19 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: IT'S A SIGN OF THE END TIMES

The sad thing is, there's so many people that actually think this that I can't tell if you're trolling or serious.

[GodHatesBengals]

(05-24-2015, 05:21 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: The sad thing is, there's so many people that actually think this that I can't tell if you're trolling or serious.

Poe's Law comes into play.

I'm an atheist. Should answer your question.

[6andcounting]

(05-23-2015, 05:03 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: There are a lot of people that say that they want the government out of marriage now.  This isn't me trying to be a smartass,it's genuine curiosity:  is that a view that many people have held in the past or is it just a thing that people are saying because they're just that against gay marriage?  I had never even heard the suggestion until it became clear that all gays would soon have the right to marry.

From my experience, the people who want government out of all marriages are libertarian, minarchists or anarchists. These people tend to support gay marriage anyway and their take on every issue is coming from the angle that government shouldn't be there anyway. I'd say their belief is genuine.

If a republican says this, idk how honest they are being, but from my experience Republicans want to keep government in marriage for the sole purpose of being able to regulate it.

[*bfine32*]

I think I have made clear my view on the matter and folks just have to realize that not everybody is going to think alike. WTS, when/if it is legalized national I will accept the ruling. That's not to say I would vote against it in a general election.

I did find this particular meme to be humorous:

[StLucieBengal]

(05-24-2015, 01:14 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Roberts isn't one of the ones expected to side in favor. They're expecting Kennedy to side with the liberal justices. Maybe Roberts makes it 6-3.

I have not heard that .... But I will take your word for it.... This is such a who cares issue.... Not even sure why we are wasting time with all the problems we have atm.

We will see. I know loads of counties wont do it here. Mainly because the belief is that it's a state issue. When it happens one way or the other i will pay attention to the reaction. We get a more mainstream view of things here. We aren't biased by the NE.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-24-2015, 05:21 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: The sad thing is, there's so many people that actually think this that I can't tell if you're trolling or serious.

No one here thinks this.... You insult everyone here by even asserting that.. This is a fairly reasonable group no matter Where you land on the spectrum.

[BmorePat87]

(05-25-2015, 08:24 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I have not heard that .... But I will take your word for it.... This is such a who cares issue.... Not even sure why we are wasting time with all the problems we have atm.  

We will see.   I know loads of counties wont do it here.   Mainly because the belief is that it's a state issue.    When it happens one way or the other i will pay attention to the reaction.    We get a more mainstream view of things here.   We aren't biased by the NE.

I think it's safe to say that the four liberal judges (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) will rule against these bans. Alito, Scalia, and Thomas are almost 100% likely to believe that these bans should be upheld. That leaves Roberts and Kennedy. Kennedy sided in favor of the majority in the DOMA decision, which many believe is a sign that he will side with the liberal judges on this one. Roberts, like with the ACA decision, may side with the constitution on this one and make it a 6-3 in favor of striking down the bans. He only partially sided with Scalia on the Windsor (DOMA) case and his own dissent focused more on the whether the courts had the jurisdiction to hear that specific case. He mentions that they will likely soon hear a case on individual state bans and stated that the opinion of the DOMA case should not be used a precedent by lower states to make their decision on those cases. A lot of technical jargon, so it's hard to tell considering he was dissenting more on principle than the actual issue.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(05-25-2015, 08:26 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: No one here thinks this....  You insult everyone here by even asserting that..   This is a fairly reasonable group no matter Where you land on the spectrum.

Did I say anywhere that anyone HERE thinks this way? You insult everyone here when you assume random shit.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-25-2015, 09:32 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I think it's safe to say that the four liberal judges (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) will rule against these bans. Alito, Scalia, and Thomas are almost 100% likely to believe that these bans should be upheld. That leaves Roberts and Kennedy. Kennedy sided in favor of the majority in the DOMA decision, which many believe is a sign that he will side with the liberal judges on this one. Roberts, like with the ACA decision, may side with the constitution on this one and make it a 6-3 in favor of striking down the bans. He only partially sided with Scalia on the Windsor (DOMA) case and his own dissent focused more on the whether the courts had the jurisdiction to hear that specific case. He mentions that they will likely soon hear a case on individual state bans and stated that the opinion of the DOMA case should not be used a precedent by lower states to make their decision on those cases. A lot of technical jargon, so it's hard to tell considering he was dissenting more on principle than the actual issue.

Ugh..... We will see, it will be a pain here if they do.... I wish they would stop forcing their lifestyle on us. They wanna change a law just vote on it. Not cry to the courts. Problem is they don't wanna move into Alabama ... They just wanna tell them what to do from New York .

[StLucieBengal]

(05-25-2015, 09:37 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: Did I say anywhere that anyone HERE thinks this way? You insult everyone here when you assume random shit.

Why are you swearing? Is your vocabulary not good enough you have to swear?