Oh, it certainly exists, I'm just saying that we can no longer assume that the court will follow precedent in applying it. They've jumped that ship.This comes from a discussion of the new ruling over at Scotusblog: "A curious aspect of the new ruling was that, once again, Justice Kennedy did not spell out what constitutional test he was applying to a claim of gay equality. It simply discussed a series of court precedents, and his own recitation of of liberty, without saying what burden those challenging the bans had to satisfy before winning the right to equality."
So it appears that you have some basis for worrying about extending the reasoning, but I would be hesitant to read the lack of a discussion of an explicit constitutional test as a reading that a constitutional test does not exist.
By the way, I must admit that you were correct regarding my discussion of the most recent polygamist decision. I thought the Supreme Court had already issued a "cert. denied" order in regards to the Utah Supreme Court decision, but it appears that case is actually still awaiting an order from the circuit court.
I guess the "people of faith" have their hatred and disrespect excused because a book told them to be that way.
You are discriminating against people who are already married. Why can't they love another person and be able to express that love through another marriage? How does it affect you if I have 3 wives and one of my wives has 6 husbands?
they could have done all of this without marriage.
I make no excuses for people of faith who practice hatred and disrespect. Are you excusing those who practice hatred and disrespect against people of faith?
You are discriminating against people who are already married. Why can't they love another person and be able to express that love through another marriage? How does it affect you if I have 3 wives and one of my wives has 6 husbands?
No. I disrespect people all the time, when their actions don't warrant respect.
they could have done all of this without marriage.
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
You conveniently didn't answer the question, which is, in effect, an answer it itself.
That would be a pretty crappy wine company, since you would have no wine. In other words, you are applying that old saying incorrectly.
Unless, of course, your premise is that anyone that disagrees with the ruling really agrees with it but are saying it is no good because they won't ever be able to be in a gay marriage. Is that what you mean? Because that's what you are saying.
I was pretty sure the word "no" consisted of an answer to a question, but whatever dude. Have fun playing with your new mandatory gay husband.
Are you dating Satan? I do not know the nature of the relationship you have with the guy but all these intimate details are creeping me out.
The decision, it seems to me, is based on rather weak reasoning and is not a particularly well written opinion. It will be interesting to see what the scholars have to say (whether or not they agree with the outcome) once the dust settles a bit.This comes from a discussion of the new ruling over at Scotusblog: "A curious aspect of the new ruling was that, once again, Justice Kennedy did not spell out what constitutional test he was applying to a claim of gay equality. It simply discussed a series of court precedents, and his own recitation of notions of liberty, without saying what burden those challenging the bans had to satisfy before winning the right to equality."
Yes but, they couldn't slap the face of the religious in the process.
My personal beliefs do.
Really want to compare Muslim and Christians regarding their feelings toward gays?
Yes but, they couldn't slap the face of the religious in the process.
I don't see anywhere where they challenged the ban on polygamy and bigamy as a violation of due process.
I was being tongue-in-cheek. However, they are going to be mad anyway. Social Conservatives have consistently been on the wrong side of history on every issue in at least the last 200 years. They are classic authoritarians and in this case are getting angry about something that has zero impact on their lives.
And I would note, just anecdotally, that the vast majority of people I've seen in the media participating in same sex marriage ceremonies have been fat white men and women,.
That's fair, but considering some of the comment I've seen here at DP, not specifically on this thread, related to the hatred and disrespect of people of faith, I wouldn't put it past some on the left moving in that direction, well before a million years.
Turn the other cheek?
It's not hard to see his work and know what makes him filled with glee.
There comes a point where picking up the sword is much more effective.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?