I love how people expect government to NOT legislate (as if the term "government" means something else). They're almost as interesting as people who think that the world changed in some horrific way today because some people are suddenly allowed to be treated in a more fully human way.
Still, there's nothing like the "all civilizations fall" crowd. So in their honor: Everyone who ever talked with George Washington is now dead. Everyone who ever ate bacon is either dead or will die within the next 100 years. All (not some) developed civilizations in history collapsed after wearing clothing became the norm. and everyone who ever seriously thought that correlation is in every case causation, eventually turned up looking like an idiot.
It’s a great day today, I feel like there’s nothing else to fight for, it’s a good feeling I didn’t expect would come so soon, and for those of you who picked hate over love, eat it. ?#?LoveWins?
It's supposed to be. That's why I find this decision to be very disturbing and it's setting a dangerous precedent. The Supreme Court isn't supposed to enact their own political vision in what they think is right. The Supreme Court has turned into an activist instead of being what they are supposed to be, a constitutional enforcer.
By the way, where is the special edition Gay Pride Apple watch.
Could bringback some rainbow colored iPod socks too.
I think the special edition Gay Pride Apple Watch is right alongside the special edition Heterosexual Pride Apple Watch.
Unfortunately, they stopped selling the iPod socks in 2012 (from what I could find in a search), but that would have been cool. The rainbow includes all the colors of the visible spectrum, isn't that nice?
How is it that if one doesn't agree with SCOTUS's decision on gay marriage, somehow one is a "hater"? I could careless what someone does in their bedroom, but if I don't endorse or celebrate a particular lifestyle that is defined by who one has sex with, I am someone filled with "hate".
well, its kinda like this... 50 years ago the same thing was happening, but the topic was allowing blacks to marry whites. the conservative religious right, especially in the deep south where i live, tried to stop this from happening. now some didnt claim to "hate" these blacks, they just didnt consider them equals, and because they werent equals, they werent entitled to the same civil rights and, well, dignity, as whites. the thing is -- that is hate. there is only one race, which contains blacks, whites, straights, and gays. we are all the same, and we are all born equal. to deny civil rights & basic dignity to some people based on irrational impulses is simply giving in to your own biases and emotional weaknesses. ie, hating.
and even if your own actions toward gays are not violent or overly hateful, they certainly are from a lot of people. so supporting a movement that encourages hate -- whether overtly or subtly -- is an awful thing because it legitimizes and condones the overt, violent hate as well. do you really want to be an enabler to those who would spit on, beat, or kill gays? i sure wouldnt.
the good news -- in 10 years you wont care anymore. 20, tops.
It's supposed to be. That's why I find this decision to be very disturbing and it's setting a dangerous precedent. The Supreme Court isn't supposed to enact their own political vision in what they think is right. The Supreme Court has turned into an activist instead of being what they are supposed to be, a constitutional enforcer.
nonsense. the courts can only rule on cases brought to them, thus they are not and cannot be activists.
the courts serve as a valid check & balance to the legislative branches. the state legislature can write any law they want, but if they over-step their bounds (banning gay marriage) then the court is the proper & valid check/balance.
And liberals want to keep them addicted to the government hand outs.
More votes for liberal politicians that way.
Aside from the welfare comment, I've actually wondered why it is that large cities and coastal cities tend to lean more liberal. This is a serious sociological question. Smaller cities tend to lean more conservative. Maybe it's because in large cities, the options for mates are so much broader and acceptance of diverse attitudes leads to greater social and financial success? In a small city or town, everyone seems to know everyone else, therefore there are fewer opportunities for mate selection? I still don't really have an answer for this behavioral difference.
nonsense. the courts can only rule on cases brought to them, thus they are not and cannot be activists.
the courts serve as a valid check & balance to the legislative branches. the state legislature can write any law they want, but if they over-step their bounds (banning gay marriage) then the court is the proper & valid check/balance.
the system has done its job.
It's not nonsense. The Supreme Court doesn't have to rule on every case brought to them. How are states over stepping their bounds when the public votes to ban gay marriage? The majority of states that banned gay marriage were from public votes, not state legislature.
The system hasn't done it's job. There is a reason why we have the Bill of Rights. My issue isn't whether I believe gay marriage is wrong or right, I just think its wrong for the Supreme Court to strip states rights that are protected under the constitution. The reason I say activists is from reading what the 5 judges wrote in favor of the ruling.
And liberals want to keep them addicted to the government hand outs.
More votes for liberal politicians that way.
I was on welfare and I lived in the rural. I know a lot of neighbors on welfare. Please, shut your hole. You have no idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Aside from the welfare comment, I've actually wondered why it is that large cities and coastal cities tend to lean more liberal. This is a serious sociological question. Smaller cities tend to lean more conservative. Maybe it's because in large cities, the options for mates are so much broader and acceptance of diverse attitudes leads to greater social and financial success? In a small city or town, everyone seems to know everyone else, therefore there are fewer opportunities for mate selection? I still don't really have an answer for this behavioral difference.
Yes you got that right. I lived in the rural and I knew everyone on the street.
Here's the thing. Surprisingly, all nine justices specifically emphasized the importance of religious freedom and right of expression (genuinely shocked that all nine did). But, what this still does is open the door to more lawsuits. We'll be seeing more of "That mean pastor wouldn't let us get married in his church" or "That mean radio host said he disagrees with gay marriage" or "That mean baker wouldn't make me a wedding cake"
And given how the court cases for people have been going already, this will just make things worse for people who object on religious grounds.
Highly unlikely people will sue a pastor for not performing a marriage especially when they can find one that will. Besides a religious wedding does not make a legal marriage without a license from city hall. Chicken Little theories of the sky falling have been proven wrong with each state making marriage equality a fact.
Highly unlikely people will sue a pastor for not performing a marriage especially when they can find one that will...
Not so sure about that. You may recall the cake baker in Colorado who refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple due to her religious beliefs. She was sued and lost.
Aside from the welfare comment, I've actually wondered why it is that large cities and coastal cities tend to lean more liberal. This is a serious sociological question. Smaller cities tend to lean more conservative. Maybe it's because in large cities, the options for mates are so much broader and acceptance of diverse attitudes leads to greater social and financial success? In a small city or town, everyone seems to know everyone else, therefore there are fewer opportunities for mate selection? I still don't really have an answer for this behavioral difference.
I think you are correct in your regards to why larger cities are more liberal than rural places. I would add that large cities have a diversity of colleges and universities. It is easy to not like someone that you have never met in a big city you meet all types and once you get past the differences you have you can see the things you have in common.
Comments
Still, there's nothing like the "all civilizations fall" crowd. So in their honor: Everyone who ever talked with George Washington is now dead. Everyone who ever ate bacon is either dead or will die within the next 100 years. All (not some) developed civilizations in history collapsed after wearing clothing became the norm. and everyone who ever seriously thought that correlation is in every case causation, eventually turned up looking like an idiot.
Are you married? Have you been selecting "married" rates on your tax returns?
It’s a great day today, I feel like there’s nothing else to fight for, it’s a good feeling I didn’t expect would come so soon, and for those of you who picked hate over love, eat it. ?#?LoveWins?
I want GAYS to RESPECT the religious beliefs of individuals, and religious institutions.
What's your vision, how do they (the gays) display this respect?
I thought marriage was a states right?
Regardless let's move on.
It's supposed to be. That's why I find this decision to be very disturbing and it's setting a dangerous precedent. The Supreme Court isn't supposed to enact their own political vision in what they think is right. The Supreme Court has turned into an activist instead of being what they are supposed to be, a constitutional enforcer.
By the way, where is the special edition Gay Pride Apple watch.
Could bringback some rainbow colored iPod socks too.
By the way, where is the special edition Gay Pride Apple watch.
Could bringback some rainbow colored iPod socks too.
I think the special edition Gay Pride Apple Watch is right alongside the special edition Heterosexual Pride Apple Watch.
Unfortunately, they stopped selling the iPod socks in 2012 (from what I could find in a search), but that would have been cool. The rainbow includes all the colors of the visible spectrum, isn't that nice?
well, its kinda like this... 50 years ago the same thing was happening, but the topic was allowing blacks to marry whites. the conservative religious right, especially in the deep south where i live, tried to stop this from happening. now some didnt claim to "hate" these blacks, they just didnt consider them equals, and because they werent equals, they werent entitled to the same civil rights and, well, dignity, as whites. the thing is -- that is hate. there is only one race, which contains blacks, whites, straights, and gays. we are all the same, and we are all born equal. to deny civil rights & basic dignity to some people based on irrational impulses is simply giving in to your own biases and emotional weaknesses. ie, hating.
and even if your own actions toward gays are not violent or overly hateful, they certainly are from a lot of people. so supporting a movement that encourages hate -- whether overtly or subtly -- is an awful thing because it legitimizes and condones the overt, violent hate as well. do you really want to be an enabler to those who would spit on, beat, or kill gays? i sure wouldnt.
the good news -- in 10 years you wont care anymore. 20, tops.
you're from TX? you know whats funny, is your state has already issued more gay marriage wedding certificates than Louisiana. go big in texas!
one needn't respect irrational bigotry.
nonsense. the courts can only rule on cases brought to them, thus they are not and cannot be activists.
the courts serve as a valid check & balance to the legislative branches. the state legislature can write any law they want, but if they over-step their bounds (banning gay marriage) then the court is the proper & valid check/balance.
the system has done its job.
you're from TX? you know whats funny, is your state has already issued more gay marriage wedding certificates than Louisiana. go big in texas!
Actually, Autin is quite liberal.
Houston has a lot of liberals too.
Lots of liberals in big cities around the US.
Why?
Lots of welfare recepients in large cities.
And liberals want to keep them addicted to the government hand outs.
More votes for liberal politicians that way.
Actually, Autin is quite liberal.
Houston has a lot of liberals too.
Lots of liberals in big cities around the US.
Why?
Lots of welfare recepients in large cities.
And liberals want to keep them addicted to the government hand outs.
More votes for liberal politicians that way.
Aside from the welfare comment, I've actually wondered why it is that large cities and coastal cities tend to lean more liberal. This is a serious sociological question. Smaller cities tend to lean more conservative. Maybe it's because in large cities, the options for mates are so much broader and acceptance of diverse attitudes leads to greater social and financial success? In a small city or town, everyone seems to know everyone else, therefore there are fewer opportunities for mate selection? I still don't really have an answer for this behavioral difference.
Companies that congratulated the SCOTUS ruling.
http://www.thegailygrind.com/2015/06/26/heres-how-your-favorite-brands-are-reacting-to-todays-historic-gay-marriage-decision/
Even Android is waving a rainbow flag. Oh the horrors the conservatives have to endure lately.
nonsense. the courts can only rule on cases brought to them, thus they are not and cannot be activists.
the courts serve as a valid check & balance to the legislative branches. the state legislature can write any law they want, but if they over-step their bounds (banning gay marriage) then the court is the proper & valid check/balance.
the system has done its job.
It's not nonsense. The Supreme Court doesn't have to rule on every case brought to them. How are states over stepping their bounds when the public votes to ban gay marriage? The majority of states that banned gay marriage were from public votes, not state legislature.
The system hasn't done it's job. There is a reason why we have the Bill of Rights. My issue isn't whether I believe gay marriage is wrong or right, I just think its wrong for the Supreme Court to strip states rights that are protected under the constitution. The reason I say activists is from reading what the 5 judges wrote in favor of the ruling.
Actually, Autin is quite liberal.
Houston has a lot of liberals too.
Lots of liberals in big cities around the US.
Why?
Lots of welfare recepients in large cities.
And liberals want to keep them addicted to the government hand outs.
More votes for liberal politicians that way.
I was on welfare and I lived in the rural. I know a lot of neighbors on welfare. Please, shut your hole. You have no idea.
Aside from the welfare comment, I've actually wondered why it is that large cities and coastal cities tend to lean more liberal. This is a serious sociological question. Smaller cities tend to lean more conservative. Maybe it's because in large cities, the options for mates are so much broader and acceptance of diverse attitudes leads to greater social and financial success? In a small city or town, everyone seems to know everyone else, therefore there are fewer opportunities for mate selection? I still don't really have an answer for this behavioral difference.
Yes you got that right. I lived in the rural and I knew everyone on the street.
Here's the thing. Surprisingly, all nine justices specifically emphasized the importance of religious freedom and right of expression (genuinely shocked that all nine did). But, what this still does is open the door to more lawsuits. We'll be seeing more of "That mean pastor wouldn't let us get married in his church" or "That mean radio host said he disagrees with gay marriage" or "That mean baker wouldn't make me a wedding cake"
And given how the court cases for people have been going already, this will just make things worse for people who object on religious grounds.
Highly unlikely people will sue a pastor for not performing a marriage especially when they can find one that will. Besides a religious wedding does not make a legal marriage without a license from city hall. Chicken Little theories of the sky falling have been proven wrong with each state making marriage equality a fact.
Highly unlikely people will sue a pastor for not performing a marriage especially when they can find one that will...
Not so sure about that. You may recall the cake baker in Colorado who refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple due to her religious beliefs. She was sued and lost.
Aside from the welfare comment, I've actually wondered why it is that large cities and coastal cities tend to lean more liberal. This is a serious sociological question. Smaller cities tend to lean more conservative. Maybe it's because in large cities, the options for mates are so much broader and acceptance of diverse attitudes leads to greater social and financial success? In a small city or town, everyone seems to know everyone else, therefore there are fewer opportunities for mate selection? I still don't really have an answer for this behavioral difference.
I think you are correct in your regards to why larger cities are more liberal than rural places. I would add that large cities have a diversity of colleges and universities. It is easy to not like someone that you have never met in a big city you meet all types and once you get past the differences you have you can see the things you have in common.
Good news indeed.
How are the other countries doing on equal pay for women? The US still doesn't have it.
So glad we are no longer in that other list with Russia, China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc...