SCOTUS legalizes Gay Marriage - 10th Amendment Obliterated

[parocks]

all awful. endless march of suck.

 

[parocks]

This is why we don't bring up social issues. It divides us. For instance, I think you are absolutely insane for thinking that the LGBT 'empire' is hate and intimidation. There are countless acts of bigotry towards gays and other minorities, and this is your argument? Come on dude. Come visit seattle and actually meet normal people before you invent whole 'straw empires' that have no bearing on reality.

You're wrong.

 

[fr33]

You're wrong.

Nuh uh.

 

[Brett85]

Probably still deciding whether he wants to go over the cliff with the old voters or please the young voters.

He should just be honest and say what he believes, whatever that is.

 

[JJ2]

He should just be honest and say what he believes, whatever that is.

He's already said he thinks it should be left up to the states. Why would his opinion be different today than it was yesterday?

 

[fr33]

I agree with Justin Amash:

 

[Brett85]

He's already said he thinks it should be left up to the states. Why would his opinion be different today than it was yesterday?

He hasn't said whether he supports doing anything about it, or whether he just views it as now being a settled issue and wants to move on from it. (Or wants to move in the direction of getting the government out of marriage)

 

[phill4paul]

I agree with Justin Amash:

THIS guy is the BEST that we have, IMHO.

 

[fr33]

He hasn't said whether he supports doing anything about it, or whether he just views it as now being a settled issue and wants to move on from it. (Or wants to move in the direction of getting the government out of marriage)

Am I wrong to say the only legal thing to be done about this ruling would either be a constitutional amendment or get a new lawsuit to be heard by the supreme court?

 

[Theocrat]

A Subtle Slip

I agree with Justin Amash:

I like Justin Amash in many areas, but can anyone see his contradiction in that post?

 

[Brett85]

Am I wrong to say the only legal thing to be done about this ruling would either be a constitutional amendment or get a new lawsuit to be heard by the supreme court?

Yeah. Ted Cruz is pushing a Constitutional Amendment to send the issue back to the states to decide. That's the correct position in theory, but such an amendment would have a 0% chance of passing. So my guess is that Rand won't support pushing such an amendment.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

If the general sentiment of this forum is to equate homosexuality with the literal destruction of society, I'm gonna jet.

 

[fr33]

If the general sentiment of this forum is to equate homosexuality with the literal destruction of society, I'm gonna jet.

There's a few of us that aren't like that. Don't make us even fewer.

 

[otherone]

Am I wrong to say the only legal thing to be done about this ruling would either be a constitutional amendment or get a new lawsuit to be heard by the supreme court?

You're dealing with an entity that defines "person"...that they define "marriage" is somewhat anti-climactic.

 

[fr33]

I like Justin Amash in many areas, but can anyone see his contradiction in that post?

Maybe this: The part where he says, "...but rather that it is defined by personal faith".

It's just slightly wrong.

 

[otherone]

I like Justin Amash in many areas, but can anyone see his contradiction in that post?

Nah.
All he's saying is that the Supremes have authority even when they are wrong.
In other words:

 

[Sola_Fide]

I agree with Justin Amash:

I don't agree. Pedophiles, polygamists, and people who engage in beastiality are now being discriminated against. Where are their equal rights?

Justin Amash is wrong. Statism is wrong. It always leads to destruction.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I like Justin Amash in many areas, but can anyone see his contradiction in that post?

Of course. That was horrible.

 

[CaptUSA]

If the general sentiment of this forum is to equate homosexuality with the literal destruction of society, I'm gonna jet.

Granted I haven't read all the posts on this thread, but I hope they aren't convincing you of that. Even those who are all freaked out by this decision, I think (I hope), are doing so because they think this is a federal overreach. Sure, you will always have some... But the majority of people who believe in liberty think that applies to all individuals regardless of ANY characteristic.

 

[phill4paul]

I like Justin Amash in many areas, but can anyone see his contradiction in that post?

No. I do not. Keep government out of personal affairs and personal affairs out of government. If you combine the two then you have contention that you may feel slighted over. As you do now. As gays did before this ruling.