Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By oc_dean It's 9am Saturday here in Australia. An hour ago my partner woke me up to say "we won". As he's generally the first one on the computer in the mornings ... most exciting day! Oh ... I wished I had CNN, MSNBC, and even Faux News to see all the coverage. I can imagine all the celebrating. I got Madonna's "Holiday" ringing in my head ... CELEBRATE .. CELEBRATE! If anybody knows any particular link/s to news coverage from the states .. let me know. thanks
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Well, Dean, there WAS wall-to-wall coverage of the celebrations. But at the moment, all focus has shifted to a manhunt and gun battle with escaped convicts in New York state. In this country, if it bleeds, it leads.
Originally Posted By FaMulan Today is a good day for love. Also, some corners screamed that opposite-gender marriages would be harmed by this decision. Funny, I've been married to the same man for 21 years and the world didn't come crashing down on me because two consenting adults of any gender mix are now allowed to marry. Also, for the poster obsesses with intestines, it's none of your business what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home and marriage. I certainly don't care what they do in the privacy of their homes.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Curious to hear your twisted take on lesbians.>> Forget it, SPP. I've already asked him. He still refuses to address lesbians. I'm guessing he doesn't have a problem with two chicks making out, and probably downloads plenty of it on his laptop.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 It might be too much to ask. But maybe this country can now go on by everyone minding their own business about everything. If it doesn't affect you, stay the hell out of it.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "All in all - a great day!! I expected this result - after all, we always had the better argument - but it's still heady and exhilarating to see it happen." Not surprised by the decision, and even if the SCOTUS screwed up, marriage equality was still inevitable. But I was still surprised just how happy I was to wake up to this news. Some days are great days. The Onion: Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito Suddenly Realize They Will Be Villains In Oscar-Winning Movie One Day <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.theonion.com/article/scalia-thomas-roberts-alito-suddenly-realize-they--32972">http://www.theonion.com/articl...y--32972</a>
Originally Posted By ecdc >>probably downloads plenty of it on his laptop.<< Seems much more like a self-hating gay man to me. I mean, damn, that obsession with colons...
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 So can we just start calling it marriage now and drop labels like gay or interracial
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Seems much more like a self-hating gay man to me.>> They're not mutually exclusive. Hyperfocusing on heterosexual sex is one way to keep the homosexual attractions buried. Former closeted love interest was a huge porn addict for this reason. If this was strictly some fundie Christian attack on homosexual behavior in general, he wouldn't ignore the lesbians. He'd attack both males and females. Closet case, definitely.
Originally Posted By Mr X Indeed you are correct DAR. The genuine closet case is UtahJosh, even if he still doesn't know it (but goes to bed dreaming of hunky, sexy men whilst trying desperately to "turn it off!" like any good mormon should). Good luck with that, Josh! You can do it, buddy!
Originally Posted By oc_dean 5,4,3,2,1......... (I was expecting some sort of crap like this to happen within a day or 2 of the ruling) - <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/27/gay-marriage-southern-backlash-supreme-court-ruling">http://www.theguardian.com/us-...t-ruling</a>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip They should have been forced to release the slaves and allowed to secede (I mean it really wasn't fought over slavery anyway, right?). We would all be better off today without those states. It would be absolutely wonderful to give Texas back to Mexico.
Originally Posted By oc_dean In another article ( <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/the-instant-republican-backlash-on-gay-marriage/?_r=1">http://takingnote.blogs.nytime...ge/?_r=1</a> ) ... a quote relates back to the story in my above post: >>vowed to “protect religious liberty” (the liberty for people to discriminate against gay men and lesbians because of their personal religious views) << That part in parenthesis is exactly what it all comes down to - Putting it in flowery words ... but it just means - The right to continue to discriminate against those homos, because their 'god' says so.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Section 2 under Article III of the Constitution would appear to give the Supreme Court every right to decide what they just decided: <<Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.>>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 All these idiots who are saying that SCOTUS had "no right" to decide this need a civics lesson. And even those who say that SCOTUS should have left it to the states need to realize that they're essentially saying that Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided. After all, in that case, the states that didn't allow interracial marriage in 1967 would never have voted to allow it, either at the ballot box or in the legislature. SCOTUS said "Too bad. We know you don't want it, but too bad. All citizens have to be treated equally under the law." And so it was with Obergefell.
Originally Posted By ecdc Ted Cruz is a strict constitutionalist who loves the constitution so much he can't wait to change it so the stuff it does that he doesn't like can't happen anymore.
