http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0

Gay Marriage Arguments Divide Supreme Court Justices
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday was deeply divided over one of the great civil rights issues of the age, same-sex marriage. But Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, whose vote is probably crucial, gave gay rights advocates reasons for optimism based on the tone and substance of his questions.

In two and a half hours of arguments over whether the Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry, Justice Kennedy sent conflicting signals. At some points, he seemed wary of moving too fast and torn about what to do. But his demeanor was more emotional and emphatic when he made the case that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry. He is also the author of three landmark opinions expanding the rights of gay Americans.

The other justices for the most part played to type, clashing over what they saw as the right answer in the case and also over how to reach it. The questioning illuminated their conflicting views on history, tradition, biology, constitutional interpretation, the democratic process and the role of the courts in prodding social change.

That left the courtroom focused on Justice Kennedy. He said he was concerned about changing a conception of marriage that has persisted for thousands of years based on little more than a decade of experience with same-sex marriage in the United States.

“I don’t even know how to count the decimals when we talk about millennia,” he said. “This definition has been with us for millennia. And it’s very difficult for the court to say, ‘Oh, well, we know better.’ ” He added that “the social science on this” — the value and perils of same-sex marriage — is “too new.”

Later, though, he expressed qualms about excluding gay couples from the institution of marriage.

“Same-sex couples say, of course: ‘We understand the nobility and the sacredness of the marriage. We know we can’t procreate but we want the other attributes of it in order to show that we, too, have a dignity that can be fulfilled,’ ” Justice Kennedy said, strongly suggesting that the reasoning resonated with him.

Advertisement

The day’s arguments, over same-sex marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, were divided into two segments. At the start of the first, about whether states must allow same-sex marriage, Mary L. Bonauto, representing more than a dozen gay and lesbian couples, urged the justices to remove “the stain of unworthiness” that marriage bans produce.

She was met with a barrage of skeptical questions from the court’s more conservative justices, as expected. But there were several queries from Justice Kennedy that caused leaders of the gay rights movement who were in the courtroom to squirm.

He asked, for instance, whether “there has not been really time” for “the federal system to engage in this debate.”

Justice Antonin Scalia echoed Justice Kennedy’s language in emphasizing how new same-sex marriage is. “Do you know of any society, prior to the Netherlands in 2001, that permitted same-sex marriage?” he asked Ms. Bonauto. She said no, at least as a legal matter.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that Ms. Bonauto was asking the court to do something radical.

“You’re not seeking to join the institution,” he said. “You’re seeking to change what the institution is.”

The chief justice added that he was worried about shutting down a fast-moving societal debate.

“One of the things that’s truly extraordinary about this whole issue is how quickly has been the acceptance of your position across broad elements of society,” he said.

Justice Scalia agreed. “The issue, of course, is not whether there should be same-sex marriage, but who should decide the point.” The right answer, he said, was the people or their elected representatives, not the courts.

On this point, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, a member of the court’s liberal wing, had his own reservations.
“Suddenly you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states that don’t want to do it to change what marriage is to include gay people,” he said. “Why cannot those states at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to marriage?” Later in the argument, though, Justice Breyer indicated support for same-sex marriage as part of basic liberty. “Marriage is about as basic a right as there is,” he said.

The other side’s argument, he said, was that “people have always done it” in a certain fashion.

“You know,” he said, “you could have answered that one the same way we talk about racial segregation.”

Justices Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr. were more consistent in opposing a constitutional right to such unions.

Justice Scalia said a ruling for same-sex marriage might require some members of the clergy to perform ceremonies that violate their religious teaching, a notion that Ms. Bonauto rejected.

Justice Alito asked whether groups of four people must be allowed to marry. “And let’s say they’re all consenting adults, highly educated,” he said, and then added, to laughter, “They’re all lawyers.”

Ms. Bonauto responded that marriage is about the mutual commitment of two people.

The proceedings were calm but for a brief interruption by a protester. “You can burn in hell,” he yelled from the rear of the courtroom. “It’s an abomination of God.”

Courtroom security officers promptly dragged him from the room. Justice Scalia did not seem bothered by the disturbance. “Rather refreshing, actually,” he said.

After a short pause in the arguments, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., the Obama administration’s top appellate lawyer, argued in support of the couples. “Gay and lesbian people are equal,” he said. “They deserve equal protection of the laws, and they deserve it now.”

He was followed by the lawyer defending the same-sex marriage bans, John J. Bursch, who said they were for the benefit of children and not couples seeking companionship and mutual support.

“The state doesn’t have an interest in love and emotion at all,” Mr. Bursch said. “It’s about binding children to their biological moms and dads.”

Several justices were intensely skeptical of that rationale, noting that many gay couples have children. These justices also seemed unpersuaded by Mr. Bursch’s contention that altering the definition of marriage would harm the institution.

“All of the incentives, all of the benefits that marriage affords, would still be available,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told him. “So you’re not taking away anything from heterosexual couples. They would have the very same incentive to marry, all the benefits that come with marriage that they do now.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor made a similar point. “How does withholding marriage from one group — same-sex couples — increase the value to the other group?” she asked.

If the purpose of marriage is procreation, Justice Ginsburg asked, why are two 70-year-olds allowed to marry? Mr. Bursch said the male member of the couple was “still capable of having children, and you’d like to keep that within the marriage.”

Mr. Bursch said the institution of marriage was under siege, and that births out of wedlock had grown rapidly since 1970. Justice Sotomayor said the change was not because of “the recent gay marriages,” a point Mr. Bursch acknowledged.

Justice Kennedy jumped on the concession.

“You’re the one that brought the statistic up,” he told Mr. Bursch. “And under your view, it would be very difficult for same-sex couples to adopt some of these children. I think the argument cuts quite against you.”

Justice Elena Kagan said allowing same-sex marriage would benefit children. “More adopted children and more marital households, whether same-sex or other-sex, seems to be a good thing,” she said.

Mr. Bursch said the bans he was defending did not discriminate based on sexual orientation, which left Justice Kagan puzzled.

“If you prevent people from wearing yarmulkes,” she said, “you know, that’s discrimination against Jews.”

The second part of the argument in the four consolidated cases, including Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-556, lasted an hour and was anticlimactic. It was focused on whether states must recognize same-sex marriages performed outside their borders.

Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, representing couples challenging the bans, and Joseph F. Whalen, defending the bans, agreed that a decision requiring states to allow their own gay residents to marry would make the question of recognizing out-of-state marriages moot.

Near the conclusion of the first argument, Justice Kagan indicated that she hoped the Supreme Court would find a right to same-sex marriage. She said the court has a role in protecting minorities even when majorities made their views known at the polls.

“We don’t live in a pure democracy,” she said. “We live in a constitutional democracy.”

Correction: April 28, 2015
Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article had the wrong middle initial for the chief justice. He is John G. Roberts Jr., not John C. Roberts Jr.

------


love this! 4 Beyonce from Todrick
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQuRhxVsJds

i actually had to google that reference

im terrible at any pop culture references

“I don’t even know how to count the decimals when we talk about millennia,” he said.

I can't believe the justices and the attorneys in the fucking SCOTUS don't understand that GAY PPL ARE NOT ASKING FOR PERMISSION TO BE MARRIED. thanks to the First Amendment's protection of our right to assemble (i think), we are free to marry each other already. and we do. and we have been doing it in every state and territory since we started identifying ourselves based on our sexual orientation. we have formed committed relationships and exchanged vows and all of that. w/o a state issued license. the license only means various governments are recognizing the marriage. but the marriage exists w/ or w/o the license. GAY PPL DON'T NEED PERMISSION TO MARRY.

and the definition of 'marriage' is not at issue. SCOTUS can't define 'marriage' for anyone but it can order the various states to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. no person on the planet will have to personally recognize any marriage based on SCOTUS's ruling. society can reject the idea that same sex couples are married...even if the states and feds recognize. like today there are ppl and organizations (religious ones, mostly) that don't recognize second or subsequent marriages. there are ppl and organizations that don't recognize civil marriage (aka marriage not officiated by a minister). i'm talking about marriages between hetero couples...this already happens. so this case is NOT about changing the definition of 'marriage' for society.

the question is narrow - can the states deny issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples? will the various states that don't issue the licenses have to recognize licenses issued by other states?

those are the ONLY questions before the Court, IMO. i'm disappointed the lawyers and justices didn't do a better job getting to that.

e.g.

“I don’t even know how to count the decimals when we talk about millennia,” he said. “This definition has been with us for millennia. And it’s very difficult for the court to say, ‘Oh, well, we know better.’ ” He added that “the social science on this” — the value and perils of same-sex marriage — is “too new.”

kennedy again; He asked, for instance, whether “there has not been really time” for “the federal system to engage in this debate.”

scalia; “Do you know of any society, prior to the Netherlands in 2001, that permitted same-sex marriage?”

roberts; “You’re not seeking to join the institution,” he said. “You’re seeking to change what the institution is.”

insert common sense comment here; breyer
Justice Breyer indicated support for same-sex marriage as part of basic liberty. “Marriage is about as basic a right as there is,” he said.
The other side’s argument, he said, was that “people have always done it” in a certain fashion.
“You know,” he said, “you could have answered that one the same way we talk about racial segregation.”

tokpr; Justice Alito asked whether groups of four people must be allowed to marry. “And let’s say they’re all consenting adults, highly educated,” he said, and then added, to laughter, “They’re all lawyers.”

case one moment; The proceedings were calm but for a brief interruption by a protester. “You can burn in hell,” he yelled from the rear of the courtroom. “It’s an abomination of God.”

stupidity; “It’s about binding children to their biological moms and dads.”

wtf moment worthy of pause; If the purpose of marriage is procreation, Justice Ginsburg asked, why are two 70-year-olds allowed to marry? Mr. Bursch said the male member of the couple was “still capable of having children, and you’d like to keep that within the marriage.”

logic leap; Mr. Bursch said the bans he was defending did not discriminate based on sexual orientation, which left Justice Kagan puzzled.

damn.

LOL

*****************************************
http://www.iamsharandajones.org/help

Thanks for that.

For two reasons.

1. The human tradition sucks. Slavery was a widely accepted practice for most of human history. Also treating women like property. We should no obligation to do things the way things have always been done just because that's the way they've always been done.

2. Secondly, It's not like we've been debating gay marriage for a millennial and the supreme court is stepping in now to end the debate. Lesbianism has only been recognized as a THING very recently (the term is less than 150 years old). Homosexuals in general have been considered non-entities or deviants for most of human history to the extent that they have even been considered at all. We've only recently moved beyond that thinking so once we decide that homosexuals aren't deviants we immediately have to start discussing a lot of other questions that arise out of that revelation. Questions like gay marriage and whether it's acceptable to try and "cure" someone of homosexuality. The flood gates are open, can't close them now.




**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

well, tragically funny
a supreme court judge arguing that we should maintain the status quo because...
tradition.
'the definition has been with us for millenia.'
wait what?
this definition which relies on a state sanctioning (licence + rights) is very very new.

reason 3: the argument is wrong because its stupid


are these the republican appointees? the bush family legacy?

wtf does this even mean? "I thought that was the whole purpose of marriage," he said. "It bestows dignity on both man and woman in a traditional marriage ... and these parties say they want to have that same ennoblement."

because i dont know about it, it must not exist, argument
"How do you account for the fact that, as far as I'm aware, until the end of the 20th century, there never was a nation or a culture that recognized marriage between two people of the same sex?" asked Justice Samuel Alito. "Is it your argument that they were all operating independently based solely on irrational stereotypes and prejudice?"

This is basic constitutional interpretation 101.

A perfect example of how judges as objective creatures is a myth. Most of these justices can't get out of their own ideological/fundamentalist way and do their duty to emphatically state the law and apply it to a basic situation, sans personal opinion.

This is akin to debating whether we should issue a driver's license to a person with brown hair.


-->

I feel like Scalia never questions anything that he believes in.

When my sig is working it says Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're right.' If you don't have that, if you think you've got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated. The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down to Communist purges and Nazi genocide.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

I like it when Nina Totenburg does her reports from the SCOTUS.

*****************************************
http://www.iamsharandajones.org/help

"But if you prevail here, there will be no more debate," he declared. "It will have a consequence on how this new institution is accepted. People feel very differently about something if they have a chance to vote on it than if it's imposed on them by the courts."

tokpr; But Bursch stuck to his guns, insisting that allowing gay marriages would reduce the number of heterosexual marriages.

Bursch pivoted his argument at this point to the rising rate of out-of-wedlock births, prompting more skepticism from Justice Kennedy.

notorious RBG
Whalen tried to dig out of a hole by drawing a distinction between a legal judgment and a law, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that a divorce is a legal judgment.

"It is odd, isn't it," observed Justice Ginsburg, "that a divorce does become the decree for the nation ... but not the act of marriage."

Marriage is no longer bound to antiquated gender roles. And when those gender roles are removed, the case for marriage discrimination breaks down.

“ wouldn’t be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean, it wasn’t possible. Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him.

There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn’t egalitarian. And same-sex unions wouldn’t — wouldn’t fit into what marriage was once.”

Marriage today is not what it was under the common law tradition, under the civil law tradition. Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female. That ended as a result of this court’s decision in 1982 when Louisiana’s Head and Master Rule was struck down. Would that be a choice that state should be allowed to have? To cling to marriage the way it once was?

*Head and Master laws were a set of property laws in the U.S. that gave the husband the final authority in all household decisions on the basis that the husband’s role was to provide for the family and the wife’s was to keep house, rear children, and provide sex.*


Bursch also tried to assert that gay marriage would be detrimental to the institution of marriage in general. Not so, Ginsburg responded.

"All of the incentives, all of the benefits that marriage affords would still be available. So you’re not taking away anything from heterosexual couples. They would have the very same incentive to marry, all the benefits that come with marriage that they do now."

"The change in people’s attitudes on that issue has been enormous," Ginsburg continued. "In recent years, people have said, ‘This is the way I am.’ And others looked around, and we discovered it’s our next-door neighbor — we’re very fond of them. Or it’s our child’s best friend, or even our child. I think that as more and more people came out and said that ‘this is who I am,’ the rest of us recognized that they are one of us."

>
>Marriage is no longer bound to antiquated gender roles. And
>when those gender roles are removed, the case for marriage
>discrimination breaks down.
>
>“ wouldn’t be asking for this relief if
>the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean,
>it wasn’t possible. Same-sex unions would not have opted
>into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a
>dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage
>between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the
>couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow
>him.
>
>There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it
>egalitarian when it wasn’t egalitarian. And same-sex unions
>wouldn’t — wouldn’t fit into what marriage was once.”
>
>Marriage today is not what it was under the common law
>tradition, under the civil law tradition. Marriage was a
>relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female. That
>ended as a result of this court’s decision in 1982 when
>Louisiana’s Head and Master Rule was struck down. Would that
>be a choice that state should be allowed to have? To
>cling to marriage the way it once was?
>
>*Head and Master laws were a set of property laws in the U.S.
>that gave the husband the final authority in all household
>decisions on the basis that the husband’s role was to
>provide for the family and the wife’s was to keep house,
>rear children, and provide sex.*
>
>
>Bursch also tried to assert that gay marriage would be
>detrimental to the institution of marriage in general. Not so,
>Ginsburg responded.
>
>"All of the incentives, all of the benefits that marriage
>affords would still be available. So you’re not taking away
>anything from heterosexual couples. They would have the very
>same incentive to marry, all the benefits that come with
>marriage that they do now."
>
>"The change in people’s attitudes on that issue has been
>enormous," Ginsburg continued. "In recent years, people have
>said, ‘This is the way I am.’ And others looked around,
>and we discovered it’s our next-door neighbor — we’re
>very fond of them. Or it’s our child’s best friend, or
>even our child. I think that as more and more people came out
>and said that ‘this is who I am,’ the rest of us
>recognized that they are one of us."
>
>
>
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

They all recognize the gravity of the decision.

i know.... fox news (hangs head in shame)
but sometimes you just need a good laugh. and this is comedic gold

i mean.....

“We stand united together in defense of marriage. Make no mistake about our resolve.”

“We’re sending a warning to the Supreme Court and frankly any court that crosses the line on the issue of marriage,” Staver told me.

(will the church secede from the union?)

'once same-sex marriage is elevated to the level of protected status – it will transform the face of society and will result in the “beginning of the end of Western Civilization.”

“Gender becomes pointless when government adopts same-sex marriage. It creates a genderless relationship out of a very gender-specific relationship. "
(i'd clap to this)


“The institution of marriage is fundamental and it must be defended,” he told me. “It’s the foundation for the entire culture. It’s been in existence for 5,000 years. If you weaken it or if you undermine it – the entire superstructure can come down. We see it as that important.”

whoa, armageddon

obligatory MLK reference: “I’m calling for people to not recognize the legitimacy of that ruling because it’s not grounded in the Rule of Law,” he told me. “They need to resist that ruling in every way possible. In a peaceful way – they need to resist it as much as Martin Luther King, Jr. resisted unjust laws in his time.”

necessary reference to culture: “Christians are being declared the lawbreakers when we are simply living by what we have always believed, and by a set of laws that the culture historically has agreed to,”

the ghey agenda busted: “For about 50 years the homosexual community has had as its goal to change the culture, to change the ideology and if necessary – to force people who don’t agree by use of the courts,” Dobson told me. “I think there’s a collision here and we can all see it and where it’s going to go is anybody’s guess – but it is serious.”

the paranoia.


full article;
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/04/28/will-not-obey-christian-leaders-threaten-civil-disobedience-if-supreme-court/

but the irony of Christians believing that two human beings choosing to profess before God that they love one another is the end of Western Civilization is rich.

im sure the majority of xtians are not this ignorant.


trynna start a xtian state of...

sheesh

have they not learned anything yet? if they want the media and the ppl to care about their perceived injustice they need to light a convenience store on fire and wait for CNN to show up.

Quite a critical week for scotus

perhaps we will find out today or tomorrow on these two

.
.
.
"Romans 10 : 9 says, "If you declare
with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,”
and believe in your heart that
God raised him from the dead,
you will be saved."

that actually said baby's breath...years ago

Some people have regional phrases, sayings, and words.

Look at you, always assuming the worst. Life is good you should try it.


.
.
.
"Romans 10 : 9 says, "If you declare
with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,”
and believe in your heart that
God raised him from the dead,
you will be saved."

dont make us start on you!

.
.
.
"Romans 10 : 9 says, "If you declare
with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,”
and believe in your heart that
God raised him from the dead,
you will be saved."

altho marriage equality is inevitable so less so about that, but the obamacare decision sheesh

the subsidy/premium tax credit will remain for those in states with federally run HC marketplaces

because to be honest, i was nervous about ACA

republicans, eat a dick!

>because to be honest, i was nervous about ACA
>

Pat Robertson about to tell us about all kinds of Katrinas coming this way.

fair housing act. upheld!
Obamacare - uphelpd!
Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
lethal injection
Armed Career Criminal Act
Power plant pollution
oh, the confederate flag on the licences ruling (nyet!)

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/15/414490496/whats-left-for-the-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-obamacare-and-more


http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/down-wire-supreme-court-has-five-final-cases-decide-n381256

if scotus rules for marriage equality

i cant wait to say, in the words of the almighty palin,
burn, baby burn

http://www.liberalamerica.org/2015/06/20/texas-minister-threatens-set-fire-idea-gay-marriage-therapy/

'god, are you there?
speak to me'
while i burn, baby burn

cant even let the buddhists have their self-immolation
without trying to appropriate. smh

Two sins don't make a win.

Plus to those ppl a difference of opinion is persecution.

Setting himself on fire to him probably means putting out a candle with his fingers.

Failing that it will be "I'm spiritually on fire for the LORD!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ5-oIO283Q
_______________________

^^ this is how we do wit.

god draws a line on gay marriage. read romans 1:24-32. woe to those who cross it

like its supposed to matter. he can draw lines in chalk and so?

--
homosexual agenda: spend time with family 2. be treated fairly. 3. buy milk
--

legalize gay

--
every child deserves a mom and dad.
^^such a lack of creativity, like why even bother making a sign?
--


hopefully, today @10am we can stop holding our baby's breath

housing discrimination
obamacare
and now marriage equality?

where's that burning pastor?

backlash as a result...

-confederate symbols coming down
-AHC is protected
-same sex marriages legalized
-fair housing act stays in place

^^^all the above and more will feed into their narrative that they're losing their country

>backlash as a result...
>
>-confederate symbols coming down
>-AHC is protected
>-same sex marriages legalized
>
>^^^all the above and more will feed into their narrative that
>they're losing their country



Yep....

>backlash as a result...
>
>-confederate symbols coming down
>-AHC is protected
>-same sex marriages legalized
>-fair housing act stays in place
>
>^^^all the above and more will feed into their narrative that
>they're losing their country

seriously?

he opposed obamacare and now marriage equality
wtf?
let me see if he opposed the housing discrimination ruling as well

That cat has long been a reliable vote for the right wing.

"Racial imbalances do not always disfavor minorities.… And in our own country, for roughly a quarter-century now, over 70 percent of National Basketball Association players have been black."

is this man serious?
we crucified anita hill for *this* shit?

Scalia side except he used football instead of bball


>"Racial imbalances do not always disfavor minorities.… And
>in our own country, for roughly a quarter-century now, over 70
>percent of National Basketball Association players have been
>black."
>
>is this man serious?
>we crucified anita hill for *this* shit?

i mean

"The majority’s understanding of due process lays out a
tantalizing vision of the future for Members of this Court:
If an unvarying social institution enduring over all of
recorded history cannot inhibit judicial policymaking,
what can? But this approach is dangerous for the rule of
law. The purpose of insisting that implied fundamental
rights have roots in the history and tradition of our people
is to ensure that when unelected judges strike down democratically enacted laws, they do so based on something
more than their own beliefs. The Court today not only
overlooks our country’s entire history and tradition but actively repudiates it, preferring to live only in the heady
days of the here and now"

"Those who founded our country would not recognize the
majority’s conception of the judicial role. They after all
risked their lives and fortunes for the precious right to
govern themselves. They would never have imagined
yielding that right on a question of social policy to unaccountable and unelected judges. And they certainly would not have been satisfied by a system empowering judges to override policy judgments so long as they do so after “a quite extensive discussion.”

" Indeed, however heartened the proponents of
same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause. And they lose this just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs.

wtf?

That is the only way I can justify his whole life. To hate yourself as much as Thomas does can only be caused by a severe form of negro psychosis.
___________________________________________________________


DJTB YOMM

Holla at ya girl...Im ordained and I am signing licenses


*Victory for HUMANKIND*
*****************************************
. . . If I have something to say when there is a reason involved, I am perfectly willing to talk. Katherine Hepburn

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Sometimes I contemplate moving to a warmer place, then the lake and skyline give me a warm embrace" © Common

To be clear, it's a minor victory on the road to sentencing reform, but the ACCA was basically said to be too vague with it's term of "violent crime" and the decision appears to open the door to all in-exact wording on sentencing guidelines.

" Courts must use the “categorical approach” when deciding whether an offense is a violent felony, looking “only to the fact that the defendant has been convicted of crimes falling within certain categories, and not to the facts underlying the prior convictions.”

The Fifth Amendment provides that “o person shall
. . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law.” Our cases establish that the Government
violates this guarantee by taking away someone’s life,
liberty, or property under a criminal law so vague that it
fails to give ordinary people fair notice of the conduct it
punishes, or so standardless that it invites arbitrary en­
forcement.

>" Courts must use the “categorical approach” when
>deciding whether an offense is a violent felony, looking
>“only to the fact that the defendant has been convicted of
>crimes falling within certain categories, and not to the facts
>underlying the prior convictions.”
>
>The Fifth Amendment provides that “o person shall
>. . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
>process of law.” Our cases establish that the Government
>violates this guarantee by taking away someone’s life,
>liberty, or property under a criminal law so vague that it
>fails to give ordinary people fair notice of the conduct it
>punishes, or so standardless that it invites arbitrary en­
>forcement.

SUCK IT RACIST CRIMINAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX!!
*****************************************
. . . If I have something to say when there is a reason involved, I am perfectly willing to talk. Katherine Hepburn

>SUCK IT RACIST CRIMINAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX!!



^^^^^^^^^

that I can say with pride that I am proud to be an American.
NYC PRIDE IS GOING TO BE A MOVIE THIS YEAR!!!!!!

I really think he helped create a shift via his spoken word and who he put onto SCOTUS that helped make this happen. His efforts, along with those of us living our lives and our relationships and our families out of the closet helped make this happen.



Wooooooo.

liberals really shouldn't be mad about shit except for drone strikes and immigration reform. Most of the other boxes are pretty much checked.

but I'll take my victories where I can get them
PARTY IN NYC TONIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8849925/obama-obamacare-history-presidents

There are so many good things he's helped happen in 6.5 years. I don't think he'll truly get his props until he's out of office.

Nationwide, hoes.

Still GAININ ON YA.

.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Sometimes I contemplate moving to a warmer place, then the lake and skyline give me a warm embrace" © Common

It's the law! You're a human being!

~ ~ ~
All meetings end in separation
All acquisition ends in dispersion
All life ends in death
- The Buddha

|\_/|
='_'=

Every hundred years, all new people

we're getting there.
_______________________

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/05/gay_marriage_map_where_is_same_sex_marriage_legal.html?cq_ck=1435330734983

people spend big money on weddings

which is the ENTIRE POINT!!!

*shoots confetti from double barrows*
_______________________

And the Gypsies will run wild in the streets!

You've doomed us you fools!

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

_______________________

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

it's
about
to
go
DOWN.

let me look at these bus tickets
i want run the streets of nyc topless

The winds of change were happening organically on the ground level. Although it wasn't as 'Democratic' as he tries to make it seem (there were fed court decisions, not votes)

It would have been more powerful for the progress to continue state by state rather than the Court ruling from up high on the matter

The other dissents were just mad and sad. Doesn't Clarence know that the illegality of his marriage was removed not even 50 years ago by the supreme Court

then i guess you agreeing with the losers doesn't matter.

Roberts just made an interesting point.

It seemed almost inevitable what was going to happen. State by state the dominos were falling at the Court level as well as the popular level

For the supreme court to step in kind of diminishes the movement by making it not a will of the people situation but what could be described in some circles as legislating by decree (it's not).

Civil rights should not be up for popular vote, but this one seemed like it was going to work itself out very soon.

>
>Civil rights should not be up for popular vote,

ain't nobody studying that shit.

WE PARTYIN.

https://insidethelifeofmoi.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/party-people.jpg
_______________________

im so upset at myself right now
anyway, i shall make up for it by going topless at nyc pride tomorrow

>WE PARTYIN!!

NSFW --> http://8020.photos.jpgmag.com/804899_159279_2456b71d2f_p.jpg
_______________________

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

"There may be an initial inclination to await further legislation, litigation, and debate, but referenda, legislative debates, and grassroots campaigns; studies and other writings; and extensive litigation in state and federal courts have led to an enhanced understanding of the issue. While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. "
_______________________

Thank you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj-qAapm3zc&sns=em
_______________________

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Sometimes I contemplate moving to a warmer place, then the lake and skyline give me a warm embrace" © Common

I'm just sitting back and looking. This train was going to arrive sooner or later. I'll look through the wreckage later.


.
.
"Romans 10 : 9 says, "If you declare
with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,”
and believe in your heart that
God raised him from the dead,
you will be saved."

LOL

pobrecito.

b/c that's all that changed today - licenses will now be issued to same-sex couples in all 50 states - including the remaining few which were still denying the issuance. also, the licenses will be recognized in all 50 states including the handful which were refusing to honor licenses from other states.

that's all that changed today. nothing else is different. meaning, there won't be any new gays minted as a result of this. and gay couples weren't going to break up and become heterosexuals if the various states continued to decline issuing the licenses.

this is basically just about paper. well, paper that has real impact on real ppl's lives in that they are now going to be able to access all of the various government and many of the private benefits associated w/state-recognized marriage. they'll also access the various responsibilities that come w/state-recognized marriage (whatever those are). and, of course, they can access divorce proceedings in family court. in essence that's all that happened. on top of that there's the symbolic stuff about gay couplings no longer being considered 'lesser-than' in the eyes of government - at all levels. and the end of a sort of second-class citizenship for the gays in the eyes of government - but that's not all the way over. there's more work on that front.

of course, you understand you as a minister will not be required to officiate any wedding and no church is required to host any wedding and no private entity is required to offer service or goods for any wedding. and that was as true yesterday as it is today. we know this b/c ministers and churches and service providers can and do decline to officiate/host/serve-at heterosexual weddings for any reason w/o having broken any law. the good ol' Constitution protects y'all's right to decline participating in any wedding if doing so would contradict w/your religious/spiritual principles. so it's all good. nothing changes for you or your ppl as a result of today's decision.

so you might as well get down or lay down.
_______________________

.
.
.
"Romans 10 : 9 says, "If you declare
with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,”
and believe in your heart that
God raised him from the dead,
you will be saved."

A better way of putting it would be if everybody on the train got soda and peanuts, except gay people.

And now, after consideration, the hostess came back around and gave they gay people soda and peanuts, if they want it.

His opinion lacked a lot of reasoning and analysis which gave the dissenters an opening to exploit, and here the dissenters actually dont seem as insane or crazy as they usually do.

and by dissenters i just mean roberts. scalia and thomas are on that bs as per usual. although thomas did make a good point about dignity.

Kennedy's opinion is good law, right?

Okay then.
_______________________

kennedy is out here bullshitting on the right to dignity and all this when he should have focused on some good EPC analysis. its a wasted opportunity.

>kennedy is out here bullshitting on the right to dignity and
>all this when he should have focused on some good EPC
>analysis. its a wasted opportunity.

>kennedy is out here bullshitting on the right to dignity and
>all this when he should have focused on some good EPC
>analysis. its a wasted opportunity.


Then it doesn't matter.

*continues the party*
_______________________

point is, kennedy could have futureproofed this ruling with more and better analysis instead of rhetoric. being so self-absorbed does LGBTQ folks a disservice here.

http://ct.fra.bz/ol/fz/sw/i58/2/2/6/frabz-My-parade-Dont-fucking-rain-on-it-635af1.jpg
_______________________

lol

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/dr/hln/www/release/sites/default/files/static/images/nene.gif
_______________________

>being so
>self-absorbed does LGBTQ folks a disservice here.

Loving v. Virginia...invalidated interracial marriage bans under the DPC. it's still good law nearly 50 yrs later. i think this one will survive future challenges.
_______________________

due process arguments as well, but each is well laid-out. my concern is that this case, not quite up to the same level of analysis, might not fare so well 50 years from now. it may well, but why leave those things to chance? kennedy got too busy feeling himself.

okay.

>analysis, might not fare so well 50 years from now. it may
>well, but why leave those things to chance? kennedy got too
>busy feeling himself.

all these conservative assholes will be dead
we'll be looking back and thinking, wtf were they thinking denying people basic rights.

stfu
you trying to be smart and failing at it

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4096/4883661672_2f6403c089_b.jpg
_______________________

rainbow umbrellas, of course

_______________________

"As the majority acknowledges, marriage “has existed for
millennia and across civilizations.” For all
those millennia, across all those civilizations, “marriage”
referred to only one relationship: the union of a man and a
woman.

nyet! monogamy is a relatively new and christian concept.
and the marriage ceremony involving the state is very very very new.
he would have been better served to have stated that marriage should not at all involve the state... hence remove the certificates, the tax benefits etc. this is the position for some in the lbgtq movement.
the reason this shifted to, alright we need to get marriage equality is because this would not be tenable among the ignorant majority.


"When sexual relations result in the conception of a child,
that child’s prospects are generally better if the mother
and father stay together rather than going their separate
ways."

fuck him. us single parent children are doing rather well.

"Therefore, for the good of children and society,
sexual relations that can lead to procreation should occur
only between a man and a woman committed to a lasting
bond."

and exactly who is stopping that from happening. earth is 7 billion strong and he's worried that there will be no more children? no we might need to slow down on that procreating.

"Society has recognized that
bond as marriage. And by
bestowing a respected status and material benefits on
married couples, society encourages men and women to
conduct sexual relations within marriage rather than
without."

yes gay folk will now respectfully fuck under the marriage certificate
and those of us not married will continue to fuck irregardless
fuck his morallity.

actually,, you know what.
reading this shit is just upsetting me for no reason
and a waste of my time
i actually thought he might have something to say
but its all verbal diarrhoea

it has been argued and settled.
we won.


enjoy the fruits.
lots of ppl have suffered enough.

enjoy the day, now.

Word is that they were already expecting a bigger crwod than usual. And now with the SCOTUS ruling, that number is probably gonna balloon.

http://www.towleroad.com/2015/06/rainbow-appears-over-white-house/
_______________________

"I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth."

earthlings, you have done me proud

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_xNI_4M25x7w/THz69s7okqI/AAAAAAAAA9o/s0HO1G3VMT4/s400/9_funny_jesus_thumbs_up.jpg
_______________________

nm

The church came through with the swift press release affirming the stance on the ruling.

Ann Coulter gone Ann Coulter:
https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/614487068190838784

Welp so much for some people's week:
http://i.imgur.com/bsQppP5.png

---

What happened to that pastor that threatened to set himself on fire if the court ruled against his wishes? What happened to that Australian couple that threatened to get a divorce over this ruling?

OBAMA'S FAULT:

http://i.imgur.com/dE4s716.png

Reactions from those hurt by this decision:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/26/1396867/-2016-Republican-clown-car-occupants-weigh-in-on-marriage-equality-decision

Dissenting voices from SC:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/26/1396794/-Pro-discrimination-Supreme-Court-justices-really-really-dissent-from-marriage-equality

TL;DR - THEY HURT. Is Case okay? Someone check on him and make sure he's doing all right.

Lol, they mad

Awesome

>
>Lol, they mad
>
>Awesome

I'm out here partying! What's the best type of tears? Rage tears

You'd think people's families died if you looked at my Facebook feed. JUDICIAL TYRANNY HAS CAUSED AN ATTACK ON THE FAMILY..... LMBAO.

I'm feasting off this issue by being a "shoulder to cry on" and that empathizes with this "attack on family" as I console her. *looks into camera and smiles*

Y'all might say I ain't shit to which my responses is I'm doing my part to increase the undercover infiltration of multiracial children on the electorate.

we all know...actually gays are still unprotected from all sorts of unfair discrimination in the workplace and elsewhere. we still have problems w/the criminal justice system. we still can't trust the police who are to serve and protect us. us non-white gays are still ostracized from many parts of the broader gay community. and on and on.

SAVE IT. if you ain't gonna get it on, TAKE YOUR DEAD ASS HOME...until Monday afternoon when we've all come down from the high of this decision.

sheesh.
_______________________

will be my response to such posts,
as sarah_bellum so well taught us to respond.

ain't nobody got time fo dat!
_______________________

Dude that said he would set himself on fire over this actually did the deed. Mods, do y'all want me to post the link or not? Let me know before I post the link.

*figures mods can always edit out the link in the post anyways*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/16/79-year-old-retired-reverend-set-himself-on-fire-to-inspire-social-justice/

Religious zealots are out of control and we need an intervention.

*Passes out drinks to everyone in this post*

damn......

that's....WOW.


_______________________

that one is still at large

the one posted in that link died because he felt society was not doing enough to end racism (lynching) and homophobia

LOL
_______________________

.

Talk your shit.

i can actually respect him
sad as it is

his suicide note:
In it, Moore lamented past racism in Grand Saline and beyond. He called on the community to repent and said he was “giving my body to be burned, with love in my heart” for those who were lynched in his home town as well as for those who did the lynching, hoping to address lingering racism.

Moore had gone on a two-week hunger strike in the 1990s to move the United Methodist Church to remove discriminatory language against homosexuals. While working with the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, he stood vigil in front of George W. Bush’s governor’s mansion to protest more than 100 executions. He served in the slums of India, Africa and the Middle East.

He did all that only to be mistaken for the guy who represents everything he just gave his life in protest of.
But people see his picture, and because they think he's the other preacher they're like, "GOOD!" Too tragic.

aka, africa also making strides to break free of the colonialism ism and schism
uganda we looking at you

http://www.out.com/news-opinion/2015/5/31/mozambique-decriminalizes-homosexuality


The revised law, which was passed last year, will come into effect next month (i.e June 29th)
By James McDonald
May 31 2015 12:58 PM EDT


One of the most tolerant African countries in regards to homosexuality, Mozambique will mark a major milestone on June 29, when homosexuality becomes legal.

The criminalization of homosexuality —characterized as "vices against nature"— in the country stemmed from Portuguese colonial rule. In December 2014, former President Armando Guebuza signed a revised penal code into law, giving it 180 days to come into effect.

While technically punishable by up to three years hard labor, LGBT people were rarely prosecuted. This move brings Mozambique in line with the 20 other African nations that either allow for homosexuality, or do not legislate against it.

In the remaining 35 countries, homosexuality is illegal, and punishable by death in Sudan, Nigeria, and Mauritania.

According to Agencia de Informacao de Mocambique:

"The new Penal Code sweeps away a great deal of the musty colonial legacy, including the mention of 'vices against nature.'"

"Now not even the most contorted of arguments could claim that acts of gay sex between consenting adults are somehow illegal."

Lambda, the LGBT legal organization in the country, has celebrated the new law, but insists that much remains to be done before the country's LGBT population see true equality.

(H/T Gay Star News)

_______________________

They talked about it for all of a minute and a half before talking about Hillary Clinton's emails

the correctional officers at the local jail usually have Fox News on the tv's in the jail reception area. i just went over there this afternoon to visit a client - the tvs were OFF. i've never seen that. LOL
_______________________

it's fucking hilarious

they're furious at everyone.. obama, scotus, house repubs, senate repubs, going on about activist judges, and the destruction of marriage, the destruction of the constitution, and obamacare being the worst policy in history...

they cant even focus on which thing to be mad at. it's great

go drink a cup of bleach.


My fb feed is filling up with a few folks going on about how this is the sign of the end of the world.

and these are black people.

these are people I went to church with

the church i grew up with was VERY accepting towards gay people

matter of fact during first sunday testify sessions openly gay members would say "i would like to thank the lord for introducing me to ______ and I just want to say how blessed I am that after all these years _____ and I are still going strong!"

then and now these same motherfuckers who were clapping and yasss-lord-ing are now saying that this is the sign of the end of the world.


how you do that?


I'm pretty tight about it.

I have my own set of biases and I try to work on them but right now I am intolerant of all sort discrimination.

We have to do better



fuck.

why are they so worried, arent they going to heaven?
then they should be thanking us for hastening the process

Totally agree.

Sitting here on FB having a discussion with an old friend about this. He says you can't be Christian and support gay marriage.

That's BS. This is the governmental ruling. Not GOD's ruling. People are so quick to stop gay marriage. Well then maybe next we need to start talking about how these men and women are having all these babies out of wedlock. But, nah...yall don't wanna go there. Got six baby daddies, not married to none of them, but you want to get mad when you see two married men walking down the street.

GET THE FRAK OUT OF HERE WITH THAT BS!!!!

God is going to judge us all. And, don't think you won't have to answer for having that child out of wedlock, or having sex before marriage, or being in a gay relationship, or lying, or cheating or, whatever your sin may be. The point is we ALL sin. No sin is more heinous than the other. And we will all be judged by GOD. So get yourself right and stop worrying what others are doing!

So, let people be!!! Happy about today's ruling. And, I'm tired of the conservatives christians judging because I guarantee you got some things you are going to answer to GOD for also.

lol!

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/06/alabama_probate_office_closes.html

Pike County officials haven't issued marriage licenses in months, and today Probate Judge Wes Allen announced that his office is now permanently out of the marriage business.

"My office discontinued issuing marriage licenses in February and I have no plans to put Pike County back into the marriage business," Allen wrote in a statement. "The policy of my office regarding marriage is no different today than it was yesterday."

Geneva County Probate Judge Fred Hamic also said he intends to permanently close the marriage license bureau in his office, if his attorneys don't object.

Both judges cited Alabama Code Section 30-1-9: "Marriage licenses may be issued by the judges of probate of the several counties."

The law says "may" instead of "shall", Hamic said, which makes a big difference. He said the law permits probate judges to opt of of isuing marriage licenses.

"This decision is not based on me being a homophobic, people can do whatever they want in private," Hamic said. "It is based strictly on my Christian beliefs."

Carl Tobias, professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, said he doesn't think courts will allow counties to opt of the marriage business. The Supreme Court's decision affirmed marriage as a fundamental right, he said. So denying marriage licenses to everyone does not follow the court's order.

"They would be basically defying a Supreme Court ruling, so I think they're going to have to do ," Tobias said.

Elmore County Probate Judge John Enslen, one of the staunchest opponents of same-sex marriage, was not available today for comment. Earlier this year, he said he would rather go to jail than perform a same-sex marriage, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Couples – both gay and straight – who want to get married in Colbert, Tuscaloosa, Washington and Henry Counties will have to wait a little while.

Some probate offices closed this morning to review the Supreme Court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage in Alabama and across the nation. Colbert County Probate Judge Daniel Rosser would not say when the office would reopen, or whether it would ultimately issue licenses to same-sex couples.

Probate Judge W. Hardy McCollum in Tuscaloosa will wait 21 days to issue same-sex marriage licenses, according to WIAT.

In Henry County, the suspension is temporary, to make sure the office has the proper forms in place, said Probate Judge David Money. The marriage license office could reopen on Wednesday, and his staff will be issuing to all couples. Limestone County officials are also reviewing the Supreme Court's ruling, but intend to issue marriage licenses later today or on Monday, said Probate Judge Charles Woodruff.

The probate office in Shelby County is not yet issuing licenses to same-sex couples, and officials have not yet announced when that might begin. The Baldwin County probate office will issue marriage licenses to all couples starting on Monday at 10 a.m. Officials in Etowah County will be accepting applications for marriage licenses today, but will not issue any licenses until Monday, according to documents.

Other probate judges opposed to same-sex marriage have also said they are reviewing the ruling and wrestling with the decision.

Probate Judge Ryan Robertson of Cleburne County said he will stop performing marriages in his courthouse. He has not made any firm decision on whether he will issue marriage licenses.

"I still have three weeks to make a decision," Robertson said. "I will be praying on it. I sure don't want to hurt folks in my county who want to get married traditionally."

Probate Judge Jerry Pow of Bibb County said he will issue licenses to all couples, gay and straight, in light of the Supreme Court ruling. But he and his staff will no longer perform weddings in the courthouse.

Probate Judge Rocky Ridings in Marion County said that no one has applied for a marriage license today, and that he is consulting with attorneys about his options.

Probate Judge Barry Moore of Franklin County has said in the past that he wouldn't issue any licenses to same-sex couples, but this morning he said he is reviewing the ruling with legal counsel and has not made any decision on how to proceed.

"We're going to have our legal counsel review the opinion to make sure we are not in contempt of any laws," he said.

The Association of County Commissions of Alabama has advised probate judges to accept marriage license applications today, but hold off on issuing them until Monday. In light of the many twists and turns same-sex cases have taken in Alabama, probate judges should take a day to review the ruling, said executive director Sonny Brasfield.

"I very much anticipate that our advice on Monday will be to follow the decision of the highest court in the land," Brasfield said. "We'd rather take a day and be careful than clean up any mess that was made by moving too quickly."

Conservative white christians losing their minds, HAHHAHAH. ACA is now law of the land as well. Half the conservatives are mad that a black man is going to get credit for all this stuff instead of them.. History gonna light that ass up!! HAHAH

>Conservative white christians losing their minds, HAHHAHAH.
>ACA is now law of the land as well. Half the conservatives are
>mad that a black man is going to get credit for all this stuff
>instead of them.. History gonna light that ass up!! HAHAH
>
>

but I hope this isn't supposed to be a distraction from Charleston

This and SC should get equal billing.

http://i.imgur.com/ifaKllE.jpg

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/huppke/ct-huppke-gay-marriage-scotus-20150626-story.html

Commentary: Intolerance injured in attack by Supreme Court
By Rex W. Huppke
June 26, 2015, 10:19 AM

Intolerance was seriously injured this morning in a bold attack led by five U.S. Supreme Court justices.

Armed with a belief in love and a sense of human decency, the justices struck intolerance with a ruling that same-sex couples have the right to marry anywhere in the United States, ending years of political attempts to ban such marriages.

Investigators say most of intolerance’s injuries came from this final blow in the court’s decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy:

“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

Witnesses say intolerance was stunned by those words, then dropped helplessly to the ground after Kennedy’s final roundhouse: “It is so ordered.”

Charges aren’t expected, as the attack was supported by a majority of Americans who say they had grown tired of intolerance’s poor arguments for bigotry and random acts of nastiness.

Though hurt, intolerance is expected to survive. Through a spokesman — Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee — intolerance said of the Supreme Court attack:

“I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat. … The Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature's God on marriage than it can the law of gravity.”

Antonin Scalia, one of the four Supreme Court justices not involved in the attack, said in a dissenting opinion that the five justices responsible for intolerance’s injury are a “threat to American democracy.” He then reportedly walked off to his home under a bridge mumbling something about “tyranny.”

Love, who observers believe orchestrated the attack and hand-picked the Supreme Court justices to deliver the beating, could not be reached for comment. A close associate, happiness, said love was busy spreading across the country, celebrating.

“It’s very excited right now,” happiness said of love. “It won.”

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/4d/1e/7c/4d1e7ced0f25581c3ff5cc2a735cf446.gif

Shoulda never given yall gifs. Lol

___________________________________________________________


DJTB YOMM

edit - kinda makes you wonder who else's rights are on the chopping block... First day back too:

www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100520zor_3204.pdf#page=55

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/05/politics/clarence-thomas-samuel-alito/index.html

(CNN )Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, lashed out on Monday at the religious liberty implications of the Supreme Court's 2015 decision that cleared the way for same-sex marriage nationwide.

Thomas wrote that the decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, "enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss."
Thomas' strong opinion came down on the first day of the court's new term, and reflects the fact that critics of the landmark opinion from five years ago that was penned by now retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, are still infuriated by its reasoning. They believe the court should have left the decision to the political arena and have long said that it will infringe upon the rights of those who have religious objections to same-sex marriage.
Supporters of LGBTQ rights are fearful that the court is poised to continue a trend from last term, ruling in favor of religious conservatives in key cases.

The case that prompted Thomas' statement concerned Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky who gained national attention in 2015 and was jailed after declining to issue marriage licenses out of an objection to same sex marriages. The high court on Monday declined to hear an appeal in her case.
Thomas called Davis "one of the first victims" of the court's "cavalier treatment of religion" in the Obergefell v. Hodges decision but warned "she will not be the last." He said that her case was not properly presented before the court, but he urged his colleagues to revisit the religious liberty implications of the landmark opinion down the road.
He warned that the court had chosen to "privilege" a "novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment, any by doing so undemocratically, the Court has created a problem that only it can fix."
Thomas also noted that he agreed with the decision to not take up the case, writing that it did not "cleanly present" important questions raised about the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.
Steve Vladeck, a CNN legal analyst and University of Texas law school professor, said the opinion is a "telling and ominous" message for the justices to send.
"The opinion lays down a marker that at least some of the justices already view the court's recognition of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage as an affront to religious liberty, and so may well use the latter to scale back the former in future cases," Vladeck said.
"Especially at this moment in time, with major religious liberty cases already in the pipeline and in the middle of a contentious confirmation fight the result of which could move the court sharply to the right on these issues, it's a telling -- and ominous -- message for the court's two longest-serving conservatives to send," he added.

Don't listen to Nick Cannon or any other bitch ass nigga who tells you not to use your rights.

Say by to birthright citizenship. Things are gonna get worse (yes it's possible) for refugees. They are going to ramp up the trafficking, the violence, the rape, the medical procedures and the deaths.

They know the brakes will be off if they can pull off stealing the election and have been planning to make the first term look like walk in park. Stephen Miller has been relatively open about this.

My LGBTQ family should 1000% be on notice. Gay marriage will go. Hate crimes will be incentivized. Legal protections will continue to be eroded.


Black folk who think things "aren't that different for me" are about to have a very rude awakening. No one on here even bothered to mention the gutting of fair housing protections last month. But sure, tell us more about your 401K and how now is a great time to invest.

And we're not even touching on climate change (because most people don't understand that CC IS a Black issue and class issue).

If you want to know who is about to have their rights peeled back, just ask if they are (rich) white men. If the answer is "no", shit is poised to get bad.

Oh and if you think they're out of power in 4 years you're out of your fucking mind (and I'm not even talking about him packing the Supreme Court and how that imbalance will outlive us all provided he is not removed from power). This is for all the marbles.

Yes, absolutely, vote. But prepare yourself mentally to be ready to do a lot more than that.