Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Means SCOTUS will probably decide in 2016..
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 6-19-51-14" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Perhaps the 6th Circuit will take the case en banc before the Supreme Court gets involved.

dback was all over this yesterday on FB.

JoltinJoe wrote:Perhaps the 6th Circuit will take the case en banc before the Supreme Court gets involved.

Explain, please?

SuperHornet wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:Perhaps the 6th Circuit will take the case en banc before the Supreme Court gets involved.

Explain, please?

I think that's Latin for saying that gay marriage being legalized is money "in the bank".

andy7171 wrote:dback was all over this yesterday on FB.

Must have worn him out. He's usually all over any gay news here.

SuperHornet wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:Perhaps the 6th Circuit will take the case en banc before the Supreme Court gets involved.

Explain, please?

Any decision of a circuit court panel is subject to review of the whole circuit court. When that happens, the court is said to be sitting "en banc."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_banc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The jist of the ruling is that nobody has a "Constitutional right" to get married. Gay, Straight, or otherwise.

I would support a full ban on the institution of marriage

You dont have to be married to have children so why is one of the qualifiers for tax benefits is being married?

Get government out of marriage entirely, its a religious ceremony anyways.

JoltinJoe wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:
Explain, please?

Any decision of a circuit court panel is subject to review of the whole circuit court. When that happens, the court is said to be sitting "en banc."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_banc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I was close.

DSUrocks07 wrote:The jist of the ruling is that nobody has a "Constitutional right" to get married. Gay, Straight, or otherwise.

I would support a full ban on the institution of marriage

You dont have to be married to have children so why is one of the qualifiers for tax benefits is being married?

Get government out of marriage entirely, its a religious ceremony anyways.

This.

DSUrocks07 wrote:The jist of the ruling is that nobody has a "Constitutional right" to get married. Gay, Straight, or otherwise.

I don't think that's the gist of the ruling at all. Their main argument, imo, was that it isn't their role to define what marriage is - and that it should be left to the voters.

Ibanez wrote:

DSUrocks07 wrote:The jist of the ruling is that nobody has a "Constitutional right" to get married. Gay, Straight, or otherwise.

I would support a full ban on the institution of marriage

You dont have to be married to have children so why is one of the qualifiers for tax benefits is being married?

Get government out of marriage entirely, its a religious ceremony anyways.

This.

Moreover,

He (Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton) also maintained that states "got into the business of defining marriage, and remain in the business of defining marriage, not to regulate love but to regulate sex, most especially the intended and unintended effects of male-female intercourse."

its a means of control

Skjellyfetti wrote:

DSUrocks07 wrote:The jist of the ruling is that nobody has a "Constitutional right" to get married. Gay, Straight, or otherwise.

I don't think that's the gist of the ruling at all. Their main argument, imo, was that it isn't their role to define what marriage is - and that it should be left to the voters.

32 times since 1998, voters have gone to the polls and voted against gay marriage

Bronco wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
I don't think that's the gist of the ruling at all. Their main argument, imo, was that it isn't their role to define what marriage is - and that it should be left to the voters.

32 times since 1998, voters have gone to the polls and voted against gay marriage

I understand that. But, opinion is changing. Rapidly. It's a losing issue for Republicans long term. Best to cast to the social conservatives out of the party.

Bronco wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
I don't think that's the gist of the ruling at all. Their main argument, imo, was that it isn't their role to define what marriage is - and that it should be left to the voters.

32 times since 1998, voters have gone to the polls and voted against gay marriage

Doesn't make it right. You'd assume the party of Business, the GOP, would recognize the financial advantages to supporting gay marriage.

Bronco wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
I don't think that's the gist of the ruling at all. Their main argument, imo, was that it isn't their role to define what marriage is - and that it should be left to the voters.

32 times since 1998, voters have gone to the polls and voted against gay marriage

Without looking it up, I think 34 of 38 times, mostly 2004-2012..

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Bronco wrote:

32 times since 1998, voters have gone to the polls and voted against gay marriage

I understand that. But, opinion is changing. Rapidly. It's a losing issue for Republicans long term. Best to cast to the social conservatives out of the party.

Well then that would add to the argument of letting the voters decide...

BDKJMU wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
I understand that. But, opinion is changing. Rapidly. It's a losing issue for Republicans long term. Best to cast to the social conservatives out of the party.

Well then that would add to the argument of letting the voters decide...

That's beginning to change. Same sex marriage almost passed in SC by the small margin a year or so ago. Pretty soon, all those holy rollers that go to Church, preach love and show indifference to people different from themselves will be gone.

Ibanez wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
Well then that would add to the argument of letting the voters decide...

That's beginning to change. Same sex marriage almost passed in SC by the small margin a year or so ago. Pretty soon, all those holy rollers that go to Church, preach love and show indifference to people different from themselves will be gone.

Ironic that once the minority opinion becomes the majority opinion that the group that was once all for the protection of the minority opinion starts to clamor for benefits of majority rule.

Skjellyfetti wrote:I understand that. But, opinion is changing. Rapidly. It's a losing issue for Republicans long term. Best to cast to the social conservatives out of the party.

Yes there's no doubt that the population of the United States is getting flakier and flakier. Trends in public opinion on this issue is just one manifestation of that.

Regardless, if the absurdity of homosexual marriage is to be recognized it should be recognized through by the People and not by the Courts. The Constitution does not demand that States recognize it and the fact that we have Federal judges saying that it does is yet one more indication of a serious and long standing problem we have with the Judiciary. They say the Constitution requires things it does not require and say that it prohibits things it does not prohibit all the time. They've rendered the idea that we are governed by the Constitution into a joke.

It is obvious that choosing not to recognize relationships between homosexuals as marriage is not a denial of equal protection under the law. With respect to marriage, State laws have always treated everyone equally. There is no "equality" issue here. Any person has always been able to enter into a marriage contract with a member of the opposite sex. As I've said many times before: The fact that some people would rather enter into a marriage contract with members of their own sex does not mean they are not getting equal protection. They are being denied something that anybody else would also be denied. As I've also written before: It's like if we say that anybody who wants one can have a free steak. Someone comes up and says, "I don't want steak. I want chicken." We say, "No. Chicken is not being offered."

The person who wants chicken is not being denied equal treatment because he would prefer that over steak. He can have steak if he wants to just like anybody else. No equal treatment issue.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:I understand that. But, opinion is changing. Rapidly. It's a losing issue for Republicans long term. Best to cast to the social conservatives out of the party.

Yes there's no doubt that the population of the United States is getting flakier and flakier. Trends in public opinion on this issue is just one manifestation of that.

Regardless, if the absurdity of homosexual marriage is to be recognized it should be recognized through by the People and not by the Courts. The Constitution does not demand that States recognize it and the fact that we have Federal judges saying that it does is yet one more indication of a serious and long standing problem we have with the Judiciary. They say the Constitution requires things it does not require and say that it prohibits things it does not prohibit all the time. They've rendered the idea that we are governed by the Constitution into a joke.

It is obvious that choosing not to recognize relationships between homosexuals as marriage is not a denial of equal protection under the law. With respect to marriage, State laws have always treated everyone equally. There is no "equality" issue here. Any person has always been able to enter into a marriage contract with a member of the opposite sex. As I've said many times before: The fact that some people would rather enter into a marriage contract with members of their own sex does not mean they are not getting equal protection. They are being denied something that anybody else would also be denied. As I've also written before: It's like if we say that anybody who wants one can have a free steak. Someone comes up and says, "I don't want steak. I want chicken." We say, "No. Chicken is not being offered."

The person who wants chicken is not being denied equal treatment because he would prefer that over steak. He can have steak if he wants to just like anybody else. No equal treatment issue.

You're so wrong on this it's laughable. Marriage is just a word. Governments have chosen to equate it to certain rights (typically backwards, cousin fucking southern governments but that's a different story).

A "church" should be able to marry whoever they see fit.

DSU already won this thread.