So it's come to this?

[KDS]

Government issues marriage licenses.  The Supreme Court ruling simply says that marriage licenses can be issued to same sex couples.

Churches still have the right to not marry same sex couples if they so chose. 

[Jim V.]

Interesting that Bean Bag seems to disappear whenever his bullshit gets torn to shreds.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

Interesting that Bean Bag seems to disappear whenever his bullshit gets torn to shreds.

Yeah, he is over on the PP thread talking his version of freedom and liberty. In other words, women have no say over their bodies and LGB&T are not free to choose who they marry.

[Bean Bag]

You'll get it when you get it.

[Bean Bag]

Mr. Bag,

I have a quick simple question for you.

How exactly does a man marrying a man, or a woman marrying a woman, affect you? 

That seems to be a question that nobody who is against same sex marriage can answer. 

It doesn't.

[Bean Bag]

Marriage is an institution that has existed for centuries, outside of govt as TRBB points out, and 5 powdered wigs say, no. Then the haters go and seek out people who they know don't want to play their games and have the govt FORCE them to bake them a same sex wedding cake. That's hate.  That's intolerance. Wake the fck up.

Is it tolerant and loving to not allow people to marry?

No, it's not... you're right.  But no one was being denied marriage.  Only when the Supreme Court decided it had the phantom ability to redefine marriage does this now occur.  The states, legislature, and citizens that make up a society and it's laws didn't decide this.  Very similar to abortion.  The society did not decide this... there was no meeting.  No vote.

You're being ruled by judicial fiat. This should concern a free society.

[Bean Bag]

Centuries of marriage, my ass. It has evolved constantly over its history, whether allowing for polygamy, various rules about divorce, ....

Hey, hey, let's leave your ass out of it.   Yes, marriage has evolved throughout history.  So why was that evolution stunted, aborted and not allowed to continue its natural course.

What for?

[Wirestone]

Actually, there are quite a few states, including my own, that legalized same-sex marriage through the legislative process or a popular vote.

So marriage was already redefined to include same-sex couples by the general public. The Supreme Court's job, as it usually is, was to reconcile the fact that there were two rules of law in the country -- one that excluded, and one that included. It went with the more inclusive option.

The fact that a majority of Americans support the decision -- and, indeed, disagreed with Kim Davis's actions -- strongly suggests that the court's decision was indeed the will of the people.

[KDS]

Mr. Bag,

I have a quick simple question for you.

How exactly does a man marrying a man, or a woman marrying a woman, affect you? 

That seems to be a question that nobody who is against same sex marriage can answer. 

It doesn't.

Exactly. 

[Jim V.]

You're being ruled by judicial fiat. This should concern a free society.

Anybody else get the feeling that the ol' Bagger here was just fine when the "five lawyers in robes" ruled by "judicial fiat" to make George W. Bush President in 2000? Juuuuuust a feeling. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Bagger was "concerned" by that as well.

Also interesting that little ol' Bags also woulda been just fine if the Supreme Court "ruled by fiat" that the President's health care law was unconstitutional? Seems like he gets all concerned about his "freedom" when things don't go his way. Otherwise, meh, who cares!

[Bean Bag]

Actually, there are quite a few states, including my own, that legalized same-sex marriage through the legislative process or a popular vote.

The legislative process was allowed to operate in those states.  Kentucky was a "no."

So marriage was already redefined to include same-sex couples by the general public. The Supreme Court's job, as it usually is, was to reconcile the fact that there were two rules of law in the country

Wrong.

[Bean Bag]

Mr. Bag,

I have a quick simple question for you.

How exactly does a man marrying a man, or a woman marrying a woman, affect you? 

That seems to be a question that nobody who is against same sex marriage can answer. 

It doesn't.

Exactly. 

No, not exactly. It's not about me. What if i said it does affect me?

[Jim V.]

Mr. Bag,

I have a quick simple question for you.

How exactly does a man marrying a man, or a woman marrying a woman, affect you? 

That seems to be a question that nobody who is against same sex marriage can answer. 

It doesn't.

Exactly. 

No, not exactly. It's not about me. What if i said it does affect me?

Hey Bags, why don't ya have the guts to reply to my statements about how you're just fine with judicial tyranny as long as they rule your way?

[Rocky Raccoon]

Mr. Bag,

I have a quick simple question for you.

How exactly does a man marrying a man, or a woman marrying a woman, affect you? 

That seems to be a question that nobody who is against same sex marriage can answer. 

It doesn't.

Exactly. 

No, not exactly. It's not about me. What if i said it does affect me?

It shouldn't and it doesn't.  So why are we talking about this?

[Bean Bag]

Mr. Bag,

I have a quick simple question for you.

How exactly does a man marrying a man, or a woman marrying a woman, affect you? 

That seems to be a question that nobody who is against same sex marriage can answer. 

It doesn't.

Exactly. 

No, not exactly. It's not about me. What if i said it does affect me?

It shouldn't and it doesn't.  So why are we talking about this?

We're talking about it because someone was put in jail.  Exactly as predicted.  http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,22227.msg526609.html#msg526609

[Alex]

Wherever you stand on same sex marriage issues, sticking this women in jail was not necessary.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/03/politics/kentucky-clerk-same-sex-marriage-kim-davis/index.html?sr=fb090315kentuckyclerkcourt700aVodTopLink

RRAAAAWWWWRRRHHHGGHHH!!! GIVE HER THE CHAIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

But seriously, I think she should have just resigned and moved on with her life.

[37!ws]

She was in jail because *she broke the law*. Period. End of story.

[Bean Bag]

She was in jail because *she broke the law*. Period. End of story.

That easy for you?  That's fine... it's your opinion -- but it's likely not how you or anyone truly feels -- for better or worse.  But what do I know.

If I may... Abortion is "legal."  But killing someone isn't.  Slavery was "legal."  But wrong.  If illegal immigrants aren't "legal" then why is the Powerful pretending it's ok?  Should we throw Obama in jail for not enforcing the border?  Supposed to.  Period, end of story, right?

Sanctuary cities legal?  I don't know.  But are they right?  Is it legal to overturn the state legislature?  Is it right to?  Depends.  Is it legal for the Supreme Court to write law from the bench?

Life is often bigger than procedure -- it's about what's right, 37!ws.  It's easier, and a lot less fuzzy if one does what they feel is right and fight for that.  I don't know the other way too well.  It sounds a lot like "do what others tell me to do."

[Jim V.]

Is it legal for the Supreme Court to write law from the bench?

It's okay for the Supreme Court to decide elections from the bench though right? As long as they give it to the Republican candidate, right?

Oh wait, Beanie Baby won't answer that cuz it doesn't fit his preconceived agenda.

[filledeplage]

Is it legal for the Supreme Court to write law from the bench?

It's okay for the Supreme Court to decide elections from the bench though right? As long as they give it to the Republican candidate, right?

Oh wait, Beanie Baby won't answer that cuz it doesn't fit his preconceived agenda.

Don't forget the Electoral college.

And, I like the idea of a completely voter based election.  Too much chicanery can happen otherwise.   

[Bean Bag]

Sweetdude -- how much do you really need me to delve into the 2000 election?  I'm being serious, now.  Remember energy is an expensive commodity... a commodity liberals cannot be trusted with    Har, har... But seriously... before you answer...

I'm sensing a typhoon is upon us.  You feel it?  All of us.  The entire political paradigm is shifting in ways that will require a lot of, I don't know "meditation?"  What do you think?

[alf wiedersehen]

We feel it, Bean Bag... we feel it

[Jim V.]

Sweetdude -- how much do you really need me to delve into the 2000 election?  I'm being serious, now.  Remember energy is an expensive commodity... a commodity liberals cannot be trusted with    Har, har... But seriously... before you answer...

I'm sensing a typhoon is upon us.  You feel it?  All of us.  The entire political paradigm is shifting in ways that will require a lot of, I don't know "meditation?"  What do you think?

Wow. A non-answer answer. What a surprise.

I guess that tells me what I needed to know. That being...

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IS JUUUUUST FINE FOR BEANIE BABY AS LONG AS IT FAVORS HIS "TEAM"!

[Bean Bag]

So, are we to believe you need it bad? 

[Bean Bag]

We feel it, Bean Bag... we feel it

    Trump's not the storm. He's certainly tapping into it.  No doubt.  Nobody's come along and really picked up the momentum and energy that's been boiling over in the Country, ever since radical-Obama and the radical-Left began their slash n' burn, pillaging of the land.  The Republicans won TWO historical landslides to shut the Turd down -- and did nothing.  And then Romney folded and many stayed home -- giving us four more glorious years of a HORRENDOUS President.

Found an Obama-cane pic!