Topic: Is Syntax about to come out of the closet?
+Anonymous A — 11.8 years ago #38,184
+Anonymous B — 11.8 years ago, 1 minute later[T] [B] #425,655
No one cares.
+Anonymous C — 11.8 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #425,657
+Anonymous D — 11.8 years ago, 3 minutes later, 7 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #425,659
·Anonymous B — 11.8 years ago, 3 seconds later, 7 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #425,658
+Anonymous E — 11.8 years ago, 29 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #425,663
@OP
Congratulations. You are free to marry your gay brother.
No you are not. Incest is still illegal.
Congratulations. You are free to marry your gay brother.
No you are not. Incest is still illegal.
+Syntax — 11.8 years ago, 3 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #425,664
@previous (E)
Yikes. OP cannot be that hard up.
Fake Anon said in reply
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 48 minutes ago, 9 minutes later[^] [v] #502,731
This was pretty predictible. SCOTUS doesn't want to decide the issue, and doesn't really have to until there is at least a circuit split on the issue. They might also never rule on the merits of any case because it's a political question and therefore non-justiciable. This is really an issue for Congress or possibly a Constitutional Amendment to resolve, but since neither of those seem particularly likely to actually produce any meaningful results, it's up to the courts to rule on contentious social issues again.
If we do have a constitutional amendment, I'd like it to be an amendment that makes it easier to amend the constitution. It's too hard to do at the moment, and would at least make it a real possibility instead of the only options being the courts or the legislature.
Edit: Or I guess, executive fiat, but that's not really a good road to go down, and I don't see how that would help, though i guess if all executive branch agencies considered marriage as 2 adults irrespective of gender, that would maybe carry some weight, but I don't think there will ever be two competing federal definitions of marriage like that.
My reply to a mod on the same post on MC
Syntax (OP, you) replied with this 11 minutes ago, 20 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #502,741
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
> Officials in states whose bans were overturned had also wanted the high court to decide the matter.
> The justices could take up a future case, but their move on Monday could send a strong signal to lower court judges that rulings striking down gay marriage bans are consistent with the U.S. Constitution.
If in fact all lower courts comply, there will be a rush to open up Gay marriages Super Fast and after a while there will be so many of such marriages that any attempt to over turn this via Constitutional amendment or otherwise will be impractical.
And far to many more better things to amend. Everyone knows who no's me that I grew up in another era so I have been slow to accept the radical changes on LGBT YET the Marriage issue moved me quickly to support such BECAUSE the State I live in did not allow marriage of a White to a Asian up until 1948 and many many states would not allow mixed marriages until 1967 (Maryland for instance) UNTIL US Super court threw out all bans.
Interracial marriage in the United States have ONLY been fully legal in all U.S. states since the 1967. I had completed my BSEE around that tyme. Marriages of Males and Females Banned by other Men. Even a shocking law passed in the 30's that allowed the taking away of a full Native born USA Citizen IF they married anyone that was not eligible for USA Citizenship.
USA Separation of Church and State EXCEPT its been the Church's that have driven Anti Christ definitions on the subject of living life and marriage.
Yikes. OP cannot be that hard up.
Fake Anon said in reply
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 48 minutes ago, 9 minutes later[^] [v] #502,731
This was pretty predictible. SCOTUS doesn't want to decide the issue, and doesn't really have to until there is at least a circuit split on the issue. They might also never rule on the merits of any case because it's a political question and therefore non-justiciable. This is really an issue for Congress or possibly a Constitutional Amendment to resolve, but since neither of those seem particularly likely to actually produce any meaningful results, it's up to the courts to rule on contentious social issues again.
If we do have a constitutional amendment, I'd like it to be an amendment that makes it easier to amend the constitution. It's too hard to do at the moment, and would at least make it a real possibility instead of the only options being the courts or the legislature.
Edit: Or I guess, executive fiat, but that's not really a good road to go down, and I don't see how that would help, though i guess if all executive branch agencies considered marriage as 2 adults irrespective of gender, that would maybe carry some weight, but I don't think there will ever be two competing federal definitions of marriage like that.
My reply to a mod on the same post on MC
Syntax (OP, you) replied with this 11 minutes ago, 20 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #502,741
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
> Officials in states whose bans were overturned had also wanted the high court to decide the matter.
> The justices could take up a future case, but their move on Monday could send a strong signal to lower court judges that rulings striking down gay marriage bans are consistent with the U.S. Constitution.
If in fact all lower courts comply, there will be a rush to open up Gay marriages Super Fast and after a while there will be so many of such marriages that any attempt to over turn this via Constitutional amendment or otherwise will be impractical.
And far to many more better things to amend. Everyone knows who no's me that I grew up in another era so I have been slow to accept the radical changes on LGBT YET the Marriage issue moved me quickly to support such BECAUSE the State I live in did not allow marriage of a White to a Asian up until 1948 and many many states would not allow mixed marriages until 1967 (Maryland for instance) UNTIL US Super court threw out all bans.
Interracial marriage in the United States have ONLY been fully legal in all U.S. states since the 1967. I had completed my BSEE around that tyme. Marriages of Males and Females Banned by other Men. Even a shocking law passed in the 30's that allowed the taking away of a full Native born USA Citizen IF they married anyone that was not eligible for USA Citizenship.
USA Separation of Church and State EXCEPT its been the Church's that have driven Anti Christ definitions on the subject of living life and marriage.
+Anonymous G — 11.8 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #425,688
+Dr moot !Ep8pui8Vw2 — 11.8 years ago, 5 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[T] [B] #425,737
Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.