The Political Discussion Thread

[Falcon Horus]

I saw that story over on GOPUSA, and man was i furious.

I thought it was hilarious.

Sorry, but if they are fighting in the name of a religion that imo makes it a holy war.. Heck their whole mantra of Jihad (HOLY WAR) says it all to me.

They may call it holy, but there's nothing holy about it. They just need a reason, and calling a holy war fits that bill perfectly.

I'm not calling it a holy war cause they do. I'm calling it outright genocide and slaughter.

Just that. Its like if at school A where you work your butt off to get a degree in say architecture, but yet at school B they just hand out those degrees to anyone who takes the course, then having a degree is not going to be as important (watered down) as it should.

Err... excuse me?!

It's still two people in love, wanting to tie the knot until death. There's nothing about it watering down the commitment any couple makes to one another. In fact, it's quite the opposite. A couple taking the ultimate step to becoming one, united in love.

You know what waters it down -- people getting married cause they knocked up the other half. Because of the kids, or because the child can't be born out of wedlock, or Kim Kardashian getting married and divorcing the next day.

Almost. Though my windows were somewhat sound proofed, the call to prayer DID invade my room many a time.. Lucky it was not that loud, so having the volumn up on the Tv drowned it out.

My sister and I were joking last week about the church bell from the church across the street keeping time. The church itself is no longer in use, hasn't been for the 40 years or so. We would take the clapper out and silence it, much like pulling the plug on a minaret to silence that one. It seemed fair that both had to be silenced or none. We only have a church bell hanging around, so it's none.

BUT it does prove that the LGBT community is pushing to get churches to be forced to let them marry in them.

Like I said - the man wants the grand wedding he always dreamed of. You can possibly blame him for trying.
He's probably not gonna win but at least he tried.

Since iirc Montanna (where most Mormons are) does not allow it legally at least, then legally no they are not in polygamous marriages.

That's confusing.

08, out in San diego. But you do make a good point. How many are there??

Does a supermarket count - they sell christmas trees during the christmas season. I forgot about the little supermarket on the corner.

Consent is consent. Or are you saying there are different types of consent?
Also, if the age of consent is a hard and fast thing for relationships, why then do several states have "Romeo and juliette laws"?

Consent is interpreted differently according to case.

For example:
* the age of consent to have sexual intercourse in Belgium is 16 - however, if one party is over the age of 18 and the other is not, the 18+ party could potentially be royally screwed if there was a complaint filed by a relative, a friend or even a jealous boy/girlfriend

* the age of consent to have euthanasia in Belgium is none - terminally ill minors of any age can ask for it

Two different types of consent - wouldn't you think?

And what the heck is a "Romeo & Juliette Law"? Who came up with that title - they died in the end.

Do you honestly believe there won't be any backlash against any of those Eposcopal ministers who do not perform those weddings?

Of course, there will be. Hell, have you seen the backlash when SCOTUS ruled in favor of equality. It's nuts.

IMO why is it always that if you are not 'for something' its gotta be because you are homophobic/racist/biggoted etc?

Because that's usually the case, and if it's not then there's possibly a very good reason. However, "because god and the bible say so" is not a good reason. Think for yourself instead of having someone think for you, or in the bible's case - something.

F.e.: we have to show our tickets on the bus. One guy waved it past the driver, and he called him back cause he hadn't seen it properly. But the guys daughter had it already in her hands to play with and he had to pull it back so she started crying. He blamed the driver who told him calmly that all he wanted to check was the validity of the ticket. Next thing we know the dude is calling the driver a racist. So yeah...

As you may have noticed in other posts about other topics, our government is not so fond of adhering to the Constitution these days. In fact, it often does things that are in direct conflict with that document.

Maybe call for an update - it's 228 years old...

And yes, I would attend a friends wedding.

If it should ever happen (at the rate I'm going probably never) you'll find an invitation in your mailbox.

If you ask me, it's because the people who say these things are working from a mindset that they couldn't possibly be wrong, so they don't understand how anyone could be opposed. So they take the cheap shot and assume racial or other sort of bias. Alternatively, there may be no logical defense for the position they are taking, so rather than try to play a hand they can't win, they attempt to discredit their opponent.

Kinda like calling the congress buttheads, or SCOTUS Scrotum, or calling on Obama in some other colorful speach, or the Republicans in name only?

If same sex couples can't have a legally recognised marriage, neither can opposite sex couples.

Let's do this and see how long before they start calling on their rights.

[Britta]

Yes they should recuse themselves in that case. Just like if one came to trial where business A was either the plaintiff or defendant, and one of the judges had shares in the company, they should recuse themselves.

This case wasn't Literally All Gay People in Existence vs. Hodges, it was Obergefell vs. Hodges. No personal connection.

Besides, for practical purposes if all Justices with gay friends recused themselves that would have the effect of stacking the deck in favour of homophobes. That would be a greater threat to impartiality.

Then how was Defense of Marriage thrown out cause it was a 'state right issue' vice federal? If the states have the right to define marriage in one case, how do they not have the same right in defining it for gay marriage?

First there is no such thing as state's rights, only the division of power. The constitution grants the federal government no authority to regulate marriage, so they had no authority to pass DOMA. That being said, just because it's a state matter doesn't mean the states have carte blance. They still have to comply with the constitution, and federal courts have jurisdiction to decide what violates the constitution, and enforce that judgement.

Think of it this way. To my knowledge the constitution never mentions apartments, but would you suggest that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply in apartments?

[Annoyed]

Originally Posted by Annoyed
As you may have noticed in other posts about other topics, our government is not so fond of adhering to the Constitution these days. In fact, it often does things that are in direct conflict with that document.

Maybe call for an update - it's 228 years old...

There is a process for updating it; the amendment process, as described in article V
There are actually two paths that can be taken to amend the Constitution.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Note that legislating from the bench is not part of that process.

[Annoyed]

And now for the newest example of government overreach.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...ntcmp=trending

They intend on mandating GPS tracking devices be installed in automobiles, which allow the government to track your every move in order to tax you by the mile driven, rather than the amount of gas you buy. The excuse is that smaller, lighter cars use less gas.

Right now, the program is voluntary, but the intent is to make it mandatory.

I don't even know how many violations of constitutional rights this involves, but how much you want to bet the courts rubber stamp it anyway?

This is also a good example of incrementalism. This plan first floated up as a trial balloon out of Oregon about 5 years ago.

50 years ago, this idea would have sparked a humungous outcry and howls of protest in this country. The politician who suggested it would have been run out of town on a rail. But over the years, the government has slowly expanded its reach that hardly anyone even notices anymore.

[Britta]

Maybe call for an update - it's 228 years old...

Surprisingly, the problem isn't actually an outdated constitution. It's that, for its entire existence, people have been selectively ignoring it to preserve their own hypocrisy. It's relatively easy to get people to agree on good basic principles with staying power. The problem is that people aren't perfect, and can easily convince themselves that the principles conveniently don't apply in cases where they are prejudiced.

Maybe you could make it more specific, add a "even if it sounds gross" here and a "yes, even the gays" there, but there are no bounds to the mental hurdles people are willing to leap to justify their prejudices.

There is a process for updating it; the amendment process, as described in article V
There are actually two paths that can be taken to amend the Constitution.


Note that legislating from the bench is not part of that process.

Nor is pretending the constitution doesn't say something you wish it didn't say, even if that lets you accuse the opposition of "legislating from the bench". Perhaps if the anti same sex marriage crowd had cited a rationale for it being wrong other than "because it just is" or "because the Bible says so", they might have had more luck.

Any law without rational basis is as tyrannical as it is capricious, and can in no way be considered compliant with Due Process.

[Britta]

50 years ago, this idea would have sparked a humungous outcry and howls of protest in this country. The politician who suggested it would have been run out of town on a rail. But over the years, the government has slowly expanded its reach that hardly anyone even notices anymore.

50 years ago people would have said "GPS? Burn the time traveling witch!"

[Falcon Horus]

And now for the newest example of government overreach.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...ntcmp=trending

Belgium is about to put a similar thing into play. For now, only trucks and the like will be taxed. But it won't be long before private car owners will have to chip in. If you want to make use of our roads, you're gonna have to pay for it. At least, they'll have money to possibly fix them cause damn... it's one hole after the other these days.

I don't even know how many violations of constitutional rights this involves, but how much you want to bet the courts rubber stamp it anyway?

Exactly one: the law on privacy.

50 years ago, this idea would have sparked a humungous outcry and howls of protest in this country. The politician who suggested it would have been run out of town on a rail. But over the years, the government has slowly expanded its reach that hardly anyone even notices anymore.

50 years ago there weren't as many cars polluting the place up. And not everyone could afford their own car so it wouldn't have been a lucrative taxing.

[Annoyed]

They already have an adequate source of highway funding, via motor vehicle registration fees, taxes, fuel taxes, excise taxes and so forth.
They certainly collect enough.
The problem is that they do not spend the money collected on highway costs.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/...-fund/5227871/

ALBANY – The highway and gas taxes New Yorkers pay are supposed to fund road and bridge repairs. Increasingly, they are not.

Only 22 percent of the $3.8 billion collected from highway taxes and fees each year goes to capital road projects, and the rest is diverted to cover state budget costs, a report released Wednesday found.

Sorry, try again.
That's an example from my home state, but I'm sure similar budget hocus pocus occurs in Oregon.

They don't need to collect more money from motorists. They need to spend what they are already collecting on highways.

And then there is the incredible invasion of privacy they want. Ya know, a suspicious and distrustful mind like mine might think the ability to track everyone is their primary goal, since they clearly don't need more money.

Oh, and don't lighter, smaller cars cause less road wear? That was the justification for higher registration fees for heavier vehicles.

[Gatefan1976]

No disrespect intended, but Why the heck should only those making an arbitrary figure and up pay taxes?

No disrespect intended, but they would still pay tax. The -only- tax the poor would avoid is federal income tax.
They still pay it on food, groceries, petrol, local, state etc, etc, etc. All it precludes is the -federal- government from taking a slice of your relatively tiny little pie.
As to why, all you have to do is look at the micro-economics of running a household to work it out. A person making 100 dollars a week will -feel- the loss of a flat 10% tax (10 dollars leaving 90) far, far more than a person making 1000 dollars a week (100 dollars leaving 900). If you can't see that, you need to go back to school, or run a family of a tight budget.

All that will do is DEInsentivise people into wanting to make more.

Bulldust.
People don't grow up saying "I wanna be on the ETB card, have no holidays, live in a crappy house or apartment, and be judged as parasites by my peers"
Take the example above, the person on 1000 a week is far, far better off than the person on 100, and it would take a tax rate of 91% for them to be in the same position, and IF that were the case, that particular argument may actually hold some merit, but that is not the case, nor has anyone in their right frigging mind ever advocated such a position.
That argument is the very definition of a straw man.

Even at the "draconian tax rate" of 15%, the person on 1000 a week has 850 dollars to spend or save in comparison to the "tax free" 100 dollars of the poor prick at the bottom. Call me crazy, but I sure as hell would prefer the "heavily taxed" 850 a week to the "free cash 100" option. EVEN IF the most ludicrous of laws came to pass that taxed you at 50% on 52K per year were passed, I would take the 500 a week over the "free 100"
Graded taxation in no way dis-incentives a damn thing -except perhaps- in the grey zone between moving up in bracket, and the end take home pay.

Only if the buttheads in congress (and the WH) allows us to.. Look at all the restrictions they put on our forces in Afgan and Iraq.

Do you -want- them to?
Do you want them to let you nuke places?
I have to ask, do you just want the whole "middle east" problem to just go away, and what will you do to make it happen

[Gatefan1976]

They already have an adequate source of highway funding, via motor vehicle registration fees, taxes, fuel taxes, excise taxes and so forth.
They certainly collect enough.
The problem is that they do not spend the money collected on highway costs.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/...-fund/5227871/

AGREE 100%
The problem is it all goes into the collective "kitty" and then the government tries to pay for things. Your fuel excise ends up paying for something totally unrelated and people get -understandably- ........Annoyed........ about it. Again however, if you want to maintain or institute a flat tax regardless of income (as some do) other taxes -will- make up the shortfall for programs that just (at least appear to) cost money. A good example of that is programs such as Medicaid, and I choose that because with all the *****ing, moaning and groaning about the A.C.A, you saw -every day- some Numbat complaining that it would affect -their god given Medicaid-, in total, blithe frigging IGNORANCE that Medicaid is a social service that has to be paid for somehow, and is probably subsidized out of thing such as road and transit taxes, or Alcohol taxes, or any other of the "sin taxes"
Why does the tax on my smokes pay for your subsidized perscriptions?
Why does the tax on your case of beer pay for my ETB card?

Because the states have a pool of cash that they collect via tax, and people get offended when "their hard earned tax dollars" go towards something they don't or have not used, but they don't want to pay a fair general tax based on ability to pay.

[garhkal]

I thought it was hilarious.

Why did you think it was funny? Have we not seen many cases recently where courts ruled taht someone's personal beliefs or deeply held religious convictions are not reason enough to bake a cake with decorations they disagree with on?
SO why then is it funny to see a walmart employee refusing to bake a cake with the Confederate flag on, while ANOTHER STORE allows one to be baked with the ISIS flag on?

I'm not calling it a holy war cause they do. I'm calling it outright genocide and slaughter.

I feel the same, but since they DO call it a holy war, i find it strange that to many in our govt, they DON'T consider it one..

Err... excuse me?!

It's still two people in love, wanting to tie the knot until death. There's nothing about it watering down the commitment any couple makes to one another. In fact, it's quite the opposite. A couple taking the ultimate step to becoming one, united in love.

You know what waters it down -- people getting married cause they knocked up the other half. Because of the kids, or because the child can't be born out of wedlock, or Kim Kardashian getting married and divorcing the next day.

Its similar in fashion to having an award. If you have to bust your butt to get it, but thne later on see dozens upon dozens of people who also got that award, but not ONE had to work for it, they were just handed it, it diminishes (well to many people i know) the work you did to get it. It makes your owning that award (degree etc) not as 'high of an accomplishment.
But i do agree with that last part, people marring just cause they popped out a kid also waters it down.

My sister and I were joking last week about the church bell from the church across the street keeping time. The church itself is no longer in use, hasn't been for the 40 years or so. We would take the clapper out and silence it, much like pulling the plug on a minaret to silence that one. It seemed fair that both had to be silenced or none. We only have a church bell hanging around, so it's none.

If its not still in use, how does the bell get run?

Like I said - the man wants the grand wedding he always dreamed of. You can possibly blame him for trying.
He's probably not gonna win but at least he tried.

Yes i can. I have been hearing it from the left that "we don't want to force your churches to accept our weddings, just let us marry.". Now they turn around and do exactly that. Its always "Just one more thing we want" it seems.
And as to "he is probably not going to win".. With how many liberal judges there are out there, i wouldn't be so sure.

That's confusing.

My bad. From what i know cause Montanna does not legally recognize/allow it, they just get the 2nd (and other) marriages church done. So to them they are married more than once, but the law only recognizes one.

And what the heck is a "Romeo & Juliette Law"? Who came up with that title - they died in the end.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/romeo-and-juliet-law/

Of course, there will be. Hell, have you seen the backlash when SCOTUS ruled in favor of equality. It's nuts.

Cause to a lot of people
A) the Scotus shouldn't have even taken the case. Its not their job to legislate / make new laws, but to rule on existing ones. Their decision to many people was exactly that.. THEM making a law.
B) Shouldn't have come down the way it did, as 2 of the 5 judges who ruled in favor of it, should NOT have been there to hear the case cause of their bias. So it should have been 4 to 3 against.

Because that's usually the case, and if it's not then there's possibly a very good reason. However, "because god and the bible say so" is not a good reason. Think for yourself instead of having someone think for you, or in the bible's case - something.

I am agnostic. I care not that the bible says Gay marriage is wrong. As i have said several times, i CARE NOT if you are for or against it. Just do NOT force me to accept it or support it.
Problem is to many of those i have spoken to who ARE FOR gay marriage, just me 'tolerating it like that; is not enough. Either i support it fully, or i am against it cause i am homophobic.
Which flies in the face of them saying "we want tolerance".

Kinda like calling the congress buttheads, or SCOTUS Scrotum, or calling on Obama in some other colorful speach, or the Republicans in name only?

I call them that, cause recently they seem to vote for anything Obama wants, no matter whether it seems legal or not.

This case wasn't Literally All Gay People in Existence vs. Hodges, it was Obergefell vs. Hodges. No personal connection.

So let's say i had officiated at the marriage of a sister marrying her step father. Later on a case brought in front of me is about a sister wanting to marry HER step father but the state saying NO.. Are you saying i won't be biased since i already recognized it before?

First there is no such thing as state's rights, only the division of power. The constitution grants the federal government no authority to regulate marriage, so they had no authority to pass DOMA

So if the fed has no right to legislate marriage in the case of DOMA, how then do they have the right here?

Belgium is about to put a similar thing into play. For now, only trucks and the like will be taxed. But it won't be long before private car owners will have to chip in. If you want to make use of our roads, you're gonna have to pay for it. At least, they'll have money to possibly fix them cause damn... it's one hole after the other these days.

Don't we already pay for it though with our federal income tax, state income (and some places county/city) tax, property tax, gas tax, car registration tax?
Why yet another damn tax to pay for the same frikken thing?

Exactly one: the law on privacy.

What about unreasonable searches?

No disrespect intended, but they would still pay tax.

Since most of those poor get EBT/Welfare/Unemployment, its not THEIR money though they are paying for taxes. Its what us tax payer ends up giving them..

Even at the "draconian tax rate" of 15%, the person on 1000 a week has 850 dollars to spend or save in comparison to the "tax free" 100 dollars of the poor prick at the bottom. Call me crazy, but I sure as hell would prefer the "heavily taxed" 850 a week to the "free cash 100" option. EVEN IF the most ludicrous of laws came to pass that taxed you at 50% on 52K per year were passed, I would take the 500 a week over the "free 100"
Graded taxation in no way dis-incentives a damn thing -except perhaps- in the grey zone between moving up in bracket, and the end take home pay.

Then why have we seen a ballooning of those on welfare/ebt, and little evidence of people who are on it getting off after 7+years?

Do you -want- them to?
Do you want them to let you nuke places?
I have to ask, do you just want the whole "middle east" problem to just go away, and what will you do to make it happen

Maybe not nuke it. BUT let us fight back.. Such as the issues where forces in the field got denied air support/artillery support cause they didn't want to offend natives nearby with potential 'friendly fire/collateral damage'. Or telling troops to not return fire and back off, if the enemy goes into a mosque but shoots out (and yes it did happen).

[Coco Pops]

I don't know why someone doesn't issue a bounty so high that no one would turn it down for killing ISIS members or leaders and proof of kills?

[Gatefan1976]

Since most of those poor get EBT/Welfare/Unemployment, its not THEIR money though they are paying for taxes. Its what us tax payer ends up giving them..

And the richer give you Medicaid, and subsidise your local E.R.
Is that "your tax money"?
Do you -deserve- those things, just because you pay tax?
If I pay 10% of my income on tax, and that 10% is 20 bucks, do I -deserve- to have inferior treatment to the guy in the E.R. who pays 1000 bucks, when his income is 10K?, just because I provided less money?
I paid my 10%, didn't I?
Better yet, if you -used to pay 1000 bucks a week, and your life went sideways and could not even pay tax anymore, should not the guy still paying his 20 bucks a week have the right to look down their nose at you because now, you are just a drain on the governmental system?
At least they still work, you lazy welfare bunny moocher!!

Then why have we seen a ballooning of those on welfare/ebt, and little evidence of people who are on it getting off after 7+years?

Poor access to education based on wealth
Poor access to education based on colour
Poor access to education based on sexual orientation.
20%+ unemployment in certain area's which has held steady for more than 7 years
A global Financial crisis
A growing population -period-
A growing trend of "I am too good for that job", but **** them damn immigrants taking our jobs

Would you like me to go on, or do you get the point?

Maybe not nuke it. BUT let us fight back.. Such as the issues where forces in the field got denied air support/artillery support cause they didn't want to offend natives nearby with potential 'friendly fire/collateral damage'. Or telling troops to not return fire and back off, if the enemy goes into a mosque but shoots out (and yes it did happen).

How are you going to fight back?
Issue free fire orders for your troops?

Let's stop this piss farting around, If you want them gone, with minimal casualties on all sides in the final analysis, you don't "fire back", or "send in the troops", or anything else, you drop megatons worth of destructive power on top of your enemy and wipe them out.
Of course, THAT decision comes with consequences, and the question is, are you -prepared- to live with them?
If someone handed you the might of the US forces, what would -you- do to your opposition?

Me, I think that I would try to fight the ideology, and not throw around my military, but if that became a non option, I would start breaking the -bones- of the opposition. I would quietly kill their leaders off, destroy their training grounds, and restrict their access to weapons to the point where even their own followers believed that they were impotent.
I would then go back to trying to talk to them again.
If worst came to worst, Yes, I would drop whatever it took to remove them, their powerbase, their followers etc off the planet, and I would feel no guilt about doing it because I would finally be playing by "their rules" and I have no issue playing the game I am presented with if I must.

[Falcon Horus]

[QUOTE=Annoyed;14364488]They already have an adequate source of highway funding, via motor vehicle registration fees, taxes, fuel taxes, excise taxes and so forth.
They certainly collect enough.
The problem is that they do not spend the money collected on highway costs.[/qoute]

Same here. However, Belgium has a large amount of international transport going across, which at this very moment crosses more or less for free, so I imagine they want to have them pay for the road use. Like what France, Germany and Austria have in play. You pay a fee to make use of their highway roads.

And then there is the incredible invasion of privacy they want. Ya know, a suspicious and distrustful mind like mine might think the ability to track everyone is their primary goal, since they clearly don't need more money.

Under current privacy laws in Belgium, the GPS tracking would never fly.

Oh, and don't lighter, smaller cars cause less road wear? That was the justification for higher registration fees for heavier vehicles.

Lighter, smaller cars don't usually wear roads out that easily, no.

Why did you think it was funny? Have we not seen many cases recently where courts ruled taht someone's personal beliefs or deeply held religious convictions are not reason enough to bake a cake with decorations they disagree with on?
SO why then is it funny to see a walmart employee refusing to bake a cake with the Confederate flag on, while ANOTHER STORE allows one to be baked with the ISIS flag on?

Because it's that double standard people like to live by... and it's not hilarious in a funny way, but hilarious in a face!palm way.

I feel the same, but since they DO call it a holy war, i find it strange that to many in our govt, they DON'T consider it one..

Well, if there's one thing we can agree on then it is the fact that the rest of world has severely underestimated the power and the threat that ISIS is displaying.

Its similar in fashion to having an award. If you have to bust your butt to get it, but thne later on see dozens upon dozens of people who also got that award, but not ONE had to work for it, they were just handed it, it diminishes (well to many people i know) the work you did to get it. It makes your owning that award (degree etc) not as 'high of an accomplishment.

My sister had a rather interesting explanation to give in reply to your university A and B example. She said that university A where you had to work hard for your degree, or in this example's case for your award, is in fact equal to the idea of same sex marriage. While in university B the straight couple is in luck cause they don't have worry about their degree or in this case marriage. If they want they'll get it without even having to lift a finger.

If its not still in use, how does the bell get run?

It's on automatic. I don't know.

Also the bell is hanging outside the belltower, which is actually very cool.

Its always "Just one more thing we want" it seems.

I don't want to be married in church... And I don't quite understand why anyone would, the way they have a habit of feeling better than, but I guess some folks just wanna have it all.

My bad. From what i know cause Montanna does not legally recognize/allow it, they just get the 2nd (and other) marriages church done. So to them they are married more than once, but the law only recognizes one.

Oh... like that.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/romeo-and-juliet-law/

Ah, kinda what I wrote about the consent age in Belgium - if you're 18+ and the other party involved is younger than 16, you could potentially face trouble if a complaint was filed.

A) the Scotus shouldn't have even taken the case. Its not their job to legislate / make new laws, but to rule on existing ones. Their decision to many people was exactly that.. THEM making a law.

Didn't they rule on an existing law?

The two questions which were center to the SCOTUS ruling:

) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Obergefell vs Hodges case
Defense Of Marriage Act

As i have said several times, i CARE NOT if you are for or against it. Just do NOT force me to accept it or support it.

But you do care about it... cause you say it yourself that two of the judges apparently had a bias ruling. Doesn't that mean, you do care whether you're against it or not (the general you in this case)?

You made it rather clear that you neither support it, nor tolerate it [correction] - you do tolerate it to a certain point. However, not yet sure I get why though?
Don't be afraid of the unknow, it might surprise you.

However, I do agree ... any couple, gay or straight, licking each other clean on the corner of a street is EW! COME ON, really?!? Get a room, for crying out loud!

Problem is to many of those i have spoken to who ARE FOR gay marriage, just me 'tolerating it like that; is not enough. Either i support it fully, or i am against it cause i am homophobic.
Which flies in the face of them saying "we want tolerance".

If you tolerate it, you shouldn't say it waters down marriage. Or that two of the judges were biased in your opinion. It sorta sends out mixed signals. You know.

What about unreasonable searches?

Not submissable in court so not an issue, I imagine.

I don't know why someone doesn't issue a bounty so high that no one would turn it down for killing ISIS members or leaders and proof of kills?

There are bounties up to 3 million dollar for information alone. So yes, there are in fact bounties to be had for information on folks on the list.

[Britta]

So let's say i had officiated at the marriage of a sister marrying her step father. Later on a case brought in front of me is about a sister wanting to marry HER step father but the state saying NO.. Are you saying i won't be biased since i already recognized it before?

If you want to recuse everyone who thinks something should be legal, you also have to recuse everyone who thinks it shouldn't. A conflict of interest is where they have reason to vote one way, even if they don't actually think that is the legally correct decision. No conflict here.

So if the fed has no right to legislate marriage in the case of DOMA, how then do they have the right here?

Note what I already said about there being a difference between the Government and the Courts. The Government can't create rules on the matter, but the court is simply enforcing constitutional rules that already apply. The Supreme Court did not create a right. They merely stopped pretending that it wasn't already one.