Supreme Court Puts Utah Same-sex Marr...

Supreme Court Puts Utah Same-sex Marriage on Hold

There are 298 comments on the News Max story from Jan 6, 2014, titled Supreme Court Puts Utah Same-sex Marriage on Hold. In it, News Max reports that:

Shelly Eyre holds the marriage license issued to her and her partner Cheryl Haws at the Utah County Clerk's office in Provo on Dec. 26. The Supreme Court on Monday put same-sex marriages on hold in Utah, at least while a federal appeals court more fully considers the issue.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at News Max.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#275 Jan 12, 2014
btw, There is also no federal "right to vote". The "right to vote" is expressly and explicitly left up to the states.

Recently, a gay Democratic congressman introduced a bill in congress to explicitly guarantee, for the very first time, a federal "right to vote". The bill is expected to die in the subcommittee and never become law.

Democratic Representative Mark Pocan (D-WI) said: ""Most people believe that there already is something in the Constitution that gives people the right to vote, but unfortunately ... there is no affirmative right to vote in the Constitution. We have a number of amendments that protect against discrimination in voting, but we don't have an affirmative right,"

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/congressmen-p...

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#276 Jan 12, 2014
and incidentally, the last time SCOTUS weighed in on the matter, about 13 years ago, SCOTUS EXPLICITLY SAID that there is NO FEDERAL "RIGHT TO VOTE".

Now, if you disagree, then please point out in the U.S. Constitution where it says that there is one (You can't cuz there isn't.)

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#277 Jan 12, 2014
Absolutely wrote:
You should change your name to shitbreath.
Why should he take your wife's name? That's just silly, although your wife brags your family saves on toilet paper.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#278 Jan 12, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Under current federal law, and many state laws, you're allowed to use all of the weapons you mentioned except nukes. And I'm not sure that nukes are expressly prohibited by state and federal law either.
here:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Media/Slideshow...
http://www.businessinsider.com/12-outrageous-...
Without any restrictions like the 2nd amendment says?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#279 Jan 12, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
and incidentally, the last time SCOTUS weighed in on the matter, about 13 years ago, SCOTUS EXPLICITLY SAID that there is NO FEDERAL "RIGHT TO VOTE".
Now, if you disagree, then please point out in the U.S. Constitution where it says that there is one (You can't cuz there isn't.)
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote....."

That affirmative declaration appears numerous times in the Constitution.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#281 Jan 12, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Without any restrictions like the 2nd amendment says?
Apparent;y not.

I remember reading a humorous story awhile ago about a ski resort that used a 50 mm cannon to prevent avalanches. It seems that two teen employees of the ski resort did not aim the cannon properly, and so when they fired it, the shell landed in a homeowners' backyard and exploded.. The homeowner complained. The story said that the ski resort management told the homeowner that he would instruct his employees to aim more carefully when they fired the cannon.

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#282 Jan 12, 2014
Absolutely wrote:
<quoted text>
Roflmfao you absolutely must be talking about your [email protected] he wife. You shiteaters crave sh!t. Roflmfao
Says the coward hiding behind a keyboard. Like any of us here care what you say. You the one destroying your immune system with your hate filled, foul mouthed bigotry. That'll cause an early death, which in your case will be a good thing.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#283 Jan 12, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote....."
That affirmative declaration appears numerous times in the Constitution.
No, it doesn't. You don't know what you're talking about. That's why that GAY DEMOCRATIC congressman introduced his bill (which died in the subcommittee), and as I said earlier, SCOTUS SPECIFICALLY RULED about 13 years ago that there is NO "federal right to vote". Why can't you understand that ?!

Look it up or ask an attorney.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#284 Jan 12, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Without any restrictions like the 2nd amendment says?
Did you LOOK at those links ?!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#286 Jan 13, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it doesn't. You don't know what you're talking about. That's why that GAY DEMOCRATIC congressman introduced his bill (which died in the subcommittee), and as I said earlier, SCOTUS SPECIFICALLY RULED about 13 years ago that there is NO "federal right to vote". Why can't you understand that ?!
Look it up or ask an attorney.
Except of course it DOES say there is a right to vote, MULTIPLE times in the Constitution; and of course that's NOT what the SCOTUS said at all.

The 15th, 19th, 24th, & 26th amendments all begin with the affirmative declarative statement:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote......"

If there was no federal right to vote, then why begin the amendment with such a statement?

According to your logic, it should read:

"If your states decides to let you vote....."

Moron!

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#287 Jan 13, 2014
Absolutely wrote:
<quoted text>
You silly little pansy, you're probably ready to die from AIDS right now. In your case, that would be a good thing cause you won't be able to molest anymore little boys.
Word has it your wife, the one who saves toilet paper by licking your ass, is very concerned about your fascination with little boys. Seems your neighbors hide theirs from you after you began meeting the school bus every afternoon.
Keep hiding behind that keyboard coward. They can still find you idiot.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#289 Jan 13, 2014
Absolutely wrote:
<quoted text>
How long have you been a shiteating queer PedophiIe, just wondering how many years you've gotten away with molesting little boys??
This thread wasn't created so that you could be supplied with your masturbatory needs.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#290 Jan 13, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Except of course it DOES say there is a right to vote, MULTIPLE times in the Constitution; and of course that's NOT what the SCOTUS said at all.
The 15th, 19th, 24th, & 26th amendments all begin with the affirmative declarative statement:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote......"
If there was no federal right to vote, then why begin the amendment with such a statement?
According to your logic, it should read:
"If your states decides to let you vote....."
Moron!
WRONG ! There is NO federal "right to vote" in the U.S. Constitution. If the states want prevent their citizens from voting, they can did so. And many states did so for many decades after the U.S. Constitution was ratified. For instance, in South Carolina, its citizens did NOT have the right to vote for POTUS for 48 YEARS after the US. Constitution was ratified. Are you aware of that ?

I don't understand why such a simple concept seems to be impossible for you to understand. I've listed several places you can see that there is NO federal "right to vote". Yet, you apppaently disbelieve what you are reading.

Why don't you just call your local chapter of the ACLU ad ask them ? I'm sure they will agree that there is NO federal "right to vote" (as SCOTUS has ruled numerous times.

Are you going to call the ACLU and ask them that simple question ?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#291 Jan 13, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
WRONG ! There is NO federal "right to vote" in the U.S. Constitution. If the states want prevent their citizens from voting, they can did so. And many states did so for many decades after the U.S. Constitution was ratified. For instance, in South Carolina, its citizens did NOT have the right to vote for POTUS for 48 YEARS after the US. Constitution was ratified. Are you aware of that ?
I don't understand why such a simple concept seems to be impossible for you to understand. I've listed several places you can see that there is NO federal "right to vote". Yet, you apppaently disbelieve what you are reading.
Why don't you just call your local chapter of the ACLU ad ask them ? I'm sure they will agree that there is NO federal "right to vote" (as SCOTUS has ruled numerous times.
Are you going to call the ACLU and ask them that simple question ?
I don't have to ask anyone, because unlike you I can read the plain text of the constitution.

15th & 19th & 24th & 26th amendments:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State..."

That right was affirmed in 1870 by the passage of the 15th amendment.

The SCOTUS has NEVER ruled otherwise.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#292 Jan 13, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it doesn't. You don't know what you're talking about. That's why that GAY DEMOCRATIC congressman introduced his bill (which died in the subcommittee), and as I said earlier, SCOTUS SPECIFICALLY RULED about 13 years ago that there is NO "federal right to vote". Why can't you understand that ?!
Look it up or ask an attorney.
Here's the relevant quote from the SCOTUS you're referring to in Bush v Gore (2000):

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States UNLESS and UNTIL the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College."

You want to take the first 10 words out of context and ignore the remaining qualifying statement.

"UNLESS and UNTIL..."

Which means the state legislature can select the electors- as many states once did, OR they can allow voters to select those electors by means of a popular vote.

The court continues with:

"When the state legislature vests THE RIGHT TO VOTE FOR PRESIDENT in it's people, the right to vote as the legislature prescribes IS FUNDAMENTAL..."

So while the State can decide HOW they will choose their electors for President, if they choose to do so through a popular vote of the citizens of the state, then THE RIGHT TO VOTE IS FUNDAMENTAL. Of course like ANY right, the right to vote can be restricted by the federal govt or by the states, but that doesn't change the simple fact that there IS a fundamental right to vote.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#293 Jan 13, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have to ask anyone, because unlike you I can read the plain text of the constitution.
15th & 19th & 24th & 26th amendments:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State..."
That right was affirmed in 1870 by the passage of the 15th amendment.
The SCOTUS has NEVER ruled otherwise.
You obviously DON'T understand those amendments. Those amendments apply IF, AND ONLY IF, a state CHOOSES to give some citizens the right to vote. In that case, the states CANNOT abridge those voting rights by the things specified in those amendments.

I studied U.S. Constitutional Law. You apparently didn't. Furthermore, a simple web search, or a phone call by you to the ACLU. or other competent authority, would prove to you that I'm right.

Also, gay Democratic Representative Pocan would not have introduced the bill he did if what you claim is true. He specifically said that there is no "right to vote" in the U.S. Constitution, and that's why he offered his bill. Furthermore, SCOTUS said in Bush v. Gore (2000) that there is NO federal constitutional "right to vote".

If you call your local ACLU chapter, or some other competent authority, I'm sure they will say that there is no federal constitutional and ask them, I'm sure they will say that there is no federal constitutional "right to vote".

On the other hand, if you do call the ACLU or any number of other competent authorities, you are so pigheaded (as an animal rights activist, please forgive me for insulting pigs), that I'm sure when you get the answer that you don't like, you will say that they are ALL wrong, and that only you are right on this simple issue. Do a simple web search on the matter or call the ACLU. Will you do that ?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#294 Jan 13, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
You obviously DON'T understand those amendments. Those amendments apply IF, AND ONLY IF, a state CHOOSES to give some citizens the right to vote. In that case, the states CANNOT abridge those voting rights by the things specified in those amendments.
I studied U.S. Constitutional Law. You apparently didn't. Furthermore, a simple web search, or a phone call by you to the ACLU. or other competent authority, would prove to you that I'm right.
Also, gay Democratic Representative Pocan would not have introduced the bill he did if what you claim is true. He specifically said that there is no "right to vote" in the U.S. Constitution, and that's why he offered his bill. Furthermore, SCOTUS said in Bush v. Gore (2000) that there is NO federal constitutional "right to vote".
If you call your local ACLU chapter, or some other competent authority, I'm sure they will say that there is no federal constitutional and ask them, I'm sure they will say that there is no federal constitutional "right to vote".
On the other hand, if you do call the ACLU or any number of other competent authorities, you are so pigheaded (as an animal rights activist, please forgive me for insulting pigs), that I'm sure when you get the answer that you don't like, you will say that they are ALL wrong, and that only you are right on this simple issue. Do a simple web search on the matter or call the ACLU. Will you do that ?
Already answered.

Come up with something new.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#295 Jan 13, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Already answered.
Come up with something new.
I am CORRECT ! you ARE not !

Liberal gay Democratic Representative Pocan agrees with me. Conservative Justice Scalia agrees with me. The ACLU agrees with me. You are apparently the only person in the U.S. that won't accept this well-known fact as the TRUTH. And you are apparently to afraid to ask the ACLU of another reputable source.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#296 Jan 13, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I am CORRECT ! you ARE not !
Liberal gay Democratic Representative Pocan agrees with me. Conservative Justice Scalia agrees with me. The ACLU agrees with me. You are apparently the only person in the U.S. that won't accept this well-known fact as the TRUTH. And you are apparently to afraid to ask the ACLU of another reputable source.
Except of course for the simple fact that you're wrong as usual.

It's right there in the text of the Constitution, MULTIPLE TIMES:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged...."

But I do enjoy watching you freak out over it.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#297 Jan 13, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Except of course for the simple fact that you're wrong as usual.
It's right there in the text of the Constitution, MULTIPLE TIMES:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged...."
But I do enjoy watching you freak out over it.
WRONG ! You don't know what you're talking about as usual.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 26 min Freedomofexpression 8,577
News Minister rejects 'wicked' anti-gay posters 2 hr Ebbett 1
News Muslim cleric tells Australians: 'Husbands shou... (Jan '09) 2 hr Rabbeen Al Jihad 66
News Tunisian president 'boldly' takes on Islam to a... 3 hr Rabbeen Al Jihad 2
News Catholic Church threatens to fire gay teachers ... 5 hr Wondering 29
News Elvis Is Alive and Well In Las Vegas Mon Dead and Drugged 2
News Churches threaten to dismiss staff who wed same... Mon South Knox Hombre 7
More from around the web