Rainbow Cocksuckers

SCOTUS struck down inter-racial marriage by 9-0, not 5-4. You fucktards needs to read the dissenting opinions. The arguments are not one-sided at all. You just pretend they are.



The High Court’s Disunited State

As five justices declare a right to same-sex marriage, the other four dissent vigorously and ominously.


By PEGGY NOONAN
July 2, 2015 7:12 p.m. ET

Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark Supreme Court ruling against school segregation, was decided in a unanimous vote, 9-0. The court understood that in decisions that mandate significant societal and cultural change, and that will garner significant opposition, the fact of unanimity is in itself a kind of final argument.

In Loving v. Virginia, in 1967, the high court struck down prohibitions on mixed-race marriages. That too was decided unanimously.

Unanimous decisions tend to quell dissent; they confer an air of inarguable legitimacy, even inevitability. Whatever your own views, you as a citizen must acknowledge that nine lawyers, presumably skilled interpreters of the Constitution who hold different judicial and political philosophies, were able to agree on the charged issue at hand. Unanimous decisions rob opponents of arguments.

Not fully acknowledged in the past days of celebration on one side, and profound reservation on the other, is that the court in Obergefell v. Hodges was split 5-4 on same-sex marriage, and that the dissenting opinions were truly remarkable. They were fiery and in some cases colorful, but they also showed a court divided on the essentials of the Constitution. Most strikingly, some of them included ominous warnings.

Chief Justice John Roberts scored what he sees as the court’s grandiosity and overreach.

The petitioners in the case had “strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness” that same-sex couples should be allowed to “affirm their love and commitment” through marriage. In the past six years voters or legislators in 11 states and the District of Columbia had revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex. The highest courts in five states “decreed the same result.” Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved “considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view.”

But the high court has stopped that “vibrant debate.” The majority has “enacted their own vision of marriage.” In effect they are “stealing this issue from the people,” which will make “a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.”

“The Constitution itself says nothing about marriage,” the chief justice observed, so that states are "free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.” The majority has taken an “extraordinary step” in ordering every state to license and recognize same-sex marriage. The court’s decision is “an act of will, not legal judgment.” It “omits even a pretense of humility,” instead moving on a desire “to remake society” according to what it calls “new insights.”

“The truth is that today’s decision rests on nothing more than the majority’s own conviction that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because they want to,” the chief justice argues. “The Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?”

That grandiosity endangers the Court’s very legitimacy, which rests on public respect that “flows from the perception—and the reality—that we exercise humility and restraint in deciding cases according to the Constitution and the law.”

The Obergefell Court is “anything but humble or restrained. Over and over, the majority exalts the role of the judiciary in delivering social change.” They act as if “it is the courts, not the people, who are responsible for making ‘new dimensions of freedom . . . apparent to new generations.’ . . . Those who founded our country would not recognize the majority’s conception of the judicial role.”

And the decision raises serious questions about religious liberty. Every state that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically has, “out of respect for sincere religious conviction,” included accommodations for religious practice. There are none in this decision. The majority “graciously suggests” that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. “The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to ‘exercise’ religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”

Finally, and “most discouraging,” the majority felt “compelled to sully those on the other side of the debate.” “Americans who did nothing more than follow the understanding of marriage that has existed for our entire history”—including the tens of millions who voted to reaffirm their state’s enduring definition of marriage—are depicted as having disparaged and inflicted “ ‘dignitary wounds’ upon their gay and lesbian neighbors. These apparent assaults on the character of fair-minded people will have an effect, in society and in court.”

Justice Antonin Scalia put his criticism in populist terms. His message seemed a warning to the court. “Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers of the Supreme Court. . . . A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”

Those lawyers are “select, patrician, highly unrepresentative.” All studied law at Harvard or Yale, four are natives of New York City, eight grew up on the East or West coast, “only one hails from the vast expanse in-between.” Not a single Southwesterner, nor a genuine Westerner, not even a Protestant. The “unrepresentative character” of the court would mean nothing if its members were “functioning as judges.” But in this case they are not. This “judicial putsch,” Justice Scalia writes, is the product of “hubris”—“sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall.”

Justice Clarence Thomas composed a ringing aria on the subject of dignity. The majority, he says, believe they are advancing the “dignity” of same-sex couples in their decision, but they don’t understand what dignity is or where it comes from. Dignity is “innate”; the government is “incapable of bestowing” it. “Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved.”

If the government cannot bestow dignity, “it cannot take it away.”

Justice Samuel Alito warned the decision “will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy.” The majority compared the traditional definition of marriage to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women: “The implication of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”

Thus “by imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turnabout is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds.”

You can hardly get more ominous, more full of warning, than these opinions, which should be read in full.

. Originally Posted by lustylad

5-4 or 9-0, it matters not. It's over. There's no good reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry, except for religious ones, and those aren't good reasons. Alito can't even get it right. It's not an imposition of a view on the entire country. You're still free to dislike gays if you wish. They can now get married, that's it.

The freelance faggot from Arkansas could still have a chance.... his first-grade teacher Sister Mary Ecciespam is still praying for him to quit practicing sodomy and start practicing Catholicism again!









. Originally Posted by lustylad

I don't practice sodomy, except on females. And I'll never bow down to your skydaddy and ask for help.

You don't have to have your balls in someone's face to know what a lockerroom smells like, cheesedick. Although I bet you'd like to try, wouldn't you? Originally Posted by WombRaider

Maybe but we weren't talking about locker rooms now were we, but wow you must be hanging out in some nasty places, doesn't your gym use air freshner? Or do you guys prefer that male smell, the places I go don't stink.

Maybe but we weren't talking about locker rooms now were we, but wow you must be hanging out in some nasty places, doesn't your gym use air freshner? Or do you guys prefer that male smell, the places I go don't stink. Originally Posted by dirty dog

You're too fucking dumb to even play with. It's no fun. Thanks for ruining it for me, shitdick.

5-4 or 9-0, it matters not. It's over. There's no good reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry, except for religious ones, and those aren't good reasons. Alito can't even get it right. It's not an imposition of a view on the entire country. You're still free to dislike gays if you wish. They can now get married, that's it. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Justice Antonin Scalia put his criticism in populist terms. His message seemed a warning to the court. “Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers of the Supreme Court. . . . A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”

Those lawyers are “select, patrician, highly unrepresentative.” All studied law at Harvard or Yale, four are natives of New York City, eight grew up on the East or West coast, “only one hails from the vast expanse in-between.” Not a single Southwesterner, nor a genuine Westerner, not even a Protestant. The “unrepresentative character” of the court would mean nothing if its members were “functioning as judges.” But in this case they are not. This “judicial putsch,” Justice Scalia writes, is the product of “hubris”—“sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall.”

We are a defeated foe nursing a huge grudge. It ain't over yet.

You're too fucking dumb to even play with. It's no fun. Thanks for ruining it for me, shitdick. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Awww don't be mad, I didn't mean to fuck up your fantasy place, if you like the smell of sweaty men, its okay, hell the supreme court said it was okay. Don't grab your ball and run off just because I don't like the smell of male genitalia, we can still be friends.

Awww don't be mad, I didn't mean to fuck up your fantasy place, if you like the smell of sweaty men, its okay, hell the supreme court said it was okay. Don't grab your ball and run off just because I don't like the smell of male genitalia, we can still be friends. Originally Posted by dirty dog

you're the one going to a gay gym...

The fact that you believe the people who enacted the 14th Amendment nearly 150 years ago intended to coddle and condone sodomy says a lot about how ignorant you are.


Hey fuckers, it's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!


Originally Posted by lustylad

Nice picture of woomby and shammy's "kin folks" !

You're too fucking dumb to even play with. It's no fun. Thanks for ruining it for me, shitdick. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Well woomby, if he's got "'fudge" on his dick, suck it off like you do for shammy when he does ATM to you or like when the fudge packers at Talleywackers pay for your "extras" ! Maybe he'll give you another "ropey load" to choke on while you're cleaning it off ! Maybe get another free facial like you SOOO love !

You're not that smart, so what you get swayed by is never a surprise. If you honestly think that we can't do two things at one time, you're as dumb as you are ugly. Originally Posted by WombRaider

But you sure get "swayed" and swoon every time your hear a male unzipping his trousers ! You're going after the glory hole record just like your trying to boost your post count here woomby / undercunt / rusty balloon knot / wanna-be jalapeno sucker !

What a bunch of bullshit. The fact that you believe we can have a truly equal and free society without every citizen being truly equal, says a lot about you. Originally Posted by WombRaider

"..every citizen being truly equal. " What liberal horeshit ! Just like in kids sports where everyone on the team and /or the league gets a trophy so that "we don't hurt little woomby's feelings and make him feel EVEN MORE inadequate. So we should punish the achievers in sports, business, the arts to make EVERY CITIZEN TRULY EQUAL ! So what happens to all those records you've set at the glory holes you've occupied ? Does shammy now get a pass on having to put in the time and EARN it like you did ,or are you ok with just saying that he's as good a cocksucker as you ? So now that you're WAY out of the closet as being a cum guzzler, why don't you come on out as a Communist too : " ....EVERY CITIZEN BEING EQUAL " . Let's go ahead and punish individual initiative and achievement. Who will you liberal leeches have o rob through taxes for your friggen utopia then woomby ? All those head shots in the glory holes are showing through REAL GOOD for you right about now !

You don't have to have your balls in someone's face to know what a lockerroom smells like, cheesedick. Although I bet you'd like to try, wouldn't you? Originally Posted by WombRaider

And that "locker room smell " is like cologne for you woomby ! Just what types of "cheese smells" is it that you prefer your cocks at the glory hole to smell like ? Cheddar, Fumunda or Monterey Jack ? Monterey Jack, as a salute to the large maricon community that your wetback kin folks hail from and because of your love of jalapenos ? And it must be even more of a treat for you if shammy or whomever is doing ATM to you has some cheese whiz dripped onto the "fudge" that you so love to lick off all those cocks !

Fame? What the fuck are you even talking about

Go fuck yourself with a hobo's dirty dick, you bitch tits cum guzzler. Choke on a bum's ropey load. Originally Posted by WombRaider

I am sorry if you don't like my views or my responses. Insulting me because of them makes you look like a bigger idiot than was originally thought. Remember, you're still a two bit nothing.

Jim

I am sorry if you don't like my views or my responses. Insulting me because of them makes you look like a bigger idiot than was originally thought. Remember, you're still a two bit nothing.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Sell crazy somewhere else, we're all stocked up here.

"..every citizen being truly equal. " What liberal horeshit ! Just like in kids sports where everyone on the team and /or the league gets a trophy so that "we don't hurt little woomby's feelings and make him feel EVEN MORE inadequate. So we should punish the achievers in sports, business, the arts to make EVERY CITIZEN TRULY EQUAL ! So what happens to all those records you've set at the glory holes you've occupied ? Does shammy now get a pass on having to put in the time and EARN it like you did ,or are you ok with just saying that he's as good a cocksucker as you ? So now that you're WAY out of the closet as being a cum guzzler, why don't you come on out as a Communist too : " ....EVERY CITIZEN BEING EQUAL " . Let's go ahead and punish individual initiative and achievement. Who will you liberal leeches have o rob through taxes for your friggen utopia then woomby ? All those head shots in the glory holes are showing through REAL GOOD for you right about now ! Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

You're a right fucking moron. Did I mention sports or business, you fucking retard? Goddamn, you're so fucking stupid it's almost not fair. I'm talking about equal RIGHTS, you degenerate cocksucker. That's got nothing to do with giving every kid a trophy. Jesus Christ. Get a fucking clue, you cum-addled old queen.