http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/scotus-blocks...ours-start

It's minor but it is good news.

The stay should have been ordered by the Court of Appeals. In the end, this will be decided by SCOTUS and it makes no sense to create the type of confusion that happened in CA as the cases worked their way through the Courts.

Yep, I'm curious to see if the 6th circuit rules against gay marriage...if they do, there will be discourse among the rulings that may force the SCOTUS to get involved.

Until a district court rules against gay marriage, there is no reason for SCOTUS to grant certiorari.

(10-06-2014 02:21 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Until a district court rules against gay marriage, there is no reason for SCOTUS to grant certiorari.

District courts don't really matter. It's disagreements by the circuit courts that determines when there is a split that needs to be resolved by the Supreme Court

(10-06-2014 02:32 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 02:21 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Until a district court rules against gay marriage, there is no reason for SCOTUS to grant certiorari.

District courts don't really matter. It's disagreements by the circuit courts that determines when there is a split that needs to be resolved by the Supreme Court

It will be interesting to see how the 6th, namely how Judge Sutton, decides to rule.

So VA, OK, IN, WI, SC, NC, WV, CO,KS, and WY either had marriage legalized today or will have to do so by next week. Thats 30 states plus DC. Also MO announced it would begin recognizing all out of state marriages immediately.

So now there is now nothing legally special or unique about the relationship (male-female) that allows for the continuation of our species.

(10-06-2014 07:26 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  So now there is now nothing legally special or unique about the relationship (male-female) that allows for the continuation of our species.

There never was.

People aren't going to stop making babies because the gays can get married.

Just like couples didn't have more kids because the gays couldnt get married.

(10-06-2014 07:26 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  So now there is now nothing legally special or unique about the relationship (male-female) that allows for the continuation of our species.

The majority of your ancestors reproduced long before marriage between man and woman was a concept.

(10-06-2014 08:47 PM)ODUChm Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 07:26 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  So now there is now nothing legally special or unique about the relationship (male-female) that allows for the continuation of our species.

The majority of your ancestors reproduced long before marriage between man and woman was a concept.

Are you saying there is absolutely no difference between a male-female relationship and a male-male relationship? If so, that's disturbing.

(10-06-2014 09:11 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 08:47 PM)ODUChm Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 07:26 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  So now there is now nothing legally special or unique about the relationship (male-female) that allows for the continuation of our species.

The majority of your ancestors reproduced long before marriage between man and woman was a concept.

Are you saying there is absolutely no difference between a male-female relationship and a male-male relationship? If so, that's disturbing.

There is nothing "legally special or unique" about two straight people, or two gay people getting married.

Equal justice under law isn't just a motto...

(10-06-2014 09:19 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:11 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 08:47 PM)ODUChm Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 07:26 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  So now there is now nothing legally special or unique about the relationship (male-female) that allows for the continuation of our species.

The majority of your ancestors reproduced long before marriage between man and woman was a concept.

Are you saying there is absolutely no difference between a male-female relationship and a male-male relationship? If so, that's disturbing.

There is nothing "legally special or unique" about two straight people, or two gay people getting married.

Equal justice under law isn't just a motto...

So you're saying there is no difference between a man & woman mating and a man & man mating.

I respectfully disagree.

(10-06-2014 09:49 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:19 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:11 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 08:47 PM)ODUChm Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 07:26 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  So now there is now nothing legally special or unique about the relationship (male-female) that allows for the continuation of our species.

The majority of your ancestors reproduced long before marriage between man and woman was a concept.

Are you saying there is absolutely no difference between a male-female relationship and a male-male relationship? If so, that's disturbing.

There is nothing "legally special or unique" about two straight people, or two gay people getting married.

Equal justice under law isn't just a motto...

So you're saying there is no difference between a man & woman mating and a man & man mating.

I respectfully disagree.

Legally, no...

"I think it's gross" isn't a legal argument.

(10-06-2014 09:56 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:49 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:19 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:11 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 08:47 PM)ODUChm Wrote:  The majority of your ancestors reproduced long before marriage between man and woman was a concept.

Are you saying there is absolutely no difference between a male-female relationship and a male-male relationship? If so, that's disturbing.

There is nothing "legally special or unique" about two straight people, or two gay people getting married.

Equal justice under law isn't just a motto...

So you're saying there is no difference between a man & woman mating and a man & man mating.

I respectfully disagree.

Legally, no...

"I think it's gross" isn't a legal argument.

Gay rights supporters mock the slippery slope argument, but it's real.

There will be lawsuits regarding polygamy and brothers & sisters marrying. There won't be a lot of them; I've never known any polygamists or siblings that wanted to marry. Even so, there are some of them out there and now nothing will bar them from obtaining their "equal rights". Consenting adults ...

It's too late; we can't stuff the toothpaste back in the tube.

(10-06-2014 09:49 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:19 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:11 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 08:47 PM)ODUChm Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 07:26 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  So now there is now nothing legally special or unique about the relationship (male-female) that allows for the continuation of our species.

The majority of your ancestors reproduced long before marriage between man and woman was a concept.

Are you saying there is absolutely no difference between a male-female relationship and a male-male relationship? If so, that's disturbing.

There is nothing "legally special or unique" about two straight people, or two gay people getting married.

Equal justice under law isn't just a motto...

So you're saying there is no difference between a man & woman mating and a man & man mating.

I respectfully disagree.

Is marriage about mating?

(10-06-2014 10:08 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:49 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:19 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:11 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 08:47 PM)ODUChm Wrote:  The majority of your ancestors reproduced long before marriage between man and woman was a concept.

Are you saying there is absolutely no difference between a male-female relationship and a male-male relationship? If so, that's disturbing.

There is nothing "legally special or unique" about two straight people, or two gay people getting married.

Equal justice under law isn't just a motto...

So you're saying there is no difference between a man & woman mating and a man & man mating.

I respectfully disagree.

Is marriage about mating?

^ nope, that's why the elderly and infertile are allowed to marry...it's a pointless argument, and it's even been tried in court. (It failed)

(10-06-2014 10:07 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:56 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:49 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:19 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:11 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Are you saying there is absolutely no difference between a male-female relationship and a male-male relationship? If so, that's disturbing.

There is nothing "legally special or unique" about two straight people, or two gay people getting married.

Equal justice under law isn't just a motto...

So you're saying there is no difference between a man & woman mating and a man & man mating.

I respectfully disagree.

Legally, no...

"I think it's gross" isn't a legal argument.

Gay rights supporters mock the slippery slope argument, but it's real.

There will be lawsuits regarding polygamy and brothers & sisters marrying. There won't be a lot of them; I've never known any polygamists or siblings that wanted to marry. Even so, there are some of them out there and now nothing will bar them from obtaining their "equal rights". Consenting adults ...

It's too late; we can't stuff the toothpaste back in the tube.

Telling you that's not a legal argument isn't mocking.

Incest is illegal do to genetic birth defects that come from incest.

I see no legal reason to ban polygamy...it should be legal...they are consenting adults.

(10-06-2014 10:17 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 10:07 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:56 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:49 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:19 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  There is nothing "legally special or unique" about two straight people, or two gay people getting married.

Equal justice under law isn't just a motto...

So you're saying there is no difference between a man & woman mating and a man & man mating.

I respectfully disagree.

Legally, no...

"I think it's gross" isn't a legal argument.

Gay rights supporters mock the slippery slope argument, but it's real.

There will be lawsuits regarding polygamy and brothers & sisters marrying. There won't be a lot of them; I've never known any polygamists or siblings that wanted to marry. Even so, there are some of them out there and now nothing will bar them from obtaining their "equal rights". Consenting adults ...

It's too late; we can't stuff the toothpaste back in the tube.

Telling you that's not a legal argument isn't mocking.

Incest is illegal do to genetic birth defects that come from incest.

I see no legal reason to ban polygamy...it should be legal...they are consenting adults.

Now couples can test for genetic birth defects before birth. In theory, a brother and sister could conceive and abort until they had a child without defects.