States still do have final say in the matter in how they handle marriages. If a state does not want to treat married people differently from single people they are still allowed to do that. The only problem is that nearly everyone's desire to discriminate against single people far exceeds their desire to discriminate against gay people. Even festeringZit feels that way
[h=3]hey cost over $6,000 each.[/h]Image Credit: Twitter
[h=3]There are 11 throughout the city.[/h]Image Credit: Twitter
[h=3]That’s $66,000 just for the installation.[/h]<iframe class="instagram-media instagram-media-rendered" id="instagram-embed-0" src="https://instagram.com/p/4eqp21wD_X/embed/captioned/?v=4" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="700" data-instgrm-payload-id="instagram-media-payload-0" scrolling="no" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Droid Serif', serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25.5px; border-width: 0px; border-style: initial; margin: 1px; max-width: 640px; width: calc(100% - 2px); border-radius: 4px; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.498039) 0px 0px 1px 0px, rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.14902) 0px 1px 10px 0px; display: block; padding: 0px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"></iframe>[h=3]Some are estimating the final price tag, which includes administrative costs, clocked in at around $100,000.[/h]Image Credit: Twitter
[h=3]The pricey paint job is expected to last 3-5 years, although city officials have stated they would be spending even more money on permanent upkeep.[/h]
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/355...m_term=conservativedaily&utm_campaign=Culture
[h=3]There are 11 throughout the city.[/h]Image Credit: Twitter
[h=3]That’s $66,000 just for the installation.[/h]<iframe class="instagram-media instagram-media-rendered" id="instagram-embed-0" src="https://instagram.com/p/4eqp21wD_X/embed/captioned/?v=4" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="700" data-instgrm-payload-id="instagram-media-payload-0" scrolling="no" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Droid Serif', serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25.5px; border-width: 0px; border-style: initial; margin: 1px; max-width: 640px; width: calc(100% - 2px); border-radius: 4px; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.498039) 0px 0px 1px 0px, rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.14902) 0px 1px 10px 0px; display: block; padding: 0px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"></iframe>[h=3]Some are estimating the final price tag, which includes administrative costs, clocked in at around $100,000.[/h]Image Credit: Twitter
[h=3]The pricey paint job is expected to last 3-5 years, although city officials have stated they would be spending even more money on permanent upkeep.[/h]
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/355...m_term=conservativedaily&utm_campaign=Culture
Sad thing is the children's cancer community has BEGGED for years to turn the white house GOLD for just one day. JUST ONE!!
They've signed petitions, stood on the Senate floor, begged Obama, informed, educated, pleaded with elected officials, asked that they represent all the children who have fought this beast. For all the children who HAVE LOST THEIR LIVES. For all those precious children still giving everything they have for just one more day.
They have been denied on the account that it's too costly, involves too much planning and hands they don't have, and that they can't light for every good cause that crosses their desk. Yet, in a matter of hours they were able to plan its PR and light it bright. so terribly sad to know that a Supreme Court ruling is held in higher regard, is more celebratory, than baby's lives...
They've signed petitions, stood on the Senate floor, begged Obama, informed, educated, pleaded with elected officials, asked that they represent all the children who have fought this beast. For all the children who HAVE LOST THEIR LIVES. For all those precious children still giving everything they have for just one more day.
They have been denied on the account that it's too costly, involves too much planning and hands they don't have, and that they can't light for every good cause that crosses their desk. Yet, in a matter of hours they were able to plan its PR and light it bright. so terribly sad to know that a Supreme Court ruling is held in higher regard, is more celebratory, than baby's lives...
It's called an agenda. Cancer babies sadly, dont sell newspapers and dont have huge tv ratings. Gay shit does, why? Because people hate gays, nobody hates cancer babies. Cancer babies will never divide the country, gay agenda could.
I agree these people should be able to marry and whatever but this waste of money is just plain retarded.
Quotes from the dissenting justices:
[h=3]1. ”Just who do we think we are?”[/h]
[h=3]1. ”Just who do we think we are?”[/h]
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment… 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? - Chief Justice John Roberts
[h=3]2. The majority’s reasoning applies with equal force to plural marriage.[/h]
It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships? - Chief Justice John Roberts
[h=3]3. “To blind yourself to history is both prideful and unwise.”[/h]
The Court today not only overlooks our country’s entire history and tradition but actively repudiates it, preferring to live only in the heady days of the here and now. I agree with the majority that the “nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times.” As petitioners put it, “times can blind.” But to blind yourself to history is both prideful and unwise. - Chief Justice John Roberts
[h=3]4. “People of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.”[/h]
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. Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples… Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today. - Chief Justice John Roberts
[h=3]5. “The majority feels compelled to sully those on the other side of the debate.”[/h]
Perhaps the most discouraging aspect of today’s decision is the extent to which the majority feels compelled to sully those on the other side of the debate. The majority offers a cursory assurance that it does not intend to disparage people who, as a matter of conscience, cannot accept samesex marriage. That disclaimer is hard to square with the very next sentence, in which the majority explains that “the necessary consequence” of laws codifying the traditional definition of marriage is to “demea[n] or stigmatiz[e]” same-sex couples… - Chief Justice John Roberts
[h=3]6. “Everyone who does not share the majority’s ‘better informed understanding’ as bigoted.”[/h]
“It is one thing for the majority to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray everyone who does not share the majority’s ‘better informed understanding’ as bigoted.” - Chief Justice John Roberts
[h=3]7. “What really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial putsch.”[/h]
But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since… These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution. - Justice Scalia
[h=3]8. “Potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.”[/h]
Religious liberty is about more than just the protection for “religious organizations and persons . . . as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.” Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice… Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process—as the Constitution requires—the People could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process. Instead, the majority’s decision short-circuits that process, with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty. - Justice Thomas
[h=3]9. “This decision will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy.”[/h]
Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences. It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent. - Justice Alito
[h=3]10. “The majority facilitates the marginalization of many Americans who have traditional ideas.”[/h]
I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools… 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. - Justice Alito
[ I've been saying for years that gay adoption is a form of child abuse. And now the American College of Pediatricians confirms it. ]
[h=1]AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PEDIATRICIANS ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE RULING: ‘A TRAGIC DAY FOR AMERICA’S CHILDREN’[/h]
The Associated Press
by DR. SUSAN BERRY26 Jun 2015560
[h=2]In a statement released Friday, the president of the American College of Pediatricians said the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage will have a significantly negative impact on children in the United States.[/h]Dr. Michelle Cretella, president of the College, said:
In the brief, the amici stated what is often the case when sound research is ignored by the left when it fails to support their causes:
[h=1]AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PEDIATRICIANS ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE RULING: ‘A TRAGIC DAY FOR AMERICA’S CHILDREN’[/h]
80746
180
946
by DR. SUSAN BERRY26 Jun 2015560
[h=2]In a statement released Friday, the president of the American College of Pediatricians said the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage will have a significantly negative impact on children in the United States.[/h]Dr. Michelle Cretella, president of the College, said:
[T]his is a tragic day for America’s children. The SCOTUS has just undermined the single greatest pro-child institution in the history of mankind: the natural family. Just as it did in the joint Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton decisions, the SCOTUS has elevated and enshrined the wants of adults over the needs of children.
The College, which has members in 44 states and in several countries outside the U.S., joined in an amici brief in Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that has led to the legalization of same-sex marriage in all 50 states of the nation.
In the brief, the amici stated what is often the case when sound research is ignored by the left when it fails to support their causes:
Despite being certified by almost all major social science scholarly associations—indeed, in part because of this—the alleged scientific consensus that having two parents of the same sex is innocuous for child well-being is almost wholly without basis. All but a handful of the studies cited in support draw on small, non-random samples which cannot be extrapolated to the same-sex population at large. This limitation is repeatedly acknowledged in scientific meetings and journals, but ignored when asserted as settled findings in public or judicial advocacy.
The College itself has maintained that a significant body of research has demonstrated that “same-sex marriage deliberately deprives the child of a mother or a father, and is therefore harmful.”
Seen a CNN commercial for Tylenol, & 2 men which was a gay couple in it, one man holding a child in his lap while both men were smiling & laughing with the child.
Well, its all down hill from here, & the biggest propaganda machine is television.
Well, its all down hill from here, & the biggest propaganda machine is television.
[ I've been saying for years that gay adoption is a form of child abuse. And now the American College of Pediatricians confirms it. ]
AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PEDIATRICIANS ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE RULING: ‘A TRAGIC DAY FOR AMERICA’S CHILDREN’
80746
180
946
The Associated Press
by DR. SUSAN BERRY26 Jun 2015560
In a statement released Friday, the president of the American College of Pediatricians said the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage will have a significantly negative impact on children in the United States.
Dr. Michelle Cretella, president of the College, said:[T]his is a tragic day for America’s children. The SCOTUS has just undermined the single greatest pro-child institution in the history of mankind: the natural family. Just as it did in the joint Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton decisions, the SCOTUS has elevated and enshrined the wants of adults over the needs of children.The College, which has members in 44 states and in several countries outside the U.S., joined in an amici brief in Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that has led to the legalization of same-sex marriage in all 50 states of the nation.
In the brief, the amici stated what is often the case when sound research is ignored by the left when it fails to support their causes:Despite being certified by almost all major social science scholarly associations—indeed, in part because of this—the alleged scientific consensus that having two parents of the same sex is innocuous for child well-being is almost wholly without basis. All but a handful of the studies cited in support draw on small, non-random samples which cannot be extrapolated to the same-sex population at large. This limitation is repeatedly acknowledged in scientific meetings and journals, but ignored when asserted as settled findings in public or judicial advocacy.The College itself has maintained that a significant body of research has demonstrated that “same-sex marriage deliberately deprives the child of a mother or a father, and is therefore harmful.”
That's pretty interesting. Consider that, and the fact that 50% of marriages end in divorce, I'd say it's pretty difficult being a kid in the USA.
[ I've been saying for years that gay adoption is a form of child abuse. And now the American College of Pediatricians confirms it. ]
AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PEDIATRICIANS ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE RULING: ‘A TRAGIC DAY FOR AMERICA’S CHILDREN’
80746
180
946
The Associated Press
by DR. SUSAN BERRY26 Jun 2015560
In a statement released Friday, the president of the American College of Pediatricians said the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage will have a significantly negative impact on children in the United States.
Dr. Michelle Cretella, president of the College, said:[T]his is a tragic day for America’s children. The SCOTUS has just undermined the single greatest pro-child institution in the history of mankind: the natural family. Just as it did in the joint Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton decisions, the SCOTUS has elevated and enshrined the wants of adults over the needs of children.The College, which has members in 44 states and in several countries outside the U.S., joined in an amici brief in Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that has led to the legalization of same-sex marriage in all 50 states of the nation.
In the brief, the amici stated what is often the case when sound research is ignored by the left when it fails to support their causes:Despite being certified by almost all major social science scholarly associations—indeed, in part because of this—the alleged scientific consensus that having two parents of the same sex is innocuous for child well-being is almost wholly without basis. All but a handful of the studies cited in support draw on small, non-random samples which cannot be extrapolated to the same-sex population at large. This limitation is repeatedly acknowledged in scientific meetings and journals, but ignored when asserted as settled findings in public or judicial advocacy.The College itself has maintained that a significant body of research has demonstrated that “same-sex marriage deliberately deprives the child of a mother or a father, and is therefore harmful.”
30 seconds of looking at their website and you realize they are a fringe group; just a bunch of Christian fundamentalists pretending to be a medical "college."
I see absolutely nothing, zero, zip nada, on their website about religion at all, especially nothing about "Christian Fundamentalism."
Here is the link to their mission and values statement: http://www.acpeds.org/about-us
I think you're a liar.
