Picard Wtf

Like Obama care. They 'fixed' it.

I know...it sucks they even have the right to legislate peoples private choices

They don't legislate they interpret the law. They found laws AGAINST gay marriage were unconstitutional. Period. They didn't make a law. They didn't make anyone get gay married.

Show me how they CHANGED it. You can't. It boiled down to the opinion they laid out: Congress made the law to help healthcare for people, that was the intention of the law. Not to hurt healthcare for people. The overwhelming evidence shows healthcare is BETTER under Obamacare for most people...this is even more evident by the lack of any real alternative from those that oppose it.

So they didn't change it at all...in fact they left it as is.

Don't worry these decisions (on the surface in favor of the left) will be great for the right. http://qz.com/439202/the-supreme-courts-rulings-on-obamacare-and-marriage-are-great-for-the-gop/

Soon it will be called Romneycare or just the ACA....since giving Obama credit for anything is like Conservative Kryptonite

Thanks to interpretation of the Supreme Court...you don't have to worry about it.

The law only says subsidies go to state run exchsnges. The Court decided that means all exchanges.

Section 36B. If the statutory language is plain, the Court must enforce
it according to its terms. But oftentimes the meaning—or ambiguity—of
certain words or phrases may only become evident when
placed in context. So when deciding whether the language is plain,
the Court must read the words “in their context and with a view to
their place in the overall statutory scheme.” FDA v. Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120, 133. Pp. 7–9.
(b) When read in context, the phrase “an Exchange established by
the State under [42 U. S. C. §18031]” is properly viewed as ambiguous.
The phrase may be limited in its reach to State Exchanges. But
it could also refer to all Exchanges—both State and Federal—for
purposes of the tax credits. If a State chooses not to follow the directive
in Section 18031 to establish an Exchange, the Act tells the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish “such Exchange.”
§18041. And by using the words “such Exchange,” the Act
indicates that State and Federal Exchanges should be the same.

PAGE 3 http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-114_qol1.pdf

As Scalia wrote in his dissent, statutory language doesn't get much clearer than the passage in dispute.

And by using the words “such Exchange,” the Act
indicates that State and Federal Exchanges should be the same.

Romney isn't running for president.

Ok. What if they find laws against "2 persons" marriage are unconstitutional? Groups like Mormons, Muslims and others get jail and prosecution because opposes these laws and consider unconstitutional... So let´s make the "1 man and 1 woman" = "2 persons". Then let´s make the "2 persons" = "persons". And some day all that people who believe animals are persons indeed will want to change "persons" by "living things". Or some other groups like Nambla will open a debate about at which age a person becomes PERSON and will request rights to get married with childrens. (they are claiming this right since the 80´s) Now you understand why it is important to keep social institutions format? Because if you start changing what MARRIAGE means it will never ends. So if gay people want to live together forever and put this on a paper they need to create a new social institution. If poligamous people want to live together and put this on a paper need to create a new social institution. Because MARRIAGE is "1 man and 1 woman" by definition. Not christian definition: human history definition. The old Greece had nothing against homosexuality or even pedophilia . Anyway the MARRIAGE there used to be "1 man with 1 woman". Wen 2 men or 2 women or even 1 women with 2 men (called LIEJA by the old Greeks) lived together they used a different institution format not MARRIAGE.

Now this is funny... if i live with a friend to share rent we are not able to adopt a child. But if we both are homosexual yes, we can.

If 2 woman lives together with only 1 husband since 20 years ago and want to legalize this union, they can´t. But if the women say they are lesbians and he is a friend, then they can.

If i live alone and single just because this is my choice and i want to adopt a child, i can´t . But if i turn gay and put another man in my house then i can. "One man alone? Not ready for adoption, dangerous for the kid" but "Two gay men? They are ready to go! How many kids do you want to adopt????"

Makes this sense? I don´t think so. We are loosing common sense. But why? Someone here believes government care about if you marry or not marry and if it is important for you or not? Or you rather believe all this is about "I am a Nobel , i wan´t to justify my legacy for history"? Come on: they are POLITICIANS. You know the answer.

In which country polygamy is legal? In the countries there are polygamous enough to vote or to hold a weapon if you make it illegal. :)

Why make the leap: " Then let´s make the "2 persons" = "persons" "

Marriage is a religious construct/contract between two loving (presumably adult) people that want to become 1 union in the eyes of the religion and society.

Marriage is not a government construct and should never be. So government should have no say as to what "marriage" is beyond a contract between 2 people. If two men or women want to become a single unit under contract they should be able to do so with the same ease as a heterosexual couple. If a Church wants to perform this same-sex union that heterosexual couples can perform and be recognized by the government...why not?

"Marriage is a religious construct/contract between two loving (presumably adult) people that want to become 1 union in the eyes of the religion and society."

Ok, i will not use a meme.. but tell me more about why in all the official atheist countries marriage is a union between 1 man and 1 woman?

Also tell me more about who will presume what is an adult? In some Asian countries with 9 years old you are ready to marriage. In some Europeans countries 12 years old is the legal age to have sex. So ... if America continues following examples from other countries... what will happen wen pedophiles in America claim the right to get married with a 9 years old person? What can you tell them? "Oh no, marriage is for PRESUMABLY adult persons only"

- Really? Why? What the word ADULT means? 12 years , 8 years, 20 years???

I am pretty sure you will not find 2 persons answering this question with the same answer. So.. are you ready to allow the court to decide the legal age for marriage as well? Are you ready to allow the court to decide the number of persons a marriage is about? After all, you told marriage is only a "religious contract", so if a Mosque want to perform a marriage between 1 man and 2 women and be recognized by the government... why not? Because they believe different?

Why 2 persons? Why adult persons? Which is the standard to set concepts like ADULT PERSON? The public opinion?

Wen you ask the public opinion "Barabbas or Jesus" the public opinion answer "Barabbas" sometimes... are you ready to ask always or only wen you love the answer?

Personally I think if a man can afford 10 wives he should be able to marry them. Or vice-versa. But once you go from a Partnership contract of 2 people....you are opening it to bigger versions of a contract...maybe like a corporation. So the GOP may fully support the notion of multiple wives/husbands since "corporations are people"- right?

But seriously- I (again, personally) believe the original idea of a "marriage" was between a woman and a man. These unions were performed, recognized and blessed by a religious group or person and the government instantly recognized that union or contract as a "marriage" in as far as the government is concerned (in modern USA- Social Security, parental rights, etc)

What matter to the government is it if the two people are men or women?

Your point is not applicable since the current debate is about sexuality vs validity of a marriage not plurality of participants in a marriage. I suppose that could be a debate later. In my (PERSONAL) opinion if multiple adults want to enter a contract/union/marriage and they have a religious entity sanction it, I don't see the big deal. The guy in that relationship would lose his shirt in divorce court!

" I don't see the big deal. The guy in that relationship would lose his shirt in divorce court!" LOL

And later we ask why they blow themselves... :P

By the way you wrote:
Now this is funny... if i live with a friend to share rent we are not able to adopt a child. But if we both are homosexual yes, we can.
(If you get married sure...or one of you could adopt a child. That's not illegal at all)

If 2 woman lives together with only 1 husband since 20 years ago and want to legalize this union, they can´t. But if the women say they are lesbians and he is a friend, then they can.
(And they wouldn't be a 3 way marriage they would be a marriage and a friend...what's your point?)

If i live alone and single just because this is my choice and i want to adopt a child, i can´t . But if i turn gay and put another man in my house then i can. "One man alone? Not ready for adoption, dangerous for the kid" but "Two gay men? They are ready to go! How many kids do you want to adopt????"
(YOU CAN ADOPT A CHILD IF YOU ARE SINGLE. What are you talking about? Have you been denied a doption of a child? Maybe you should be if so. Two gay men that are fit to be parents should also be allowed to adopt a child. What does being gay have to do with being a good parent???)

Makes this sense? I don´t think so. We are loosing common sense.
(Your points make NO sense...you are right. And it's spelled LOSING)

"And it's spelled LOSING)"

Thanks for the grammar tip. I hope IMGFLIP pay me anyway. I will invest 5 hours reviewing my next comment because it is so important for millions of people like yours. And of course all my argument is false because i put an extra O. So please everybody ignore it. :)

I will not discuss anymore. I know history enough to see were are we going. Why should i need to probe things that history will do? Not tomorrow, not in 10 years... we never care about tomorrow. Later we watch the past and understand: "Oh we made a hole in the Ozone", "Oh we sold weapons to that group", "Oh we were smoking during 5 decades" .

Btw.. doo you knoow why the Rooman Empire disappeared ? It was noot about a war oor an external enemy. Check it. They were stroong, a big army, a big territory but... They were thinking exactly the same as you some decades before crash in different parts and later goes forever.

And all started with some emperors like Caligula trying to be "more popular".

I'd hate to admit but your right. Lots of empires fell right after openly accepting "gay" anythingincluding Rome.(not that there's anything wrong with it). But they use it as a false flag to invoke wars. But no... People won't listen. Unfortunately it's too late this time as well

I suggest a test. If anyone here is playing Warcraft please adopt a gay strategy and let me know if it affects his Empire or not.
Here in Phillipines we used to be a big empire...then the Village People's audio tapes comes and people changed. And now we can't even win a boooooox fight to America. :( It is a sad history.

Of course we know what would happen. People are ignorant.

What audio tapes? No offense...but the Phil's were never a match for the USA, even from the beginning

No no offense at all sir you are right. Cheers

Pretty sure Herr_bloom is Philipino from the grammar

not Philipino i'm philipinoo with 2 "o" mr roomboomb

watch this...hilarious and true... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

Sweet