yeah, good thing DODT didn't get repealed under obama, and good thing he didn't stop defending DOMA, or your post would be pretty stupid.

Vermont guy, good thing Obama did what Immigration Equality asked of him so they didn't have to sue or your post would be pretty uninformed. Did you even read the article?

you said obama did nothing for them for his entire term. I showed two things he did. I proved you wrong. end of story. :)

I'm not claiming he's done everything possible, or that he did what was in this story..but you didn't post that, now did you? :)

Compared to what he promised in his campaign he has done very little. I think we can both agree he could do much more.

oh, that's a different story. You're right that he could have done more.

"He could do much more", ask the Republican controlled congress about that.

well, in fairness to what averon1 said, obama has been somewhat wishy washy about it..he could have come out more strongly in favor of gay marriage. He's being a politician...doing enough to keep his base happy without seeming to go too far...

wtf...

Just boycott maple syrup. I refuse to purchase or consume maple syrup. Use butter. Vermont will reverse its course on same-sex when a primary export is threatened.

VermontGuy,

Don't worry, I promise you when it comes to syrup, I can pick up Vincent's slack.

I don't know about "us", but you might have lost your mind. :)

clue for the clueless: its all about the 14th amendment of the US constitution. You might want to read it sometime. :)

"Homosexuality is a disgusting"

I agree.What kind of man would want to stick his hairy 'thing' up another hairy mans butt?Even the thought of it makes me sick to my stomach.

people who think being gay is disgusting are disgusting. lol. its all about perspective isn't it. :)

Poster #1 and #3, are these direct quotes from Jesus? You sure are stellar representatives of his teachings! Wow!

Vermont-I don't know why your saying lol,it isn't even funny.It is disgusting if a man has sex with another man.

Skeptical-When did I say these were direct quotes from Jesus?However,god did destroy Sodom and Gomora for their gay beliefs.The tribe of Benjamin also got punished for their gay beliefs.

Why do people that are against gay marriage always bring up the sexual part of it? I wonder if they are really closet foot tappers like Larry from Idaho.

Homosexuality is a disgusting, abnormal behavior that should be treated by a psychologist and not glorified by the media.

The could be said of your bigotry.

Random, I have a hard time taking you seriously when you have the grammar and spelling of an elementary school student. The thought of people like you helping to shape society makes me sick to my stomach...

D-I don't put spaces between a period and a sentence.I don't do it when I write,so why should I do it when I type?Besides the spaces,I see no other error in my comments.

P.S.-Vermont has 3 times as many grammar errors in his comment.I guess you only want to criticize people that have different views than yours.

Besides the spaces,I see no other error in my comments.

We can start with the fact that not all homosexuals participate in anal sex; in fact, more heterosexuals do that than homosexuals.

I can take Vermont seriously because his views make sense to me. And I guess it's a good thing that you're consistently wrong in both your written word, and your typed word. It's my belief that the consistency doesn't end there.

If you really want to ignore the obvious errors and nitpick, 28.2 should be "man's" to indicate possession.

" I have a hard time taking you seriously when you have the grammar and spelling of an elementary school student."

So you can't take me seriously because of my grammar errors,yet it's okay for Vermont to make grammar errors because you agree with him.Typical Liberal.

Vermont guy you are a low life scumbag lefty,

I don't like what you called him -- and I'm telling you publicly.

I might agree with him, but I don't have to appreciate his intelligence.

yeah, don't give me any of that logical stuff....its "obvious" that being gay is a disgusting,perverted choice that people make over and over. lol. thought i'd add that. :)

and don't give me that old "that's how I was born" rubbish either....thought I'd add that

Sure -- wouldn't want to let facts get in the way of your ignorance, Jim (and those other posters', too).

.....and don't give me that old "that's how I was born" rubbish either....thought I'd add that

Feel free to cover your ears and yell LA LA LA then. Still doesn't change the facts.

Renee,

I think you have a crush on Vermont guy. Why else would you be seeking his attention after every post he writes.

exactly...you can't deny tax benefits to one group because you dont like them.

Actually, that would be a solution. Get the government out of the marriage business altogether. No special benefits, no special recognition.

Im dubious that same sex couples should receive the same tax payer benefits the heterosexual couples receive

Why not? They're taxpayers, too, and deserve to be treated just as heterosexual couples are.

What, exactly, are these "taxpayer benefits" that you are objecting to? This specious line of argument comes up in most gay marriage arguments, and serves mainly to show how little people know about what marriage license means and what the "benefits" of marriage are.

The reality is that the more accurate phrase is "benefits, privileges, responsibilities, and duties of marriage" because almost every benefit of marriage is balanced by a duty, and those benefits flow not from the government, but from your partner, to who you owe responsibilities as a part of the marriage. i.e. you have benefit receiving half your partner's pension should you divorce, but you also have the responsibility to provide your partner half your pension should you divorce. The taxpayer doesn't even begin to enter that equation.

Sure, there are some benefits of marriage with regards to how you file your taxes, where a married couple can count their income together for purposes of paying lower taxes, and a widow can collect social security based on a deceased spouse's income. But that's simply a function of acknowledging that married couples frequently make decisions where one will be the breadwinner while the other cares for the home, children, etc. It only seems fair to treat their income as pooled at that point.

Ok now im confused, if there are no benefits paid by tax payers for married couples then what exactly are gay couples suing the government for?

But that's simply a function of acknowledging that married couples frequently make decisions where one will be the breadwinner while the other cares for the home, children, etc. It only seems fair to treat their income as pooled at that point.

In this day and age, that's a rather outmoded view of things. In a great many marriages, both partners have jobs and share in child-rearing. But, if you want to persist, the same dynamic can exist in same-sex marriages, where one partner may work and the other care for the home/children. So, why shouldn't same-sex couples receive the same consideration.

Your posting makes it sound as if the governmental benefits for married couples are no big thing, but benefits/rights such as social security, tax-free inheritance of property, guardianship, etc... are all important and life-changing for the people who receive them.

I'm not saying that the benefits are no big thing. I am saying that by and large, they do not cost the taxpayers a dime. I'm arguing that it's spurious to deny marriage benefits to gay couples on the grounds of taxpayer cost, as it doesn't really exist. It doesn't cost taxpayers a dime to give legal residency to a foreign-born spouse of an American citizen, straight or gay, and in fact, in many cases it raises tax revenue by having more people LEGALLY working in the US.

I'm arguing that it's spurious to deny marriage benefits to gay couples on the grounds of taxpayer cost, as it doesn't really exist.

I'm sorry. I misunderstood the point that you were trying to make.

Of course, it wouldn't matter if it did cost money to extend the benefits. We couldn't say that it is OK to extend the benefits to an unlimited number of heterosexual couples while denying them to same-sex couples.

homophobes are undesirables.

Bigots are undesirables.

yeah, you can leave our country if you are unhappy with the constitution and call it Hateland. Maybe all your pals will follow you.

this has NOTHING to do with the Constitution including the 14th amendment.

this has NOTHING to do with the Constitution including the 14th amendment.

Only on your planet, Larry.

people talk about other species in response to the nimrods who go on and on about "being against nature". lol.

for example, your post from earlier: "USA is a country that creates these useless laws that go against nature."

lol, you are talking about nature and then whining about nature?

Actually MS, animals are people like you who prefer to get up in everyone else's business instead of minding their own.

congrats..the first "vermontGAY" of the night for me. How "clever". How "original". How "mature". lol

collapse away? why? posts like yours provide tons of free entertainment! You are a laugh a minute. :)

I didn't mean that, vermontdude.

But I am glad I make you happy.

George Weinberg is a Manhattan psychotherapist with a doctorate in Clinical Psychology from Columbia University, a Masters Degree in English from New York University, and advanced training in mathematical statistics. He has written twelve books and is published in twenty-three languages. He has also written for popular and professional journals, and for television.

In January, 2010, Weinberg’s original “[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-therapy/201001/cool-intervention-6-the-hunger-illusion Hunger Illusion“[intervention, as a way of discovering one’s own true motives, was the subject of a Psychology Today blog by Ryan Howse. On the blog, Dr. Howse interviews Dr. Weinberg.

Weinberg is known for several major contributions to psychotherapy. He coined the word “homophobia” (in his revolutionary 1972 book, Society and the Healthy Homosexual) to clarify that those who harbor prejudice against homosexuals, and not homosexuals themselves, are suffering from a psychological malady, an irrational state of mind. Weinberg, though heterosexual himself, became a leader in the ultimately successful struggle to have homosexuality removed as a diagnostic category from the DSM, the professional therapeutic handbook. He has been instrumental in getting the public to recognize its own widespread irrationality toward gays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Weinberg_%28psychologist%29

The term homophobia was coined by George Weinberg, a psychotherapist, and self-identified heterosexual. Taught to treat gay men and lesbians as though they were inherently sick, he found that some of his teachers were so "phobic" about homosexuality that they judged it reasonable to torture homosexuals by treatments such as electric shock in the belief that this would cure them.

In 1967 Weinberg began calling some of his fellow clinicians homophobes. He developed the concept more fully in his book Society and the Healthy Homosexual, published in 1972. In it he defined homophobia as a "dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals."

http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/homophobia.html

As usual, you do not let facts get in the way of your ignorance, either, VR.

are they suing you? they aren't suing me. Who else is being sued? lol.

what garbage...thinking the constitution should apply to everyone! how crazy is that? :)

According to your logic, interracial couples had to right to sue to be married. They should have just move elsewhere. You would have us live in a static society that never changed. Unlike you, many of us aren't afraid of the future.

Only in THIS nation do we go through this garbage of how people that have CHOSEN to live a certain lifestyle get to sue the government, and just about EVERYONE else because of that choice.

When did you CHOOSE to live the "heterosexual lifestyle," CherylLM?

uh, its the american citizen of each couple who is suing for equal rights. your post doesn't make sense.

Nikki, that's the same argument that was used 50 years ago to justify the bans on interracial marriage .. everyone has the right to marry someone of the same race. It didn't stand then, and your arguments won't stand now.

... and you are no rocket scientist, nikki.

ah, my second vermontGAY. how "mature" also of you.

Who knew I was gay? My wife didn't know that, i'd better tell her. lol.

thanks again for the cheap entertainment. AFter all, in your first post you talk about gay being "against nature", then in your second post you whine about gays talking about nature. lol. Hard to find people who willingly contradict themselves in two consecutive posts, but you've accomplished that feat! :)

you are like filthy water, the more stones I throw at you, you reflect filth back to me, without affecting your filth. enough already, good luck changing laws. it will never happen.

hey, i'm not the one who thinks they are "clever" and "mature" by calling me vermontgay. lol.

and you don't deny that in one post you talk about nature and in the very next one you whine about gays talking about nature. lol.

and I do reflect your own filth back to you, at least we can agree on that. :)

If your "wife" is a guy with a fuzzy moustache, I suppose you have a case.

viewer: wrong again..like the rest of your posts!

vermont, I am not wrong.

apologise to your wife for me.

one question though, if you are not gay, why defend gays?

I have a daughter who says she is gay.

I do not defend OR disown her.

I simply think it is wrong.

viewer: because crazy person that I am, I think the constitution of the united states should apply to all us citizens. I know defending freedom is weird, but that's just the kind of guy I am. :)

And frankly if all people said is "I believe being gay is wrong", it would be much more of a "who cares".

but most of the hateful comments are "gays are disgusting" and "gays shouldn't marry", and I feel very free to comment forcefully on that nonsense.

If that is your idea of "nonsense" then you are entitled to it.

My idea of nonsense is being gay in the first place.

Oh, and the constitution has been amended and will have to be amended many more times before we die.

That is why it is known as a "living document".

Lets fight in the court of law and do a ballot initiative throughout the USA (national or state level).

Except that civil rights cannot be put to a vote in this country, and the courts are ruling on the side of equality -- so do you REALLY want to fight it out there? Because your side is losing badly in the courts.

I am the 95% and you are the (Gays and lesbians) are the other 5%.

How like an ignorant bigot to ASSume that someone is gay because s/he supports equality! Think about this (if you can even think at all): if 53% of all Americans support equality for gays, and only 5-10% of the population is gay, that means that far more heterosexuals are supporting equality than homosexuals.

Laws cannot change just because the 1% wants to define what they want as marriage!

Since we're not a country of majority rule -- even a minority of ONE person deserves the same rights as everyone else -- that is EXACTLY what happens: laws change.

you reflect filth back to me, without affecting your filth

When you look in a mirror you reflect filth -- and you seem to enjoy flinging filth around here.

enough already, good luck changing laws. it will never happen.

Newsflash: it already is, and will continue to do so.

The 53% probably do not support it.

They just don't care.

And I don't either.

If you want to be abnormal, knock yourself out.

May 20, 2011
For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage

Republicans and older Americans remain opposed

by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- For the first time in Gallup's tracking of the issue, a majority of Americans (53%) believe same-sex marriage should be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages. The increase since last year came exclusively among political independents and Democrats. Republicans' views did not change.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx

Being left-handed is abnormal; having red hair is abnormal; having green eyes is abnormal; what's your point?

I am left handed, have Hazel eyes and red hair tint (natural).

I am NOT gay.

What is YOUR point?

So YOU are just as "abnormal" as any homosexual.

No Erin, you missed the point agian.

You can be left handed, have green eyes and red hair and not be abnormal.

Add gay to that, and you have an issue.

can you prove a single thing you said? lol. go for it! otherwise all you are posting is hateful biased ranting. :)

Vermont-Quit saying lol.It's getting annoying.You're not even laughing,you are just saying lol to make other people feel bad.

feel free to not read my posts if they annoy you.

how do you know i'm not laughing? lets face it, the inane comments here are humorous. :) (is a smile ok with you?)

Please list some of the social damage arising from homosexuality?

Almost a day later, and I'm still waiting ....

you could have won a LOT of bets 10 years ago predicting where we are now with gay marriage legal in many states, and the rapid liberalization of opinions...with a majority of americans now supporting gay marriage. Who wouldn't thunk it even that short a time ago?

Oddly, the collapse of civilization predicted by the anti-gay marriage crowd hasn't happened yet? Could they have been wrong? :)

e pro bono- you may be right. We are continuously becoming more and more degenerate as a nation.

this nation deserves God's wrath for it's abandonment of righteousness and replacing it with every form of immorality including the perversion of homosexuality. And a day will come maybe this century, maybe the next, but the day of God's wrath will come on this nation for choosing sin over God.

larry: you doomsayers have been wrong 100% of the time so far..I'm willing to bet on your continued failure. :)

but by being worthlessly vague ("some day") at least you can't be pinned down to anything useful. :)

Sure you will.

Minorities ALWAYS win in the United States.

Wait till we all figure out that whites are the minority now.

Oh, my, how the tables will change!

We are continuously becoming more and more degenerate as a nation.

Only as long as you and your ilk continue to spread your hatred, misinformation, and lies, Larry.

but the day of God's wrath will come on this nation for choosing sin over God.

No such thing as a god!

so...you are an expert on what "queers" understand? lol. How arrogant and egotistical you are! :)

someone here is confused, don't think its the "queers".

Who says that is the definition of marriage?

Barry-NJ

Who says that is the definition of marriage?

God did and He actually came and showed Himself to us in the form of a man, Jesus. He verified what He did in creating marriage in the Garden of Eden (Matthew 19) and He further explained in Matthew 15 that ALL sexual activity outside of the marriage of a man and a woman defiles you before God.

God doesn't make our laws, Larry. And marriage existed long before anyone made up stories about God, and others started believing them.

Erin- you keep repeating your lie without any substanttve argument to prove that God did not establish marriage.

Prove that Jesus is a liar.

Tapado,

This is all we need to understand:

• The demographics are in our favor.
• The arc of history supports us.
• WE WILL WIN!

May you all rest in peace.

"Champions" that you are.

but, probably not.

Oh, and the good thing about geometry is "arcs" can be changed.

Larry -- you keep repeating ALL of your lies, which are only backed up by the bible -- that's called "circular logic".

Marriage existed long before the bible; provisions for marriage were found in Hammurabi's Code, which predates the bible by thousands of years.

NOW prove that God and Jesus existed, and that the events described in the bible happened.

God did and He actually came and showed Himself to us in the form of a man, Jesus.

That's nice. Prove it! Besides, marriage is a civil institution, especially in this country. Your god is otherwise irrelevant!

He verified what He did in creating marriage in the Garden of Eden (Matthew 19) and He further explained in Matthew 15 that ALL sexual activity outside of the marriage of a man and a woman defiles you before God.

Your silly myths aside, god doesn't make our secular laws, especially our marriage laws!

Prove that Jesus is a liar.

Prove there's a god!

Erin- you keep repeating your lie without any substanttve argument to prove that God did not establish marriage.

Erin is precisely correct! God or religion is unnecessary for marriage and the law doesn't require religious participation or approval for marriage.

Marriage is a secular institution. God is irrelevant.

Those who claim that God did something or the other bear the burden of proving that claim. So far, there's been a distinct lack of proof.

Hey Larry, since you are such an expert on God's law, can you please answer these questions for me:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

As you can see, using the Bible to back up any of your hatred is pointless. It is a 2000 year old, man-made work of fiction and the "facts" that it contains do not apply to our modern world.

Ah,Mr.Gordy is on again.How come you and Erin always post on the same articles?As for proof of god,we have faith.You can't actually prove there is a god,you just got to have faith in your beliefs.Jesus on the other hand, did exist.There is physical evidence that he was here on Earth and he did preach about god.

Where is this "physical evidence" of Jesus's existence?

It's still irrelevant, as Jesus, God, and the bible do not make our laws.

Loki

Your questions regarding Levitical law are nothing but a red herring springing from your ignorance of Christianity.

Christians are not under the law of Moses (Luke 16:16, Acts 15, and more

For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. Ephesians 2:14-16

24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law” —to whom we gave no such commandment— 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well Acts 15:24-29

In Exodus 20 (see Ex 20:1-2, 3-4, 5, 6, 7-9, 10, 11, 12, 13-16, 17, 18) we find the "Ten Commandments" which embody the essence of God's Law. For simplicity one can divide the OT Law into the following 3 categories (although in fairness it should be noted some commentators recognize only a moral and ceremonial division)...

(1) Moral, as for example the 10 commandments in Exodus 20 (all but the Sabbath are also commanded in the NT). We are called to love God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves.

(2) Ceremonial, which includes the Tabernacle, the sacrificial system, special days, weeks and feasts.

(3) Civil or judicial which dealt with laws specific to Israel such as the cities of refuge, stoning for certain offenses, etc.

The moral law is still in force for believers but as explained below is now written on our hearts and is to be obeyed in the power of the Spirit and under grace (not "under law").

The ceremonial law was fulfilled in Christ, Who was the substance of all the OT shadows (see Col 2:16, 17-note, Heb 10:1-note). As we see especially in the book of Hebrews, all of the types and shadows pointed to and are fulfilled in Christ. E.g., Jesus Lamb the Father provided for the sacrifice, so there is now no need for a better or fuller sacrifice for sin. In short, the ceremonial law vanishes with the coming of the One it was designed to foreshadow.

The civil law specific to Israel is no longer relevant to the NT believer. And yet so many NT believers today remain confused about their relationship to the OT Law and issue addressed in this "excursus".

Christians do not need to resort to Leviticus when discussing immorality. We have the teachings of Jesus that are quite clear. He stated that ALL sexual activity outside of the marriage of a man and a woman defiles you before God.

Gordy, Prove there is NOT a God.

When your lights go out and suddenly come back on, you can ask the God who stands over you.

Gordy, Prove there is NOT a God.

A logical fallacy: you cannot prove the non-existance of something!

When your lights go out and suddenly come back on, you can ask the God who stands over you.

Like that'll really happen. I don't cower to Bronze Age fairy tales or scare tactics.

for proof of god,we have faith.

In other words, you have nothing, least of all any credibility for your claims. Duly noted!

You can't actually prove there is a god,you just got to have faith in your beliefs.

Immaterial. belief or faith does not equal fact.

There is physical evidence that he was here on Earth and he did preach about god.

Which in no way either proves he was god (or the son of god) much less that there actually is a god. His claims for god are as empty as your own.

Christians are not under the law of Moses

Does that mean we can throw out the 10 commandments, as they are under the OT?

Gordy, you sound pretty smart for a man. To God you're a fool! A fool his Son died for. Non the less, a fool.

To God you're a fool!

ASSuming there is a god, which has yet to be proven -- by anyone.

To God you're a fool! A fool his Son died for. Non the less, a fool.

God loves fools, doesn't he? After all, they're so guillable they believe anything. Even Bronze Age fairy tales and myths like god/s. Your thinly veiled ad hom attack aside, prove there is a god!

phdinbrazil- sounds like you should go back to brazil.. bon voyage

"Sounds like you should" work on reading comprehension! I am still in Brazil sweetheart and we have a very good life, as we are one of the fortunate binational gay couples. We own (paid cash) a 16 acre farm (with a full time caretaker and maid) in a 400 year old colonial town that is big with tourists in the middle of a national reserve in the tropical Atlantic rainforest, and have horses, dogs, tropical birds, etc. We are only 30 minutes from beaches and tropical islands, and 1 hour from a city of 2 million and international airport. I make over US$100 per hour doing academic translation at my leisure, which gives me plenty of time to do my own research and publication. Oh, and while the property values in the US have plummeted, (I sold my US property in spring of 2007 before the bubble), our farm has increased in value close to 400% since we bought it in 2006! What I have been waiting for is the US to offer equal rights to ALL American citizens, and the CHOICE of living in the USA with the person I love if we want to. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (July 4, 1776)

Yeah, but don't take the "all men are created equal" part out of context.

Sounds a lot like what Obama is doing right here.

Why not 3, or 4, or 5 people marry?

Because the SCOTUS said no!