Alabama & Now Texas Line Up Defending Sovereignty On Husband/Wife, Father/Mother Marriage

[Silhouette]

If your crackpot idea had a grain of validity, then divorce should be more illegal than same sex marriage.

If your crackpot idea had a grain of validity, why would you deny same sex marriage to a couple that had no children? You can't punish people for wrongs they haven't committed.

Divorce is only granted reluctantly and for the benefit of the children not having to endure a hostile environment; when they are involved. It is done with custody where the child usually retains both the mother and father on a regular basis. The state hopes the parents will remarry and the child has another shot at a normal life under the new roof.

There's no such thing as "anti-gay" legislation in this question.

The states are preserving sovereignty on the privelege of marriage.
Yes, I said PRIVELEGE.

If it wasn't a privelege, anyone of any age, blood relation or number of people could "marry". I assume you object to 13 year olds marrying? Yet they are allowed to in New Hampshire. Would you want your state's ability to regulate marriage to not include 13 year olds forcibly removed by the fed? No, of course not.

Billy Bob and Irma Jean are brother and sister in the backwoods of Kentucky. They have three kids together. Would you define not allowing them to marry as abusive? No, of course not!
Over in Utah, there's a man who wants to marry 8 wives. Would you want the fed to tell your state to not make "anti-polygamy" laws?

So, we all agree that marriage is subject to regulation. And we all agree that homosexuality is one of those weird things like 13 year olds marrying or brother sister marriage. Or a man taking 8 wives. Only in the case of homosexuals, it's the only weird one where an institution would be created where sons are fatherless and daughters are motherless.

So laws that exclude homosexuals also exclude certain ages, certain blood relations and other deviant sex practitioners (polygamists). Even monosexuals who prefer to be alone. Should their kids also be denied the benefits of marriage? Why? Do you "hate" them?

Etc... No such thing as "anti-gay" laws. They are just laws. Just regulations that are not meant to single out any one of the many types of people who cannot be married in each respective sovereign state.

If you think gay marriage is such a great idea, then sell it to the People. Don't force it down their throats with your Biased-Supreme-Court piping bag. You tend to make political enemies that way. Doing so while grafting your cult onto the hip of the democratic party means that you are also alienating vital middle voters who don't believe in gay marriage. And even if they are ambivalent about gay marriage, certainly do not like to be told they don't have a say in the debate should it come to their state. Fatherless sons and motherless daughters is BIG DEAL to a LOT of people when they really start to think about it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If your crackpot idea had a grain of validity, then divorce should be more illegal than same sex marriage.

If your crackpot idea had a grain of validity, why would you deny same sex marriage to a couple that had no children? You can't punish people for wrongs they haven't committed.

Divorce is only granted reluctantly and for the benefit of the children not having to endure a hostile environment; when they are involved. It is done with custody where the child usually retains both the mother and father on a regular basis. The state hopes the parents will remarry and the child has another shot at a normal life under the new roof.

There's no such thing as "anti-gay" legislation in this question.

The states are preserving sovereignty on the privelege of marriage.
Yes, I said PRIVELEGE.

If it wasn't a privelege, anyone of any age, blood relation or number of people could "marry". I assume you object to 13 year olds marrying? Yet they are allowed to in New Hampshire. Would you want your state's ability to regulate marriage to not include 13 year olds forcibly removed by the fed? No, of course not.

Billy Bob and Irma Jean are brother and sister in the backwoods of Kentucky. They have three kids together. Would you define not allowing them to marry as abusive? No, of course not!
Over in Utah, there's a man who wants to marry 8 wives. Would you want the fed to tell your state to not make "anti-polygamy" laws?

So, we all agree that marriage is subject to regulation. And we all agree that homosexuality is one of those weird things like 13 year olds marrying or brother sister marriage. Or a man taking 8 wives. Only in the case of homosexuals, it's the only weird one where an institution would be created where sons are fatherless and daughters are motherless.

So laws that exclude homosexuals also exclude certain ages, certain blood relations and other deviant sex practitioners (polygamists). Even monosexuals who prefer to be alone. Should their kids also be denied the benefits of marriage? Why? Do you "hate" them?

Etc... No such thing as "anti-gay" laws. They are just laws. Just regulations that are not meant to single out any one of the many types of people who cannot be married in each respective sovereign state.

If you think gay marriage is such a great idea, then sell it to the People. Don't force it down their throats with your Biased-Supreme-Court piping bag. You tend to make political enemies that way. Doing so while grafting your cult onto the hip of the democratic party means that you are also alienating vital middle voters who don't believe in gay marriage. And even if they are ambivalent about gay marriage, certainly do not like to be told they don't have a say in the debate should it come to their state. Fatherless sons and motherless daughters is BIG DEAL to a LOT of people when they really start to think about it.

There is no legal basis for denying parenthood to a single parent. You can't invent a category of illegality that only applies to gays.

That in and of itself is anti-gay.

 

[Skylar]

The states are preserving sovereignty on the privelege of marriage.

Windsor v. US explicitly finds that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 , “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393 .

Windsor v. US

The states don't have the authority to violate constitutional guarantees. And every ruling overturning state same sex marriage bans have been on the basis that they violate constitutional guarantees.

You can ignore constitutional guarantees. But there's no chance the court will.

Yes, I said PRIVELEGE.

Shrugs...who gives a shit what you 'say'. You're nobody.

The USSC recognizes marriage as a right. And they outrank you on legal meanings or the designation of rights. No matter what you 'say'.

 

[Syriusly]

Plenty of states to choose from.

But I pick: Supreme Court challenge and eventual knock out, for anti-same sex marriage/anti-gay legislation.

There's no such thing as "anti-gay" legislation in this question.

The states are preserving sovereignty on the privelege of marriage.

Yes, I said PRIVELEGE..

You keep saying that.....

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"


InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

 

[Syriusly]

If the authorities in AL, FL, or TX interfere with the SCOTUS decision, Sil is right that people will be going to federal prison for years.

Wow, I never said that.

States sticking up for their sovereignty on the question of should fatherless sons and motherless daughters be an institution we incentivize or not, is not going to land anyone in federal prison. Much less so when that threat gets passed around and more people vote conservative in 2016. The only people at that time worried about federal prison are those who put themselves between a state's right to self govern and inserted tyranny instead.

At the very least they will be looking for new jobs..

States' lack the authority to violate the rights of US citizens. The 14th amendment makes this clear in principle. And the Windsor decision makes this clear related to marriage.

If a State ignores a federal order, they'll lose. Just like Wallace defending segregation did.

Hmmm, so the federal government ignoring Cali's, Colorado's and several other states legalization of marijuana by declaring sovereignty in the matter and crafting state laws contradictory to Federal Law and supported by "local citizens" .
.

California hasn't legalized marijuana or declared sovereignty regarding marijuana.

Your post is ignorant both of the facts and of the law.

The Federal government is looking the other way in regards to marijuana in Colorado and Washington right now- but it could send in DEA agents today and start arresting people.

And that has nothing to do with what the courts have authority over.

 

[Syriusly]

If the authorities in AL, FL, or TX interfere with the SCOTUS decision, Sil is right that people will be going to federal prison for years.

Wow, I never said that.

States sticking up for their sovereignty on the question of should fatherless sons and motherless daughters be an institution we incentivize or not, is not going to land anyone in federal prison. Much less so when that threat gets passed around and more people vote conservative in 2016. The only people at that time worried about federal prison are those who put themselves between a state's right to self govern and inserted tyranny instead.

At the very least they will be looking for new jobs..

States' lack the authority to violate the rights of US citizens. The 14th amendment makes this clear in principle. And the Windsor decision makes this clear related to marriage.

If a State ignores a federal order, they'll lose. Just like Wallace defending segregation did.

I would think you faggots would be getting the message by now most of society doesn't approve of you or want to tolerate your actions and forcing them on others via laws is not going to work.

Once again you prove that bigots like yourself will be left behind in the dust of history- in a decade you will look as stupid and bigoted as George Wallace standing on the steps of the school

 

[jillian]

Oh dear, another thread that exposes how clueless you are concerning the Windsor ruling.

This is like the 15th thread you started with the exact same nonsense and each time you've been laughably destroyed. You must be a glutton for punishment. lol

and he still doesn't understand what windsor held. whatchagonnado?

 

[Gadawg73]

Alabama and Texas have some of the highest divorce and out of wedlock child birth rates in the country and their solution to this is to ban gay marriage for the "sanctity of marriage. Only a dumb ass falls for that.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Alabama and Texas have some of the highest divorce and out of wedlock child birth rates in the country and their solution to this is to ban gay marriage for the "sanctity of marriage. Only a dumb ass falls for that.

This would be blacks, not white that make those statistics up for divorce and single parent families ......................
Can we ban blacks??

 

[JakeStarkey]

Smoking dope is not a civil right dumpandplump.

Marriage equality is a civil right.

The Bible does not count on this, keys' lack of understanding about natural law and morals does not count on this, and only the civil rights of the individual do count.

 

[Gadawg73]

Alabama and Texas have some of the highest divorce and out of wedlock child birth rates in the country and their solution to this is to ban gay marriage for the "sanctity of marriage. Only a dumb ass falls for that.

This would be blacks, not white that make those statistics up for divorce and single parent families ......................
Can we ban blacks??

HAHAHA, white kids born out of wedlock is 40% in Alabama and Texas and divorce rates are about the same at 55%.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Alabama and Texas have some of the highest divorce and out of wedlock child birth rates in the country and their solution to this is to ban gay marriage for the "sanctity of marriage. Only a dumb ass falls for that.

This would be blacks, not white that make those statistics up for divorce and single parent families ......................
Can we ban blacks??

HAHAHA, white kids born out of wedlock is 40% in Alabama and Texas and divorce rates are about the same at 55%.

Lying bastard ............. wher do you get your bull shit
Once again some URL's with supoting facts and figures for your outrageous lies .................

The Corner The one and only. Latest Statistics on Illegitimate Births Print Article Email article Adjust font size AA by Roger Clegg October 4, 2012 11:13 AM Yesterday the federal government released its latest figures on births in the United States, including out-of-wedlock births. The numbers are very close to last year’s: 72.3 percent of non-Hispanic blacks are now born out-of-wedlock; 66.2 percent of American Indians/Alaska Natives; 53.3 percent of Hispanics; 29.1 percent of non-Hispanic whites; and 17.2 percent of Asians/Pacific Islanders. That’s 40.7 percent overall: a disaster.

Read more at: National Review

Divorce Statistics
These resources provide State, national, and international data and statistics on marriage, divorce, and separation. Research findings present trends and analyses in the field of divorce. Because time is needed to compile, analyze, and publish data, statistical publications often are released 4 or more years after the time period being analyzed.

Number of Divorces per State (2011):
Rates are per 1,000 total population residing in area and include annulments and pending petitions or legal separations for some counties or States.
3.2 Texas
4.3 Alabama

Divorce Statistics

 

[Gadawg73]

Alabama and Texas have some of the highest divorce and out of wedlock child birth rates in the country and their solution to this is to ban gay marriage for the "sanctity of marriage. Only a dumb ass falls for that.

This would be blacks, not white that make those statistics up for divorce and single parent families ......................
Can we ban blacks??

HAHAHA, white kids born out of wedlock is 40% in Alabama and Texas and divorce rates are about the same at 55%.

Lying bastard ............. wher do you get your bull shit
Once again some URL's with supoting facts and figures for your outrageous lies .................

The Corner The one and only. Latest Statistics on Illegitimate Births Print Article Email article Adjust font size AA by Roger Clegg October 4, 2012 11:13 AM Yesterday the federal government released its latest figures on births in the United States, including out-of-wedlock births. The numbers are very close to last year’s: 72.3 percent of non-Hispanic blacks are now born out-of-wedlock; 66.2 percent of American Indians/Alaska Natives; 53.3 percent of Hispanics; 29.1 percent of non-Hispanic whites; and 17.2 percent of Asians/Pacific Islanders. That’s 40.7 percent overall: a disaster.

Read more at: National Review

Divorce Statistics
These resources provide State, national, and international data and statistics on marriage, divorce, and separation. Research findings present trends and analyses in the field of divorce. Because time is needed to compile, analyze, and publish data, statistical publications often are released 4 or more years after the time period being analyzed.

Number of Divorces per State (2011):
Rates are per 1,000 total population residing in area and include annulments and pending petitions or legal separations for some counties or States.
3.2 Texas
4.3 Alabama

Divorce Statistics

Dumbass, your statistics are a % of TOTAL POPULATION, not just married adults. Your stats include babies and kids and all single adults. How can folks get a divorce when they are 3 years old and not married? Go back to 3rd grade math.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Divorce Statistics

Dumbass, your statistics are a % of TOTAL POPULATION, not just married adults. Your stats include babies and kids and all single adults. How can folks get a divorce when they are 3 years old and not married? Go back to 3rd grade math.[/QUOTE]


Which stats would that be dick lick??

Divorce Statistics
These resources provide State, national, and international data and statistics on marriage, divorce, and separation. Research findings present trends and analyses in the field of divorce. Because time is needed to compile, analyze, and publish data, statistical publications often are released 4 or more years after the time period being analyzed.

They can't get qa divorce at three dick lick, tell us where you see children and single adults as being inclusive??

Wow ,what a fucking moron, COMPREHENSION is the word of the day .............

You faggots always come off looking so fucking STUPID......................

 

[Silhouette]

Ooooh...looks like flame war. Looks like a lot of trumped up hostility all of a sudden on the internet with a name I've not seen debating these types of topics until today...

Maybe the thread (title) will get shut down now? Does this have anything to do with the sudden surge of aggression online? Grand Theater in California Shocked Sodomite Suppression Act US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Silhouette]

A rogue judge tried to throw Texas' sovereignty in the garbage pail by letting "just one gay marriage" slip through. The AG isn't having any of it.

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said Friday the state's gay marriage ban has been "needlessly cast in doubt" after a judge gave a lesbian Austin couple permission to tie the knot.
Paxton asked the Supreme Court of Texas to declare the marriage license issued to Suzanne Bryant and Sarah Goodfriend invalid. Paxton warned of "legal chaos" if the court doesn't make clear that a judge wrongly allowed the couple to wed.
"A clear statement is necessary so that all judges within Texas understand that this Court or the U.S. Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of Texas law," Paxton wrote.Texas AG Legal chaos if same-sex marriage not deemed void - The Denver Post

The legal chaos the AG is speaking of does not just apply to gay marriage. It also applies to anything that any rogue judge wants to act as Supreme Dictator on against the will of the governed. That attacks the fundamental bedrock of self-rule and turns our nation into a feudal nation with many mini-tyrants passing their version of law. Just like in the old West with rogue sheriffs, rogue judges and good old England during the dark ages.

Folks, no matter how you feel about gay marriage, you cannot support lawlessness and arrogant sedition. They of course cited that one of the lesbians was "medically frail" to allow violation of state law... That excuse then I suppose could be used for any violation of law.

Same link:

The Texas Supreme Court acted quickly Thursday after an emergency appeal by Paxton to block other potential gay marriages, making the nuptials somewhat bittersweet for Bryant and Goodfriend.
"We just feel like we were in the right place at the right time, to maybe put a nice crack in that door that's going to open up for all Texans," Bryant said.

This exact problem and surely what the AG of Texas knows is an attack on state sovereignty using stealth (and the US Supreme Court Justices violating their oaths of Office) and attrition-sedition can be read about here: Justices Indicate Shadow-Bias Gay Marriage Question Erodes Last Bastion of Impariality US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Skylar]

The legal chaos the AG is speaking of does not just apply to gay marriage. It also applies to anything that any rogue judge wants to act as Supreme Dictator on against the will of the governed. That attacks the fundamental bedrock of self-rule and turns our nation into a feudal nation with many mini-tyrants passing their version of law. Just like in the old West with rogue sheriffs, rogue judges and good old England during the dark ages.

The State lacks authority to violate the rights of US Citizens. Remember, Silo......the Windsor decision makes it ludicrously clear that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

You hate this fact, but its a fact none the less. Constitutional guarantees trump state laws. The order of authority reaffirmed in the Windsor decision was;

1) Constitutional Guarantees

2) State Marriage Law

3) Federal Marriage Law.

As the State has no authority to violate constitutional guarantees, the federal judiciary preventing such violation robs the State of no authority. You can't steal what the State never possessed.

 

[Silhouette]

The state of Texas or any state at all in the Union has full rights to set parameters for marraige that include age, gender and number of people as well as closeness of blood relation. Absolutely, until further notice: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Either you agree that anybody of any age or blood relation or number or gender can marry or there are limits to that. If you believe there are limits to that, then check the link for who it is who gets to define those limits: 5 kings and queens in DC or the sovereign states..

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The state of Texas or any state at all in the Union has full rights to set parameters for marraige that include age, gender and number of people as well as closeness of blood relation. Absolutely, until further notice: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Either you agree that anybody of any age or blood relation or number or gender can marry or there are limits to that. If you believe there are limits to that, then check the link for who it is who gets to define those limits: 5 kings and queens in DC or the sovereign states..

As we already know, it isn't the states.

 

[Skylar]

The state of Texas or any state at all in the Union has full rights to set parameters for marraige that include age, gender and number of people as well as closeness of blood relation. Absolutely, until further notice: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The States have no authority to establish critiera that violate constittuional guarantees. And in 44 of 46 cases heard by the federal courts, the federal judiciary has found that the States have violated constitutional guarantees with same sex marriage bans.

This order simply destroys you entire argument:

1) Constitutional Guarantees

2) State Marriage laws

3) Federal Marriage laws.

You can ignore constitutional guarantees if you wish. But you can't make the courts ignore them. Or our constitution.