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

[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

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....

Except that the Court that trumps all of those 46 cases Found in Windsor 2013, 56 times, that the question of redacting the word "marriage" to include non mother/father households for kids was up to the discreet communities within the states.

Since you agree that not every single person of any age, number or blood relation can marry, you agree that marriage is a privelege only extended to some, but not all. Therefore it is not a "right" as you interpret it. Since it is not a right and instead a qualified privelege, the question left is who gets to make that call? 5 kings and queens in DC or the governed of the separate states? If you believe in democracy, you agree with Windsor 2013: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[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....

Except that the Court that trumps all of those 46 cases Found in Windsor 2013, 56 times, that the question of redacting the word "marriage" to include non mother/father households for kids was up to the discreet communities within the states.

Not once did the court ever find that the States have the authority to violate constitutional guarantees. Not once. In fact the courts found that the States were subject to constitutional guarantees in the Windsor decision, explicitly contrary to your narrative:

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 order of authority affirmed by the Windsor court is as follows

1) Constitutional Guarantees

2) State Marriage Laws

3) Federal Marriage Laws.

You pretend that constitutional guarantees don't exist if you'd like. But the courts aren't obligated to pretend with you.

 

[Silhouette]

You're right. Not once did the Court find that. It was actually 56 times. Read the link and count all the bold quotes from Windsor 2013...

 

[lake avenue]

They can secede from the country for all I fucking care.

 

[TheOldSchool]

What an impressive slew of states in the poll!

 

[Skylar]

You're right. Not once did the Court find that. It was actually 56 times. Read the link and count all the bold quotes from Windsor 2013...

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to show me ONE instance where the Windsor court ever found that State marriage laws trump constitutional guarantees.

Here's the ruling:

UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR LII Legal Information Institute

Show us. Don't tell us.

You'll find there's not a single instance of the courts ever finding that state marriage laws trump constitutional guarantees in the entire decision. You've quite literally hallucinated your own version of the Windsor decision. And the courts won't be using your hallucinations as the basis of their decision.

 

[Silhouette]

You're right. Not once did the Court find that. It was actually 56 times. Read the link and count all the bold quotes from Windsor 2013...

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to show me ONE instance where the Windsor court ever found that State marriage laws trump constitutional guarantees..

Yes it will, by the total vacuum in the US Constitution that addresses who may or may not marry vs the 56 times in Windsor 2013, including the time where the Court Found at the end of it all that "only 11 states" had legal gay marriage as of the end of that Opinion.

"LGBTs" are not a race, they are not a country of origin, they are not a gender and so far, they are not a religion; although this is the one they come closest to in qualifying for the 14th..

If you believe that there should be an age limit or a blood-relations limit or a number limit to who can marry, then you believe marriage is a privelege only extended to some. Who that "some" is, is not up to just 5 kings and queens in DC, to institutionalize fatherless sons and motherless daughters "as married" against the Will of the sovereign states. It is up to the discreet members of each community to make that call on behalf of a brand spanking new social experiment where kids will be used as lab rats.

 

[Skylar]

You're right. Not once did the Court find that. It was actually 56 times. Read the link and count all the bold quotes from Windsor 2013...

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to show me ONE instance where the Windsor court ever found that State marriage laws trump constitutional guarantees..

Yes it will, by the total vacuum in the US Constitution that addresses who may or may not marry vs the 56 times in Windsor 2013, including the time where the Court Found at the end of it all that "only 11 states" had legal gay marriage as of the end of that Opinion.

It 'will'? 'Will'? You just changed your story. You insisted it WAS....56 times. Only when I challenge you to show us even one instance of the Windsor ruling putting State marriage laws above constitutional guarantees......do you sudden change tenses.

So much for your imaginary version of the Windsor ruling. You literally hallucinated it. The order of authority of the Windsor ruling is as follows:

1) Constitutional Guarantees

2) State Marriage Laws

3) Federal Marriage Laws

"LGBTs" are not a race, they are not a country of origin, they are not a gender and so far, they are not a religion; although this is the one they come closest to in qualifying for the 14th..

Says you. The 14th amendment never so much as mentions race. Worse for you Romer v. Evans cites the 14th amendment no less than 7 times as the basis of its ruling when it found that discrimination against gays was unconstitutional.

You disagree. Laughing....who gives a shit? Its not like the USSC is going to ignore *itself* just because you disagree.

 

[Syriusly]

The state of Texas or any state at all in the Union has full rights to set parameters for marraige..

As long as those parameters are constitutional.

Almost every judge to review 'gay marriage bans' has ruled that they are unconstitutional.

And that is what the Supreme Court will be deciding.

 

[Syriusly]

You're right. Not once did the Court find that. It was actually 56 times. Read the link and count all the bold quotes from Windsor 2013...

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to show me ONE instance where the Windsor court ever found that State marriage laws trump constitutional guarantees..

"LGBTs" are not a race, they are not a country of origin, they are not a gender and so far, they are not a religion; although this is the one they come closest to in qualifying for the 14th..s.

The 14th Amendment doesn't mention race, country of origin, gender or religion. Once again you are just lying.


All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

While I get that you do not consider homosexuals to be 'persons'- the rest of us do- and so they are covered by the 14th Amendment- like all of us are.

 

[Syriusly]

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....

, you agree that marriage is a privelege only extended to some, but not all.

God you are so dishonest.

You lie about what Windsor says- and ignore what the Supreme Court has said repeatedly about Marriage.

The Supreme Court has said that marriage is a right 8 or 9 times.

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws as being unconstitutional violations of the right to marriage at least 3 times.

You claim marriage is a privelege in order to promote your anti-homosexual agenda. You misquote the Supreme Court when it is convenient, and then you ignore the Supreme Court when it is inconvenient.

What a liar.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil is deeply disturbed.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I'm all for gay marriage. I think it is fine if a gay man marries a gay women.. then they can have child that cancels them out and produce a straight male that can actually decorate.

 

[mdk]

Sil is deeply disturbed.

Necromancer. lol

 

[Syriusly]

I'm all for gay marriage. I think it is fine if a gay man marries a gay women.. then they can have child that cancels them out and produce a straight male that can actually decorate.

I am okay with you marrying a gay man also. Or a gay woman.

Luckily in all 50 states you are free to marry another consenting adult, regardless of his or her gender.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Biblical marriage?

Is that the kind where your wife gets to bang supernatural beings?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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..

State sovereignty ends where the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution begins.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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..

State sovereignty ends where the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution begins.

Sil certainly implied that.