Alabama SC orders judges to stop issuing homosexuals "marriage" licenses.

[Syriusly]

Federal judges who decide cases where they have no jurisdiction are black robed tyrants. That would be at either side of the argument.
Look guy! If Californians vote to change the definition of marriage, I don't believe SCOTUS has authority to step in there either. Are we clear?

Well then we have no argument- Federal judges do have jurisdiction over Constitutional matters- that is why federal judges have overturned State marriage laws multiple times in the past, and federal judges have overturned State gun laws in the past.

State laws are subject to the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

Federal judges who decide cases where they have no jurisdiction are black robed tyrants. That would be at either side of the argument.
Look guy! If Californians vote to change the definition of marriage, I don't believe SCOTUS has authority to step in there either. Are we clear?

But they didn't and never did, so this is why the LGBT militant litigious army wants their moles in SCOTUS Breaking Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
to force this federally down the throats of the states. They are ANGRY with California. California being the most accepting state and the one who has lived the longest with the gay culture to observe under a petri dish...for some INEXPLICABLE reason...voted down gay marriage, TWICE.

So the LGBT army, headquartered in SF, CA i

You are so delusional.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Is anyone surprised that once again, out of all the states, it's Alabama leading the charge in discrimination and hate?

I love my home state. But there are some backwards people there, and some politicians that know how to work them.

Obviously those backward people are on the state's supreme court.

 

[Syriusly]

For all the uber liberals celebrating overt judicial bias in their favor on this question, consider the following:


That is the EXACT analogy of what's going on with this gay marriage thing. It's illegal. It's undemocratic. And it's Tyranny of the Judicial over the states.

No it isn't.
No it isn't.
No it isn't.
and
No it isn't.

 

[Syriusly]

No, children, polygamists, incest etc. Amercians do not have a right to demand the complete retooling of state-defined marriage.

All Americans have both a right to marriage, and are guaranteed equal rights before the law.

None of that has to do with race or lifestyle choices such as religion.

 

[g5000]

No, children, polygamists, incest etc. Amercians do not have a right to demand the complete retooling of state-defined marriage.

If a rational basis cannot be provided for banning a marriage, then we certainly do have a right to retool. We retooled marriage to allow interracial marriages, and we will retool to allow same sex marriages.

"We have always oppressed these people" is not a rational basis for continuing the practice or for not retooling. There is a big difference between honoring tradition and preserving persecution.

I can provide a rational basis for banning adult-child marriages. Thus, you are comparing apples and oranges (and committing a slippery slope fallacy at the same time) when trying to draw an association between gays and pedophiles. It's a tired and bogus tactic.

 

[Syriusly]

"Progress- Alabama high court orders halt to same-sex marriage licenses"

That you and others on the right would perceive a state supreme court ignoring the Constitution and denying American citizens their civil rights as 'progress' is both sad and telling.

It is telling indeed that under Obama, Americans are pushed to such measures

-Geaux

It is telling indeed, that even though Obama has absolutely nothing to do with any of these cases- you still blame him.

 

[Syriusly]

Keep up the good fight Bama

-Geaux
-------------------

Yep- Alabama- which didn't legalize mixed race marriages until 2000- 23 years after the Supreme Court said that State laws against mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.

Alabama- always fighting the good fight.

 

[Syriusly]

Since the state has no power to nullify SCOTUS or Congress, folks will lose office, be fined, and go to jail. Ask Judge Moore the last time he pulled this nonsense. Since continued efforts to nullify the law would require a criminal conspiracy. the miscreants' property, including homes and other realty, can be seized as the fruit of their crimes.

And you think citizens would stand and watch? Why do you advocate war?

-Geaux

Why would you advocate against equal rights?

 

[Silhouette]

But race and sexual lifestyles have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. One is protected in the Constitution. One is not. Are you proposing Congress ratify a new Amendment protecting (just) LGBT lifestyles that are repugnant to the majority?

I reported Syriusly for spamming. Enough is enough. I get it Syriusly, the points I made in post #1 of this page "have to be quickly disappeared". Only, that's not allowed at USMB.

 

[JFK_USA]

Alabama Supreme Court Orders Judges to Stop Gay Marriages - NBC News

YAY! Stand up to judicial tyranny!

Yes, it's encouraging to have fearless judges stand against the black robed tyrants perverting the Constitution and overturning democracy. The homos will blow their lids (or each other) over this.

So to stand up to "Judicial Tyranny", they must exercise judicial tyranny?

There is something called the Supremacy Clause, you probably should look it up.

There is. Same document as the enumerated powers clause, I believe.

Yes, but we also have amendments like the 14th that provides Equal Protection under the law. The Courts in all the cases have applied the Rational basis test where the government has to only acknowledge a legitimate government interest but they have not convinced the courts that there is a legitimate government interest to prevent people from seeking that social benefit. It's a really low standard yet they can't come up with one secular reason why.

That's why it's failing.

 

[Ernie S.]

Marriage is a state matter- but subject to Constitutional guarantees.

Well since this isn't about race but rather is about lifestyles

All Americans have both a right to marriage, and are guaranteed equal rights before the law.

None of that has to do with race or lifestyle choices such as religion.

Straight or gay you have the right to marry. Agreed! Marriage is the civil and spiritual union of one man and one woman.
Look! I'm just fine with civil union to protect legal rights of gay couples. Just don't call it marriage, OK?

 

[Silhouette]

race is not equal to sexual lifestyles..

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, but we also have amendments like the 14th that provides Equal Protection under the law. The Courts in all the cases have applied the Rational basis test where the government has to only acknowledge a legitimate government interest but they have not convinced the courts that there is a legitimate government interest to prevent people from seeking that social benefit. It's a really low standard yet they can't come up with one secular reason why.
That's why it's failing.

No, there is quite a huge legitimate interest in states denying gay marriage...and why the idea is gaining traction: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Reposted due to Syriusly-spamming..

For all the uber liberals celebrating overt judicial bias in their favor on this question, consider the following:

Imagine seeing Justice Roberts or Thomas in a photo op just before a case on the Keystone Pipeline, shaking hands with the president of Haliburton; showing either of the Justices with a shovel, breaking ground for Haliburton on "the soon to be approved project".

Or going one step further as the Court is doing in this case and actively eroding state laws, allowing sections of the pipeline to be built in violation of states laws one by one by inexplicably refusing to uphold stays...so by the time a couple years had passed, nearly the entire length of the pipeline was complete so the Court could throw up its hands in surprise and say "well golly, it looks like the whole pipeline's nearly in anyway, so we'll just have to go ahead and approve this thing"..

That is the EXACT analogy of what's going on with this gay marriage thing. It's illegal. It's undemocratic. And it's Tyranny of the Judicial over the states.

The number of states that have legally-ratified "gay marriage" is under 10, or near that number anyway. It is not "36" or what have you. No way. If this injustice goes forward it will be the equivalent of a cult using our Highest Court to force subjegation of the states. Check your federally-issued rainbow "USA" Harvey Milk stamps (and his biography/Ca laws requiring kids to worship him) for details...

 

[Syriusly]

But race and sexual lifestyles have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. One is protected in the Constitution. One is not. Are you proposing Congress ratify a new Amendment protecting (just) LGBT lifestyles that are repugnant to the majority?

I reported Syriusly for spamming. Enough is enough. I get it Syriusly, the points I made in post #1 of this page "have to be quickly disappeared". Only, that's not allowed at USMB.

Report away Silly.

Meanwhile- neither 'race' or 'sexual preference' is protected in the Constitution. Go look.

We all have a right to marriage, and we are all protected by the 14th Amendment's guarantee of
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Syriusly]

race is not equal to sexual lifestyles..

Thanks for that irrelevant comment.

 

[Ernie S.]

Alabama Supreme Court Orders Judges to Stop Gay Marriages - NBC News

YAY! Stand up to judicial tyranny!

Yes, it's encouraging to have fearless judges stand against the black robed tyrants perverting the Constitution and overturning democracy. The homos will blow their lids (or each other) over this.

So to stand up to "Judicial Tyranny", they must exercise judicial tyranny?

There is something called the Supremacy Clause, you probably should look it up.

There is. Same document as the enumerated powers clause, I believe.

Yes, but we also have amendments like the 14th that provides Equal Protection under the law. The Courts in all the cases have applied the Rational basis test where the government has to only acknowledge a legitimate government interest but they have not convinced the courts that there is a legitimate government interest to prevent people from seeking that social benefit. It's a really low standard yet they can't come up with one secular reason why.

That's why it's failing.

We have what? Tops 5% of the US population are gay? The damned gayest state in the union has voted down gay marriage at least twice.
Why don't we put it to a national referendum? Would you be cool with that?

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, but we also have amendments like the 14th that provides Equal Protection under the law. The Courts in all the cases have applied the Rational basis test where the government has to only acknowledge a legitimate government interest but they have not convinced the courts that there is a legitimate government interest to prevent people from seeking that social benefit. It's a really low standard yet they can't come up with one secular reason why.
That's why it's failing.

No, there is quite a huge legitimate interest in states denying gay marriage...and why the idea is gaining traction:..

There is no legitimate interest in states denying same gender marriage.

And that is why the States keep losing the argument in court.

 

[Skylar]

No, there is quite a huge legitimate interest in states denying gay marriage...and why the idea is gaining traction: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The 'Prince Trust Study' never even mentions gays, same sex couples, same sex parenting, or gay marriage. Nor does it measure the effects of any kind of parenting.

You hallucinated it all. And your hallucinations aren't a 'rational basis'.

Imagine seeing Justice Roberts or Thomas in a photo op just before a case on the Keystone Pipeline, shaking hands with the president of Haliburton; showing either of the Justices with a shovel, breaking ground for Haliburton on "the soon to be approved project".

Same sex marriage was already legal in Maryland and DC, by legislative vote. How then could either justice demonstrate a bias against same sex marriage bans...

....when no same sex marriage ban existed?

You've never been able to answer. Nor can you. As no such bias can be demonstrated.

Next fallacy please.

 

[Skylar]

Alabama Supreme Court Orders Judges to Stop Gay Marriages - NBC News

YAY! Stand up to judicial tyranny!

Yes, it's encouraging to have fearless judges stand against the black robed tyrants perverting the Constitution and overturning democracy. The homos will blow their lids (or each other) over this.

So to stand up to "Judicial Tyranny", they must exercise judicial tyranny?

There is something called the Supremacy Clause, you probably should look it up.

There is. Same document as the enumerated powers clause, I believe.

Yes, but we also have amendments like the 14th that provides Equal Protection under the law. The Courts in all the cases have applied the Rational basis test where the government has to only acknowledge a legitimate government interest but they have not convinced the courts that there is a legitimate government interest to prevent people from seeking that social benefit. It's a really low standard yet they can't come up with one secular reason why.

That's why it's failing.

We have what? Tops 5% of the US population are gay? The damned gayest state in the union has voted down gay marriage at least twice.
Why don't we put it to a national referendum? Would you be cool with that?

And can your rights be put to a national referendum? Can we strip you of any constitutional guarantee with a majority vote?