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

[Skylar]

The job a judge is to interpret the constitution and determine if a given law is compatible with the constitution. If a law isn't, the law is invalid. If it is, the law is valid.

In 44 of 46 instances, the judiciary found that gay marriage bans are not compatible with the constitution. So the laws were invalidated.

Here's another political science lesson for y'all. Lower circuit judges do not enjoy the power of overturning Windsor's 56 Findings that states have the constitutional power to define marriage for themselves until further notice. Shadowy refusals of stays are not merits that lower judges can cite "in anticipation of the unspoken/unargued inevitable", pre-emptively overturning Windsor.

It doesn't work that way and it's why Alabama's Supreme Court is 100% correct in finding on behalf of their citizen's right to self-govern. It's the law until/unless SCOTUS explains differently.

After being schooled so thoroughly for months on this ruling you're still claiming that the lower courts have overturned Windsor?!

Take Sil's posts for what they are: lies he tells himself to relieve the dissonance between his beliefs and reality.

In legal terms, pretty much Sil's entire argument is pseudo-legal gibberish.

 

[Silhouette]

Spam on previous page. Pretty much all of Skylar's posts are psuedo-legal gibberish. *Waits for Syriusly/Conservative to spam 6 posts in a fake flame war*

The job a judge is to interpret the constitution and determine if a given law is compatible with the constitution. If a law isn't, the law is invalid. If it is, the law is valid.
In 44 of 46 instances, the judiciary found that gay marriage bans are not compatible with the constitution. So the laws were invalidated.

Here's another political science lesson for y'all. Lower circuit judges do not enjoy the power of overturning Windsor's 56 Findings that states have the constitutional power to define marriage for themselves until further notice. Shadowy refusals of stays are not merits that lower judges can cite "in anticipation of the unspoken/unargued inevitable", pre-emptively overturning Windsor.

It doesn't work that way and it's why Alabama's Supreme Court is 100% correct in finding on behalf of their citizen's right to self-govern. It's the law until/unless SCOTUS explains differently.

 

[mdk]

The job a judge is to interpret the constitution and determine if a given law is compatible with the constitution. If a law isn't, the law is invalid. If it is, the law is valid.

In 44 of 46 instances, the judiciary found that gay marriage bans are not compatible with the constitution. So the laws were invalidated.

Here's another political science lesson for y'all. Lower circuit judges do not enjoy the power of overturning Windsor's 56 Findings that states have the constitutional power to define marriage for themselves until further notice. Shadowy refusals of stays are not merits that lower judges can cite "in anticipation of the unspoken/unargued inevitable", pre-emptively overturning Windsor.

It doesn't work that way and it's why Alabama's Supreme Court is 100% correct in finding on behalf of their citizen's right to self-govern. It's the law until/unless SCOTUS explains differently.

After being schooled so thoroughly for months on this ruling you're still claiming that the lower courts have overturned Windsor?!

Take Sil's posts for what they are: lies he tells himself to relieve the dissonance between his beliefs and reality.

In legal terms, pretty much Sil's entire argument is pseudo-legal gibberish.

I don't know who the hell is going to Sil to get lesson in political science lesson. If anyone actually does they might want to get their money back.

 

[mdk]

Spam on previous page. Pretty much all of Skylar's posts are psuedo-legal gibberish. *Waits for Syriusly/Conservative to spam 6 posts in a fake flame war*

The job a judge is to interpret the constitution and determine if a given law is compatible with the constitution. If a law isn't, the law is invalid. If it is, the law is valid.
In 44 of 46 instances, the judiciary found that gay marriage bans are not compatible with the constitution. So the laws were invalidated.

Here's another political science lesson for y'all. Lower circuit judges do not enjoy the power of overturning Windsor's 56 Findings that states have the constitutional power to define marriage for themselves until further notice. Shadowy refusals of stays are not merits that lower judges can cite "in anticipation of the unspoken/unargued inevitable", pre-emptively overturning Windsor.

It doesn't work that way and it's why Alabama's Supreme Court is 100% correct in finding on behalf of their citizen's right to self-govern. It's the law until/unless SCOTUS explains differently.

I love when you bitch about people spamming and than post the same exact shit over and over again.

 

[danielpalos]

Spam on previous page. Pretty much all of Skylar's posts are psuedo-legal gibberish. *Waits for Syriusly/Conservative to spam 6 posts in a fake flame war*

The job a judge is to interpret the constitution and determine if a given law is compatible with the constitution. If a law isn't, the law is invalid. If it is, the law is valid.
In 44 of 46 instances, the judiciary found that gay marriage bans are not compatible with the constitution. So the laws were invalidated.

Here's another political science lesson for y'all. Lower circuit judges do not enjoy the power of overturning Windsor's 56 Findings that states have the constitutional power to define marriage for themselves until further notice. Shadowy refusals of stays are not merits that lower judges can cite "in anticipation of the unspoken/unargued inevitable", pre-emptively overturning Windsor.

It doesn't work that way and it's why Alabama's Supreme Court is 100% correct in finding on behalf of their citizen's right to self-govern. It's the law until/unless SCOTUS explains differently.

dudette, there is no willful appeal to ignorance of Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to the general government and that body of laws.

 

[Skylar]

Spam on previous page. Pretty much all of Skylar's posts are psuedo-legal gibberish.

Says you. And virtually your every prediction on the outcome of cases and the actions of the Supreme Court has been wrong. With no ruling by any federal court using your reasoning. While my logic aligns with every federal court ruling overturning gay marriage bans, and by the Windsor ruling itself.

Constitutional guarantees trump state marriage laws.

Here's another political science lesson for y'all. Lower circuit judges do not enjoy the power of overturning Windsor's 56 Findings that states have the constitutional power to define marriage for themselves until further notice. Shadowy refusals of stays are not merits that lower judges can cite "in anticipation of the unspoken/unargued inevitable", pre-emptively overturning Windsor.

It doesn't work that way and it's why Alabama's Supreme Court is 100% correct in finding on behalf of their citizen's right to self-govern. It's the law until/unless SCOTUS explains differently.

And here's your lesson for the day:

1) Constitutional guarantees

2) State marriage laws

3) Federal Marriage laws.

Any federal court that finds that State marriage bans violate constitutional guarantees is empowered by the Windsor decision, which found that all state marriage laws are subject to such guarantees.

You can ignore constitutional guarantees. You can't make the courts ignore them. And I'm certainly not going to.

 

[Skylar]

Spam on previous page. Pretty much all of Skylar's posts are psuedo-legal gibberish. *Waits for Syriusly/Conservative to spam 6 posts in a fake flame war*

The job a judge is to interpret the constitution and determine if a given law is compatible with the constitution. If a law isn't, the law is invalid. If it is, the law is valid.
In 44 of 46 instances, the judiciary found that gay marriage bans are not compatible with the constitution. So the laws were invalidated.

Here's another political science lesson for y'all. Lower circuit judges do not enjoy the power of overturning Windsor's 56 Findings that states have the constitutional power to define marriage for themselves until further notice. Shadowy refusals of stays are not merits that lower judges can cite "in anticipation of the unspoken/unargued inevitable", pre-emptively overturning Windsor.

It doesn't work that way and it's why Alabama's Supreme Court is 100% correct in finding on behalf of their citizen's right to self-govern. It's the law until/unless SCOTUS explains differently.

I love when you bitch about people spamming and than post the same exact shit over and over again.

Its quite adorable, isn't it? Like when Silo posted the Prince Trust study 117 times in two weeks....and then complained about *other* posters spamming.

 

[Silhouette]

The job a judge is to interpret the constitution and determine if a given law is compatible with the constitution. If a law isn't, the law is invalid. If it is, the law is valid. In 44 of 46 instances, the judiciary found that gay marriage bans are not compatible with the constitution. So the laws were invalidated.

Here's another political science lesson for y'all. Lower circuit judges do not enjoy the power of overturning Windsor's 56 Findings that states have the constitutional power to define marriage for themselves until further notice. Shadowy refusals of stays are not merits that lower judges can cite "in anticipation of the unspoken/unargued inevitable", pre-emptively overturning Windsor.

It doesn't work that way and it's why Alabama's Supreme Court is 100% correct in finding on behalf of their citizen's right to self-govern. It's the law until/unless SCOTUS explains differently.

dudette, there is no willful appeal to ignorance of Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to the general government and that body of laws.

Where in the US Constitution does it say that just some (transient deviant sexual) lifestyles repugnant to the majority are entitled to protection from that majority? Shall we ask Anne Heche?

 

[Skylar]

Where in the US Constitution does it say that just some (transient deviant sexual) lifestyles repugnant to the majority are entitled to protection from that majority? Shall we ask Anne Heche?

The US constitution requires that States treat all equally under the law and that States laws can't violate the priveledges and immunities of US citizens.

Marriage is a right. If you're going to deny gays their right to marry you'll need a compelling state interest, a valid legislative end and a very good reason.

Gay marriage bans fail on all three points.

 

[Silhouette]

How will you deny polygamists the newly federally-dismantled word "marriage"?

 

[Skylar]

How will you deny polygamists the newly federally-dismantled word "marriage"?

When the USSC is hearing a polygamy case, I'd be happy to discuss it with you.

Can I take it from your abandonment of the topic of gay marriage that you recognize that your arguments against it are pseudo-legal gibberish?

If no, June may help you understand how little sense your claims actually make.

 

[mdk]

How will you deny polygamists the newly federally-dismantled word "marriage"?

 

[Skylar]

How will you deny polygamists the newly federally-dismantled word "marriage"?

Yup. All you need are these 11 words to make Silo abandon his entire topic:

How does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

 

[Seawytch]

Spam on previous page. Pretty much all of Skylar's posts are psuedo-legal gibberish. *Waits for Syriusly/Conservative to spam 6 posts in a fake flame war*

The job a judge is to interpret the constitution and determine if a given law is compatible with the constitution. If a law isn't, the law is invalid. If it is, the law is valid.
In 44 of 46 instances, the judiciary found that gay marriage bans are not compatible with the constitution. So the laws were invalidated.

Here's another political science lesson for y'all. Lower circuit judges do not enjoy the power of overturning Windsor's 56 Findings that states have the constitutional power to define marriage for themselves until further notice. Shadowy refusals of stays are not merits that lower judges can cite "in anticipation of the unspoken/unargued inevitable", pre-emptively overturning Windsor.

It doesn't work that way and it's why Alabama's Supreme Court is 100% correct in finding on behalf of their citizen's right to self-govern. It's the law until/unless SCOTUS explains differently.

I love when you bitch about people spamming and than post the same exact shit over and over again.

Its quite adorable, isn't it? Like when Silo posted the Prince Trust study 117 times in two weeks....and then complained about *other* posters spamming.

It's weird...for weeks it was Harvey Milk...then it was a guy in a speedo at Pride and now it's this ridiculous study that doesn't say what she thinks it says. It's like this odd cyclic obsessive disorder.

 

[Silhouette]

How will you deny polygamists the newly federally-dismantled word "marriage"?

Alabama has to be concerned that if the redaction of the word "marriage" is forced upon them federally, that in the name of "marriage equality" none shall be denied.

So it is spot-on topic. Noted, though, is your wish that it would not be considered so.

 

[Skylar]

Spam on previous page. Pretty much all of Skylar's posts are psuedo-legal gibberish. *Waits for Syriusly/Conservative to spam 6 posts in a fake flame war*

The job a judge is to interpret the constitution and determine if a given law is compatible with the constitution. If a law isn't, the law is invalid. If it is, the law is valid.
In 44 of 46 instances, the judiciary found that gay marriage bans are not compatible with the constitution. So the laws were invalidated.

Here's another political science lesson for y'all. Lower circuit judges do not enjoy the power of overturning Windsor's 56 Findings that states have the constitutional power to define marriage for themselves until further notice. Shadowy refusals of stays are not merits that lower judges can cite "in anticipation of the unspoken/unargued inevitable", pre-emptively overturning Windsor.

It doesn't work that way and it's why Alabama's Supreme Court is 100% correct in finding on behalf of their citizen's right to self-govern. It's the law until/unless SCOTUS explains differently.

I love when you bitch about people spamming and than post the same exact shit over and over again.

Its quite adorable, isn't it? Like when Silo posted the Prince Trust study 117 times in two weeks....and then complained about *other* posters spamming.

It's weird...for weeks it was Harvey Milk...then it was a guy in a speedo at Pride and now it's this ridiculous study that doesn't say what she thinks it says. It's like this odd cyclic obsessive disorder.

Winna, winna chicken dinna!

 

[Skylar]

How will you deny polygamists the newly federally-dismantled word "marriage"?

Alabama has to be concerned that if the redaction of the word "marriage" is forced upon them federally, that in the name of "marriage equality" none shall be denied.

Says you. Show us anywhere the State of Alabama has stated that argument.

You'll find you hallucinated the entire thing. And your hallucinations are not our topic.

 

[mdk]

How will you deny polygamists the newly federally-dismantled word "marriage"?

Alabama has to be concerned that if the redaction of the word "marriage" is forced upon them federally, that in the name of "marriage equality" none shall be denied.

So it is spot-on topic. Noted, though, is your wish that it would not be considered so.

No, it's the usual red herring you offer when you refuse to answer how denying gays marriage helps their children. I thought you were an advocate for children? Most of us know your full of shit when it comes to caring about children. The instant you can't use them in your anti-gay narrative you discard them to the trash heap.

 

[James Everett]

How will you deny polygamists the newly federally-dismantled word "marriage"?

Alabama has to be concerned that if the redaction of the word "marriage" is forced upon them federally, that in the name of "marriage equality" none shall be denied.

So it is spot-on topic. Noted, though, is your wish that it would not be considered so.

No, it's the usual red herring you offer when you refuse to answer how denying gays marriage helps their children. I thought you were an advocate for children? Most of us know your full of shit when it comes to caring about children. The instant you can't use them in your anti-gay narrative you discard them to the trash heap.

There are about four pro-deviation from traditional historical set legal definition of marriage advocates that keep spouting of a bunch of emotional BS, who will never hear logic, as your minds as well as your ears are closed to the truth. None of you can place a logical explanation as to why the definition of marriage should be change from its traditional and historical legal definition to include that of a man ands man, or a woman and a woman. What in terms of legal benefits would or will be gained that could not be gained via a contracted civil union? There is nothing to be gained outside of a perverse thrill that is received by attacking the Christian religion which you perceive as conservative/ republican/ relight wing. In the end, that is all that you will gain that could not be gained via a contracted civil union.

 

[Seawytch]

How will you deny polygamists the newly federally-dismantled word "marriage"?

Alabama has to be concerned that if the redaction of the word "marriage" is forced upon them federally, that in the name of "marriage equality" none shall be denied.

So it is spot-on topic. Noted, though, is your wish that it would not be considered so.

No, it's the usual red herring you offer when you refuse to answer how denying gays marriage helps their children. I thought you were an advocate for children? Most of us know your full of shit when it comes to caring about children. The instant you can't use them in your anti-gay narrative you discard them to the trash heap.

There are about four pro-deviation from traditional historical set legal definition of marriage advocates that keep spouting of a bunch of emotional BS, who will never hear logic, as your minds as well as your ears are closed to the truth. None of you can place a logical explanation as to why the definition of marriage should be change from its traditional and historical legal definition to include that of a man ands man, or a woman and a woman. What in terms of legal benefits would or will be gained that could not be gained via a contracted civil union? There is nothing to be gained outside of a perverse thrill that is received by attacking the Christian religion which you perceive as conservative/ republican/ relight wing. In the end, that is all that you will gain that could not be gained via a contracted civil union.

The only problem with your theory is that gays don't care what it's called...it just has to be equal. If you don't want gays using civil marriage, change it to civil unions for all.

We've been able to marry in churches like forever.