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

[James Everett]

Over time this along with many other issues will benefit us in the restoration effort as the union will once again fall apart, and States that once opposed secession will vindicate the South by aligning with us. The moral ground will be changed this time around, the majority of the world has grown intolerable of U.S. Hegemony will see enemies align and allies divide as well as the U.S. Military. All is shifting sand.

 

[Ernie S.]

That's your opinion and that of agenda minded judges.

Says you, pretending to be any judge who disagrees with you.

YOU interpret the constitution based on your agenda. And then assume that since you do, everyone else must.

Nope. There's no such mandate. Following precedent and protecting rights are both legitimate motivations for judges. And the stated motivation for the rulings in same sex marriage case.

Now why would I ignore a judge on their own motivation, and instead believe you citing yourself?

There is no reason.

Why wouldn't you support a judge ruling on an agenda with which you agree? There is no reason for you to do so. You benefit from it and that's your sole motivation for supporting the decisions.

Your claim is that judges are serving political agendas. I'm not a judge. Making all your babble about me an awkward red herring. And more baseless speculation.

When you support what judges do, it's the same. I wouldn't expect one of your kind to accept responsibility. It's not in your nature.

I wouldn't expect one of your kind to accept equality for other human beings. It's not in your nature.

We all accept the right of homosexuals to marry. Marriage is the legal and spiritual union of one man and one woman.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

I'm completely OK with civil unions for gays entitling them to all the rights and responsibilities of married heterosexuals. Just don't call it marriage and we'll all be cool with it.

 

[Ernie S.]

No kidding. Fed judges aka tyrants in robes really should stop trying to dictate their opinions to the states.

Yeah, yeah! Stand up for the constitution! The constitution says that federal law is supreme to state law. The federal judges should stop telling states how the federal constitution works in order to.....

Wait, no....turns out you're a fucking idiot.

The Constitution is very specific on what matters it can enact laws. Any federal law on any subject not enumerated it COTUS is invalid. As long as gays have the right to enter into a binding civil union (a contract witch is enumerated in COTUS) there is no equal protection argument.
SCOTUS doesn't have the right to redefine words.

 

[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.

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.

Which is comical b/c that is all your side has been able to present to the courts as a reason for denying gays accessing to marriage, emtional bullshit and appeals to tradtion.

I had no problem with civil unions but many states decided that was far too close to marriage and banned those as well. The only reason you folks want gays to have civil unions instead is b/c you see the writing on the wall. You had folks had your chance but decided that was too close marriage, you brought this all on yourself.

My arguments have literally nothing to do with Christianity. Your religion doesn't own marriage anymore than any other faith does. One doesn't even need to have a faith to be able to marry in this nation.

Gays are likely going have total access to marriage here very soon and many state they already do. You'll get over it. Or you won't. Either it doesn't really matter that much to me.

 

[Syriusly]

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*.

Ironic coming from the Spam Queen.

But what about the children raised by chickens?

What do those children call their chicken mothers?

LOL......

 

[Syriusly]

No kidding. Fed judges aka tyrants in robes really should stop trying to dictate their opinions to the states.

Yeah, yeah! Stand up for the constitution! The constitution says that federal law is supreme to state law. The federal judges should stop telling states how the federal constitution works in order to.....

Wait, no....turns out you're a fucking idiot.

The Constitution is very specific on what matters it can enact laws. Any federal law on any subject not enumerated it COTUS is invalid. As long as gays have the right to enter into a binding civil union (a contract witch is enumerated in COTUS) there is no equal protection argument.
SCOTUS doesn't have the right to redefine words.

LOL.....nothing in the Constitution about 'binding civil union'- nor is the concept even well defined.

But we all have the right to marriage- to equal protection before the law, and due process.

And that is why your arguments are failing in court.

 

[Syriusly]

Says you, pretending to be any judge who disagrees with you.

YOU interpret the constitution based on your agenda. And then assume that since you do, everyone else must.

Nope. There's no such mandate. Following precedent and protecting rights are both legitimate motivations for judges. And the stated motivation for the rulings in same sex marriage case.

Now why would I ignore a judge on their own motivation, and instead believe you citing yourself?

There is no reason.

Why wouldn't you support a judge ruling on an agenda with which you agree? There is no reason for you to do so. You benefit from it and that's your sole motivation for supporting the decisions.

Your claim is that judges are serving political agendas. I'm not a judge. Making all your babble about me an awkward red herring. And more baseless speculation.

When you support what judges do, it's the same. I wouldn't expect one of your kind to accept responsibility. It's not in your nature.

I wouldn't expect one of your kind to accept equality for other human beings. It's not in your nature.

We all accept the right of homosexuals to marry. Marriage is the legal and spiritual union of one man and one woman.

Might white of you.

The State of Virginia accepted the right of whites and blacks to marry. Marriage to them was the legal union of 1 white man and 1 white woman or 1 black man and 1 black woman.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Alabama has to be concerned that if they allow gays to marry, that they might have to allow men and women to marry, and blacks and whites to marry, and Catholics and Jews to marry.....

Who knows where that could lead.

 

[Skylar]

Over time this along with many other issues will benefit us in the restoration effort as the union will once again fall apart, and States that once opposed secession will vindicate the South by aligning with us. The moral ground will be changed this time around, the majority of the world has grown intolerable of U.S. Hegemony will see enemies align and allies divide as well as the U.S. Military. All is shifting sand.

Yeah, but the 'moral ground' you're trying to stand on is that the States can flagrantly violate the rights of their citizens.

Which almost no one supports.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

I'm completely OK with civil unions for gays entitling them to all the rights and responsibilities of married heterosexuals. Just don't call it marriage and we'll all be cool with it.

I'm completely ok with civil unions for everyone. What you can't get away with is civil unions for gays civil marriage for heterosexuals.

Churches have always and will always be able to marry or not marry anyone they want.

 

[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.

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.

I don't think 'logic' means what you think it means. Its not logical to ignore the existence of the 14th amendment. Its not 'logic' to assume that no legal definition ever changes, under any circumstance. Its not 'logic' to assume that simply stating your personal opinion establishes an irrefutable fact.

Yet you do all of these things. Back in reality, the 14th amendment does exist. And it extends the bill of rights to the States, allowing the federal government to overturn State laws that violate rights.

Back in reality, legal definitions change all the time. And can change with a simple legislative act or court decision.

Back in reality, you simply stating your opinion establishes nothing but your opinion. And you can't back your claim with logic or reason.

So what else have you got?

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.

Gays and lesbians marrying isn't an attack on Christianity. So the entire premise of your thesis is emotional nonsense.

 

[Skylar]

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.

I'm completely OK with civil unions for gays entitling them to all the rights and responsibilities of married heterosexuals. Just don't call it marriage and we'll all be cool with it.

I'm completely ok with civil unions for everyone. What you can't get away with is civil unions for gays civil marriage for heterosexuals.

Churches have always and will always be able to marry or not marry anyone they want.

I'm not. Its unnecessarily complicated. I see no point in dismantling all state recognized marriage, invalidating every marriage certificate and converting them all to 'civil unions' just to keep the gays out of marriage.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Alabama has to be concerned that if they allow gays to marry, that they might have to allow men and women to marry, and blacks and whites to marry, and Catholics and Jews to marry.....

Who knows where that could lead.

It should lead where the people of Alabama want it to lead, not to where the people of San Francisco want it to lead. or where Progressives and Liberal Justices want it to lead. Got it?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

I'm completely OK with civil unions for gays entitling them to all the rights and responsibilities of married heterosexuals. Just don't call it marriage and we'll all be cool with it.

I'm completely ok with civil unions for everyone. What you can't get away with is civil unions for gays civil marriage for heterosexuals.

Churches have always and will always be able to marry or not marry anyone they want.

I'm not. Its unnecessarily complicated. I see no point in dismantling all state recognized marriage, invalidating every marriage certificate and converting them all to 'civil unions' just to keep the gays out of marriage.

I didn't say I'd support or work towards it, I just said I'd be fine if someone else wants to go through the hassle.

Think of all the temporary jobs just from document and law changes. More than the Keystone pipeline would produce.

 

[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.

Alabama has to be concerned that if they allow gays to marry, that they might have to allow men and women to marry, and blacks and whites to marry, and Catholics and Jews to marry.....

Who knows where that could lead.

It should lead where the people of Alabama want it to lead, not to where the people of San Francisco want it to lead. or where Progressives and Liberal Justices want it to lead. Got it?

How has this sort of thing worked for AL in the past? You know, back when "Northern Liberals" imposed their will on southern conservatives? Where did that lead?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Alabama has to be concerned that if they allow gays to marry, that they might have to allow men and women to marry, and blacks and whites to marry, and Catholics and Jews to marry.....

Who knows where that could lead.

It should lead where the people of Alabama want it to lead, not to where the people of San Francisco want it to lead. or where Progressives and Liberal Justices want it to lead. Got it?

Ignorant nonsense.

Residents of Alabama are diverse and varied, including gay Americans entitled to equal protection of the law in accordance with the 14th Amendment.

And the Americans who live in Alabama are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of Alabama subordinate to that, where citizens residing in the states do not forfeit their civil rights merely as a consequence of their state of residence, as one's civil rights are not subject to 'majority rule.'

The state of Alabama is subject to the Constitution and its case law, to the rulings of Federal courts, rulings that are binding on the state and its local jurisdictions, including 14th Amendment jurisprudence mandating the states to afford those citizens residing in the states due process and equal protection of the law, including same-sex couples access to marriage law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

I'm completely OK with civil unions for gays entitling them to all the rights and responsibilities of married heterosexuals. Just don't call it marriage and we'll all be cool with it.

Of course you are, a consequence of your ignorance and hate.

What you're advocating is 'separate but equal,' and it's just as repugnant to the Constitution as seeking to deny gay Americans access to marriage laws they're currently eligible to participate in.

This 'civil unions' nonsense is devoid of a rational basis, pursues no proper legislative end, and seeks only to make gay Americans different from everyone else, which the Constitution prohibits the states from doing.

Fortunately what you're 'cool with' is irrelevant.

 

[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.

I don't think 'logic' means what you think it means. Its not logical to ignore the existence of the 14th amendment. Its not 'logic' to assume that no legal definition ever changes, under any circumstance. Its not 'logic' to assume that simply stating your personal opinion establishes an irrefutable fact.

Yet you do all of these things. Back in reality, the 14th amendment does exist. And it extends the bill of rights to the States, allowing the federal government to overturn State laws that violate rights.

Back in reality, legal definitions change all the time. And can change with a simple legislative act or court decision.

Back in reality, you simply stating your opinion establishes nothing but your opinion. And you can't back your claim with logic or reason.

So what else have you got?

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.

Gays and lesbians marrying isn't an attack on Christianity. So the entire premise of your thesis is emotional nonsense.

Well let's see how your 14th amendment applies.... "Homosexual". Is not a race, it is not a sex as in man or woman. In Alabama, a man cannot marry a man, and a woman cannot marry a woman. Now, your 14th would actually apply if a man could marry a man, yet a woman could not marry a woman, then you would have a law that allowed one sex a "PRIVILEGE " (NOT a RIGHT)
while another sex was being denied the same privilege.
A marriage contract is between a man and a woman.
Now, you exhibit scorn between separate but equal concerning a marriage contract and a civil union contract, yet all is separate but equal when it comes to sex. Women and men use separate but equal toilet facilities, yet I hear no complaint about that separate but equal. Men are allowed to wander in public without a shirt or bra, yet women do not share this same privilege by law, yet I see no complaint from the three of you emotional but illogical geniuses. Not one of you have answered my previous question because you cannot. I am pleased to see such division in your U.S. Grow with these issues, it is my hope to see another implosion, thus will benefit our cause of seeing an end to the occupation.

 

[SwimExpert]

No kidding. Fed judges aka tyrants in robes really should stop trying to dictate their opinions to the states.

Yeah, yeah! Stand up for the constitution! The constitution says that federal law is supreme to state law. The federal judges should stop telling states how the federal constitution works in order to.....

Wait, no....turns out you're a fucking idiot.

The Constitution is very specific on what matters it can enact laws. Any federal law on any subject not enumerated it COTUS is invalid. As long as gays have the right to enter into a binding civil union (a contract witch is enumerated in COTUS) there is no equal protection argument.
SCOTUS doesn't have the right to redefine words.

That was an embarrassing mess of cross contaminated multifaceted ignorance.