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

[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.

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?

I like that, pointing out that North and South are a different people, and that the North always feels the need to impose their will on others by force. It is your belief , as is always displayed by the North, that because the South held slaves for a time longer than the North that you somehow hold a moral superiority, yet the liberal North had no problem with its governments extermination of the Native American Indian during and long after it's rebellion to their CONstitution. Jim Crow existed in the North as well, and actually began in the North. Boston fought against desegregation long after Alabama was already desegregated. Yes we are a different people, and will never truly be united. Time is on our side.

 

[James Everett]

I

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.

Interestingly only someone who is prone to accepting fiction such as "gay marriage" would refer to a "Federal government" as if such actually exist today. What is truly amusing is that you cannot even describe the two systems that were cobbled together by YOUR own CONstitution to form your central government, and you wield that 14th as if you actually understand it as well.

 

[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.

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?

Interestingly, the hypocrisy of the "liberal North" has not changed much; while supposedly fighting to free the slaves, they at the same time were exterminating the Native American Indian. Today they claim to be fighting for " marriage equality for the gays" while denying that same equality to the polygamist and the incestuous.

 

[timslash]

If same-sex marriages will be legalized in all states... It will be largest fail ever! By legalizing drugs and perversions we're going to nether of liberalism and soon there will be no democracy... There will be anarchy!

 

[Seawytch]

If same-sex marriages will be legalized in all states... It will be largest fail ever! By legalizing drugs and perversions we're going to nether of liberalism and soon there will be no democracy... There will be anarchy!

You mean WHEN. They are already legal in 37 out of 50 states. The SCOTUS is taking care of the rest here shortly.

 

[danielpalos]

Why is the moral turpitude of bearing false witness to our own laws, not grounds for a lack of Standing for Any of the several citizens in any of the several States; especially with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge of allegiance to our Republic.

If a god cannot trust them, why should we in Any office of public Trust.

 

[James Everett]

If same-sex marriages will be legalized in all states... It will be largest fail ever! By legalizing drugs and perversions we're going to nether of liberalism and soon there will be no democracy... There will be anarchy!

You mean WHEN. They are already legal in 37 out of 50 states. The SCOTUS is taking care of the rest here shortly.

I think it's time that we take a look at a State with the least restrictive gun laws and take a fight to New York and force that State under the 14th and 2nd amendments to allow its citizens there to exercise their right to bear arms equally with that of, oh let's say Montana. Then in New. York city it's citizens may bear arms just as do those in the rural areas of Montana so that the laws will be equal. YOUR SCOTUS should be all about forcing New York apply it's rights equal to Montana.

 

[Seawytch]

If same-sex marriages will be legalized in all states... It will be largest fail ever! By legalizing drugs and perversions we're going to nether of liberalism and soon there will be no democracy... There will be anarchy!

You mean WHEN. They are already legal in 37 out of 50 states. The SCOTUS is taking care of the rest here shortly.

I think it's time that we take a look at a State with the least restrictive gun laws and take a fight to New York and force that State under the 14th and 2nd amendments to allow its citizens there to exercise their right to bear arms equally with that of, oh let's say Montana. Then in New. York city it's citizens may bear arms just as do those in the rural areas of Montana so that the laws will be equal. YOUR SCOTUS should be all about forcing New York apply it's rights equal to Montana.

Every citizen has the right to challenge laws they feel are unjust. You sound bitter because gays won their fight.

 

[danielpalos]

If same-sex marriages will be legalized in all states... It will be largest fail ever! By legalizing drugs and perversions we're going to nether of liberalism and soon there will be no democracy... There will be anarchy!

You mean WHEN. They are already legal in 37 out of 50 states. The SCOTUS is taking care of the rest here shortly.

I think it's time that we take a look at a State with the least restrictive gun laws and take a fight to New York and force that State under the 14th and 2nd amendments to allow its citizens there to exercise their right to bear arms equally with that of, oh let's say Montana. Then in New. York city it's citizens may bear arms just as do those in the rural areas of Montana so that the laws will be equal. YOUR SCOTUS should be all about forcing New York apply it's rights equal to Montana.

Every citizen has the right to challenge laws they feel are unjust. You sound bitter because gays won their fight.

The right doesn't really seem to have a clue or a Cause regarding morals.

 

[bodecea]

If same-sex marriages will be legalized in all states... It will be largest fail ever! By legalizing drugs and perversions we're going to nether of liberalism and soon there will be no democracy... There will be anarchy!

You mean WHEN. They are already legal in 37 out of 50 states. The SCOTUS is taking care of the rest here shortly.

I think it's time that we take a look at a State with the least restrictive gun laws and take a fight to New York and force that State under the 14th and 2nd amendments to allow its citizens there to exercise their right to bear arms equally with that of, oh let's say Montana. Then in New. York city it's citizens may bear arms just as do those in the rural areas of Montana so that the laws will be equal. YOUR SCOTUS should be all about forcing New York apply it's rights equal to Montana.

I would not have a problem with that...it should be done...why hasn't it been done yet? Are people like you in support of the 2nd amendment sitting on your hands?

 

[James Everett]

If same-sex marriages will be legalized in all states... It will be largest fail ever! By legalizing drugs and perversions we're going to nether of liberalism and soon there will be no democracy... There will be anarchy!

You mean WHEN. They are already legal in 37 out of 50 states. The SCOTUS is taking care of the rest here shortly.

I think it's time that we take a look at a State with the least restrictive gun laws and take a fight to New York and force that State under the 14th and 2nd amendments to allow its citizens there to exercise their right to bear arms equally with that of, oh let's say Montana. Then in New. York city it's citizens may bear arms just as do those in the rural areas of Montana so that the laws will be equal. YOUR SCOTUS should be all about forcing New York apply it's rights equal to Montana.

Every citizen has the right to challenge laws they feel are unjust. You sound bitter because gays won their fight.

Oh no, I'm not bitter, it's just an opportunity to point out that another fiction is being established on top of a pile of fiction, such as the continual reference to a "federal court" as if a federal system still exists. The greater the divide grows and the more the North exposes the fact that our Southern Confederate States exist under the occupation by forcing their fiction and immorality on our people the more the fiction / the Machiavellian illusion becomes exposed.

 

[Seawytch]

If same-sex marriages will be legalized in all states... It will be largest fail ever! By legalizing drugs and perversions we're going to nether of liberalism and soon there will be no democracy... There will be anarchy!

You mean WHEN. They are already legal in 37 out of 50 states. The SCOTUS is taking care of the rest here shortly.

I think it's time that we take a look at a State with the least restrictive gun laws and take a fight to New York and force that State under the 14th and 2nd amendments to allow its citizens there to exercise their right to bear arms equally with that of, oh let's say Montana. Then in New. York city it's citizens may bear arms just as do those in the rural areas of Montana so that the laws will be equal. YOUR SCOTUS should be all about forcing New York apply it's rights equal to Montana.

Every citizen has the right to challenge laws they feel are unjust. You sound bitter because gays won their fight.

Oh no, I'm not bitter, it's just an opportunity to point out that another fiction is being established on top of a pile of fiction, such as the continual reference to a "federal court" as if a federal system still exists. The greater the divide grows and the more the North exposes the fact that our Southern Confederate States exist under the occupation by forcing their fiction and immorality on our people the more the fiction / the Machiavellian illusion becomes exposed.

Oh for pity sake...

 

[danielpalos]

If same-sex marriages will be legalized in all states... It will be largest fail ever! By legalizing drugs and perversions we're going to nether of liberalism and soon there will be no democracy... There will be anarchy!

You mean WHEN. They are already legal in 37 out of 50 states. The SCOTUS is taking care of the rest here shortly.

I think it's time that we take a look at a State with the least restrictive gun laws and take a fight to New York and force that State under the 14th and 2nd amendments to allow its citizens there to exercise their right to bear arms equally with that of, oh let's say Montana. Then in New. York city it's citizens may bear arms just as do those in the rural areas of Montana so that the laws will be equal. YOUR SCOTUS should be all about forcing New York apply it's rights equal to Montana.

I would not have a problem with that...it should be done...why hasn't it been done yet? Are people like you in support of the 2nd amendment sitting on your hands?

no, i am willing to be harassed by cute militia chics who insist i have to start coming over and become more well regulated

 

[James Everett]

If same-sex marriages will be legalized in all states... It will be largest fail ever! By legalizing drugs and perversions we're going to nether of liberalism and soon there will be no democracy... There will be anarchy!

You mean WHEN. They are already legal in 37 out of 50 states. The SCOTUS is taking care of the rest here shortly.

I think it's time that we take a look at a State with the least restrictive gun laws and take a fight to New York and force that State under the 14th and 2nd amendments to allow its citizens there to exercise their right to bear arms equally with that of, oh let's say Montana. Then in New. York city it's citizens may bear arms just as do those in the rural areas of Montana so that the laws will be equal. YOUR SCOTUS should be all about forcing New York apply it's rights equal to Montana.

I would not have a problem with that...it should be done...why hasn't it been done yet? Are people like you in support of the 2nd amendment sitting on your hands?

Because we do not waste energy and resources on every little battle using your Kangaroo court system. Our agenda is much larger and wins all, which is an end to the occupation. In that battle we win all by nullifying all of the laws and debt that YOUR govt has forced upon us over the past 150 years of occupation. You go your way, as a third world debtor nation, while we go ours debt free, using our own gulf oil and resources,and as a people allowed to exercise real liberty,not some fictional version of it.

 

[Silhouette]

Because we do not waste energy and resources on every little battle using your Kangaroo court system. Our agenda is much larger and wins all, which is an end to the occupation. In that battle we win all by nullifying all of the laws and debt that YOUR govt has forced upon us over the past 150 years of occupation. You go your way, as a third world debtor nation, while we go ours debt free, using our own gulf oil and resources,and as a people allowed to exercise real liberty,not some fictional version of it.

Talk about dividing the Union while our enemies press inward with ferocity? Really? I think this strawman is best left up to another thread. James, have you ever heard of the old military adage, "divide and conquer"?

I get that the moral states have a right to refuse to abide by any law but Windsor. And in that Alabama is doing exactly the right thing. But talk of dividing the Union? Are you posting from Moscow by any chance?

 

[Skylar]

Well let's see how your 14th amendment applies....

Our 14th applies where ever someone's rights are involved. Being gay doesn't mean that the 14th amendment applies to you any less than if you were black, or white, or a woman, or a Jew. If you're an American, you have rights. And they are protected from State violation.

"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.

Show me where in our 14th amendment it states that it only apples on issues of race. There is no such passage. It applies to the privileges and immunities of US citizens. And requires that states apply the law equally. If a state law violates rights or is applied unequally, it violates our 14th amendment. And the federal courts can intercede to prevent it.

And marriage is a right. As Loving v. Virignia demonstrates elegantly, the restrictions in the laws themselves must be constitutional. In Virginia, the law prohibited interracial marriage. This applied to both blacks and whites, and per its advocates was thus 'equal'. But the restriction itself was unconstitutional. And thus overturned by the courts.

Similarly, the ban on same sex marriage itself must be constitutional. Its not enough to apply unconstitutional restrictions 'equally' as was done with interracial marriage bans. And same sex marriage bans fail just as thoroughly as interracial marriage bans. Says who? Says the 44 of 46 federal rulings on the matter. With the USSC likely to affirm the same in June.

A marriage contract is between a man and a woman.

Says you. In 37 of 50 States, it also includes a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Your argument is based on the absurd and provably false proposition that legal definitions can NEVER change. And that's nonsense. Legal definitions can change easily with a simple legislative act or a single court ruling.

You can ignore this. But you can't make the law or the courts ignore this.

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.

But they're not equal. Not in practice, with many states prioritizing marriage over civil unions. Or in recognition, where many states don't even recognize civil unions. Or in benefits, where many federal benefits don't follow civil unions.

So why would gays settle for a civil union that is clearly inferior, when they have a right to marriage, which is clearly superior? Its a no-brainer.

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.

And I have you on record rooting against our nation and hoping for its collapse. Its amazing how much of your rhetoric sounds like something from the Soviet Era Politburo. Anything you'd like to tell us, Comrade.

 

[Skylar]

Talk about dividing the Union while our enemies press inward with ferocity? Really? I think this strawman is best left up to another thread. James, have you ever heard of the old military adage, "divide and conquer"?

I get that the moral states have a right to refuse to abide by any law but Windsor. And in that Alabama is doing exactly the right thing. But talk of dividing the Union? Are you posting from Moscow by any chance?

The 'moral states'. Who are the 'moral states'? Give us an example of a 'moral state'.

And Alabama is clearly going to lose. Just as it did when a federal court order required that they remove a monument to the 10 commandments erected at their judiciary. Then Judge Ray Moore was removed from the bench in 2003. And its quite likely he'll be removed from the bench again over this issue. As any federal ruling carries with it the authority of the federal judiciary.

And the federal judiciary has found that Alabama same sex marriage bans violate constitutional guarantees. And the Windsor decision clearly found that States were subject to those constitutional guarantees. You simply ignore constitutional guarantees and then laughably conclude that because you've pretended that constitutional guarantees don't exist that they no longer apply.

Alas, reality doesn't work that way.

As for 'dividing the country', don't you think its a little odd that Southern Secessionists bankrolled Moore's reelection to the Alabama Supreme Court? You're on the same side of this issue as the secessionists and those hoping our country implodes.

And you're apeing their rhetoric quite obediently. Remember the old adage about 'useful idiots'.

 

[Syriusly]

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..

The 14th Amendment does not mention race- or gender.

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.

And the courts have correctly interpreted that to mean that yes- even homosexual couples are protected by the 14th Amendment

From the Wisconsin decision:
It is well-established that “the Constitution protects persons, not groups,” Adarand
Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995), so regardless of possible future events
affecting the larger community, my task under federal law is to decide the claims presented
by the plaintiffs in this case now, applying the provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment as
interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Loving, Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.
Because my review of that law convinces me that plaintiffs are entitled to the same treatment
as any heterosexual couple, I conclude that the Wisconsin laws banning marriage between
same-sex couples are unconstitutional.

 

[Syriusly]

If same-sex marriages will be legalized in all states... It will be largest fail ever! By legalizing drugs and perversions we're going to nether of liberalism and soon there will be no democracy... There will be anarchy!

You mean WHEN. They are already legal in 37 out of 50 states. The SCOTUS is taking care of the rest here shortly.

I think it's time that we take a look at a State with the least restrictive gun laws and take a fight to New York and force that State under the 14th and 2nd amendments to allow its citizens there to exercise their right to bear arms equally with that of, oh let's say Montana. Then in New. York city it's citizens may bear arms just as do those in the rural areas of Montana so that the laws will be equal. YOUR SCOTUS should be all about forcing New York apply it's rights equal to Montana.

I would not have a problem with that...it should be done...why hasn't it been done yet? Are people like you in support of the 2nd amendment sitting on your hands?

. Our agenda is much larger and wins all, which is an end to the occupation. In that battle we win all by nullifying all of the laws and debt that YOUR govt has forced upon us over the past 150 years of occupation. .

'Our agenda'.....meaning- your agenda.

Not anyone else's - yours.

 

[Skylar]

If same-sex marriages will be legalized in all states... It will be largest fail ever! By legalizing drugs and perversions we're going to nether of liberalism and soon there will be no democracy... There will be anarchy!

You mean WHEN. They are already legal in 37 out of 50 states. The SCOTUS is taking care of the rest here shortly.

I think it's time that we take a look at a State with the least restrictive gun laws and take a fight to New York and force that State under the 14th and 2nd amendments to allow its citizens there to exercise their right to bear arms equally with that of, oh let's say Montana. Then in New. York city it's citizens may bear arms just as do those in the rural areas of Montana so that the laws will be equal. YOUR SCOTUS should be all about forcing New York apply it's rights equal to Montana.

Every citizen has the right to challenge laws they feel are unjust. You sound bitter because gays won their fight.

Oh no, I'm not bitter, it's just an opportunity to point out that another fiction is being established on top of a pile of fiction, such as the continual reference to a "federal court" as if a federal system still exists. The greater the divide grows and the more the North exposes the fact that our Southern Confederate States exist under the occupation by forcing their fiction and immorality on our people the more the fiction / the Machiavellian illusion becomes exposed.

Yeah, but we're not buying your 'natural citizen' v. 'corporate citizen' bullshit. Nor can you back it up. Your 'capital letter' fantasy is pseudo-legal gibberish that neither the courts not the law recognizes as valid.

Your entire argument is predicated in a silly conspiracy that is has nothing to do with our laws.