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

[Penrod]

More than likely...tyranny is now welcomed by the sheeple.
Any white whore that marries a negro is not worth my time nor worthy of carrying on the genes her ancestors passed down to her.

Yes- this is the person all of you folks are proud to line up with in the name of 'states rights'

Oh STFU!

Enjoy hanging out with the racist asshole who is the face of Alabama opposition to gay marriage. You picked his side.

He's from Georgia, idiot. I'm in Alabama.
Marriage is a State matter. Nowhere in the US Constitution is there any mention of it, nor power over it granted. SO that right falls to the states or the people.
Interracial marriage..... Obviously, I'm in favor of it or I wouldn't have married my ex, but I think we can at least agree that a black male and a white male are men and a black female and a white female are both women. With me so far? SO an interracial marriage between a white male and a black female follows the historic definition of marriage.

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

Once again-
Alabama state marriage law until 2000 said it was illegal for a mixed race couple to marry. The only reason why it would have been legal for you to marry your wife between 1967 and 2000 is because a federal judge said in 1967 that State laws that prohibit mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.

Alabama state marriage law currently says it is illegal for a same gender couple to marry.
A federal judge has said that Alabama's state marriage law is unconstitutional.

Are federal judges 'black robed tyrants' when they overturn State marriage laws- or upholding the Constitution?

It either applies in both cases- or in neither case.

You cannot choose your race. You can however choose to be gay or to choose to marry a person of the same sex for other reasons

Mixed marriages followed the law that marriage is between a man and a woman and the only reason they were being denied was racial discrimination. Not that they did not fit the definition of marriage.

 

[Plasmaball]

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?

then you are wrong

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Gun laws I can see. Via the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms is a federal guaranteed right. Marriage is not. 14th be damned.
What ever.... We will see SCOTUS weigh in eventually, or simply say they have no standing Marriage law should and shall be left to the states.

 

[Skylar]

Yes- this is the person all of you folks are proud to line up with in the name of 'states rights'

Oh STFU!

Enjoy hanging out with the racist asshole who is the face of Alabama opposition to gay marriage. You picked his side.

He's from Georgia, idiot. I'm in Alabama.
Marriage is a State matter. Nowhere in the US Constitution is there any mention of it, nor power over it granted. SO that right falls to the states or the people.
Interracial marriage..... Obviously, I'm in favor of it or I wouldn't have married my ex, but I think we can at least agree that a black male and a white male are men and a black female and a white female are both women. With me so far? SO an interracial marriage between a white male and a black female follows the historic definition of marriage.

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

Once again-
Alabama state marriage law until 2000 said it was illegal for a mixed race couple to marry. The only reason why it would have been legal for you to marry your wife between 1967 and 2000 is because a federal judge said in 1967 that State laws that prohibit mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.

Alabama state marriage law currently says it is illegal for a same gender couple to marry.
A federal judge has said that Alabama's state marriage law is unconstitutional.

Are federal judges 'black robed tyrants' when they overturn State marriage laws- or upholding the Constitution?

It either applies in both cases- or in neither case.

You cannot choose your race. You can however choose to be gay or to choose to marry a person of the same sex for other reasons

You can choose your religion. Does that mean that religious discrimination is perfectly legit? Can we now refuse to serve Christians?

Speech is a choice. Assembly is a choice. Are they no longer protected?

Keeping and bearing arms is a choice. Is it too no longer protected?

Your entire argument is moot nonsense. And of course, legally refuted by the Romer v. Evans which recognizes that the rights of gays and lesbians exist and are protected under the 14th amendment.

Almost 20 years ago.

 

[Ernie S.]

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?

then you are wrong

You are Plasmaball. By definition you are wrong. Dismissed.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Why don't we put it to a national referendum?
Because the United States doesn't have national referendums- not provided for in the Constitution.

Remember- your own state did not legalize mixed race marriage until 2000. As a nation, a majority of Americans did not approve of mixed race marriage until about 1996- almost 20 years after the Supreme Court forced states to allow mixed race marriages.

Would you have wanted a national referendum on mixed race marriages?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Oh STFU!

Enjoy hanging out with the racist asshole who is the face of Alabama opposition to gay marriage. You picked his side.

He's from Georgia, idiot. I'm in Alabama.
Marriage is a State matter. Nowhere in the US Constitution is there any mention of it, nor power over it granted. SO that right falls to the states or the people.
Interracial marriage..... Obviously, I'm in favor of it or I wouldn't have married my ex, but I think we can at least agree that a black male and a white male are men and a black female and a white female are both women. With me so far? SO an interracial marriage between a white male and a black female follows the historic definition of marriage.

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

Once again-
Alabama state marriage law until 2000 said it was illegal for a mixed race couple to marry. The only reason why it would have been legal for you to marry your wife between 1967 and 2000 is because a federal judge said in 1967 that State laws that prohibit mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.

Alabama state marriage law currently says it is illegal for a same gender couple to marry.
A federal judge has said that Alabama's state marriage law is unconstitutional.

Are federal judges 'black robed tyrants' when they overturn State marriage laws- or upholding the Constitution?

It either applies in both cases- or in neither case.

You cannot choose your race. You can however choose to be gay or to choose to marry a person of the same sex for other reasons

You can choose your religion. Does that mean that religious discrimination is perfectly legit? Can we now refuse to serve Christians?

Speech is a choice. Assembly is a choice. Are they no longer protected?

Keeping and bearing arms is a choice. Is it too no longer protected?

Your entire argument is moot nonsense. And of course, legally refuted by the Romer v. Evans which recognizes that the rights of gays and lesbians exist and are protected under the 14th amendment.

Almost 20 years ago.

you should be able to

 

[Skylar]

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.

Gun laws I can see. Via the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms is a federal guaranteed right. Marriage is not. 14th be damned.

The 2nd amendment never mentions the 'right to self defense with a fire arm'. That was articulated by judges. Not the founders or the constitution.

And more power to them. As the 9th amendment makes ridiculously clear, there are reserve rights that aren't enumerated. Destroying your 'but its not in the constitution' nonsense. And judicially articulated rights are as valid and protectable as those explicitly listed in the constitution.

Marriage is one such right, recognized by the USSC repeatedly. You can pretend it isn't. But you can't make the USSC pretend with you.

What ever.... We will see SCOTUS weigh in eventually, or simply say they have no standing Marriage law should and shall be left to the states.

The USSC has already made its position on marriage laws created by the state quite clear in the Windsor v. US ruling in 2013:

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.

The States can create any marriage laws they wish....as long as they don't violate constitutional guarantees.

If the state marriage laws do violate constitutional guarantees, they will need to have a very good reason, a compelling state interest, and a valid legislative end. None of which exists for gay marriage bans.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes- this is the person all of you folks are proud to line up with in the name of 'states rights'

Oh STFU!

Enjoy hanging out with the racist asshole who is the face of Alabama opposition to gay marriage. You picked his side.

He's from Georgia, idiot. I'm in Alabama.
Marriage is a State matter. Nowhere in the US Constitution is there any mention of it, nor power over it granted. SO that right falls to the states or the people.
Interracial marriage..... Obviously, I'm in favor of it or I wouldn't have married my ex, but I think we can at least agree that a black male and a white male are men and a black female and a white female are both women. With me so far? SO an interracial marriage between a white male and a black female follows the historic definition of marriage.

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

Once again-
Alabama state marriage law until 2000 said it was illegal for a mixed race couple to marry. The only reason why it would have been legal for you to marry your wife between 1967 and 2000 is because a federal judge said in 1967 that State laws that prohibit mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.

Alabama state marriage law currently says it is illegal for a same gender couple to marry.
A federal judge has said that Alabama's state marriage law is unconstitutional.

Are federal judges 'black robed tyrants' when they overturn State marriage laws- or upholding the Constitution?

It either applies in both cases- or in neither case.

You cannot choose your race. You can however choose to be gay or to choose to marry a person of the same sex for other reasons

Mixed marriages followed the law that marriage is between a man and a woman and the only reason they were being denied was racial discrimination. Not that they did not fit the definition of marriage.

They did not fit the definition of marriage at that time in those states.

But you are dodging the issue- and I see this all the time by those who are so quick to call judges 'black robed tyrants' when they disagree with their rulings.

The judges who ruled against mixed race marriage bans were federal judges who decided a state law was unconstitutional, contrary to popular opinion.

Just like the judges who ruled against same gender marriage bans.

Anyone who is not a total hypocrite would not claim that the Federal Judges who ruled against bans on same gender marriage are 'black robed tyrants' aka fascists aka 'activist judges' unless they also claimed that the judges who ruled against the ban on mixed race marriages were also 'black robed tyrants'.

What position do you take?

 

[g5000]

You cannot choose your race. You can however choose to be gay

Tell us about the day you chose not to be gay.

 

[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.

Gun laws I can see. Via the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms is a federal guaranteed right. Marriage is not. 14th be damned.
What ever.... We will see SCOTUS weigh in eventually, or simply say they have no standing Marriage law should and shall be left to the states.

Again- you miss the point.

Either a federal judge has the Constitutional authority to decide whether a state law is Constitutional- or a federal judge does not have the Constitutional authority to decide whether a state law is Constitutional.

Which is it?

 

[Skylar]

Enjoy hanging out with the racist asshole who is the face of Alabama opposition to gay marriage. You picked his side.

He's from Georgia, idiot. I'm in Alabama.
Marriage is a State matter. Nowhere in the US Constitution is there any mention of it, nor power over it granted. SO that right falls to the states or the people.
Interracial marriage..... Obviously, I'm in favor of it or I wouldn't have married my ex, but I think we can at least agree that a black male and a white male are men and a black female and a white female are both women. With me so far? SO an interracial marriage between a white male and a black female follows the historic definition of marriage.

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

Once again-
Alabama state marriage law until 2000 said it was illegal for a mixed race couple to marry. The only reason why it would have been legal for you to marry your wife between 1967 and 2000 is because a federal judge said in 1967 that State laws that prohibit mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.

Alabama state marriage law currently says it is illegal for a same gender couple to marry.
A federal judge has said that Alabama's state marriage law is unconstitutional.

Are federal judges 'black robed tyrants' when they overturn State marriage laws- or upholding the Constitution?

It either applies in both cases- or in neither case.

You cannot choose your race. You can however choose to be gay or to choose to marry a person of the same sex for other reasons

You can choose your religion. Does that mean that religious discrimination is perfectly legit? Can we now refuse to serve Christians?

Speech is a choice. Assembly is a choice. Are they no longer protected?

Keeping and bearing arms is a choice. Is it too no longer protected?

Your entire argument is moot nonsense. And of course, legally refuted by the Romer v. Evans which recognizes that the rights of gays and lesbians exist and are protected under the 14th amendment.

Almost 20 years ago.

you should be able to

I disagree. I don't think discrimination based on religion, creed, gender, sexual orientation, race, etc should be allowed in business or in the law. In your personal life, discriminate away.

 

[g5000]

race is not equal to sexual lifestyles..

The faulty rationale and the rhetoric used against both is identical. "Repugnant" (your word) is not a rational basis for a ban against either.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

He's from Georgia, idiot. I'm in Alabama.
Marriage is a State matter. Nowhere in the US Constitution is there any mention of it, nor power over it granted. SO that right falls to the states or the people.
Interracial marriage..... Obviously, I'm in favor of it or I wouldn't have married my ex, but I think we can at least agree that a black male and a white male are men and a black female and a white female are both women. With me so far? SO an interracial marriage between a white male and a black female follows the historic definition of marriage.

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

Once again-
Alabama state marriage law until 2000 said it was illegal for a mixed race couple to marry. The only reason why it would have been legal for you to marry your wife between 1967 and 2000 is because a federal judge said in 1967 that State laws that prohibit mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.

Alabama state marriage law currently says it is illegal for a same gender couple to marry.
A federal judge has said that Alabama's state marriage law is unconstitutional.

Are federal judges 'black robed tyrants' when they overturn State marriage laws- or upholding the Constitution?

It either applies in both cases- or in neither case.

You cannot choose your race. You can however choose to be gay or to choose to marry a person of the same sex for other reasons

You can choose your religion. Does that mean that religious discrimination is perfectly legit? Can we now refuse to serve Christians?

Speech is a choice. Assembly is a choice. Are they no longer protected?

Keeping and bearing arms is a choice. Is it too no longer protected?

Your entire argument is moot nonsense. And of course, legally refuted by the Romer v. Evans which recognizes that the rights of gays and lesbians exist and are protected under the 14th amendment.

Almost 20 years ago.

you should be able to

I disagree. I don't think discrimination based on religion, creed, gender, sexual orientation, race, etc should be allowed in business or in the law. In your personal life, discriminate away.

my business is my PROPERTY and thus is my personal life.

 

[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.

Marriage law should and shall be left to the states.

If that was the case, mixed race marriage would have been illegal in Alabama until 2000

 

[candycorn]

It's the 60's all over again. You'd figure 'Bama would have learned by now but no. Enjoy your crow 'Bama....it doesn't taste better when we force-feed it to you.

 

[g5000]

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?

At this point in time, same sex marriages have nowhere near the equal protection of the laws that opposite sex marriages do.

And a same sex marriage will be called marriage. You can choose not to call it that, but you don't get to tell me what I can or cannot call it.

 

[Skylar]

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

Once again-
Alabama state marriage law until 2000 said it was illegal for a mixed race couple to marry. The only reason why it would have been legal for you to marry your wife between 1967 and 2000 is because a federal judge said in 1967 that State laws that prohibit mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.

Alabama state marriage law currently says it is illegal for a same gender couple to marry.
A federal judge has said that Alabama's state marriage law is unconstitutional.

Are federal judges 'black robed tyrants' when they overturn State marriage laws- or upholding the Constitution?

It either applies in both cases- or in neither case.

You cannot choose your race. You can however choose to be gay or to choose to marry a person of the same sex for other reasons

You can choose your religion. Does that mean that religious discrimination is perfectly legit? Can we now refuse to serve Christians?

Speech is a choice. Assembly is a choice. Are they no longer protected?

Keeping and bearing arms is a choice. Is it too no longer protected?

Your entire argument is moot nonsense. And of course, legally refuted by the Romer v. Evans which recognizes that the rights of gays and lesbians exist and are protected under the 14th amendment.

Almost 20 years ago.

you should be able to

I disagree. I don't think discrimination based on religion, creed, gender, sexual orientation, race, etc should be allowed in business or in the law. In your personal life, discriminate away.

my business is my PROPERTY and thus is my personal life.

Your business is commerce. And thus under the authority of the State to regulate.

 

[bodecea]

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.

So..heterosexuality isn't protected by the Constitution?

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Gun laws I can see. Via the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms is a federal guaranteed right. Marriage is not. 14th be damned.
What ever.... We will see SCOTUS weigh in eventually, or simply say they have no standing Marriage law should and shall be left to the states.

Again- you miss the point.

Either a federal judge has the Constitutional authority to decide whether a state law is Constitutional- or a federal judge does not have the Constitutional authority to decide whether a state law is Constitutional.

Which is it?

Federal judges have standing to rule on matters where the federal government has power granted by the US Constitution. Gun laws and postal rates, yes. Marriage law and healthcare, no.

Now! Do you understand THAT, nitwit?