Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige

[Seawytch]

Marriage is not a States' right to decide. It really is that simple. The proof is, that any private Act may be commuted public, by simply recording it with the appropriate public sector.

There's nothing private about the fag militia agenda. They are all about pushing it in our faces.

Well, at least you've given up all pretense of this being about 'states rights'.

Not really. I think every state should decide for themselves and have said nothing to the contrary.

I think 'fag militia agenda' gives us a pretty clear window into what's motivating you. As I've said, the reason that your ilk do so poorly in court is they can't argue what is actually behind their position. Instead, they have to come up with half assed second tier arguments that fail with an almost perfect regularity.

Indeed. Discrimination based on animus has no defense.

 

[Silhouette]

Indeed. Discrimination based on animus has no defense.

Except that it isn't animus but instead concern for state's sovereignty in their interest in incentivizing the best formative environment for its wards (children's wellbeing). Children thrive best with a mother and a father. Many situations arise where children are not raised in that best environment, like single parenthood, polygamy and kids even in rare cases being raised by wolves. But that doesn't mean a state must be forced to use children as guinea pigs by incentivizing these lesser scenarios "as married".

That sentiment has absolutely nothing to do with animus. I'm sure that 99% of the population could give a crap one way or the other what the cult of LGBTers are up to. It's when they want to role-play "mom and dad" to kids in marriage (kids are the most important people in marriage and cannot vote to affect their surroundings) that people have a problem with it.

People caring about kids having a mom and dad in their everyday lives is not equal to animus. LGBT false premise #392, exposed...

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Whatever you say, faggot.

Oh, it's high theater again starring St. Mike as the "gay basher stand in"! Just in time to ramp sympathy for the big hearing coming up!



Syriusly, you and St. Mike's gig is up. You've already been exposed. Did you think you could try to sneak off and pull this on someone else's thread?

Silo.....do any of us need to be here for your conversation with yourself?

Uncanny how that rings true.

 

[kaz]

It should be a state issue mandated by public voting

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

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling
BY JONATHAN KAMINSKY

Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:54pm EST


n">(Reuters) - In a move viewed skeptically by legal experts, the socially conservative chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court on Tuesday encouraged judges in his state to ignore a federal ruling last week striking down its ban on gay marriage.

Justice Roy Moore, in a letter addressed to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, said Friday's federal ruling, which was put on hold for two weeks and could be superseded by a U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage due by the end of June, violates the state constitution.

"I am dismayed by those judges in our state who have stated they will recognize and unilaterally enforce a federal court decision which does not bind them," Moore wrote. "I would advise them that the issuance of such licenses would be in defiance of the laws and constitution of Alabama."

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling Reuters

Because that worked so well for them on both interracial marriage and segregation.

Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay doesn't. Fail.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Marriage is not a States' right to decide. It really is that simple. The proof is, that any private Act may be commuted public, by simply recording it with the appropriate public sector.

There's nothing private about the fag militia agenda. They are all about pushing it in our faces.

Well, at least you've given up all pretense of this being about 'states rights'.

Not really. I think every state should decide for themselves and have said nothing to the contrary.

If the rest of the unconstitutional DOMA were struck down, that'd be fine by me. If a state does not wish to perform a same sex marriage, fine...but a same sex marriage license issued by another state must be recognized in all 50 states.

DOMA was unconstitutional, and a showcase for family values groups asserting their agenda over the U.S. Constitution just like any Leftist group. It's a badge of shame on my side.

 

[kaz]

Marriage is not a States' right to decide. It really is that simple. The proof is, that any private Act may be commuted public, by simply recording it with the appropriate public sector.

There's nothing private about the fag militia agenda. They are all about pushing it in our faces.

Well, at least you've given up all pretense of this being about 'states rights'.

Not really. I think every state should decide for themselves and have said nothing to the contrary.

If the rest of the unconstitutional DOMA were struck down, that'd be fine by me. If a state does not wish to perform a same sex marriage, fine...but a same sex marriage license issued by another state must be recognized in all 50 states.

DOMA was unconstitutional, and a showcase for family values groups asserting their agenda over the U.S. Constitution just like any Leftist group. It's a badge of shame on my side.

It was clearly Constitutional by the full faith and credit clause. Being "Unconstitutional" is not an emotional argument, it is a legal one. You are perfectly free to be embarrassed by it. But it was clearly Constitutional.

 

[danielpalos]

Marriage is not a States' right to decide. It really is that simple. The proof is, that any private Act may be commuted public, by simply recording it with the appropriate public sector.

There's nothing private about the fag militia agenda. They are all about pushing it in our faces.

Not sure what you are referring to; Cuba is over there --->. Y'all can go practice your brand of Communism over there, just like the right had to.

This is part of our supreme law of the land:

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

What part of that law do you have a problem being Faithful to?

 

[danielpalos]

Marriage is not a States' right to decide. It really is that simple. The proof is, that any private Act may be commuted public, by simply recording it with the appropriate public sector.

There's nothing private about the fag militia agenda. They are all about pushing it in our faces.

Well, at least you've given up all pretense of this being about 'states rights'.

The privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States is no longer a State's right, upon appeal to the body of laws of the general government.

 

[Silhouette]

The privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States is no longer a State's right, upon appeal to the body of laws of the general government.

You're forgetting the most important demographic in marriage, which I just pointed out somewhere else:

Then in walked the rights of children to marriage....

And that changed the whole ball game. It's like you're discussing a contract with five parties and only hearing arguments from two of them; while the other three have the most vested interest in the contract of all five.

Children thrive best with a role model of their same gender in the home. There is no arguing this and further, the Prince's Trust study proves this. In this next Hearing, the Supreme Court will be forced to look at the welfare not just of some kids caught up in a lacking situation by the adults or adult in their lives, but also the 100s of millions of kids yet to be born in this lab experiment.

Since "parenting" kids with no role model of their gender present half the time is highly experimental (and statistically doomed to failure of the children's best interest and esteem), an absolute rock-bottom MUST is allowing the discreet communities this radical change will affect into time unforeseeable, the RIGHT to vote on whether or not this base structural change to marriage should or should not be allowed.

Anything less is a macabre tyranny, a forced perversion into the heart of American society without its expressed consent. And that violates the core structure of our country, on top of marriage.. Violating the core of things seems to be an ongoing theme with the aggressive group lobbying for these collosal changes without the permission of the governed for them.

 

[danielpalos]

Freedom of association is also a natural right; how many actually got married?

 

[The Rabbi]

Marriage is not a States' right to decide. It really is that simple. The proof is, that any private Act may be commuted public, by simply recording it with the appropriate public sector.

There's nothing private about the fag militia agenda. They are all about pushing it in our faces.

Well, at least you've given up all pretense of this being about 'states rights'.

Not really. I think every state should decide for themselves and have said nothing to the contrary.

If the rest of the unconstitutional DOMA were struck down, that'd be fine by me. If a state does not wish to perform a same sex marriage, fine...but a same sex marriage license issued by another state must be recognized in all 50 states.

Not at all.
Under racial segregation states that did not recognize mixed marriages continued not to. That in fact was the entire issue of Loving. But prior to Loving a couple could be married in DC and not married elsewhere

 

[danielpalos]

How would that have worked with a moral of "good will toward fellow men", if there had been more faithful execution of our own laws regarding the Social concept of equality before the law? Article 4, Section 2 is a valid basis for limited State government as well.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

There's nothing private about the fag militia agenda. They are all about pushing it in our faces.

Well, at least you've given up all pretense of this being about 'states rights'.

Not really. I think every state should decide for themselves and have said nothing to the contrary.

If the rest of the unconstitutional DOMA were struck down, that'd be fine by me. If a state does not wish to perform a same sex marriage, fine...but a same sex marriage license issued by another state must be recognized in all 50 states.

DOMA was unconstitutional, and a showcase for family values groups asserting their agenda over the U.S. Constitution just like any Leftist group. It's a badge of shame on my side.

It was clearly Constitutional by the full faith and credit clause. Being "Unconstitutional" is not an emotional argument, it is a legal one. You are perfectly free to be embarrassed by it. But it was clearly Constitutional.

Yes it is a legal argument, successfully so since the Supreme Court gutted it. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government power over marriage. Here I thought you were a libertarian, but now I'm beginning to think you're a Focus On The Family statist.

 

[danielpalos]

Well, at least you've given up all pretense of this being about 'states rights'.

Not really. I think every state should decide for themselves and have said nothing to the contrary.

If the rest of the unconstitutional DOMA were struck down, that'd be fine by me. If a state does not wish to perform a same sex marriage, fine...but a same sex marriage license issued by another state must be recognized in all 50 states.

DOMA was unconstitutional, and a showcase for family values groups asserting their agenda over the U.S. Constitution just like any Leftist group. It's a badge of shame on my side.

It was clearly Constitutional by the full faith and credit clause. Being "Unconstitutional" is not an emotional argument, it is a legal one. You are perfectly free to be embarrassed by it. But it was clearly Constitutional.

Yes it is a legal argument, successfully so since the Supreme Court gutted it. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government power over marriage. Here I thought you were a libertarian, but now I'm beginning to think you're a Focus On The Family statist.

Just the right trying to practice their form of Communism, again.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not really. I think every state should decide for themselves and have said nothing to the contrary.

If the rest of the unconstitutional DOMA were struck down, that'd be fine by me. If a state does not wish to perform a same sex marriage, fine...but a same sex marriage license issued by another state must be recognized in all 50 states.

DOMA was unconstitutional, and a showcase for family values groups asserting their agenda over the U.S. Constitution just like any Leftist group. It's a badge of shame on my side.

It was clearly Constitutional by the full faith and credit clause. Being "Unconstitutional" is not an emotional argument, it is a legal one. You are perfectly free to be embarrassed by it. But it was clearly Constitutional.

Yes it is a legal argument, successfully so since the Supreme Court gutted it. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government power over marriage. Here I thought you were a libertarian, but now I'm beginning to think you're a Focus On The Family statist.

Just the right trying to practice their form of Communism, again.

What form of communism is it to allow voters in states to set standards for their state?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Not really. I think every state should decide for themselves and have said nothing to the contrary.

If the rest of the unconstitutional DOMA were struck down, that'd be fine by me. If a state does not wish to perform a same sex marriage, fine...but a same sex marriage license issued by another state must be recognized in all 50 states.

DOMA was unconstitutional, and a showcase for family values groups asserting their agenda over the U.S. Constitution just like any Leftist group. It's a badge of shame on my side.

It was clearly Constitutional by the full faith and credit clause. Being "Unconstitutional" is not an emotional argument, it is a legal one. You are perfectly free to be embarrassed by it. But it was clearly Constitutional.

Yes it is a legal argument, successfully so since the Supreme Court gutted it. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government power over marriage. Here I thought you were a libertarian, but now I'm beginning to think you're a Focus On The Family statist.

Just the right trying to practice their form of Communism, again.

He isn't on the right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It should be a state issue mandated by public voting

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

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling
BY JONATHAN KAMINSKY

Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:54pm EST


n">(Reuters) - In a move viewed skeptically by legal experts, the socially conservative chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court on Tuesday encouraged judges in his state to ignore a federal ruling last week striking down its ban on gay marriage.

Justice Roy Moore, in a letter addressed to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, said Friday's federal ruling, which was put on hold for two weeks and could be superseded by a U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage due by the end of June, violates the state constitution.

"I am dismayed by those judges in our state who have stated they will recognize and unilaterally enforce a federal court decision which does not bind them," Moore wrote. "I would advise them that the issuance of such licenses would be in defiance of the laws and constitution of Alabama."

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling Reuters

Because that worked so well for them on both interracial marriage and segregation.

Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay doesn't. Fail.

lol too funny

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the rest of the unconstitutional DOMA were struck down, that'd be fine by me. If a state does not wish to perform a same sex marriage, fine...but a same sex marriage license issued by another state must be recognized in all 50 states.

DOMA was unconstitutional, and a showcase for family values groups asserting their agenda over the U.S. Constitution just like any Leftist group. It's a badge of shame on my side.

It was clearly Constitutional by the full faith and credit clause. Being "Unconstitutional" is not an emotional argument, it is a legal one. You are perfectly free to be embarrassed by it. But it was clearly Constitutional.

Yes it is a legal argument, successfully so since the Supreme Court gutted it. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government power over marriage. Here I thought you were a libertarian, but now I'm beginning to think you're a Focus On The Family statist.

Just the right trying to practice their form of Communism, again.

What form of communism is it to allow voters in states to set standards for their state?

It's your form. It's the breaking down of the federal government's power to protect rights so that isolated majorities in smaller units, aka the states,

can use the vote of that majority to deprive minorities of their rights.

 

[The Rabbi]

DOMA was unconstitutional, and a showcase for family values groups asserting their agenda over the U.S. Constitution just like any Leftist group. It's a badge of shame on my side.

It was clearly Constitutional by the full faith and credit clause. Being "Unconstitutional" is not an emotional argument, it is a legal one. You are perfectly free to be embarrassed by it. But it was clearly Constitutional.

Yes it is a legal argument, successfully so since the Supreme Court gutted it. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government power over marriage. Here I thought you were a libertarian, but now I'm beginning to think you're a Focus On The Family statist.

Just the right trying to practice their form of Communism, again.

What form of communism is it to allow voters in states to set standards for their state?

It's your form. It's the breaking down of the federal government's power to protect rights so that isolated majorities in smaller units, aka the states,

can use the vote of that majority to deprive minorities of their rights.

Sorry but who is being deprived of any right? No one.

 

[kaz]

Well, at least you've given up all pretense of this being about 'states rights'.

Not really. I think every state should decide for themselves and have said nothing to the contrary.

If the rest of the unconstitutional DOMA were struck down, that'd be fine by me. If a state does not wish to perform a same sex marriage, fine...but a same sex marriage license issued by another state must be recognized in all 50 states.

DOMA was unconstitutional, and a showcase for family values groups asserting their agenda over the U.S. Constitution just like any Leftist group. It's a badge of shame on my side.

It was clearly Constitutional by the full faith and credit clause. Being "Unconstitutional" is not an emotional argument, it is a legal one. You are perfectly free to be embarrassed by it. But it was clearly Constitutional.

Yes it is a legal argument, successfully so since the Supreme Court gutted it. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government power over marriage. Here I thought you were a libertarian, but now I'm beginning to think you're a Focus On The Family statist.

You mean the supreme court that made up the right to an abortion (Roe v. Wade), said government can confiscate land from one citizen and give it to another (New London), it does not need to be for public use, that said speech can be regulated going into an election (so called campaign finance), that citizens can be forced to enter into a contract with a corporation (Obamacare), that people are property (Dred Scott), you mean that supreme court? Well, it must be right then...