Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What form of communism is it to allow voters in states to set standards for their state?Just the right trying to practice their form of Communism, again.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.
Here I thought you were a libertarian, but now I'm beginning to think you're a Focus On The Family statist.
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...
Here I thought you were a libertarian, but now I'm beginning to think you're a Focus On The Family statist.
LOL, I'm against all government marriage, Sparky.
So your standard is that I should read the law so that the law says what my personal views are. That's classic ... liberal ....
I can read, I don't read my views into every statement.
What form of communism is it to allow voters in states to set standards for their state?
We were talking about DOMA, which actually inserts the federal government illegally into the issue of marriage just like the Morril Anti Bigamy Act of 1862. This is the problem, the federal government assuming for itself power the Constitution never grants it.
Here I thought you were a libertarian, but now I'm beginning to think you're a Focus On The Family statist.
LOL, I'm against all government marriage, Sparky.
So your standard is that I should read the law so that the law says what my personal views are. That's classic ... liberal ....
I can read, I don't read my views into every statement.
Right, you just defended a federal government power grab and you don't want government to control marriage. Maybe what you have is a medical condition that needs medication. Schizophrenia. That's the word.
Even our federal Congress has no authority to alter our supreme law of the land, without an amendment.What form of communism is it to allow voters in states to set standards for their state?
We were talking about DOMA, which actually inserts the federal government illegally into the issue of marriage just like the Morril Anti Bigamy Act of 1862. This is the problem, the federal government assuming for itself power the Constitution never grants it.
DOMA said States do not need to recognize gay marriages performed in other States. Read the full faith and credit clause.
Sorry but who is being deprived of any right? No one.What form of communism is it to allow voters in states to set standards for their state?Just the right trying to practice their form of Communism, again.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.
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.
What form of communism is it to allow voters in states to set standards for their state?
We were talking about DOMA, which actually inserts the federal government illegally into the issue of marriage just like the Morril Anti Bigamy Act of 1862. This is the problem, the federal government assuming for itself power the Constitution never grants it.
DOMA said States do not need to recognize gay marriages performed in other States. Read the full faith and credit clause.
Here I thought you were a libertarian, but now I'm beginning to think you're a Focus On The Family statist.
LOL, I'm against all government marriage, Sparky.
So your standard is that I should read the law so that the law says what my personal views are. That's classic ... liberal ....
I can read, I don't read my views into every statement.
Right, you just defended a federal government power grab and you don't want government to control marriage. Maybe what you have is a medical condition that needs medication. Schizophrenia. That's the word.
I didn't "defend" anything, I AM AGAINST GOVERNMENT MARRIAGE.
That doesn't mean I can't read. I find it far scarier to ignore the Constitution and get my way on a particular issue than to get my way on a particular issue and set yet another precedent that the Constitutions says whatever we want it to. It doesn't.
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...
The Supreme Court isn't always wrong, and they weren't wrong on DOMA. You can't make a constitutional case for that unconstitutional law because it doesn't exist. Maybe it's the same lapse in logic that causes you to think people in PVS are brain dead, when in fact you fit the definition much better.
Here I thought you were a libertarian, but now I'm beginning to think you're a Focus On The Family statist.
LOL, I'm against all government marriage, Sparky.
So your standard is that I should read the law so that the law says what my personal views are. That's classic ... liberal ....
I can read, I don't read my views into every statement.
Right, you just defended a federal government power grab and you don't want government to control marriage. Maybe what you have is a medical condition that needs medication. Schizophrenia. That's the word.
I didn't "defend" anything, I AM AGAINST GOVERNMENT MARRIAGE.
That doesn't mean I can't read. I find it far scarier to ignore the Constitution and get my way on a particular issue than to get my way on a particular issue and set yet another precedent that the Constitutions says whatever we want it to. It doesn't.
This is 'RW bigot posing as a Libertarian' argument. ...I don't want gays to have the right to marry because I don't believe in government marriage..
Well, government marriage is never going away. Period. The bigot gets to deny gays their rights while hiding behind some fantasy scenario.
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...
The Supreme Court isn't always wrong, and they weren't wrong on DOMA. You can't make a constitutional case for that unconstitutional law because it doesn't exist. Maybe it's the same lapse in logic that causes you to think people in PVS are brain dead, when in fact you fit the definition much better.
You haven't read DOMA and the full faith and credit clause, have you? Be honest.
BTW, I mentioned Roe v. Wade is a Constitutional abomination. Guess what, I'm pro-choice. Again, I don't read my views into that which isn't there. Should I rethink that? Should I see the right to an abortion since I agree with what Roe v. Wade said even though I disagree that it's in the Constitution? What do you think?
Even our federal Congress has no authority to alter our supreme law of the land, without an amendment.What form of communism is it to allow voters in states to set standards for their state?
We were talking about DOMA, which actually inserts the federal government illegally into the issue of marriage just like the Morril Anti Bigamy Act of 1862. This is the problem, the federal government assuming for itself power the Constitution never grants it.
DOMA said States do not need to recognize gay marriages performed in other States. Read the full faith and credit clause.
What form of communism is it to allow voters in states to set standards for their state?
We were talking about DOMA, which actually inserts the federal government illegally into the issue of marriage just like the Morril Anti Bigamy Act of 1862. This is the problem, the federal government assuming for itself power the Constitution never grants it.
DOMA said States do not need to recognize gay marriages performed in other States. Read the full faith and credit clause.
No, DOMA gave the federal government the power to decide who's married and who's not. Try again, James Dobson.
Here I thought you were a libertarian, but now I'm beginning to think you're a Focus On The Family statist.
LOL, I'm against all government marriage, Sparky.
So your standard is that I should read the law so that the law says what my personal views are. That's classic ... liberal ....
I can read, I don't read my views into every statement.
Right, you just defended a federal government power grab and you don't want government to control marriage. Maybe what you have is a medical condition that needs medication. Schizophrenia. That's the word.
I didn't "defend" anything, I AM AGAINST GOVERNMENT MARRIAGE.
That doesn't mean I can't read. I find it far scarier to ignore the Constitution and get my way on a particular issue than to get my way on a particular issue and set yet another precedent that the Constitutions says whatever we want it to. It doesn't.
This is 'RW bigot posing as a Libertarian' argument. ...I don't want gays to have the right to marry because I don't believe in government marriage..
Well, government marriage is never going away. Period. The bigot gets to deny gays their rights while hiding behind some fantasy scenario.
Except he's full of shit. He defends DOMA which was an unconstitutional power grab on the issue of marriage and gave the federal government power to decide who's married and who's not. True libertarians and conservatives believe that issue belongs to the state. He probably also supports the 1862 Morrill Anti Bigomy Act.
It is just curiosity on my part asking: If Congress has no jurisdiction - constitutionally - to define marriage because it is a state right, how can a federal judge find a state law defining marriage unconstitutional? Wouldn't the issue belong to the state's high court?
Before you say it: I am a dumb fuck in these matters.
Incorrect.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...
Being gay doesn't change who you can marry?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.
