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.
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.
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.
They do not say who's married to the States. If you mean married to the Federal government, that's true. Is there a point in that.
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.
The issue can't belong to the states because it's an equal rights issue and there can only be one right answer on an equal rights issue.
If the Court managed to decide that it's not an equal rights issue - if by some madness they decided that gays are not entitled to equal marriage rights,
then the states could do with it what they wished.
Being gay doesn't change who you can marry?[/QUOTE]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.
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.
The issue can't belong to the states because it's an equal rights issue and there can only be one right answer on an equal rights issue.
If the Court managed to decide that it's not an equal rights issue - if by some madness they decided that gays are not entitled to equal marriage rights,
then the states could do with it what they wished.
You missed the point. It won't be restated.
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.
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.
The issue can't belong to the states because it's an equal rights issue and there can only be one right answer on an equal rights issue.
If the Court managed to decide that it's not an equal rights issue - if by some madness they decided that gays are not entitled to equal marriage rights,
then the states could do with it what they wished.
You missed the point. It won't be restated.
Wow, irony...
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.
They do not say who's married to the States. If you mean married to the Federal government, that's true. Is there a point in that.
Congress has no power to decide who's married and who's not. Why is that so hard for you to understand? And "full faith and credit" is not an excuse for unconstitutional power grabs, or we can succumb to the Leftist argument that welfare, social security, and foodstamps fall under the "general welfare" clause. Stupid beyond belief!
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.
kaz doesn't understand that the ban on interracial marriage was the same as a ban on same sex marriage:
1. with an interracial marriage ban, everyone has the right to marry someone as long as that person is of the opposite sex and the same color.
2. with a same sex marriage ban, everyone gets to marry someone of the opposite sex.
He is misapplying his own concocted logic. By his argument, banning interracial marriage should be constitutional,
because everyone still has the same rights.
Being gay doesn't change who you can marry?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.
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.
They do not say who's married to the States. If you mean married to the Federal government, that's true. Is there a point in that.
Congress has no power to decide who's married and who's not. Why is that so hard for you to understand? And "full faith and credit" is not an excuse for unconstitutional power grabs, or we can succumb to the Leftist argument that welfare, social security, and foodstamps fall under the "general welfare" clause. Stupid beyond belief!
Actually read DOMA, actually read the Full Faith and Credit clause, then get back to me. When you do, don't be embarrassed, I don't hold a grudge.
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.
kaz doesn't understand that the ban on interracial marriage was the same as a ban on same sex marriage:
1. with an interracial marriage ban, everyone has the right to marry someone as long as that person is of the opposite sex and the same color.
2. with a same sex marriage ban, everyone gets to marry someone of the opposite sex.
He is misapplying his own concocted logic. By his argument, banning interracial marriage should be constitutional,
because everyone still has the same rights.
Loving Vs. Virginia rejected the law because it was applied in favor of one race over another, not because of the reason you cite. So your whole argument turns to shit.
Which race did it favor, the black one or the white one since one was black and the other white?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.
kaz doesn't understand that the ban on interracial marriage was the same as a ban on same sex marriage:
1. with an interracial marriage ban, everyone has the right to marry someone as long as that person is of the opposite sex and the same color.
2. with a same sex marriage ban, everyone gets to marry someone of the opposite sex.
He is misapplying his own concocted logic. By his argument, banning interracial marriage should be constitutional,
because everyone still has the same rights.
Loving Vs. Virginia rejected the law because it was applied in favor of one race over another, not because of the reason you cite. So your whole argument turns to shit.
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.
The issue can't belong to the states because it's an equal rights issue and there can only be one right answer on an equal rights issue.
If the Court managed to decide that it's not an equal rights issue - if by some madness they decided that gays are not entitled to equal marriage rights,
then the states could do with it what they wished.
You missed the point. It won't be restated.
Which race did it favor, the black one or the white one since one was black and the other white?Being gay doesn't change who you can marry?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.
kaz doesn't understand that the ban on interracial marriage was the same as a ban on same sex marriage:
1. with an interracial marriage ban, everyone has the right to marry someone as long as that person is of the opposite sex and the same color.
2. with a same sex marriage ban, everyone gets to marry someone of the opposite sex.
He is misapplying his own concocted logic. By his argument, banning interracial marriage should be constitutional,
because everyone still has the same rights.
Loving Vs. Virginia rejected the law because it was applied in favor of one race over another, not because of the reason you cite. So your whole argument turns to shit.
BTW, he's correct.
Great. Now, who does restricting marriage only to heterosexuals favor?Which race did it favor, the black one or the white one since one was black and the other white?Being gay doesn't change who you can marry?Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay doesn't. Fail.
kaz doesn't understand that the ban on interracial marriage was the same as a ban on same sex marriage:
1. with an interracial marriage ban, everyone has the right to marry someone as long as that person is of the opposite sex and the same color.
2. with a same sex marriage ban, everyone gets to marry someone of the opposite sex.
He is misapplying his own concocted logic. By his argument, banning interracial marriage should be constitutional,
because everyone still has the same rights.
Loving Vs. Virginia rejected the law because it was applied in favor of one race over another, not because of the reason you cite. So your whole argument turns to shit.
BTW, he's correct.
It favored the white race:
"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."
Great. Now, who does restricting marriage only to heterosexuals favor?Which race did it favor, the black one or the white one since one was black and the other white?Being gay doesn't change who you can marry?
kaz doesn't understand that the ban on interracial marriage was the same as a ban on same sex marriage:
1. with an interracial marriage ban, everyone has the right to marry someone as long as that person is of the opposite sex and the same color.
2. with a same sex marriage ban, everyone gets to marry someone of the opposite sex.
He is misapplying his own concocted logic. By his argument, banning interracial marriage should be constitutional,
because everyone still has the same rights.
Loving Vs. Virginia rejected the law because it was applied in favor of one race over another, not because of the reason you cite. So your whole argument turns to shit.
BTW, he's correct.
It favored the white race:
"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."
Sexual orientation isnt a protected class. Nor does sexual orientation have rights.Being gay doesn't change who you can marry?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.
kaz doesn't understand that the ban on interracial marriage was the same as a ban on same sex marriage:
1. with an interracial marriage ban, everyone has the right to marry someone as long as that person is of the opposite sex and the same color.
2. with a same sex marriage ban, everyone gets to marry someone of the opposite sex.
He is misapplying his own concocted logic. By his argument, banning interracial marriage should be constitutional,
because everyone still has the same rights.
Loving Vs. Virginia rejected the law because it was applied in favor of one race over another, not because of the reason you cite. So your whole argument turns to shit.
Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.
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.
kaz doesn't understand that the ban on interracial marriage was the same as a ban on same sex marriage:
1. with an interracial marriage ban, everyone has the right to marry someone as long as that person is of the opposite sex and the same color.
2. with a same sex marriage ban, everyone gets to marry someone of the opposite sex.
He is misapplying his own concocted logic. By his argument, banning interracial marriage should be constitutional,
because everyone still has the same rights.
Loving Vs. Virginia rejected the law because it was applied in favor of one race over another, not because of the reason you cite. So your whole argument turns to shit.
Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.
