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

[The Rabbi]

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

I know right? I can't wait until the US Supreme Court finally this year makes polygamy legal across all 50 states..

This year polygamy, next year incest.

 

[kaz]

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.

Read United States Vs. Windsor, then get back to me. When you do, don't be embarrassed, I don't hold a grudge.

Wow, the courts are willing to make law. Wow, I never saw that before.

I am stating the law, you are stating who agrees with you. Entirely different arguments.

 

[kaz]

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

I know right? I can't wait until the US Supreme Court finally this year makes polygamy legal across all 50 states..

This year polygamy, next year incest.

Being married to a live woman and a dead one isn't polygamy

 

[kaz]

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.

Which race did it favor, the black one or the white one since one was black and the other white?

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?

Government, they are built on separating citizens then appealing to their base greed and envy. Adding gays to marriage discrimination is more people to appeal to with unfair treatment. Treating citizens the same would help citizens, treating us different most helps politicians.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

DOMA violated the 5th Amendment's Due Process Clause, whereas state measures seeking to deny gay Americans access to marriage law violate the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause as applied to the states, along with the Equal Protection Clause.

With DOMA Congress sought to disadvantage married same-sex couples by disallowing them Federal marriage benefits, hence the 5th Amendment violation; Windsor did not address the issue that exists between same-sex couples and their states of residence seeking to deny them access to state marriage law.

Therefore, Congress did not address the issue of how states define marriage, rather it addressed the issue of the relationship of citizens to their Federal government, and the Federal government's refusal to acknowledge their status as married persons – regardless how marriage was defined in a given state.

Federal courts are authorized to invalidate state laws determined to be un-Constitutional pursuant to Articles III and VI of the Constitution, where, again, state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

Yes, state courts may and have addressed the issue; but when state courts have followed the Constitution and invalidated measures disallowing gay Americans to marry, as we saw in Dade County, Florida, for example, those hostile to gay Americans have appealed those rulings to a Federal court, as is their right to do, compelling the Federal courts to act.

Last, the states have only themselves to blame for their measures hostile to gay Americans being invalidated, where court battles could have been easily avoided had the states simply followed the Constitution and allowed same-sex couples to access state marriage laws they're eligible to participate in.

 

[Silhouette]

DOMA violated the 5th Amendment's Due Process Clause, whereas state measures seeking to deny gay Americans access to marriage law violate the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause as applied to the states, along with the Equal Protection Clause..

Yes, but Windsor was specific in that they Found that only applied within a singular sovereign state's boundaries, not if one found gay marriage or cousin-marriage or 13 year old marriage legal within their boundaries, then all 50 states must make them legal too! Fer cripesakes.

They said that if a state like say, New York, decided on its own, "hey, let's subject the future generations of children to this new structure of marriage as an experiment and incentivize it as legal", then the fed had to recognize all marriages from that state as legal; whichever ones and all ones that New York said after its deliberation were legal.

And BTW, there's no such thing as "gay Americans" anymore than there are "bulimic Americans". It's offensive you would identify people who suffer mentally by their illness. There are just Americans, some with different behavioral issues.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

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.

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

Sexual orientation isnt a protected class. Nor does sexual orientation have rights.
/fail.

I just told you the facts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

I know right? I can't wait until the US Supreme Court finally this year makes polygamy legal across all 50 states..

That's immaterial. You can't justify discrimination by conjuring up some unrelated fantasy of fear.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

Sexual orientation isnt a protected class. Nor does sexual orientation have rights.
/fail.

I just told you the facts.

/fail.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Sexual orientation isnt a protected class. Nor does sexual orientation have rights.
/fail.

I just told you the facts.

/fail.

You apparently don't know what the word discrimination means.

btw, 21 states protect gays against discrimination. Should the federal courts intervene and restore what you would call the right to discriminate against gays?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Sexual orientation isnt a protected class. Nor does sexual orientation have rights.
/fail.

I just told you the facts.

/fail.

You apparently don't know what the word discrimination means.

btw, 21 states protect gays against discrimination. Should the federal courts intervene and restore what you would call the right to discriminate against gays?

And 36 states have legal same sex marriage. 36 states have decided that you are full of shit.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Sexual orientation isnt a protected class. Nor does sexual orientation have rights.
/fail.

I just told you the facts.

/fail.

You apparently don't know what the word discrimination means.

btw, 21 states protect gays against discrimination. Should the federal courts intervene and restore what you would call the right to discriminate against gays?

No actually you dont know what the word discrimination means. You think any act of discrimination is illegal.

 

[The Rabbi]

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

Sexual orientation isnt a protected class. Nor does sexual orientation have rights.
/fail.

I just told you the facts.

/fail.

You apparently don't know what the word discrimination means.

btw, 21 states protect gays against discrimination. Should the federal courts intervene and restore what you would call the right to discriminate against gays?

And 36 states have legal same sex marriage. 36 states have decided that you are full of shit.

36 states didnt decide diddly squat. Almost all of them had gay marriage imposed by activiist judges striking down the will of the people expressed in votes.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

Sexual orientation isnt a protected class. Nor does sexual orientation have rights.
/fail.

I just told you the facts.

/fail.

You apparently don't know what the word discrimination means.

btw, 21 states protect gays against discrimination. Should the federal courts intervene and restore what you would call the right to discriminate against gays?

And 36 states have legal same sex marriage. 36 states have decided that you are full of shit.

Bullshit. That isn't 36 state legislatures approving gay marriage, that's 36 states most of which had their marriage regulations overturned by black robed tyrants. How dare you compare that to real democracy?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

F*g....n*gger...c*nt...k*ke....all words used by bigots and always for the same reason.

Whatever you say, faggot.

F*g....n*gger...c*nt...k*ke....all words used by bigots and always for the same reason.

 

[defcon4]

C_Clayton_Jones
Thank you for taking the time to explain!!!!!!

 

[Skylar]

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....

Yeah, but the courts have already taken a position on children of same sex parents, and the harm that denying their parents marriage causes.

"And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.....

...DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for familiesby taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or re-duces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouseand parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security. "

Windsor v. US

Yet you ignore the explicit findings of the court and how the denial of marriage for same sex parents hurts their children.

Just because you ignore it doesn't mean that the court is obligated to ignore itself. And your argument is based in so many examples of exactly this kind of willful ignorance. Where you arbitrarily ignore anything in any ruling you don't like. And then imagine that because you ignore it, that the courts are obligated to do so as well.

Um, no. They're not. And your willful ignorance will have no bearing on the outcome of any case.

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.

"Macabre tyranny', huh? Getting all your colorful language ready for June?

 

[Syriusly]

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?

You are seriously delusional.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Same gender marriage is irrelevant to that claim.

Preventing gay marriage only ensures that their children will not have married parents.

Doesn't guarantee that magically children will all have two parents of opposite gender.

 

[Syriusly]

Sexual orientation isnt a protected class. Nor does sexual orientation have rights.
/fail.

I just told you the facts.

/fail.

You apparently don't know what the word discrimination means.

btw, 21 states protect gays against discrimination. Should the federal courts intervene and restore what you would call the right to discriminate against gays?

And 36 states have legal same sex marriage. 36 states have decided that you are full of shit.

Bullshit. That isn't 36 state legislatures approving gay marriage, that's 36 states most of which had their marriage regulations overturned by black robed tyrants. How dare you compare that to real democracy?

'tyrant'