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

[kaz]

Everyone has the right to demand equal treatment from the law.

Not according to you, you're demanding gay couples be treated differently from straights

No I am demanding that same gender couples be treated exactly the same as opposite gender couples.

Bill and Bob- exactly the same in every way as Bill and Barbara- except that Barbara is a woman and Bob is not.

Bill and Barbara can get legally married, Bill and Bob cannot- they are not treated legally the same.

And that is wrong, government should treat all citizens the same. You aren't ending any discrimination, just drawing a different line.

 

[Syriusly]

Well, since we aren't going to abolish all government recognition of marriage and render void all marriage certificates in pursuit of your anarchist ideal, do you have any comments that might be relevant to any plausible outcome in this case?

I'm not an anarchist, moron

Well, since we aren't going to abolish all government recognition of marriage and render void all marriage certificates in pursuit of anyone's anarchist ideal, do you have any comments that might be relevant to any plausible outcome in this case?

Blacks will never be accepted as equals, why bother? You have anything "relevant to any plausible outcome in this case?" Women will never be allowed to vote, why bother? You have anything "relevant to any plausible outcome in this case?"..

LOL....black men should not be given the same right to vote because we are not giving that right to women.

And women should not be given the same right to vote as men because children are not given that right.

You are arguing that gay couples should not be given the same legal protections as hetero couples because you think that all such legal protections are discriminatory.

The same argument could apply to voting rights.

Should we have never allowed women to vote until everyone of every age was allowed to vote?

I'm not interested in defending what the voices in your head told you. Can you keep posting what they say though? It's pretty funny shit.

I know- you are just interested in your usual anti-marriage trolling, and just convenently want to deny gay couples marriage in the process.

Meanwhile- if it were up to you- the Loving's would still be waiting to be able to legally marry- because you told them marriage should be abolished instead.

 

[Skylar]

Blacks will never be accepted as equals, why bother? You have anything "relevant to any plausible outcome in this case?" Women will never be allowed to vote, why bother? You have anything "relevant to any plausible outcome in this case?"

We're not going to abolish all government recognition of marriage. That's not a plausible outcome for this case.

Extending recognition to the marriages of gays and lesbians, however, is entirely plausible. I'd say even likely.

We know which side of history you are on...

Of course. The side that recognizes marriage for both gays and straights, obviously.

Swish...

Your argument has been reduced to onomatopoeia.

When you have something relevant to say about this thread, feel free to join us.

 

[elektra]

Gays getting married, and then adopting heterosexual children is only the concern of democrats.

Hmmm yet most of the people opposed to homosexual couples adopting are Republicans.

And how exactly do you test children to determine if they are heterosexual before putting them up for adoption?

You are a liar, making things up. Good day!

 

[Syriusly]

Everyone has the right to demand equal treatment from the law.

Not according to you, you're demanding gay couples be treated differently from straights

No I am demanding that same gender couples be treated exactly the same as opposite gender couples.

Bill and Bob- exactly the same in every way as Bill and Barbara- except that Barbara is a woman and Bob is not.

Bill and Barbara can get legally married, Bill and Bob cannot- they are not treated legally the same.

And that is wrong, government should treat all citizens the same. You aren't ending any discrimination, just drawing a different line.

Oh but that is ending discrimination against that group- just as Loving v. Virginia ended discrimination towards another group.

If it were up to you, women would still be waiting for the right to vote, because that would just be drawing a different line.

 

[kaz]

So....your post was just spectacularly irrelevant to the topic.

No, your reply was spectaturlary not a logical response to what I said. Hence the term, non-sequitur...

We've done this dance before, Kaz. I'm discussing gay marriage. If you want to discuss something else, start a thread.

Yes, we have done this dance, you repeatedly inform me I am only allowed to discuss government solutions to problems. I understand you fine, I just reject it as crap.

What you said had nothing to do with this thread. Thus, it was itself a non-sequitur.

The thread is about gay marriage and leaving it to the States. I am saying to leave it to the people themselves.

Do you know what the 10th amendment says?

 

[Syriusly]

Gays getting married, and then adopting heterosexual children is only the concern of democrats.

Hmmm yet most of the people opposed to homosexual couples adopting are Republicans.

And how exactly do you test children to determine if they are heterosexual before putting them up for adoption?

You are a liar, making things up. Good day!

Well thanks for living up to my expectations!

 

[elektra]

Gay marriage is the back door entry of homosexuals adopting heterosexual children.

That alone is the issue, the rights of defenseless children.

 

[Skylar]

So....your post was just spectacularly irrelevant to the topic.

No, your reply was spectaturlary not a logical response to what I said. Hence the term, non-sequitur...

We've done this dance before, Kaz. I'm discussing gay marriage. If you want to discuss something else, start a thread.

Yes, we have done this dance, you repeatedly inform me I am only allowed to discuss government solutions to problems. I understand you fine, I just reject it as crap.

What you said had nothing to do with this thread. Thus, it was itself a non-sequitur.

The thread is about gay marriage and leaving it to the States. I am saying to leave it to the people themselves.

Do you know what the 10th amendment says?

Yup. And do you know what the 14th amendment says? Any state law that violates the privileges and immunities of US citizens is invalid. And any state marriage law that doesn't offer equal protection is invalid.

Powers don't trump rights.

The issue of the State's authority to violate individual rights has been asked and answered by the USSC. And the answer is no. If the States which to deny gays and lesbians their right to marry, they need a compelling state interest and a very good reason.

The State have neither. And need both.

 

[kaz]

Blacks will never be accepted as equals, why bother? You have anything "relevant to any plausible outcome in this case?" Women will never be allowed to vote, why bother? You have anything "relevant to any plausible outcome in this case?"

We're not going to abolish all government recognition of marriage. That's not a plausible outcome for this case.

Extending recognition to the marriages of gays and lesbians, however, is entirely plausible. I'd say even likely.

We know which side of history you are on...

Of course. The side that recognizes marriage for both gays and straights, obviously.

Swish...

Your argument has been reduced to onomatopoeia.

When you have something relevant to say about this thread, feel free to join us.

Yes, the hordes of people you speak for again to prop up your ego because you aren't man enough to stand behind your own words. There are throngs of people who think it and are with you.

I got your point, we can only discuss government solutions to problems in threads you participate in. I need to STFU until I accept government controlling my life. When I am ready to discuss "how" government will solve a problem rather than "if" government will solve a problem then I am ready to be accepted and considered by you and the thousands and thousands you speak for.

I keep telling you I got it, but actually I can discuss why government is trying to solve a problem, not just how they should go about it.

 

[Skylar]

Gay marriage is the back door entry of homosexuals adopting heterosexual children.

That alone is the issue, the rights of defenseless children.

Gays already adopt heterosexual children.

 

[kaz]

Gay marriage is the back door entry of homosexuals adopting heterosexual children.

No pun intended, right?

 

[kaz]

Oh but that is ending discrimination against that group- just as Loving v. Virginia ended discrimination towards another group.

If it were up to you, women would still be waiting for the right to vote, because that would just be drawing a different line.

You are an idiot

 

[elektra]

Gay marriage is the back door entry of homosexuals adopting heterosexual children.

No pun intended, right?

It just happens, this is low hanging fruit.

 

[Syriusly]

Gay marriage is the back door entry of homosexuals adopting heterosexual children.

That alone is the issue, the rights of defenseless children.

Oh so hard not to jam the obvious inference down your own back door.....

Homosexuals already have children.
Homosexuals are already adopting children.

Who are these 'heterosexual children' that you think they are trying to adopt- and who tests them to find out if they are heterosexual?

Banning homosexual marriage only ensures that their children do not have married parents.

 

[Skylar]

I got your point, we can only discuss government solutions to problems in threads you participate in. I need to STFU until I accept government controlling my life. When I am ready to discuss "how" government will solve a problem rather than "if" government will solve a problem then I am ready to be accepted and considered by you and the thousands and thousands you speak for.

We're not abandoning all government recognition of marriage.

So with that in mind, do you have anything relevant to add?

 

[Syriusly]

Oh but that is ending discrimination against that group- just as Loving v. Virginia ended discrimination towards another group.

If it were up to you, women would still be waiting for the right to vote, because that would just be drawing a different line.

You are an idiot

LOL....why am I not surprised that is your only answer to my post?

If it were up to you, women would still be waiting for the right to vote, because that would just be drawing a different line

 

[kaz]

do you know what the 14th amendment says? Any state law that violates the privileges and immunities of US citizens is invalid. And any state marriage law that doesn't offer equal protection is invalid.

And yet liberal after liberal can't answer a simple question. Name one. Name someone who being gay changes who they are allowed to marry. Who can they marry if they were straight they are prohibited from marrying because they were gay? Name one.

 

[kaz]

I got your point, we can only discuss government solutions to problems in threads you participate in. I need to STFU until I accept government controlling my life. When I am ready to discuss "how" government will solve a problem rather than "if" government will solve a problem then I am ready to be accepted and considered by you and the thousands and thousands you speak for.

We're not abandoning all government recognition of marriage.

So with that in mind, do you have anything relevant to add?

So if you are told:

We're not abandoning all traditional recognition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

So with that in mind, do you have anything relevant to add?

You'd STFU now like you're telling me to do, right?

 

[elektra]

Gay marriage is the back door entry of homosexuals adopting heterosexual children.

That alone is the issue, the rights of defenseless children.

Oh so hard not to jam the obvious inference down your own back door.....

Homosexuals already have children.
Homosexuals are already adopting children.

Who are these 'heterosexual children' that you think they are trying to adopt- and who tests them to find out if they are heterosexual?

Banning homosexual marriage only ensures that their children do not have married parents.

Liar, children have parents regardless of you forcing orphans into a homosexual lifestyle.