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

[Skylar]

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.

Anyone of the same gender. If you need a specific example to conceptualize this issue, I can name specific litigants from the cases that the USSC is currently scheduled to hear on the issue.

 

[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

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

You're making up strawman after strawman that I didn't say, didn't mean and don't think. Why would I address that with more than, "you are an idiot?"

 

[elektra]

Gay marriage, teaching children homosexuality before they enter puberty and decide for themselves.

 

[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.

Anyone of the same gender. If you need a specific example to conceptualize this issue, I can name specific litigants from the cases that the USSC is currently scheduled to hear on the issue.

Bull, straights can't marry people of the same gender anywhere gays cannot marry someone of the same gender. Prove your lie.

 

[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?

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?

Ruling in favor of gay marriage bans is a plausible outcome of the case. Not likely, in my estimation. But plausible. Ruling that all government recognition of marriage is invalid isn't.

That's not going to happen, nor is it any part of a specific legal question before the court regarding gay marriage.

The difference is any plausible connection to reality. What you're demanding doesn't have one. What I'm calling for does.

So do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion?

 

[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?

Ruling in favor of gay marriage bans is a plausible outcome of the case. Not likely, in my estimation. But plausible. Ruling that all government recognition of marriage is invalid isn't.

That's not going to happen, nor is it any part of a specific legal question before the court regarding gay marriage.

The difference is any plausible connection to reality. What you're demanding doesn't have one. What I'm calling for does.

So do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion?

LOL, you still don't get my 10th amendment reference. Read the 10th amendment, then read the thread title. See if it dawns on you.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Anyone of the same gender. If you need a specific example to conceptualize this issue, I can name specific litigants from the cases that the USSC is currently scheduled to hear on the issue.

Bull, straights can't marry people of the same gender anywhere gays cannot marry someone of the same gender. Prove your lie.

Nor could blacks marry whites. Nor whites blacks. Until the courts overruled such laws almost 50 years ago.The part you're missing is that the restriction itself must be constitutionally valid. It has to have a serve a specific state interest and have a very good reason.

And gay marriage bans have neither.

 

[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.

Anyone of the same gender. If you need a specific example to conceptualize this issue, I can name specific litigants from the cases that the USSC is currently scheduled to hear on the issue.

Bull, straights can't marry people of the same gender anywhere gays cannot marry someone of the same gender. Prove your lie.

Nor could blacks marry whites. Nor whites blacks. Until the courts overruled such laws almost 50 years ago.The part you're missing is that the restriction itself must be constitutionally valid. It has to have a serve a specific state interest and have a very good reason.

And gay marriage bans have neither.

Comparing gay marriage to blacks is a false analogy. Being gay does not change who you can marry. Being black changed who you could marry. Even a liberal simpleton is capable of grasping that.

 

[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?

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?

Ruling in favor of gay marriage bans is a plausible outcome of the case. Not likely, in my estimation. But plausible. Ruling that all government recognition of marriage is invalid isn't.

That's not going to happen, nor is it any part of a specific legal question before the court regarding gay marriage.

The difference is any plausible connection to reality. What you're demanding doesn't have one. What I'm calling for does.

So do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion?

LOL, you still don't get my 10th amendment reference. Read the 10th amendment, then read the thread title. See if it dawns on you.

And you're still not getting my 14th amendment reference. As there's not a single challenge to gay marriage bans on the grounds that Federal Marriage Laws trump State Marriage laws.

But that state marriage laws violate constitutional guarantees. And there's no question that state marriage laws are subject to such constitutional guarantees:

"Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393."

Windsor v. US.

And no where in the 10th amendment does it say that States have the authority to violate constitutional guaranties. While the 14th amendment makes it ludicrously clear that the States have no such power.

Do you get the difference between powers and rights....and which are supreme?

 

[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?

Ruling in favor of gay marriage bans is a plausible outcome of the case. Not likely, in my estimation. But plausible. Ruling that all government recognition of marriage is invalid isn't.

That's not going to happen, nor is it any part of a specific legal question before the court regarding gay marriage.

The difference is any plausible connection to reality. What you're demanding doesn't have one. What I'm calling for does.

So do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion?

LOL, you still don't get my 10th amendment reference. Read the 10th amendment, then read the thread title. See if it dawns on you.

And you're still not getting my 14th amendment reference. As there's not a single challenge to gay marriage bans on the grounds that Federal Marriage Laws trump State Marriage laws.

But that state marriage laws violate constitutional guarantees. And there's no question that state marriage laws are subject to such constitutional guarantees:

"Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393."

Windsor v. US.

And no where in the 10th amendment does it say that States have the authority to violate constitutional guaranties. While the 14th amendment makes it ludicrously clear that the States have no such power.

Do you get the difference between powers and rights....and which are supreme?

Begging the question

 

[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.

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

Ah sweetie-kins....did I upset you?

Children who are up for adoption are generally children who have been abandoned by their heterosexual parents.

Homosexuals who adopt children from foster homes are volunteering to take children abandoned by heterosexuals, and give them a home, and a family.

Facts and Statistics

In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.

In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.

Every child adopted- by a heterosexual- or homosexual family- is one less child abandoned by his or her genetic parents and aged out to live on the streets.

Why would you prevent a child from having a home?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Anti miscegenation laws discriminated based on race. Anti gay marriage laws discriminate based on gender. Both rooted solely in animus (hence the reason they lost and are losing)

 

[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

You're making up strawman after strawman that I didn't say, didn't mean and don't think. Why would I address that with more than, "you are an idiot?"

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

You're making up strawman after strawman that I didn't say, didn't mean and don't think. Why would I address that with more than, "you are an idiot?"

Well frankly, I suspect that I have been wasting my time posting anything more than 'you are an idiot' in reply to your posts.

So I will go back to pointing out that you just want to derail threads about same gender marriage with your usual anti-marriage bullshit.

 

[Syriusly]

Gay marriage, teaching children homosexuality before they enter puberty and decide for themselves.

No one ever taught me heterosexuality- yet I knew I was heterosexual long before puberty, when I kept sneaking peeks of my dad's Playboys.

Next?

 

[Skylar]

Comparing gay marriage to blacks is a false analogy.

The courts cited the Loving V. Virginia decision as an explicit example of the constitutional guarantees that state marriage laws are subject to in a discussion of gay marriage.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393."

Windsor v. US

The restriction on same sex marriages itself must meet constitutional muster. It must have a valid reason and a compelling state interest. As the Romer V. Evans decision made clear when they ruled to defend the rights of gays and lesbians in the State of COlorado:

We cannot say that Amendment 2 is directed to any identifiable legitimate purpose or discrete objective. It is a status-based enactment divorced from any factual context from which we could discern a relationship to legitimate state interests; it is a classification of persons undertaken for its own sake, something the Equal Protection Clause does not permit. "[C]lass legislation ... [is] obnoxious to the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment .... " Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S., at 24.

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

Romer v. Evans

Gay marriage bans serve no legitimate state interest, have no rational reason and further no proper legislative end. Consequently, they're invalid.

 

[kaz]

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.

Anti miscegenation laws discriminated based on race. Anti gay marriage laws discriminate based on gender. Both rooted solely in animus (hence the reason they lost and are losing)

Note you still couldn't answer the simple question, so you deflected with a false analogy.

 

[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

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

You're making up strawman after strawman that I didn't say, didn't mean and don't think. Why would I address that with more than, "you are an idiot?"

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

You're making up strawman after strawman that I didn't say, didn't mean and don't think. Why would I address that with more than, "you are an idiot?"

Well frankly, I suspect that I have been wasting my time posting anything more than 'you are an idiot' in reply to your posts.

So I will go back to pointing out that you just want to derail threads about same gender marriage with your usual anti-marriage bullshit.

Or, you could address things that I actually said instead of constantly putting words in my mouth that I didn't say, didn't mean and don't think. Ya think?

 

[Skylar]

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?

Ruling in favor of gay marriage bans is a plausible outcome of the case. Not likely, in my estimation. But plausible. Ruling that all government recognition of marriage is invalid isn't.

That's not going to happen, nor is it any part of a specific legal question before the court regarding gay marriage.

The difference is any plausible connection to reality. What you're demanding doesn't have one. What I'm calling for does.

So do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion?

LOL, you still don't get my 10th amendment reference. Read the 10th amendment, then read the thread title. See if it dawns on you.

And you're still not getting my 14th amendment reference. As there's not a single challenge to gay marriage bans on the grounds that Federal Marriage Laws trump State Marriage laws.

But that state marriage laws violate constitutional guarantees. And there's no question that state marriage laws are subject to such constitutional guarantees:

"Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393."

Windsor v. US.

And no where in the 10th amendment does it say that States have the authority to violate constitutional guaranties. While the 14th amendment makes it ludicrously clear that the States have no such power.

Do you get the difference between powers and rights....and which are supreme?

Begging the question

Which part? That rights trump powers? I've already established that with the 14th amendment.

That state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees? The Windsor decision explicitly states as much.

That all challenges to gay marriage bans being considered by the courts are on the basis of violations to constitutional guarantees?

Do you even disagree? If yes, then I'll happily prove you wrong again. If no, then you're merely stalling.

 

[Seawytch]

Gay marriage, teaching children homosexuality before they enter puberty and decide for themselves.

All the gays I know have straight parents. All the gay parents I know have straight kids. Your theory is malarkey.

 

[kaz]

Comparing gay marriage to blacks is a false analogy.

The courts cited the Loving V. Virginia decision as an explicit example of the constitutional guarantees that state marriage laws are subject to in a discussion of gay marriage.

OK, let's subject it to the test. Being black changed who you can marry, a violation of the 14th amendment. Being gay doesn't change who you can marry. Oops, we subjected gay marriage to the test, and it failed...