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

[NYcarbineer]

Most Alabama counties are resisting federal tyranny. Good for them. The revolution needs to start someplace.

There is no federal tyranny in this case, it is simply providing a remedy for the State tyranny of "Jim Crow" in regard to marriage.

No, it's listening to the people regardless of social liberal progressive agenda

-Geaux

Then you don't object to the state officials in AL who are in fact issuing the licenses?

 

[The Rabbi]

Most Alabama counties are resisting federal tyranny. Good for them. The revolution needs to start someplace.

There is no federal tyranny in this case, it is simply providing a remedy for the State tyranny of "Jim Crow" in regard to marriage.

No, it's listening to the people regardless of social liberal progressive agenda

-Geaux

Then you don't object to the state officials in AL who are in fact issuing the licenses?

Why is it every time you open your yap to put words in people's mouths you sound like a moron?

 

[NYcarbineer]

State Constitutions secure natural rights, not bills of attainder, regardless of any legal machination.

Speaking of nature...children have a natural right to a mother and a father. States have a right to incentivize that natural right.

By what authority do you reach that daft conclusion?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Most Alabama counties are resisting federal tyranny. Good for them. The revolution needs to start someplace.

There is no federal tyranny in this case, it is simply providing a remedy for the State tyranny of "Jim Crow" in regard to marriage.

No, it's listening to the people regardless of social liberal progressive agenda

-Geaux

Then you don't object to the state officials in AL who are in fact issuing the licenses?

Why is it every time you open your yap to put words in people's mouths you sound like a moron?

I asked a question which he is free to answer or run away from.

 

[The Rabbi]

Most Alabama counties are resisting federal tyranny. Good for them. The revolution needs to start someplace.

There is no federal tyranny in this case, it is simply providing a remedy for the State tyranny of "Jim Crow" in regard to marriage.

No, it's listening to the people regardless of social liberal progressive agenda

-Geaux

Then you don't object to the state officials in AL who are in fact issuing the licenses?

Why is it every time you open your yap to put words in people's mouths you sound like a moron?

I asked a question which he is free to answer or run away from.

Why would you think he did or did not object?

 

[Syriusly]

Most Alabama counties are resisting federal tyranny. Good for them. The revolution needs to start someplace.

LOL- always love the anonymous cheering on by whackos for 'revolution'.

'federal tyranny'- 47 years ago 'federal tyranny' told Alabama that it could not forbid mixed race marriage.

Ultimately though, Alabama started issuing licenses to mixed race couples- even if it took until 15 years ago for the State of Alabama to decide that Alabama agreed with the Supreme Court.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no federal tyranny in this case, it is simply providing a remedy for the State tyranny of "Jim Crow" in regard to marriage.

No, it's listening to the people regardless of social liberal progressive agenda

-Geaux

Then you don't object to the state officials in AL who are in fact issuing the licenses?

Why is it every time you open your yap to put words in people's mouths you sound like a moron?

I asked a question which he is free to answer or run away from.

Why would you think he did or did not object?

He advocated listening to the People. Some counties are issuing the licenses. They represent the people of those counties.

Oh, and btw, Alabama's Governor he wouldn't punish judges who issued the licenses.

 

[Syriusly]

Most Alabama counties are resisting federal tyranny. Good for them. The revolution needs to start someplace.

There is no federal tyranny in this case, it is simply providing a remedy for the State tyranny of "Jim Crow" in regard to marriage.

No, it's listening to the people regardless of social liberal progressive agenda

-Geaux

So it was tyranny in 1967 when the SCOTUS struck down anti miscegenation laws? The "will of the people" was strongly against interracial marriage.

^^
Tired old worn out argument.

Never gets tired or worn out.

2015- Federal Court tells Alabama that its state marriage law is unconstitutional- you call that 'federal tyranny'
1967- Supreme Court tells Virginia- and by extension- Alabama- that its state marriage law was unconstitutional- was that 'federal tyranny' also?

This is in essence by the bigots try to argue that Loving v. Virginia does not apply- because they don't want to expose the hypocrisy of their base argument.

The bigots argue that federal courts striking down a state marriage law is 'federal tyranny'- but that is exactly what happened in Loving v. Virginia.

And if they are against such federal 'tyranny' then they are against Loving v. Virginia- or more accurately- they are just hypocrites.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, it's listening to the people regardless of social liberal progressive agenda

-Geaux

Then you don't object to the state officials in AL who are in fact issuing the licenses?

Why is it every time you open your yap to put words in people's mouths you sound like a moron?

I asked a question which he is free to answer or run away from.

Why would you think he did or did not object?

He advocated listening to the People. Some counties are issuing the licenses. They represent the people of those counties.

Oh, and btw, Alabama's Governor he wouldn't punish judges who issued the licenses.

Wrong. Total logical fallacy.
Next

 

[Skylar]

Then you don't object to the state officials in AL who are in fact issuing the licenses?

Why is it every time you open your yap to put words in people's mouths you sound like a moron?

I asked a question which he is free to answer or run away from.

Why would you think he did or did not object?

He advocated listening to the People. Some counties are issuing the licenses. They represent the people of those counties.

Oh, and btw, Alabama's Governor he wouldn't punish judges who issued the licenses.

Wrong. Total logical fallacy.
Next

I don't think 'logical fallacy' means what you think it means.

Try again.

 

[danielpalos]

Most Alabama counties are resisting federal tyranny. Good for them. The revolution needs to start someplace.

There is no federal tyranny in this case, it is simply providing a remedy for the State tyranny of "Jim Crow" in regard to marriage.

No, it's listening to the people regardless of social liberal progressive agenda

-Geaux

So it was tyranny in 1967 when the SCOTUS struck down anti miscegenation laws? The "will of the people" was strongly against interracial marriage.

^^
Tired old worn out argument.

No; it is this lack of appeal to ignorance that is the issue:

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

It was ratified by the several and sovereign States; and is a rational choice of law in any conflict of laws arising in the several States.

 

[danielpalos]

State Constitutions secure natural rights, not bills of attainder, regardless of any legal machination.

Speaking of nature...children have a natural right to a mother and a father. States have a right to incentivize that natural right.

By what authority do you reach that daft conclusion?

State Constitutions secure natural rights, not bills of attainder, regardless of any legal machination. Because it is legal fact, not legal fiction.

 

[Syriusly]

Here is an interesting article

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation - See more at: History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

Here are four of the arguments they used:

1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.

2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.

3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and

4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."

On this fourth point--the supposed "unnaturality" of interracial marriage--judges formed a virtual chorus. Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:

The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.

Wow- do those arguments sound familiar eh?

 

[NYcarbineer]

State Constitutions secure natural rights, not bills of attainder, regardless of any legal machination.

Speaking of nature...children have a natural right to a mother and a father. States have a right to incentivize that natural right.

By what authority do you reach that daft conclusion?

State Constitutions secure natural rights, not bills of attainder, regardless of any legal machination. Because it is legal fact, not legal fiction.

There are no things as natural rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then you don't object to the state officials in AL who are in fact issuing the licenses?

Why is it every time you open your yap to put words in people's mouths you sound like a moron?

I asked a question which he is free to answer or run away from.

Why would you think he did or did not object?

He advocated listening to the People. Some counties are issuing the licenses. They represent the people of those counties.

Oh, and btw, Alabama's Governor he wouldn't punish judges who issued the licenses.

Wrong. Total logical fallacy.
Next

Elaborate on what you just blurted out. This is not the Monty Python argument bit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why is it every time you open your yap to put words in people's mouths you sound like a moron?

I asked a question which he is free to answer or run away from.

Why would you think he did or did not object?

He advocated listening to the People. Some counties are issuing the licenses. They represent the people of those counties.

Oh, and btw, Alabama's Governor he wouldn't punish judges who issued the licenses.

Wrong. Total logical fallacy.
Next

I don't think 'logical fallacy' means what you think it means.

Try again.

He's not debating. He can't debate.

 

[rdean]

Should the states be allowed to ban interracial marriage?

 

[danielpalos]

State Constitutions secure natural rights, not bills of attainder, regardless of any legal machination.

Speaking of nature...children have a natural right to a mother and a father. States have a right to incentivize that natural right.

By what authority do you reach that daft conclusion?

State Constitutions secure natural rights, not bills of attainder, regardless of any legal machination. Because it is legal fact, not legal fiction.

There are no things as natural rights.

Yes, there are and they are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

 

[Geaux4it]

Most Alabama counties are resisting federal tyranny. Good for them. The revolution needs to start someplace.

There is no federal tyranny in this case, it is simply providing a remedy for the State tyranny of "Jim Crow" in regard to marriage.

No, it's listening to the people regardless of social liberal progressive agenda

-Geaux

So it was tyranny in 1967 when the SCOTUS struck down anti miscegenation laws? The "will of the people" was strongly against interracial marriage.

Approving the right to do it, and approving to choose- to do it, are two different things.
.
-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

Most Alabama counties are resisting federal tyranny. Good for them. The revolution needs to start someplace.

There is no federal tyranny in this case, it is simply providing a remedy for the State tyranny of "Jim Crow" in regard to marriage.

No, it's listening to the people regardless of social liberal progressive agenda

-Geaux

Then you don't object to the state officials in AL who are in fact issuing the licenses?

Not until it can be corrected, no.

-Geaux