Alabama fights for freedom

[The Rabbi]

The only oppression here is the judiciary oppressing a sovereign people.

So, by recognizing the rights of individuals, the judiciary is oppressing them?

Marriage isn't a right in the Constitution. Neither is driving. Both are licensed institutions regulated by the public for the good of the public safety.

http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

And both properly regulated by states.

 

[rightwinger]

only 32% of Alabama supports gay marriage.
41 counties are currently defying the unconstitutional order handed down from the Federal government and refusing to issue homosexual marriage licenses.
an Alabama judge said yesterday he will not issue homosexual marriage licenses but today said he will.
he says "the dust has settled" and soon the federal government (probably the Supreme Court) will legalize gay marriage nation wide.
folks, everyone in America didn't wake up on the same day and decide to legalize gay marriage.
this is another clear cut case of how a few anti-democratic government leaders are forcing policy on the American public

Alabama would still have segregation if we let them

 

[The Rabbi]

only 32% of Alabama supports gay marriage.
41 counties are currently defying the unconstitutional order handed down from the Federal government and refusing to issue homosexual marriage licenses.
an Alabama judge said yesterday he will not issue homosexual marriage licenses but today said he will.
he says "the dust has settled" and soon the federal government (probably the Supreme Court) will legalize gay marriage nation wide.
folks, everyone in America didn't wake up on the same day and decide to legalize gay marriage.
this is another clear cut case of how a few anti-democratic government leaders are forcing policy on the American public

Alabama would still have segregation if we let them

Proof? Link?

 

[SwimExpert]

What case are you talking about?

You're in here babbling about how the court has tyrannically oppressed the people, and you don't even know what case you're talking about!?!?! Get the fuck out of here!

 

[Skylar]

It's a matter of fact that interim law is Windsor 2013 where the Court Found that states have the say on gay marriage until further notice, "subject to constitutional exceptions" of which there are none since marriage in Windsor was Found constitutionally to have always been under the realm and authority of the separate states.

The Windsor court never said that states deciding was interim law until further notice. You've completely hallucinated that entire passage, pulled sideways out of your own ass.

And the rectal database doesn't create any kind of legal precedent.

The WIndsor court however did find that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. And the federal court in the Alabama ruling found that the Alabama same sex marriage ban violated those constitutional guarantees. A ruling that has gone all the way to the USSC and never been overturned.

And thus stands as authoritative. Which is why they're issuing gay marriage licenses in Alabama.

Race is the exception. Behaviors and lifestyles repugnant to the majority cannot be equal to race. The base structure of the word "marriage" is and always has been "the union of man and woman into which children will come".

Says who? Again, you're making up exceptions, restrictions and caveats the court has never uttered nor recognized. Just like you invented a passage for the Windsor ruling that the USSC never uttered. Pulled right out of your ass.

You making shit up isn't law. It doesn't bind anyone to do anything.

Children need a mother and father: http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf & Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online or things get really ugly in their minds.

The Prince Trust Study doesn't measure anything about parenting. You're quoting the Daily Mail. Not the Prince Study.

As you already know.

 

[The Rabbi]

What case are you talking about?

You're in here babbling about how the court has tyrannically oppressed the people, and you don't even know what case you're talking about!?!?! Get the fuck out of here!

You cant answer the question. Thanks.

 

[SwimExpert]

Marriage isn't a right in the Constitution.

So, there are no rights unless they are listed in the constitution?

 

[Skylar]

We don't vote on Civil Rights. That is the job of our courts.

Forcing the subsidization of buttfucking or muff diving is not a civil right.

Equal protection of the law is.

Homos already have the equal protection of marrying someone of the opposite gender just as heteros do. Your tired equality non-argument is baseless.

Says you.

Yet the federal court in Alabama found that the standards of exclusion themselves must meet constitutional muster. And they didn't. As has virtually every federal court to hear such cases.

You disagree. So what?

 

[SwimExpert]

What case are you talking about?

You're in here babbling about how the court has tyrannically oppressed the people, and you don't even know what case you're talking about!?!?! Get the fuck out of here!

You cant answer the question. Thanks.

Maybe you didn't get the memo, but this entire thread is about the Alabama gay marriage case, a.k.a Searcy vs. Strange.

Fucking idiot...

 

[Seawytch]

We don't vote on Civil Rights. That is the job of our courts.

Forcing the subsidization of buttfucking or muff diving is not a civil right.

Equal protection of the law is.

Homos already have the equal protection of marrying someone of the opposite gender just as heteros do. Your tired equality non-argument is baseless.

Recycled and failed argument from before the 60s. Racist argued that anti miscegenation laws weren't discrimination because blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites.

 

[Skylar]

The only oppression here is the judiciary oppressing a sovereign people.

So, by recognizing the rights of individuals, the judiciary is oppressing them?

Marriage isn't a right in the Constitution.

Says you. The USSC has found that marriage is a right.

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men......

.....Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man"......

Loving V. Virgninia

You can ignore this fact. But your willful ignorance doesn't actually change the legal precedent surrounding the matter. On the issue of legally recognized rights, the SCOTUS is authoritative. You aren't.

 

[Skylar]

What case are you talking about?

You're in here babbling about how the court has tyrannically oppressed the people, and you don't even know what case you're talking about!?!?! Get the fuck out of here!

You cant answer the question. Thanks.

Maybe you didn't get the memo, but this entire thread is about the Alabama gay marriage case, a.k.a Searcy vs. Strange.

Fucking idiot...

Rabbi is just trolling at this point, swim.

 

[Silhouette]

Says you. The USSC has found that marriage is a right.

For all races to marry man/woman, yes. I know. But the structure of the word "marriage" ...it hasn't found that special behavior/lifestyle groups get to dismantle that base structure. Important because the word "marriage" is about the environment children are to be raised in..

http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

 

[SwimExpert]

For all races to marry man/woman, yes.

Actually, the court has said more than that.

 

[The Rabbi]

Marriage isn't a right in the Constitution.

So, there are no rights unless they are listed in the constitution?

None that the federal government can concern itself with. check Amendment 10

 

[The Rabbi]

What case are you talking about?

You're in here babbling about how the court has tyrannically oppressed the people, and you don't even know what case you're talking about!?!?! Get the fuck out of here!

You cant answer the question. Thanks.

Maybe you didn't get the memo, but this entire thread is about the Alabama gay marriage case, a.k.a Searcy vs. Strange.

Fucking idiot...

The complaint is the same crap that gets posted here every single day about 14thA protections etc etc. It is bunk.

 

[SwimExpert]

The complaint is the same crap that gets posted here every single day about 14thA protections etc etc. It is bunk.

That's not an answer.

 

[WinterBorn]

We don't vote on Civil Rights. That is the job of our courts.

Forcing the subsidization of buttfucking or muff diving is not a civil right.

Equal protection of the law is.

Homos already have the equal protection of marrying someone of the opposite gender just as heteros do. Your tired equality non-argument is baseless.

By that logic, since all races were banned from marrying other races, the laws against interracial marriage were all about equality.

 

[WinterBorn]

The only oppression here is the judiciary oppressing a sovereign people.

So, by recognizing the rights of individuals, the judiciary is oppressing them?

Marriage isn't a right in the Constitution. Neither is driving. Both are licensed institutions regulated by the public for the good of the public safety.

http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

The federal court judges did not rule as she did because she claimed marriage is a constitutional right. She did so because the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. Remove all gov't benefits from marriages and it will remove the power of the judges to use the 14th amendment to rule on it.

 

[WinterBorn]

The only oppression here is the judiciary oppressing a sovereign people.

So, by recognizing the rights of individuals, the judiciary is oppressing them?

Marriage isn't a right in the Constitution. Neither is driving. Both are licensed institutions regulated by the public for the good of the public safety.

http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

And both properly regulated by states.

And now, in Alabama, both are regulated with equality under the law.