Alabama fights for freedom

[WinterBorn]

Once again the south must stand up to federal tyranny...in the end the feds will use excessive force and piss off more of the citizenry and in the end it will be in the south more than likely the appalachians where 2nd American Revolution starts...pretty easy to defeat the American Military hell little asians in pajamas and ak 47's did it. Iraqi freedom fighters did it...

Once again the south must stand up

and get their asses kicked in again

All part of the bigger plan..Just like Wallace knew negro's were going to be forced on his states educational systems Moore knows faggots are gonna be allowed to pervert the true meaning of marriage...but him standing up against federal tyranny shows the people not everyone is ready to roll over and let the nation get raped.

Or it shows he is tired of working and wants to be fired AGAIN.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

ODIUM SAID:

"Once again the south must stand up to federal tyranny...in the end the feds will use excessive force and piss off more of the citizenry and in the end it will be in the south more than likely the appalachians where 2nd American Revolution starts...pretty easy to defeat the American Military hell little asians in pajamas and ak 47's did it. Iraqi freedom fighters did it..."

The Supremacy Clause isn't 'Federal tyranny.' Neither is the 14th Amendment, for that matter.

Otherwise, you're a loon.

 

[Skylar]

ODIUM SAID:

"Once again the south must stand up to federal tyranny...in the end the feds will use excessive force and piss off more of the citizenry and in the end it will be in the south more than likely the appalachians where 2nd American Revolution starts...pretty easy to defeat the American Military hell little asians in pajamas and ak 47's did it. Iraqi freedom fighters did it..."

The Supremacy Clause isn't 'Federal tyranny.' Neither is the 14th Amendment, for that matter.

Otherwise, you're a loon.

Nah, he just has a self admitted 'hatred of queers'. And from his comments on 'negros', I'm almost tempted to call bullshit. As he's hitting too many stereotypes too hard.

 

[WinterBorn]

Apparently some of teh probate judges are relenting and are issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

I just spoke to my ex-wife (1st marriage) and she and her partner of 20 years will be getting married tomorrow. Long overdue.

 

[Silhouette]

Apparently some of teh probate judges are relenting and are issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

I just spoke to my ex-wife (1st marriage) and she and her partner of 20 years will be getting married tomorrow. Long overdue.

So she was into men and then changed her mind. Ah new fads..

I hope there aren't any kids involved in her new lifestyle choice.

 

[WinterBorn]

Apparently some of teh probate judges are relenting and are issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

I just spoke to my ex-wife (1st marriage) and she and her partner of 20 years will be getting married tomorrow. Long overdue.

So she was into men and then changed her mind. Ah new fads..

I hope there aren't any kids involved in her new lifestyle choice.

She was into me (a man) with only vague memories of her childhood. When those memories resurfaced (of horrible sexual abuse) she could not stand intimacy with a man. She fell in love and has been with her partner for 20 years. My ex and I are still very good friends.

Yes, there were children. They are grown now. All 3 are successful, productive, and happy.

 

[Silhouette]

Apparently some of teh probate judges are relenting and are issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

I just spoke to my ex-wife (1st marriage) and she and her partner of 20 years will be getting married tomorrow. Long overdue.

So she was into men and then changed her mind. Ah new fads..

I hope there aren't any kids involved in her new lifestyle choice.

She was into me (a man) with only vague memories of her childhood. When those memories resurfaced (of horrible sexual abuse) she could not stand intimacy with a man. She fell in love and has been with her partner for 20 years. My ex and I are still very good friends.

Yes, there were children. They are grown now. All 3 are successful, productive, and happy.

Yes, thanks for illuminating the causal dysfunction for most homosexual lifestyles. I'm not judging your ex wife BTW; I'm merely pointing out the causal agent found to be oh so common in that lifestyle:

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

It is why I brought up that I hope there are no children involved in that extreme adaptation to the original abuse. Another disturbing thing you should know about the statistics surrounding survivors of childhood abuse of the sexual nature anyway:

Mayo Clinic 2007
One of the most obvious examples of an environmental factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child. This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”or “abused-abusers phenomena.”5,23,24,46......
why the “abused abusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,in which the abused child is trying to gain a newidentity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

 

[J.E.D]

Once again the south must stand up to federal tyranny...in the end the feds will use excessive force and piss off more of the citizenry and in the end it will be in the south more than likely the appalachians where 2nd American Revolution starts...pretty easy to defeat the American Military hell little asians in pajamas and ak 47's did it. Iraqi freedom fighters did it...

Second American Revolution

Are you gonna fire the first shot, tough guy?

 

[SwimExpert]

So fighting for freedom is repressing someone elses rights? WTF?

It represses the right of that other guy to oppress your rights.

 

[danielpalos]

Apparently some of teh probate judges are relenting and are issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

I just spoke to my ex-wife (1st marriage) and she and her partner of 20 years will be getting married tomorrow. Long overdue.

So she was into men and then changed her mind. Ah new fads..

I hope there aren't any kids involved in her new lifestyle choice.

Too bad; the right may be happier with a more Spartan policy public, that actually provides for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.

 

[Toro]

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

"States rights" aren't freedom.

 

[Skylar]

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

"States rights" aren't freedom.

Exactly. States don't have rights. They have powers. People have rights. And if the State won't protect them, then the Federal government will.

 

[Toro]

Communists believe states have rights.

Literally.

People who believe in individual liberty do not believe that governments or the collective have rights

 

[danielpalos]

Communists believe states have rights.

Literally.

People who believe in individual liberty do not believe that governments or the collective have rights

Only the right is that cognitively dissonant and are literally, incredible.

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.
The Federalist Number Two

 

[Wolfstrike]

nothing in our history says people and states don't have rights

 

[Silhouette]

nothing in our history says people and states don't have rights

In fact, Windsor Affirmed 56 times in 26 pages of the US Supreme Court's Decision there, that states have the "unquestioned authority" (until and unless further notice) on the question of gay marriage. That's how they left it as of June 2013.

Here's a list of the 56 quotes saying that in Windsor:

Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[mdk]

nothing in our history says people and states don't have rights

In fact, Windsor Affirmed 56 times in 26 pages of the US Supreme Court's Decision there, that states have the "unquestioned authority" (until and unless further notice) on the question of gay marriage. That's how they left it as of June 2013.

Here's a list of the 56 quotes saying that in Windsor:

Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Why do you always leave out the part of the ruling where state marriage laws are "subject to certain constitutional guarantees"? You can ignore that all you wish but the courts are not going to do so.

 

[Silhouette]

In fact, Windsor Affirmed 56 times in 26 pages of the US Supreme Court's Decision there, that states have the "unquestioned authority" (until and unless further notice) on the question of gay marriage. That's how they left it as of June 2013.

Here's a list of the 56 quotes saying that in Windsor:

Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Why do you always leave out the part of the ruling where state marriage laws are "subject to certain constitutional guarantees"? You can ignore that all you wish but the courts are not going to do so.

Because of the preponderance issue...and what was actually Constitutionally Found on the merits at the time.

1. 56 times the Court avered the "unquestioned" authority of the states to decide on the issue and

2. vs the one time the Court suggested there might be an exception to that, or not, which had not been heard or determined on its possible merits yet.

3. That the Court used its proclamation that the states using a consensus within their border (New York in this question) did so rightly within their power which the Court said existed since the dawn of our country, "in the way the Framers of the Constitution" intended. (that's language for a Constitutional Finding on the merits for those not in the know)

4. The Court used that #3 Finding to say that the fed had no right to intrude on a state-defined new type of marriage, like New Hampshire's 13 year old marriage. (want me to find that quote for you again in Windsor? I will if you'd like)

 

[mdk]

In fact, Windsor Affirmed 56 times in 26 pages of the US Supreme Court's Decision there, that states have the "unquestioned authority" (until and unless further notice) on the question of gay marriage. That's how they left it as of June 2013.

Here's a list of the 56 quotes saying that in Windsor:

Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Why do you always leave out the part of the ruling where state marriage laws are "subject to certain constitutional guarantees"? You can ignore that all you wish but the courts are not going to do so.

Because of the preponderance issue...and what was actually Constitutionally Found on the merits at the time.

1. 56 times the Court avered the "unquestioned" authority of the states to decide on the issue and

2. vs the one time the Court suggested there might be an exception to that, or not, which had not been heard or determined on its possible merits yet.

3. That the Court used its proclamation that the states using a consensus within their border (New York in this question) did so rightly within their power which the Court said existed since the dawn of our country, "in the way the Framers of the Constitution" intended. (that's language for a Constitutional Finding on the merits for those not in the know)

4. The Court used that #3 Finding to say that the fed had no right to intrude on a state-defined new type of marriage, like New Hampshire's 13 year old marriage. (want me to find that quote for you again in Windsor? I will if you'd like)

I am well aware of the findings in Windsor but it is abundantly clear you have no idea what you are talking about. You can pretend the ruling does not clearly state that marriage laws are "subject to constitutional guarantees" until the cows come home. None of us; including the courts, are not under any obligation to ignore that fact with you. You have a wonderful habit of ignoring anything that doesn't support your narrative. It is why you are one of the most laughable posters I've ever come across.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Sil makes insanity look not so bad by comparison...