Alabama fights for freedom

[danielpalos]

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

The several States cannot have Any authority over Individual Liberty that does not disturb the domestic Tranquility and security of our free States; Regulation is not Prohibition.

 

[Wolfstrike]

when the country was founded it was a coalition of individual states that were supposed to honor the Bill of Rights and be loosely united under the federal government. (which had very limited powers)
the dictatorial actions of the federal government didn't start until Lincoln ignored the Constitution and started a war with the Confederate states

 

[Silhouette]

The several States cannot have Any authority over Individual Liberty that does not disturb the domestic Tranquility and security of our free States; Regulation is not Prohibition.

Subjecting children to two people of the same gender engaged in damaging farce of play-acting mom or dad (one of them) to a child's detriment is disrupting the tranquility and security of our free States. See the Prince's Trust survey for details as to precisely how that is. Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[NYcarbineer]

The several States cannot have Any authority over Individual Liberty that does not disturb the domestic Tranquility and security of our free States; Regulation is not Prohibition.

Subjecting children to two people of the same gender engaged in damaging farce of play-acting mom or dad (one of them) to a child's detriment is disrupting the tranquility and security of our free States. See the Prince's Trust survey for details as to precisely how that is. Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Unmarried gay couples can have children so your point is worthless.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says that state laws cannot contradict federal law, and the Constitution.

 

[elektra]

. The base structure of the word "marriage" is and always has been "the union of man and woman into which children will come". 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.

Alabama is simply asserting its rights to keep the thousands-years-old supermajority-supported definition of the base structure of marriage to best benefit children. Black women can marry white men there. No problem. But men cannot marry men and women cannot marry women. That's the law. If they don't like it, they can move to New York and marry. Just like if 13 year olds want to marry from Florida, they can emancipate and move to New Hampshire where that (unbelievably) is legal there..

If this cult gets a foothold on "superspecial" status as the rabidly-powerful litigant army they've shown themselves to be (even taking over the American Psychological Association in the 1970s by physical force-storming conventions and knocking over booths to declare themselves "sane by force") ...even over the rights of children to mother and father (children who cannot vote or file a lawsuit to protect their interests; who instead rely on us), the next step will be using New Hampshire's model to force all the other states to allow nuptuals with 13 year olds.

If you think I'm being alarmist here, read my signature. They made a postage stamp of this guy and put the rainbow logo on it.. Harvey Milk, LGBT sexual icon and hero, sodomized a 16 year old minor for years, while officiating as his father figure/guardian. The boy later killed himself jumping to his death where the two met in New York. The oldest boy in a series of boys on drugs that were this predator's favorite demograpic, was 24 as Milk aged into his 40s. And the 24 year old only because he was hairless and resembled a young teen boy. He liked them very young and addled on drugs. Today we would prosecute him as a drug-rapist/pedophile and he would be on the sex-offender's registry.

Cult members know all this about him. All of it is in his biography "The Mayor of Castro Street" for anyone to read. When confronted about his actions, I've never found a single LGBT person who denounced him. Instead, they line up lock-step to defend what he did with kids...when cornered long enough in debate, they always fall back on "well, the age of consent should be lower"...(with time...and lower....and lower....and ...)

...This is the same group, mind you, who battles daily here and many other places on the internet to divorce children's welfare from the conversation about forced-radical structural change to marriage (aka "marriage equality").

This is the 51st post, the first mention of Children and how homosexual marriage effects them.
We speak of the rights of Men and Women, ignoring the rights of children.

 

[NYcarbineer]

. The base structure of the word "marriage" is and always has been "the union of man and woman into which children will come". 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.

Alabama is simply asserting its rights to keep the thousands-years-old supermajority-supported definition of the base structure of marriage to best benefit children. Black women can marry white men there. No problem. But men cannot marry men and women cannot marry women. That's the law. If they don't like it, they can move to New York and marry. Just like if 13 year olds want to marry from Florida, they can emancipate and move to New Hampshire where that (unbelievably) is legal there..

If this cult gets a foothold on "superspecial" status as the rabidly-powerful litigant army they've shown themselves to be (even taking over the American Psychological Association in the 1970s by physical force-storming conventions and knocking over booths to declare themselves "sane by force") ...even over the rights of children to mother and father (children who cannot vote or file a lawsuit to protect their interests; who instead rely on us), the next step will be using New Hampshire's model to force all the other states to allow nuptuals with 13 year olds.

If you think I'm being alarmist here, read my signature. They made a postage stamp of this guy and put the rainbow logo on it.. Harvey Milk, LGBT sexual icon and hero, sodomized a 16 year old minor for years, while officiating as his father figure/guardian. The boy later killed himself jumping to his death where the two met in New York. The oldest boy in a series of boys on drugs that were this predator's favorite demograpic, was 24 as Milk aged into his 40s. And the 24 year old only because he was hairless and resembled a young teen boy. He liked them very young and addled on drugs. Today we would prosecute him as a drug-rapist/pedophile and he would be on the sex-offender's registry.

Cult members know all this about him. All of it is in his biography "The Mayor of Castro Street" for anyone to read. When confronted about his actions, I've never found a single LGBT person who denounced him. Instead, they line up lock-step to defend what he did with kids...when cornered long enough in debate, they always fall back on "well, the age of consent should be lower"...(with time...and lower....and lower....and ...)

...This is the same group, mind you, who battles daily here and many other places on the internet to divorce children's welfare from the conversation about forced-radical structural change to marriage (aka "marriage equality").

This is the 51st post, the first mention of Children and how homosexual marriage effects them.
We speak of the rights of Men and Women, ignoring the rights of children.

You cannot prevent unmarried gay couples from having children, so whether or not they are married is irrelevant.

 

[elektra]

You cannot prevent unmarried gay couples from having children, so whether or not they are married is irrelevant.

Now that Health Care is a function of Government, we will be obligated to prioritize our spending and stop diverting cash from Cancer Research and prevention to homosexuals artificially having children. It is an incredible waste of our resources, especially considering HIV, AIDs and Cancer Research suffers when our few dollars are transferred to homosexuals so they can artificially have children.

I am surprised that people would condone using our budget for health care so frivolously.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You cannot prevent unmarried gay couples from having children, so whether or not they are married is irrelevant.

Now that Health Care is a function of Government, we will be obligated to prioritize our spending and stop diverting cash from Cancer Research and prevention to homosexuals artificially having children. It is an incredible waste of our resources, especially considering HIV, AIDs and Cancer Research suffers when our few dollars are transferred to homosexuals so they can artificially have children.

I am surprised that people would condone using our budget for health care so frivolously.

This post is typical of the ignorance and stupidity the Constitution guards against.

 

[elektra]

You cannot prevent unmarried gay couples from having children, so whether or not they are married is irrelevant.

Now that Health Care is a function of Government, we will be obligated to prioritize our spending and stop diverting cash from Cancer Research and prevention to homosexuals artificially having children. It is an incredible waste of our resources, especially considering HIV, AIDs and Cancer Research suffers when our few dollars are transferred to homosexuals so they can artificially have children.

I am surprised that people would condone using our budget for health care so frivolously.

This post is typical of the ignorance and stupidity the Constitution guards against.

Is it not the Democrats who state the rich have all the money, so we must redistribute the wealth, same goes for health care now. Health Care is a function of government, I simply can not condone redistributing health care dollars for cancer to the artificial desires of same sex couples who simply are born at a disadvantage when it comes to having kids.

Sorry, butt everything having to with health is now societies concern, mine, Obama and the Democrats have made it so.

 

[bodecea]

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

OK...let's go your way for a second. Does the government prevent gays from getting driver's licenses?

 

[Seawytch]

You cannot prevent unmarried gay couples from having children, so whether or not they are married is irrelevant.

Now that Health Care is a function of Government, we will be obligated to prioritize our spending and stop diverting cash from Cancer Research and prevention to homosexuals artificially having children. It is an incredible waste of our resources, especially considering HIV, AIDs and Cancer Research suffers when our few dollars are transferred to homosexuals so they can artificially have children.

I am surprised that people would condone using our budget for health care so frivolously.

Health care isn't a "function of Government". It is still a function of the insurance companies (mores the pity) and many insurance companies DO pay for infertility treatments for gays and straights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

when the country was founded it was a coalition of individual states that were supposed to honor the Bill of Rights and be loosely united under the federal government. (which had very limited powers)
the dictatorial actions of the federal government didn't start until Lincoln ignored the Constitution and started a war with the Confederate states

Ignorant nonsense.

It was the original intent of the framing generation that Federal laws, rulings of Federal courts, and Constitutional case law are supreme.

 

[mdk]

The several States cannot have Any authority over Individual Liberty that does not disturb the domestic Tranquility and security of our free States; Regulation is not Prohibition.

Subjecting children to two people of the same gender engaged in damaging farce of play-acting mom or dad (one of them) to a child's detriment is disrupting the tranquility and security of our free States. See the Prince's Trust survey for details as to precisely how that is. Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The Prince's Trust in no way supports your assertion. You do realize the more you post this study doesn't mean the more it supports your assertion, right? Why don't you (or anyone of your ilk) show us all in the study where they specifically study or mention gay parents or that role models can only be a parent? We both know that it doesn't. The only person you are fooling with The Prince's Trust is yourself.

 

[mdk]

You cannot prevent unmarried gay couples from having children, so whether or not they are married is irrelevant.

Now that Health Care is a function of Government, we will be obligated to prioritize our spending and stop diverting cash from Cancer Research and prevention to homosexuals artificially having children. It is an incredible waste of our resources, especially considering HIV, AIDs and Cancer Research suffers when our few dollars are transferred to homosexuals so they can artificially have children.

I am surprised that people would condone using our budget for health care so frivolously.

This post is typical of the ignorance and stupidity the Constitution guards against.

Is it not the Democrats who state the rich have all the money, so we must redistribute the wealth, same goes for health care now. Health Care is a function of government, I simply can not condone redistributing health care dollars for cancer to the artificial desires of same sex couples who simply are born at a disadvantage when it comes to having kids.

Sorry, butt everything having to with health is now societies concern, mine, Obama and the Democrats have made it so.

I am sure you were totally fine with gays having children and it wasn't your concern until the ACA was passed. Yeah, I am not buying it. This is just another lame excuse to justify being an insufferable busybody.

 

[candycorn]

When the bigots are forced to accept progress, it makes the victory for the good folks in the nation that much sweeter. On a personal note, a long time friend of mine announced her engagement to her co-worker late last week. They live in South Louisiana, are raising her daughter to be a beautiful young woman and are happy that their existence and love causes some people ulcers and sleepless nights.

 

[Seawytch]

You cannot prevent unmarried gay couples from having children, so whether or not they are married is irrelevant.

Now that Health Care is a function of Government, we will be obligated to prioritize our spending and stop diverting cash from Cancer Research and prevention to homosexuals artificially having children. It is an incredible waste of our resources, especially considering HIV, AIDs and Cancer Research suffers when our few dollars are transferred to homosexuals so they can artificially have children.

I am surprised that people would condone using our budget for health care so frivolously.

This post is typical of the ignorance and stupidity the Constitution guards against.

Is it not the Democrats who state the rich have all the money, so we must redistribute the wealth, same goes for health care now. Health Care is a function of government, I simply can not condone redistributing health care dollars for cancer to the artificial desires of same sex couples who simply are born at a disadvantage when it comes to having kids.

Sorry, butt everything having to with health is now societies concern, mine, Obama and the Democrats have made it so.

I am sure you were totally fine with gays having children and it wasn't your concern until the ACA was passed. Yeah, I am not buying it. This is just another lame excuse to justify being an insufferable busybody.

The ACA does not require coverage for infertility treatments. The ACA does require coverage of essential health benefits and allows states to define essential health benefits by selecting a benchmark plan from current employer offerings. Coverage of infertility treatments are required only for plans sold in a state with a mandate, provided that it includes infertility coverage in its benchmark plan.
​

The ACA and Infertility

 

[mdk]

You cannot prevent unmarried gay couples from having children, so whether or not they are married is irrelevant.

Now that Health Care is a function of Government, we will be obligated to prioritize our spending and stop diverting cash from Cancer Research and prevention to homosexuals artificially having children. It is an incredible waste of our resources, especially considering HIV, AIDs and Cancer Research suffers when our few dollars are transferred to homosexuals so they can artificially have children.

I am surprised that people would condone using our budget for health care so frivolously.

This post is typical of the ignorance and stupidity the Constitution guards against.

Is it not the Democrats who state the rich have all the money, so we must redistribute the wealth, same goes for health care now. Health Care is a function of government, I simply can not condone redistributing health care dollars for cancer to the artificial desires of same sex couples who simply are born at a disadvantage when it comes to having kids.

Sorry, butt everything having to with health is now societies concern, mine, Obama and the Democrats have made it so.

I am sure you were totally fine with gays having children and it wasn't your concern until the ACA was passed. Yeah, I am not buying it. This is just another lame excuse to justify being an insufferable busybody.

The ACA does not require coverage for infertility treatments. The ACA does require coverage of essential health benefits and allows states to define essential health benefits by selecting a benchmark plan from current employer offerings. Coverage of infertility treatments are required only for plans sold in a state with a mandate, provided that it includes infertility coverage in its benchmark plan.
​

The ACA and Infertility

Thank you providing this information b/c I wasn't 100% if it was required by the ACA or not.

 

[BlindBoo]

when the country was founded it was a coalition of individual states that were supposed to honor the Bill of Rights and be loosely united under the federal government. (which had very limited powers)
the dictatorial actions of the federal government didn't start until Lincoln ignored the Constitution and started a war with the Confederate states

Where in the Constitution does it provide for States to leave the Union?

I think the first president to act as a tyrant was Andrew Jackson.

 

[elektra]

You cannot prevent unmarried gay couples from having children, so whether or not they are married is irrelevant.

Now that Health Care is a function of Government, we will be obligated to prioritize our spending and stop diverting cash from Cancer Research and prevention to homosexuals artificially having children. It is an incredible waste of our resources, especially considering HIV, AIDs and Cancer Research suffers when our few dollars are transferred to homosexuals so they can artificially have children.

I am surprised that people would condone using our budget for health care so frivolously.

This post is typical of the ignorance and stupidity the Constitution guards against.

Is it not the Democrats who state the rich have all the money, so we must redistribute the wealth, same goes for health care now. Health Care is a function of government, I simply can not condone redistributing health care dollars for cancer to the artificial desires of same sex couples who simply are born at a disadvantage when it comes to having kids.

Sorry, butt everything having to with health is now societies concern, mine, Obama and the Democrats have made it so.

I am sure you were totally fine with gays having children and it wasn't your concern until the ACA was passed. Yeah, I am not buying it. This is just another lame excuse to justify being an insufferable busybody.

yes of course, as you say