Alabama SC orders judges to stop issuing homosexuals "marriage" licenses.

[Conservative65]

Under my State's laws, I have a civil union since the marriage license I have comes from the State. It's a marriage because it's between a male and a female.

And if your state's marriage laws violate the constitution, they're invalid. Just as state interracial marriage bans were invalid. The restrictions themselves must pass constitutional muster. They must have a very good reason, serve a legitimate state interest and a valid legislative end.

Gay marriage bans fail on all three points.

That's your opinion and that of agenda minded judges.

Since judges have actual authority- those are pretty relevant opinions- unlike your own.

Don't confuse your agreement with relevant. Because you agree doesn't make it valid.

Let me point out what is relevant: When the judge in Alabama ruled that the ban on same gender marriages was unconstitutional, marriage licenses started being issued to same gender couples in Alabama- that is relevant.

When the Alabama Supreme Court said to stop issuing marriage licenses- that is relevant.

When the Supreme Court decides the issue- that is relevant.

Judges have actual authority- and their decisions are relevant.

Let me point out what isn't relevant: YOUR existence.

 

[Skylar]

And where have I demanded that anyone agree with what I believe? Quote me.

You can believe whatever you'd like. And no one gives a shit.

Now what the *law* says is a different matter. And its legal recognition of marriage that gays and lesbians are fighting for in court.

No one gives a shit about what the faggots want except other faggots and ****** lovers.

Or those interested in constitutional guarantees and the protection of them. And I'll gladly admit to being part of that group.

Until it involves types of marriages with which your kind disagrees. At that point, all sorts of reasons to oppose them are considered valid.

Says who? Can you quote me saying this? Or Like your imaginary 'demand that anyone agree with what I believe', is this just more mythical nonsense you've made up?

Do you support a brother/sister marriage? Polygamous marriages?

Well, at least your asking me this time. Rather than telling me what my opinion is.

I don't really have an opinion on brother and sister marriage. I don't know enough about the topic to discuss it intelligently.

Our laws aren't set up for poly marriage, so we have no way of regulating it. If two people are married and they add a third, are both married to the third person, or only one of them? If one of the three wants a divorce, does that mean that the other two are no longer married once the divorce goes through? Or the other two are still married? If you divorce, does property get split 3 ways? Or does it get split based on the time in the relationship? Does every member of a poly marriage have conjugal rights to every other member? What if one person wanted to add a third, but the other didn't?

We have no precedent for any of this. Nor any laws to cover it. And the issues get more wildly complicated the larger the number of participants grow.

We have answers for every such question in two person marriage. And all the same rules apply for gays as apply for straights. There need be no adjustment to any law save that you stop excluding gays.

Poly marriage would require massive changes to our laws, and all new precedent for hundreds of unresolved legal issues that our law has no tools to resolve.

 

[Tty6BelowZero]

No kidding. Fed judges aka tyrants in robes really should stop trying to dictate their opinions to the states.

That's because if the states allowed the people to vote, most wouldn't have gay marriage. So it's left up to one small group to decide.

 

[Conservative65]

Until it involves types of marriages with which your kind disagrees. At that point, all sorts of reasons to oppose them are considered valid.

Says who? Can you quote me saying this? Or Like your imaginary 'demand that anyone agree with what I believe', is this just more mythical nonsense you've made up?

Do you support a brother/sister marriage? Polygamous marriages?

Do you support mixed race marriage?

As long as one is male and one is female. I wouldn't do it.

Then why don't you support brother/sister marriage?

I've never said either way about brother/sister. I've asked many, many same sex supporters whether or not they do. They will claim that two people who love each other and are consenting adults should be able to marry. When I ask them about a brother sister combination, they are quick to deny the equality they say exists for consenting adults to marriages they oppose. I find that while they claim they support equality of marriage, in the end, they support it for marriages they agree with and are quick to oppose the kinds they don't.

 

[Skylar]

Civil Unions. Interesting that you bring them up. That was the goal for gays a decade ago.....but it was the religious right wing that said no to civil unions or anything that even sounded a bit like marriage.

Now it's too late. It's gonna be marriage. Period.

Under my State's laws, I have a civil union since the marriage license I have comes from the State. It's a marriage because it's between a male and a female.

And if your state's marriage laws violate the constitution, they're invalid. Just as state interracial marriage bans were invalid. The restrictions themselves must pass constitutional muster. They must have a very good reason, serve a legitimate state interest and a valid legislative end.

Gay marriage bans fail on all three points.

That's your opinion and that of agenda minded judges.

Says you, pretending to be any judge who disagrees with you.

YOU interpret the constitution based on your agenda. And then assume that since you do, everyone else must.

Nope. There's no such mandate. Following precedent and protecting rights are both legitimate motivations for judges. And the stated motivation for the rulings in same sex marriage case.

Now why would I ignore a judge on their own motivation, and instead believe you citing yourself?

There is no reason.

Why wouldn't you support a judge ruling on an agenda with which you agree? There is no reason for you to do so. You benefit from it and that's your sole motivation for supporting the decisions.

Your claim is that judges are serving political agendas. I'm not a judge. Making all your babble about me an awkward red herring. And more baseless speculation.

 

[Conservative65]

No one gives a shit about what the faggots want except other faggots and ****** lovers.

Or those interested in constitutional guarantees and the protection of them. And I'll gladly admit to being part of that group.

Until it involves types of marriages with which your kind disagrees. At that point, all sorts of reasons to oppose them are considered valid.

Says who? Can you quote me saying this? Or Like your imaginary 'demand that anyone agree with what I believe', is this just more mythical nonsense you've made up?

Do you support a brother/sister marriage? Polygamous marriages?

Well, at least your asking me this time. Rather than telling me what my opinion is.

I don't really have an opinion on brother and sister marriage. I don't know enough about the topic to discuss it intelligently.

Our laws aren't set up for poly marriage, so we have no way of regulating it. If two people are married and they add a third, are both married to the third person, or only one of them? If one of the three wants a divorce, does that mean that the other two are no longer married once the divorce goes through? Or the other two are still married? If you divorce, does property get split 3 ways? Or does it get split based on the time in the relationship? Does every member of a poly marriage have conjugal rights to every other member? What if one person wanted to add a third, but the other didn't?

We have no precedent for any of this. Nor any laws to cover it. And the issues get more wildly complicated the larger the number of participants grow.

We have answers for every such question in two person marriage. And all the same rules apply for gays as apply for straights. There need be no adjustment to any law save that you stop excluding gays.

Poly marriage would require massive changes to our laws, and all new precedent for hundreds of unresolved legal issues that our law has no tools to resolve.

It's not something you have to study. It's a simple question based on equality. If a brother and sister, both of whom are consenting adults, want to marry, should they have the same equality you demand for same sex couples under the 14th amendment. If you truly support equality, you can answer it.

I notice that you seem to have plenty of excuses for not being willing to support equality. Hypocrite.

 

[Conservative65]

Under my State's laws, I have a civil union since the marriage license I have comes from the State. It's a marriage because it's between a male and a female.

And if your state's marriage laws violate the constitution, they're invalid. Just as state interracial marriage bans were invalid. The restrictions themselves must pass constitutional muster. They must have a very good reason, serve a legitimate state interest and a valid legislative end.

Gay marriage bans fail on all three points.

That's your opinion and that of agenda minded judges.

Says you, pretending to be any judge who disagrees with you.

YOU interpret the constitution based on your agenda. And then assume that since you do, everyone else must.

Nope. There's no such mandate. Following precedent and protecting rights are both legitimate motivations for judges. And the stated motivation for the rulings in same sex marriage case.

Now why would I ignore a judge on their own motivation, and instead believe you citing yourself?

There is no reason.

Why wouldn't you support a judge ruling on an agenda with which you agree? There is no reason for you to do so. You benefit from it and that's your sole motivation for supporting the decisions.

Your claim is that judges are serving political agendas. I'm not a judge. Making all your babble about me an awkward red herring. And more baseless speculation.

When you support what judges do, it's the same. I wouldn't expect one of your kind to accept responsibility. It's not in your nature.

 

[danielpalos]

Under my State's laws, I have a civil union since the marriage license I have comes from the State. It's a marriage because it's between a male and a female.

And if your state's marriage laws violate the constitution, they're invalid. Just as state interracial marriage bans were invalid. The restrictions themselves must pass constitutional muster. They must have a very good reason, serve a legitimate state interest and a valid legislative end.

Gay marriage bans fail on all three points.

That's your opinion and that of agenda minded judges.

Since judges have actual authority- those are pretty relevant opinions- unlike your own.

Don't confuse your agreement with relevant. Because you agree doesn't make it valid.

Let me point out what is relevant: When the judge in Alabama ruled that the ban on same gender marriages was unconstitutional, marriage licenses started being issued to same gender couples in Alabama- that is relevant.

When the Alabama Supreme Court said to stop issuing marriage licenses- that is relevant.

When the Supreme Court decides the issue- that is relevant.

Judges have actual authority- and their decisions are relevant.

There is no Constitutional basis to deny or disparage Some of the several citizens in the several States.

Any Thing close to that would be a Bill of Attainder--which are proscribed to Both, the general government and the several States.

 

[Skylar]

I'm not quoting me. I'm quoting the federal judiciary. And they recognize violations of the 14th amendment as the basis of the overturning of state gay marriage bans.

With the USSC having preserved every ruling that overturned state gay marriage bans.

Without exception.

I must end here, but at least use the proper abbreviation of the United States Supreme court. It is NOT the USSC, it is the SCOTUS. I cannot spend all my time in educating the ignorant.

So you ignored the 14th amendment, ignored the constitution, ignored decades of precedent, ignored 3 USSC cases explicitly contradicting you, and ignored virtually every federal court to hear challenges to same sex marriage bans overturning them....

......but you refuse to discuss the topic with me because you don't like the acronym I use for the Supreme Court?

Laughing....whatever gets you through the day, buddy.

I ain't your buddy....I have been discussing the topic with you all morning, I just have other things more important than educating you. This does not mean that I will not check in and respond from time to time.
I do not ignore y the fourteenth amendment to YOUR CONstitution, I simply point to your misuse thereof.
I have cited precedence that is contrary to this fictional jurisdiction in the redefining of the set legal definition of a marriage.

Of course you ignored the 14th amendment. Every supreme court case you cited about the jurisdiction of the State and the Federal government was from BEFORE the passage of the 14th amendment, when the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. And you tried to portray that as the situation today, despite the situation radically changing with the passage of the 14th amendment.

This wasn't accidental. You know quite well that the 14th granted the federal government new authority and jurisdiction, applying the bill of rights to the States. Yet you always omit the 14th in your arguments.

Despite the basis of every federal ruling that overturned gay marriage bans being violations of the 14th amendment. Your willful ignorance doesn't make the 14th disappear.

The fact that Alabama or any other State refuses to redefine the word marriage has nothing to do with denying equal protection of the law.

Says you, citing your personal opinion. The federal judiciary has almost universally found that gay marriage bans do violate the 14th amendment. They're authoritative. You're nobody.

I do so love your reference to the SCOTUS as the "authoritative". Such exhibits YOUR lack of understanding of YOUR own CONstitution.
Let us review what James Madison stated.... "The father of your CONstitution"... when speaking of YOUR CONstitution he stated that....
“It was formed, not by the governments of the component states, as the federal government for which it was substituted was formed. Nor was it formed by a majority of the people of the United States, as a single community, in the manner of a consolidated government.

And where did James Madison say that your personal opinion trumps the federal judiciary?

No where. Yet that's your argument. That whatever YOU imagine the constitution means, the courts are bound to. Um, no. They aren't. Your personal opinion has no relevance to the authority of any federal ruling. Nor their job, nor jurisdiction.

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

Federalist Paper 78

It is the job of the federal judiciary to interpret the constitution by design. In any disagreement between you and the federal judiciary on interpreting the constitution, the federal judiciary wins.

Your entire argument is that YOU get to decide what is constitutional, that YOU are the authoritative arbiter of when rights have been violated, that YOU decide what jurisdiction the court has.

And you're nobody.

 

[Skylar]

And if your state's marriage laws violate the constitution, they're invalid. Just as state interracial marriage bans were invalid. The restrictions themselves must pass constitutional muster. They must have a very good reason, serve a legitimate state interest and a valid legislative end.

Gay marriage bans fail on all three points.

That's your opinion and that of agenda minded judges.

Says you, pretending to be any judge who disagrees with you.

YOU interpret the constitution based on your agenda. And then assume that since you do, everyone else must.

Nope. There's no such mandate. Following precedent and protecting rights are both legitimate motivations for judges. And the stated motivation for the rulings in same sex marriage case.

Now why would I ignore a judge on their own motivation, and instead believe you citing yourself?

There is no reason.

Why wouldn't you support a judge ruling on an agenda with which you agree? There is no reason for you to do so. You benefit from it and that's your sole motivation for supporting the decisions.

Your claim is that judges are serving political agendas. I'm not a judge. Making all your babble about me an awkward red herring. And more baseless speculation.

When you support what judges do, it's the same. I wouldn't expect one of your kind to accept responsibility. It's not in your nature.

Dude, you know nothing about my nature. Nor do you speak for any judge. All you can tell us is what YOU do.

And just because you interpret the constitution to meet your agenda doesn't mean anyone else does. Now why would I ignore a judge on their own motivation and instead believe you pretending to be that judge?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A truck does NOT have 18 wheels, this is why people today are so ignorant.

Excuse me? It is 53 feet long and can haul 80,000 pounds, a tractor trailer, or a truck. My dad was a trucker for 8 years. I went on 2 hauls with him to California and back. I know what I'm talking about.

Excuse me? I have been a "trucker" for 38 years, and I know the difference between a tractor and trailer, and a "Truck". A "truck" is NOT a tractor and trailor. A tractor pulls a trailer, the trailer to which you refer is 53', the combination of the two exceeds 53'.
Now you didnt answer my question concerning "civil union".
Also in a so called "gay marriage" between two of the same sex, which is the husband, and which is the wife, as you see now you must establish a new fiction wherein a woman may be a husband and a man may be a wife. Now a husband and wife may no longer refer to the sex of the individual. Fiction, fiction, fiction.
Please answer at least this one question....
Why is it so important to create a fiction, rather than contract a "civil union" between sodomites,wherein there is neither husband or wife?

Just excellent points here and presented through a soundly reasoned construct. Just a well stated point of view.

There is nothing about the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality that does not rest in deceit, thus which is not entirely fraudulent... . As the entire ruse is political and designed to influence the ignorant, as a means to alter US Federal Policy, toward undermining the viability of the Culture, by fundamentally changing the United States of America.

The most pitiful part of which, is that the idiots advocating for such live here... there's lives being intrinsically built here and they're entirely incapable of understanding that they're literally undermining their own viability in the process; so we can see that the deceit begins within the disorder of their own minds.

Thus providing yet another glimpse of 'The Harm' that homosexuality represents to you, the reader.

The evidence just keeps pouring in... .

I would disagree with you assertion, or better stated reference to "Federal policy": The fact is that there no longer exists any federal aspect within the U.S. government. The U.S. government under the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution established a federal system cobbled together with a national system establishing neither a wholly federal system nor a wholly national system, this may be understood by reading James Madison's explanation in the CONstitutional debates #s 39 and 62.
The federal portion was the State governments participation in legislation via their appointed representatives, ( their senators appointed by each State legislature to represent their State government within the central body= the collective of States in union assembled), the 17th amendment removed the federal portion leaving only the national portion in place. The national portion is the House of representatives divided by districts without regard to State government affiliation, this national portion represents the whole of the people, not the individual State governments which made the Union of States= The United States.
Now both the House of representatives and the Senate represent the party to which its members are affiliated rather than the State governments or the people. Those two party's are owned and controlled by international corporations which fund them and they in turn fund their candidates thus own them and their loyalty.

I'd like to post a contest, if for nothing else the shear entertainment of the exercise, but in all candor, I find the spirit disinterested in mounting a defense for a system which has long since been corrupted by the endless tide of half measure and compromise.

I am however enjoying reading your work... nothing cuts through the crapola like sound reason. Keep it up.

 

[Conservative65]

That's your opinion and that of agenda minded judges.

Says you, pretending to be any judge who disagrees with you.

YOU interpret the constitution based on your agenda. And then assume that since you do, everyone else must.

Nope. There's no such mandate. Following precedent and protecting rights are both legitimate motivations for judges. And the stated motivation for the rulings in same sex marriage case.

Now why would I ignore a judge on their own motivation, and instead believe you citing yourself?

There is no reason.

Why wouldn't you support a judge ruling on an agenda with which you agree? There is no reason for you to do so. You benefit from it and that's your sole motivation for supporting the decisions.

Your claim is that judges are serving political agendas. I'm not a judge. Making all your babble about me an awkward red herring. And more baseless speculation.

When you support what judges do, it's the same. I wouldn't expect one of your kind to accept responsibility. It's not in your nature.

Dude, you know nothing about my nature. Nor do you speak for any judge. All you can tell us is what YOU do.

And just because you interpret the constitution to meet your agenda doesn't mean anyone else does. Now why would I ignore a judge on their own motivation and instead believe you pretending to be that judge?

Interesting that you claim I interpret the Constitution on an agenda but don't have the guts to admit you do.

You wouldn't ignore a judge that agrees with you. It's in your ****** nature. Now, go run your dick sucker to someone else homo.

 

[Skylar]

A truck does NOT have 18 wheels, this is why people today are so ignorant.

Excuse me? It is 53 feet long and can haul 80,000 pounds, a tractor trailer, or a truck. My dad was a trucker for 8 years. I went on 2 hauls with him to California and back. I know what I'm talking about.

Excuse me? I have been a "trucker" for 38 years, and I know the difference between a tractor and trailer, and a "Truck". A "truck" is NOT a tractor and trailor. A tractor pulls a trailer, the trailer to which you refer is 53', the combination of the two exceeds 53'.
Now you didnt answer my question concerning "civil union".
Also in a so called "gay marriage" between two of the same sex, which is the husband, and which is the wife, as you see now you must establish a new fiction wherein a woman may be a husband and a man may be a wife. Now a husband and wife may no longer refer to the sex of the individual. Fiction, fiction, fiction.
Please answer at least this one question....
Why is it so important to create a fiction, rather than contract a "civil union" between sodomites,wherein there is neither husband or wife?

Just excellent points here and presented through a soundly reasoned construct. Just a well stated point of view.

There is nothing about the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality that does not rest in deceit, thus which is not entirely fraudulent... . As the entire ruse is political and designed to influence the ignorant, as a means to alter US Federal Policy, toward undermining the viability of the Culture, by fundamentally changing the United States of America.

The most pitiful part of which, is that the idiots advocating for such live here... there's lives being intrinsically built here and they're entirely incapable of understanding that they're literally undermining their own viability in the process; so we can see that the deceit begins within the disorder of their own minds.

Thus providing yet another glimpse of 'The Harm' that homosexuality represents to you, the reader.

The evidence just keeps pouring in... .

I would disagree with you assertion, or better stated reference to "Federal policy": The fact is that there no longer exists any federal aspect within the U.S. government. The U.S. government under the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution established a federal system cobbled together with a national system establishing neither a wholly federal system nor a wholly national system, this may be understood by reading James Madison's explanation in the CONstitutional debates #s 39 and 62.
The federal portion was the State governments participation in legislation via their appointed representatives, ( their senators appointed by each State legislature to represent their State government within the central body= the collective of States in union assembled), the 17th amendment removed the federal portion leaving only the national portion in place. The national portion is the House of representatives divided by districts without regard to State government affiliation, this national portion represents the whole of the people, not the individual State governments which made the Union of States= The United States.
Now both the House of representatives and the Senate represent the party to which its members are affiliated rather than the State governments or the people. Those two party's are owned and controlled by international corporations which fund them and they in turn fund their candidates thus own them and their loyalty.

I'd like to post a contest, if for nothing else the shear entertainment of the exercise, but in all candor, I find the spirit disinterested in mounting a defense for a system which has long since been corrupted by the endless tide of half measure and compromise.

I am however enjoying reading your work... nothing cuts through the crapola like sound reason. Keep it up.

Summarily ignoring the 14th amendment and citing only cases that precede it isn't 'sound reason'. As the 14th amendment does exist. And it radically changed the relationship of the States and Federal government.

And, of course, every challenge to state gay marriage bans being heard by the court are on the basis of the violation of the 14th amendment.

Making the willful ignorance of the 14th a bizarre exercise in pointless denial.

 

[Skylar]

Says you, pretending to be any judge who disagrees with you.

YOU interpret the constitution based on your agenda. And then assume that since you do, everyone else must.

Nope. There's no such mandate. Following precedent and protecting rights are both legitimate motivations for judges. And the stated motivation for the rulings in same sex marriage case.

Now why would I ignore a judge on their own motivation, and instead believe you citing yourself?

There is no reason.

Why wouldn't you support a judge ruling on an agenda with which you agree? There is no reason for you to do so. You benefit from it and that's your sole motivation for supporting the decisions.

Your claim is that judges are serving political agendas. I'm not a judge. Making all your babble about me an awkward red herring. And more baseless speculation.

When you support what judges do, it's the same. I wouldn't expect one of your kind to accept responsibility. It's not in your nature.

Dude, you know nothing about my nature. Nor do you speak for any judge. All you can tell us is what YOU do.

And just because you interpret the constitution to meet your agenda doesn't mean anyone else does. Now why would I ignore a judge on their own motivation and instead believe you pretending to be that judge?

Interesting that you claim I interpret the Constitution on an agenda but don't have the guts to admit you do.

Laughing....can I take it from your switch from 'judges with an agenda' to me....that your argument wasn't working so well?

You wouldn't ignore a judge that agrees with you. It's in your ****** nature. Now, go run your dick sucker to someone else homo.

Oh, I disagree with federal judges all the time. But I don't consider their rulings any less authoritative because I disagree with them.

And its the authority of the ruling that is being challenged. With you insisting its only a 'political agenda'. Citing yourself as every federal judge who disgrees with you.

The obvious problem being, you're nnot actually any of these people. Nor do you speak for them. They speak for themselves. And they've cited precedent and the protection of rights as their motivation for ruling as they did.

Why would I ignore them on their motivation and instead believe you pretending to speak for them?

 

[Skylar]

Or those interested in constitutional guarantees and the protection of them. And I'll gladly admit to being part of that group.

Until it involves types of marriages with which your kind disagrees. At that point, all sorts of reasons to oppose them are considered valid.

Says who? Can you quote me saying this? Or Like your imaginary 'demand that anyone agree with what I believe', is this just more mythical nonsense you've made up?

Do you support a brother/sister marriage? Polygamous marriages?

Well, at least your asking me this time. Rather than telling me what my opinion is.

I don't really have an opinion on brother and sister marriage. I don't know enough about the topic to discuss it intelligently.

Our laws aren't set up for poly marriage, so we have no way of regulating it. If two people are married and they add a third, are both married to the third person, or only one of them? If one of the three wants a divorce, does that mean that the other two are no longer married once the divorce goes through? Or the other two are still married? If you divorce, does property get split 3 ways? Or does it get split based on the time in the relationship? Does every member of a poly marriage have conjugal rights to every other member? What if one person wanted to add a third, but the other didn't?

We have no precedent for any of this. Nor any laws to cover it. And the issues get more wildly complicated the larger the number of participants grow.

We have answers for every such question in two person marriage. And all the same rules apply for gays as apply for straights. There need be no adjustment to any law save that you stop excluding gays.

Poly marriage would require massive changes to our laws, and all new precedent for hundreds of unresolved legal issues that our law has no tools to resolve.

It's not something you have to study. It's a simple question based on equality. If a brother and sister, both of whom are consenting adults, want to marry, should they have the same equality you demand for same sex couples under the 14th amendment. If you truly support equality, you can answer it.

I notice that you seem to have plenty of excuses for not being willing to support equality. Hypocrite.

Notice that you don't actually disagree with anything I've said regarding polygamy. Or how we don't have the laws to regulate it.

Remember that.

And my position on brother and sister is the same as yours: I've never said either way about brother/sister. But I'm a hypocrite for holding the same position you do?

 

[Conservative65]

Until it involves types of marriages with which your kind disagrees. At that point, all sorts of reasons to oppose them are considered valid.

Says who? Can you quote me saying this? Or Like your imaginary 'demand that anyone agree with what I believe', is this just more mythical nonsense you've made up?

Do you support a brother/sister marriage? Polygamous marriages?

Well, at least your asking me this time. Rather than telling me what my opinion is.

I don't really have an opinion on brother and sister marriage. I don't know enough about the topic to discuss it intelligently.

Our laws aren't set up for poly marriage, so we have no way of regulating it. If two people are married and they add a third, are both married to the third person, or only one of them? If one of the three wants a divorce, does that mean that the other two are no longer married once the divorce goes through? Or the other two are still married? If you divorce, does property get split 3 ways? Or does it get split based on the time in the relationship? Does every member of a poly marriage have conjugal rights to every other member? What if one person wanted to add a third, but the other didn't?

We have no precedent for any of this. Nor any laws to cover it. And the issues get more wildly complicated the larger the number of participants grow.

We have answers for every such question in two person marriage. And all the same rules apply for gays as apply for straights. There need be no adjustment to any law save that you stop excluding gays.

Poly marriage would require massive changes to our laws, and all new precedent for hundreds of unresolved legal issues that our law has no tools to resolve.

It's not something you have to study. It's a simple question based on equality. If a brother and sister, both of whom are consenting adults, want to marry, should they have the same equality you demand for same sex couples under the 14th amendment. If you truly support equality, you can answer it.

I notice that you seem to have plenty of excuses for not being willing to support equality. Hypocrite.

Notice that you don't actually disagree with anything I've said regarding polygamy. Or how we don't have the laws to regulate it.

Remember that.

All I need to know is that you tout equality of marriage for same sex couples then find all sorts of excuses to deny it to other types of marriages. Why should their be laws regulating polygamous marriages. You oppose any related to same sex marriages.

 

[James Everett]

A truck does NOT have 18 wheels, this is why people today are so ignorant.

Excuse me? It is 53 feet long and can haul 80,000 pounds, a tractor trailer, or a truck. My dad was a trucker for 8 years. I went on 2 hauls with him to California and back. I know what I'm talking about.

Excuse me? I have been a "trucker" for 38 years, and I know the difference between a tractor and trailer, and a "Truck". A "truck" is NOT a tractor and trailor. A tractor pulls a trailer, the trailer to which you refer is 53', the combination of the two exceeds 53'.
Now you didnt answer my question concerning "civil union".
Also in a so called "gay marriage" between two of the same sex, which is the husband, and which is the wife, as you see now you must establish a new fiction wherein a woman may be a husband and a man may be a wife. Now a husband and wife may no longer refer to the sex of the individual. Fiction, fiction, fiction.
Please answer at least this one question....
Why is it so important to create a fiction, rather than contract a "civil union" between sodomites,wherein there is neither husband or wife?

Just excellent points here and presented through a soundly reasoned construct. Just a well stated point of view.

There is nothing about the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality that does not rest in deceit, thus which is not entirely fraudulent... . As the entire ruse is political and designed to influence the ignorant, as a means to alter US Federal Policy, toward undermining the viability of the Culture, by fundamentally changing the United States of America.

The most pitiful part of which, is that the idiots advocating for such live here... there's lives being intrinsically built here and they're entirely incapable of understanding that they're literally undermining their own viability in the process; so we can see that the deceit begins within the disorder of their own minds.

Thus providing yet another glimpse of 'The Harm' that homosexuality represents to you, the reader.

The evidence just keeps pouring in... .

I would disagree with you assertion, or better stated reference to "Federal policy": The fact is that there no longer exists any federal aspect within the U.S. government. The U.S. government under the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution established a federal system cobbled together with a national system establishing neither a wholly federal system nor a wholly national system, this may be understood by reading James Madison's explanation in the CONstitutional debates #s 39 and 62.
The federal portion was the State governments participation in legislation via their appointed representatives, ( their senators appointed by each State legislature to represent their State government within the central body= the collective of States in union assembled), the 17th amendment removed the federal portion leaving only the national portion in place. The national portion is the House of representatives divided by districts without regard to State government affiliation, this national portion represents the whole of the people, not the individual State governments which made the Union of States= The United States.
Now both the House of representatives and the Senate represent the party to which its members are affiliated rather than the State governments or the people. Those two party's are owned and controlled by international corporations which fund them and they in turn fund their candidates thus own them and their loyalty.

I'd like to post a contest, if for nothing else the shear entertainment of the exercise, but in all candor, I find the spirit disinterested in mounting a defense for a system which has long since been corrupted by the endless tide of half measure and compromise.

I am however enjoying reading your work... nothing cuts through the crapola like sound reason. Keep it up.

The system refered to as the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was corrupt from its very illegal and unlawful ratification. It begins with the wording "We the people" making it a contract between men, rather than a compact/treaty, or charter between States which would remain in keeping with a union of States rather than a consolidation into a single State of "We the people". A contract between "we the people" could not be binding on those yet to be born, one cannot incur the debts or contracts of the father, once the father passes, his debts are paid from his estate and cannot be past down to his posterity, his contracts end upon his death as well, and cannot be forced onto his posterity. Therefore "We the people" made the U.S. CONstitution a contract between men then living and hence not binding upon those then yet to be living, so from the beginning a fiction was being perpetrated. Also the Articles of Confederation was the supreme law then in existence as a compact/treaty/charter between sovereign States. Article thirteen states that...
"Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."
Therefore the union/confederacy of States was to be perpetual, and NO ALTERATION OF THEM COULD BE MADE WITHOUT BEING....
"confirmed by the legislatures of every State."
Now if the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was ratified by "We the people" rather than the State legislatures, then the law was violated making that CONstitution the result of the poison fruit of an illegal act.
The only remedy is as that of an incorrect math problem wherein one must return to the incorrect equation and correct it to arrive at the proper conclusion, (The right answer) which is individual liberty.
As I have stated many times, every POTUS, every Congressman, and every Justice are simply festering boils of an underlying cancer that is the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutional system. One cannot cure a cancer by placing a topical solution on the festering boils of the underlying disease. The people may replace POTUS after POTUS, Congress after Congress, Justice after Justice, but the underlying cancer continues to rot away individual liberty.
This issue of "Gay Marriage" is simply another visible boil of the underlying cancer.
The people are indoctrinated so that they remain ignorant and accept fiction as though it is reality, thus the fiction that began via the 1787/1789 U.S. CON stitution continues to grow like a cancer totting away individual liberty.

 

[Syriusly]

No kidding. Fed judges aka tyrants in robes really should stop trying to dictate their opinions to the states.

That's because if the states allowed the people to vote, most wouldn't have gay marriage. So it's left up to one small group to decide.

Hmmmm....that is kind of humorous.

The states did vote- and voted for laws which the courts are finding to be unconstitutional.

Thats what courts do.

 

[Syriusly]

Says who? Can you quote me saying this? Or Like your imaginary 'demand that anyone agree with what I believe', is this just more mythical nonsense you've made up?

Do you support a brother/sister marriage? Polygamous marriages?

Do you support mixed race marriage?

As long as one is male and one is female. I wouldn't do it.

Then why don't you support brother/sister marriage?

I've never said either way about brother/sister. .

Okay I will restate it- you said you would support a mixed race marriage as long as one is male and one is female.

Would you support a brother sister marriage where one is male and one is female?

 

[Syriusly]

Or those interested in constitutional guarantees and the protection of them. And I'll gladly admit to being part of that group.

Until it involves types of marriages with which your kind disagrees. At that point, all sorts of reasons to oppose them are considered valid.

Says who? Can you quote me saying this? Or Like your imaginary 'demand that anyone agree with what I believe', is this just more mythical nonsense you've made up?

Do you support a brother/sister marriage? Polygamous marriages?

Well, at least your asking me this time. Rather than telling me what my opinion is.

I don't really have an opinion on brother and sister marriage. I don't know enough about the topic to discuss it intelligently.

Our laws aren't set up for poly marriage, so we have no way of regulating it. If two people are married and they add a third, are both married to the third person, or only one of them? If one of the three wants a divorce, does that mean that the other two are no longer married once the divorce goes through? Or the other two are still married? If you divorce, does property get split 3 ways? Or does it get split based on the time in the relationship? Does every member of a poly marriage have conjugal rights to every other member? What if one person wanted to add a third, but the other didn't?

We have no precedent for any of this. Nor any laws to cover it. And the issues get more wildly complicated the larger the number of participants grow.

We have answers for every such question in two person marriage. And all the same rules apply for gays as apply for straights. There need be no adjustment to any law save that you stop excluding gays.

Poly marriage would require massive changes to our laws, and all new precedent for hundreds of unresolved legal issues that our law has no tools to resolve.

It's not something you have to study. It's a simple question based on equality. If a brother and sister, both of whom are consenting adults, want to marry, should they have the same equality you demand for same sex couples under the 14th amendment. If you truly support equality, you can answer it.

If a man and woman are of mixed race- both of whom are consenting adults- should they be allowed to marry?
If a man and woman, brother and sister- both of whom are consenting adults- should they be allowed to marry?

If you truly support equality you should be able to answer it.