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

[Syriusly]

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.

I wouldn't expect one of your kind to accept equality for other human beings. It's not in your nature.

 

[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?

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.

Where has he said he opposes any related to same sex marriages?

i mean it just appears that you are lying.

But maybe I missed where Skylar said said he was opposed to any related to same sex marriages.

 

[Syriusly]

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. .

Really no need to go further than that.

Have you spent time in prison yet for refusing to file illegal income tax?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Oh dear. Are you pitching a fit?

 

[James Everett]

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. .

Really no need to go further than that.

Have you spent time in prison yet for refusing to file illegal income tax?

No, I have not refused to pay tribute to YOUR government. Should I do so, I would be unlawfully, and illegally imprisoned: Why? Because the majority such as you have been indoctrinated to accept fiction as reality.
The tribute is in reference to the fictional currency which is the "Federal Reserve Note" it is a worthless note its value set by a cartel of international bankers as an IOU that YOUR government has accrued since it declared bankruptcy in 1933...
On March 9, 1933, House Joint Resolution No. 192-10 by the 73rd Congress, was voted into law, which is the Emergency Banking Act. This Act declared the Treasury of the United States, ‘Bankrupt’, which is an impossible feat since the U. S. Treasury was secretly closed by the Congress twelve years earlier in 1921. The Emergency Banking Act succeeded in abrogating America’s gold standard and hypothecated all property found within the United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank.

All Sovereign American Citizens residing within the Republic of States suddenly and falsely were expatriated from their Sovereign American status without their knowledge or consent and their labor, souls, children, property, sweat equity and credit became the financial collateral for the public debt, which had then been converted into a Public Trust.
You actually hold nothing of value as you do not hold allodial title to anything , as all property is subject to Tax and can be taken from you just as a renter may be evicted. "You owe your sole to the company stow". The only thing of value is your labor of which you receive a federal reserve note which is valued by the federal reserve which regulates it and is no more "federal" than Federal express. Every single reserve note that is taken from you via "INCOME TAX" through the federal reserve banks "tax" = Tribute collection agency known as the IRS goes to pay the interest on the debt that YOUR government owes. Not one note goes to fund the day to day operation of YOUR government, that comes through other forms of tribute.
It is likened to peeling back layers of an onion to find the rotten core.
You accept the fiction which keeps the fiction afloat. Sounds like the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist ? Yet is is all factual information easily obtained if one wishes to see the MATRIX from without, rather than remaining indoctrinated from within.
Just because a fiction is established and called law, does not make it just.

 

[Syriusly]

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. .

Really no need to go further than that.

Have you spent time in prison yet for refusing to file illegal income tax?

No, I have not refused to pay tribute to YOUR government.
All Sovereign American Citizens.

Well since it is my government- and not yours- really you have no standing on this issue.

Go play with your fellow sovereign citizens in your own playpen.

 

[James Everett]

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 referred to as the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was corrupt from its very illegal and unlawful ratification. .

Really no need to go further than that.

Have you spent time in prison yet for refusing to file illegal income tax?

No, I have not refused to pay tribute to YOUR government.
All Sovereign American Citizens.

Well since it is my government- and not yours- really you have no standing on this issue.

Go play with your fellow sovereign citizens in your own playpen.

Oh, but I am a Confederate American forced to exist under the occupation of YOUR U.S. Government and your fictional jurisdiction, therefore under the occupation my voice and right to redress exists. Your insults concerning playing in a playpen, only reveal your lack and ability to participate in logical debate. I am in no way arguing with you, I am simply showing you that I am correct by citing the relevant facts and truth, you choose to ignore those citations and continue in your acceptance of fiction is your choice and right.
It is nothing unusual for those who choose to ignore the truth and facts presented to resort to childish insults. Such discussion is not for you alone, it is for those who choose to research the facts and arrive at the proper conclusion, which is the truth. I only state the facts.

 

[Syriusly]

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 referred to as the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was corrupt from its very illegal and unlawful ratification. .

Really no need to go further than that.

Have you spent time in prison yet for refusing to file illegal income tax?

No, I have not refused to pay tribute to YOUR government.
All Sovereign American Citizens.

Well since it is my government- and not yours- really you have no standing on this issue.

Go play with your fellow sovereign citizens in your own playpen.

Oh, but I am a Confederate American forced to exist under the occupation of YOUR U.S. Government and your fictional jurisdiction, therefore under the occupation my voice and right to redress exists. Your insults concerning playing in a playpen, only reveal your lack and ability to participate in logical debate. I am in no way arguing with you, I am simply showing you that I am correct by citing the relevant facts and truth, you choose to ignore those citations and continue in your acceptance of fiction is your choice and right.
It is nothing unusual for those who choose to ignore the truth and facts presented to resort to childish insults. Such discussion is not for you alone, it is for those who choose to research the facts and arrive at the proper conclusion, which is the truth. I only state the facts.

Enjoy your fantasies.

 

[TemplarKormac]

SKYLAR, Please explain how a man and a man, or a woman and a woman entering into a civil union with the same agreement of that of a true marriage which is a contract between a man and a woman by proper definition without it being defined as a marriage, but rather a civil union, is somehow denying the sodomite equal protection under the law?
What you wish is to hijack a definition rather than seek equal protection under the law. Such equal protection may be found in the retained right to contract, without hijacking the definition of marriage.
What it appears is that the sodomite wishes a deviant behaviour (which FYI means ....
"To wander from the right or common way".) to be accepted as proper behaviour.
Not simply equal protection to contract, which is what a marriage is a simple contract between a man and a woman. The right to contract a civil union already exists and is enforceable.

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.

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

That's interesting, because by your logic, the Judges on the Alabama Supreme court have that very same "actual authority."

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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

That's interesting, because by your logic, the Judges on the Alabama Supreme court have that very same "actual authority."

From another post of mine:

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.

Judges have authority- and that includes Judges on the Alabama Supreme Court.

There is a hierarchy of authority of course- state judges(as far as I know) have authority, but superior court judges and Supreme Court judges have more authority.

Federal judges have authority over State laws only on Constitutional matters- not on actual state law. And the Appellate Courts and the Supreme Court have more authority than a Federal judge.

 

[James Everett]

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.

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

That's interesting, because by your logic, the Judges on the Alabama Supreme court have that very same "actual authority."

The system referred to as the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was corrupt from its very illegal and unlawful ratification. .

Really no need to go further than that.

Have you spent time in prison yet for refusing to file illegal income tax?

No, I have not refused to pay tribute to YOUR government.
All Sovereign American Citizens.

Well since it is my government- and not yours- really you have no standing on this issue.

Go play with your fellow sovereign citizens in your own playpen.

Oh, but I am a Confederate American forced to exist under the occupation of YOUR U.S. Government and your fictional jurisdiction, therefore under the occupation my voice and right to redress exists. Your insults concerning playing in a playpen, only reveal your lack and ability to participate in logical debate. I am in no way arguing with you, I am simply showing you that I am correct by citing the relevant facts and truth, you choose to ignore those citations and continue in your acceptance of fiction is your choice and right.
It is nothing unusual for those who choose to ignore the truth and facts presented to resort to childish insults. Such discussion is not for you alone, it is for those who choose to research the facts and arrive at the proper conclusion, which is the truth. I only state the facts.

Enjoy your fantasies.

My fantasies? This from one who accepts the Machiavellian illusion and the fictional jurisdictions that come with it?
I cite relevant facts, YOUR U.S. code, and case law, with rendered opinions from YOUR own SCOTUS, YOUR OWN U.S. CONstitution, while you simply accept fiction that is contradictory to the facts presented? Yet I am the one living in fantasies?
That is amusing.

 

[James Everett]

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.

That's interesting, because by your logic, the Judges on the Alabama Supreme court have that very same "actual authority."

From another post of mine:

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.

Judges have authority- and that includes Judges on the Alabama Supreme Court.

There is a hierarchy of authority of course- state judges(as far as I know) have authority, but superior court judges and Supreme Court judges have more authority.

Federal judges have authority over State laws only on Constitutional matters- not on actual state law. And the Appellate Courts and the Supreme Court have more authority than a Federal judge.

Yet the supreme authority is that of the people as stated by the "Father of" Your "CONstitution. Was a vote not held in Alabama in which that SUPREME AUTHORITY, being the people rejected the hijacking of the definition of marriage by a minute minority?
It appears that you possibly suffer from a form of Stockholm syndrome, wherein you accept the beating of what you have been led to believe holds authority.
Again.....
"...[A]llow them [the conquered] to live under their own laws, taking tribute of them, and creating within the country a government composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you.... A city used to liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any other way....
"...[T]hey must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they are entirely different from the old ones. For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.... [The conqueror should] not wish that the people... should have occasion to regret the loss of any of their old customs...."
Niccola Machiavelli,.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

That's interesting, because by your logic, the Judges on the Alabama Supreme court have that very same "actual authority."

From another post of mine:

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.

Judges have authority- and that includes Judges on the Alabama Supreme Court.

There is a hierarchy of authority of course- state judges(as far as I know) have authority, but superior court judges and Supreme Court judges have more authority.

Federal judges have authority over State laws only on Constitutional matters- not on actual state law. And the Appellate Courts and the Supreme Court have more authority than a Federal judge.

Your point? The opinions of the posters on this thread are based on relevant opinion, and therefore your opinion of their opinions is irrelevant.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

That's interesting, because by your logic, the Judges on the Alabama Supreme court have that very same "actual authority."

From another post of mine:

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.

Judges have authority- and that includes Judges on the Alabama Supreme Court.

There is a hierarchy of authority of course- state judges(as far as I know) have authority, but superior court judges and Supreme Court judges have more authority.

Federal judges have authority over State laws only on Constitutional matters- not on actual state law. And the Appellate Courts and the Supreme Court have more authority than a Federal judge.

Your point? The opinions of the posters on this thread are based on relevant opinion, and therefore your opinion of their opinions is irrelevant.

Your point? The opinions of the posters on this thread are based upon opinion, and therefore your opinion of my opinion is irrelevant.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

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

That's interesting, because by your logic, the Judges on the Alabama Supreme court have that very same "actual authority."

From another post of mine:

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.

Judges have authority- and that includes Judges on the Alabama Supreme Court.

There is a hierarchy of authority of course- state judges(as far as I know) have authority, but superior court judges and Supreme Court judges have more authority.

Federal judges have authority over State laws only on Constitutional matters- not on actual state law. And the Appellate Courts and the Supreme Court have more authority than a Federal judge.

Your point? The opinions of the posters on this thread are based on relevant opinion, and therefore your opinion of their opinions is irrelevant.

Your point? The opinions of the posters on this thread are based upon opinion, and therefore your opinion of my opinion is irrelevant.

And you're being a parrot. You simply have no clue about what I'm referring to. Those relevant opinions I speak of are the rulings of the courts. They don't have to meld with your viewpoint.

 

[g5000]

Was a vote not held in Alabama in which that SUPREME AUTHORITY, being the people rejected the hijacking of the definition of marriage by a minute minority?

The mob cannot vote away the rights of a minority, which is precisely why our Founders created a judicial branch.

You would not be happy if the mob voted away your guns.

 

[Synthaholic]

Alabama Supreme Court Orders Judges to Stop Gay Marriages - NBC News

YAY! Stand up to judicial tyranny!

I look forward to the second time Judge Roy Moore is removed from the bench.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Was a vote not held in Alabama in which that SUPREME AUTHORITY, being the people rejected the hijacking of the definition of marriage by a minute minority?

The People cannot vote away the rights of a minority, which is precisely why our Founders created a judicial branch.

Nor can the minority dictate the rights of the majority.

 

[g5000]

Was a vote not held in Alabama in which that SUPREME AUTHORITY, being the people rejected the hijacking of the definition of marriage by a minute minority?

The People cannot vote away the rights of a minority, which is precisely why our Founders created a judicial branch.

Nor can the minority dictate the rights of the majority.

When slavery was abolished and the slaveowners lost their "property", was that "the minority dictating the rights of the majority"?

 

[Syriusly]

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

That's interesting, because by your logic, the Judges on the Alabama Supreme court have that very same "actual authority."

From another post of mine:

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.

Judges have authority- and that includes Judges on the Alabama Supreme Court.

There is a hierarchy of authority of course- state judges(as far as I know) have authority, but superior court judges and Supreme Court judges have more authority.

Federal judges have authority over State laws only on Constitutional matters- not on actual state law. And the Appellate Courts and the Supreme Court have more authority than a Federal judge.

Your point? The opinions of the posters on this thread are based on relevant opinion, and therefore your opinion of their opinions is irrelevant.

Your point? The opinions of the posters on this thread are based upon opinion, and therefore your opinion of my opinion is irrelevant.

And you're being a parrot. You simply have no clue about what I'm referring to. Those relevant opinions I speak of are the rulings of the courts. They don't have to meld with your viewpoint.

LOL....no....frankly I haven't been able to discern any point you think you are making.