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

[Skylar]

Can states with counties in their states still have "dry" counties? Where alcohol is not sold? Then why not SAY NO TO GAY AND LESBIAN MARRIAGES be ok.?

Because state or local laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol are applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled out for exclusion. If state or local laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol were applied only to Asian-Americans, for example, such measures would be in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Likewise, measures that seek only to prohibit same-sex couples from entering into marriage contracts are repugnant to the Constitution, as they authorize the unwarranted exclusion of gay Americans absent any rational, factual justification.

And no, alcoholics do not constitute a 'particular class of persons.'

So anyone can be married in America no questions asked?

Nope.

Nope what? Any body with a two sets of I.D. and a birth certificate or green card can get married then? Why can they ask questions if nobody is supposed to care?

Q: So anyone can be married in America no questions asked?

A: No.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Can states with counties in their states still have "dry" counties? Where alcohol is not sold? Then why not SAY NO TO GAY AND LESBIAN MARRIAGES be ok.?

Because state or local laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol are applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled out for exclusion. If state or local laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol were applied only to Asian-Americans, for example, such measures would be in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Likewise, measures that seek only to prohibit same-sex couples from entering into marriage contracts are repugnant to the Constitution, as they authorize the unwarranted exclusion of gay Americans absent any rational, factual justification.

And no, alcoholics do not constitute a 'particular class of persons.'

So anyone can be married in America no questions asked?

See post #698.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Can states with counties in their states still have "dry" counties? Where alcohol is not sold? Then why not SAY NO TO GAY AND LESBIAN MARRIAGES be ok.?

Because state or local laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol are applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled out for exclusion. If state or local laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol were applied only to Asian-Americans, for example, such measures would be in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Likewise, measures that seek only to prohibit same-sex couples from entering into marriage contracts are repugnant to the Constitution, as they authorize the unwarranted exclusion of gay Americans absent any rational, factual justification.

And no, alcoholics do not constitute a 'particular class of persons.'

So anyone can be married in America no questions asked?

See post #698.

Your re-concession from post 698 is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Recall that there is no potential "Right" to perpetrate and otherwise promote perverse reasoning, as such claims that which is demonstrable false, if true.... thus it axiomatically injures the means of individuals to exercise their God-given rights.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Government involvement in marriage originated with church/state intermingling

Actually it had something to do with taxation. In that case, government imposed itself on the church.

 

[James Everett]

Can states with counties in their states still have "dry" counties? Where alcohol is not sold? Then why not SAY NO TO GAY AND LESBIAN MARRIAGES be ok.?

Because state or local laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol are applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled out for exclusion. If state or local laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol were applied only to Asian-Americans, for example, such measures would be in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Likewise, measures that seek only to prohibit same-sex couples from entering into marriage contracts are repugnant to the Constitution, as they authorize the unwarranted exclusion of gay Americans absent any rational, factual justification.

And no, alcoholics do not constitute a 'particular class of persons.'

So anyone can be married in America no questions asked?

See post #698.

A man, cannot marry a man, and a woman cannot marry a woman, who is being discriminated against as the law is applied equally between all men who wish to marry another man, and all women who wish to marry another woman. There is no law that allows a white man to marry a white man, but then denies a white man to marry a black man, etc, therefore it would appear that the law is applied equally. Now if it is a question of not being applied equally to a man marrying a woman, and not allowing a man to marry a man, then it would also not be applied equally if polygamy is not also put in the mix, and made legal as well.
The real issue as I see it is that the only way this amounts to discrimination is if a man and a man, or a woman and a woman are not allowed to contract, as in a civil union. Art. I, Sect. 10, of YOUR U.S. CONstitution recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. Therefore the only discrimination would be if a man and a man or a woman and a woman were not allowed to contract a civil union, wherein that civil union would carry all of the advantages and disadvantages of a marriage. The definition of a marriage has been traditionally and legally defined as a contract between a man and a woman, therefore I see no Jurisdiction wherein the central body, or the SCOTUS has the authority to force a State to redefine a set legal and traditionally defined word to include that which it has never defined as such.
If a State after having this fictional definition of a marriage forced upon them were to then begin using the terminology of Holy Matrimony to define a union between a man and a woman, and leaving the fictional definition to a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, would that somehow be discrimination?
You see, the issue is the right to contract, NOT the definition of a marriage, which this minority of same sex couples wish to make it, all the benefits, and disadvantages of a marriage can be obtained through the contract of a civil union between these same sex couples, in their unlimited right to contract as long as in doing so they are not infringing on the life, liberty, or property of another.
All else in this contest is simply B/S..............

 

[rcfieldz]

Can states with counties in their states still have "dry" counties? Where alcohol is not sold? Then why not SAY NO TO GAY AND LESBIAN MARRIAGES be ok.?

Because state or local laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol are applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled out for exclusion. If state or local laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol were applied only to Asian-Americans, for example, such measures would be in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Likewise, measures that seek only to prohibit same-sex couples from entering into marriage contracts are repugnant to the Constitution, as they authorize the unwarranted exclusion of gay Americans absent any rational, factual justification.

And no, alcoholics do not constitute a 'particular class of persons.'

So anyone can be married in America no questions asked?

See post #698.

A man, cannot marry a man, and a woman cannot marry a woman, who is being discriminated against as the law is applied equally between all men who wish to marry another man, and all women who wish to marry another woman. There is no law that allows a white man to marry a white man, but then denies a white man to marry a black man, etc, therefore it would appear that the law is applied equally. Now if it is a question of not being applied equally to a man marrying a woman, and not allowing a man to marry a man, then it would also not be applied equally if polygamy is not also put in the mix, and made legal as well.
The real issue as I see it is that the only way this amounts to discrimination is if a man and a man, or a woman and a woman are not allowed to contract, as in a civil union. Art. I, Sect. 10, of YOUR U.S. CONstitution recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. Therefore the only discrimination would be if a man and a man or a woman and a woman were not allowed to contract a civil union, wherein that civil union would carry all of the advantages and disadvantages of a marriage. The definition of a marriage has been traditionally and legally defined as a contract between a man and a woman, therefore I see no Jurisdiction wherein the central body, or the SCOTUS has the authority to force a State to redefine a set legal and traditionally defined word to include that which it has never defined as such.
If a State after having this fictional definition of a marriage forced upon them were to then begin using the terminology of Holy Matrimony to define a union between a man and a woman, and leaving the fictional definition to a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, would that somehow be discrimination?
You see, the issue is the right to contract, NOT the definition of a marriage, which this minority of same sex couples wish to make it, all the benefits, and disadvantages of a marriage can be obtained through the contract of a civil union between these same sex couples, in their unlimited right to contract as long as in doing so they are not infringing on the life, liberty, or property of another.
All else in this contest is simply B/S..............

I hope doctors believe what you do because I know some don't and do discriminate against persons they believe to be gay. Probably like a person may hesitate to try to save the life of someone after an accident if they knew their sexual preference(even if they were wrong and believed otherwise).

 

[James Everett]

Can states with counties in their states still have "dry" counties? Where alcohol is not sold? Then why not SAY NO TO GAY AND LESBIAN MARRIAGES be ok.?

Because state or local laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol are applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled out for exclusion. If state or local laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol were applied only to Asian-Americans, for example, such measures would be in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Likewise, measures that seek only to prohibit same-sex couples from entering into marriage contracts are repugnant to the Constitution, as they authorize the unwarranted exclusion of gay Americans absent any rational, factual justification.

And no, alcoholics do not constitute a 'particular class of persons.'

So anyone can be married in America no questions asked?

See post #698.

A man, cannot marry a man, and a woman cannot marry a woman, who is being discriminated against as the law is applied equally between all men who wish to marry another man, and all women who wish to marry another woman. There is no law that allows a white man to marry a white man, but then denies a white man to marry a black man, etc, therefore it would appear that the law is applied equally. Now if it is a question of not being applied equally to a man marrying a woman, and not allowing a man to marry a man, then it would also not be applied equally if polygamy is not also put in the mix, and made legal as well.
The real issue as I see it is that the only way this amounts to discrimination is if a man and a man, or a woman and a woman are not allowed to contract, as in a civil union. Art. I, Sect. 10, of YOUR U.S. CONstitution recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. Therefore the only discrimination would be if a man and a man or a woman and a woman were not allowed to contract a civil union, wherein that civil union would carry all of the advantages and disadvantages of a marriage. The definition of a marriage has been traditionally and legally defined as a contract between a man and a woman, therefore I see no Jurisdiction wherein the central body, or the SCOTUS has the authority to force a State to redefine a set legal and traditionally defined word to include that which it has never defined as such.
If a State after having this fictional definition of a marriage forced upon them were to then begin using the terminology of Holy Matrimony to define a union between a man and a woman, and leaving the fictional definition to a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, would that somehow be discrimination?
You see, the issue is the right to contract, NOT the definition of a marriage, which this minority of same sex couples wish to make it, all the benefits, and disadvantages of a marriage can be obtained through the contract of a civil union between these same sex couples, in their unlimited right to contract as long as in doing so they are not infringing on the life, liberty, or property of another.
All else in this contest is simply B/S..............

I hope doctors believe what you do because I know some don't and do discriminate against persons they believe to be gay. Probably like a person may hesitate to try to save the life of someone after an accident if they knew their sexual preference(even if they were wrong and believed otherwise).

Using the word marriage, will not change peoples opinion one way or the other.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Sarcasm doesn't help your position. The definition of a marriage is simply defined as "A contract between a man and a woman.

That's your definition.

Race, nor color have anything to do with it

You can send your letter of thanks to the United States Supreme Court. Before they ruled that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the constitution race did indeed have something to do with it.

Stick to the fight for equality in the right to contract a civil union.

Because "separate but equal" has always been so equal....

Thank you for admitting that the "right to marry" is based on a Supreme Court opinion, not the Constitution. We could start a movement of awareness across this country, you and I.

Yes, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law. Marriage is a purely private Act that is Only commuted public for full faith and credit purposes.

State jurisdiction over marriage should be considered legal fiction, and void from Inception.

Nonsense. The right of states to regulate marriage is implicit in the 10th Amendment. What's fiction is the insanely stupid idea that marriage is "purely private act". It's a social institution that bears on our laws, our courts, inheritance, and other legal rights. So since it is an institution that requires regulation for its legal facets and the Constitution doesn't grant that power to the federal government, by default it belongs to the states.

But by all means, keep flaunting your "ignorance of the law".

Except that marriage doesn't require regulation. Marriage existed for thousands of years without regulation. Marriage has existed for over 4000 years in human society, but government involvement only spans the past 500 years. And even to this day, common law marriage (the simple act of choosing to live together as a married couple, even without going through the formal legal process) continues to be nearly universally recognized.

But please, tell me more about my ignorance. I'm only an ordained wedding officiant. I know nothing about the subject.

Your ignorance is astounding. Marriage has ALWAYS been regulated throughout human history. There's always been marital laws and taboos and punishments for violating the accepted customs. Your idiotic claim that marriage is just private is....well, idiotic.

 

[Seawytch]

So you are saying that because a child is growing up with homosexual parents that they are living a homosexual lifestyle? What twisted world do you live in? I suppose you have sex with your children in a heterosexual lifestyle? Living with gay people is not forcing the children to live as gays! Children don't care all they know is they have loving parents period! You also said that the neighbor kids would tell them and they would feel different? Umm so you support bullying of children because they may have gay parents? You blame the parents but not the bullies! Wow


I see more hate from heterosexuals then homosexuals. And most kids live in with heterosexual parents! So your kids learn to bully and hate! What a great parent you are! Loser

Yes, I am stating that homosexuals live a homosexual lifestyle.

Hard to wrap your twisted mind around that, huh. moron. You see more hate? Right, you make things up. Idiot.

Describe that for us if you can. I'm gay and this is my "lifestyle":

Get up, make coffee, surf internet.
Take shower, dress, wake kids, make lunches for kids
Take kids to school, go to work
Pick up son after practice (wife picked up daughter), go home
Eat dinner, help with homework, play video games or watch TV
Kiss wife, go to bed
Wash, rinse, repeat

Yes, displaying a sexual attraction to the same sex in front of children. Kissing, and going to bed with the same sex, just the opposite of what normal people do. Denying children a mother and father, another aspect of your homosexual lifestyle. Spending countless hours arguing on message boards while your 5 children suffer no father figure and are denied even your attention.

I bet you get a great tax break, seeings how it is tax time, I bet you even get more back then you pay in?

That's not a "lifestyle" darling, that's life. Kids with same sex parents aren't "denied" anything. They still have two parents which is what children need for the best outcomes.

I don't have five children, only two teenagers. I was a surrogate for another couple so three of the children I bore were not mine. And I don't spend "countless" hours on a message board, I spend a few hours in the morning while they are asleep and then on my lunch breaks at work. Trust me, if you ask our teenage children, they will tell you they get more than enough quality time with their parents.

Yes, I do get a tax break for being married and for having children. Don't you? No, it's not more than I put in...quite a bit less in fact, but that's the price of living in a developed society.

 

[Seawytch]

Government involvement in marriage originated with church/state intermingling

Actually it had something to do with taxation. In that case, government imposed itself on the church.

Actually, if you read the history of civil marriage, it had to do with property rights. Church and state got intermingled when women started suing to have individual rights within a marriage on not have everything, including themselves, be the property of their husbands.

 

[Seawytch]

A man, cannot marry a man, and a woman cannot marry a woman, who is being discriminated against as the law is applied equally between all men who wish to marry another man, and all women who wish to marry another woman.

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally."
​

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

 

[danielpalos]

I believe willful appeals to ignorance of the law should not tolerated in the Judicature.

 

[SwimExpert]

Marriage has ALWAYS been regulated throughout human history.

Okay, then prove it.

 

[SwimExpert]

Government involvement in marriage originated with church/state intermingling

Actually it had something to do with taxation. In that case, government imposed itself on the church.

Actually, the church was the first body to start passing laws on the public regarding marriage.

 

[James Everett]

A man, cannot marry a man, and a woman cannot marry a woman, who is being discriminated against as the law is applied equally between all men who wish to marry another man, and all women who wish to marry another woman.

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally."
​

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

But interracial was indeed a marriage, as it fit the traditional and set legal definition of a marriage as it was a contract between a man and a woman, therefore the right for a man and a woman to enter into a marriage was based on race NOT the definition of a marriage, hence was actually discrimination based on the race of the man or woman as the case may have been. Again the right to contract a civil union carrying all the benefits of a marriage without redefining the traditional and legal set definition falls under YOUR CONstitutions Art. I, Sect. 10, which recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else.

 

[SwimExpert]

A man, cannot marry a man, and a woman cannot marry a woman, who is being discriminated against as the law is applied equally between all men who wish to marry another man, and all women who wish to marry another woman.

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally."
​

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

But interracial was indeed a marriage, as it fit the traditional and set legal definition of a marriage as it was a contract between a man and a woman, therefore the right for a man and a woman to enter into a marriage was based on race NOT the definition of a marriage, hence was actually discrimination based on the race of the man or woman as the case may have been. Again the right to contract a civil union carrying all the benefits of a marriage without redefining the traditional and legal set definition falls under YOUR CONstitutions Art. I, Sect. 10, which recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else.

Traditional definition? Whose tradition? Your tradition? What about these traditions:

A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] ancient Mesopotamia,[3] in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.[4] These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
(references cited in link)

 

[Silhouette]

​

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

Here's an example of "ugly rhetoric against gay marriage"....

Gay marriage deprives 50% of the children in it a role model of their same gender. It's true of course, and no child in a a gay marriage can say they have a mom and dad. Also true. But then labelled "ugly rhetoric" so people will somehow think they are bad for staring at the maw of reality.

 

[James Everett]

A man, cannot marry a man, and a woman cannot marry a woman, who is being discriminated against as the law is applied equally between all men who wish to marry another man, and all women who wish to marry another woman.

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally."
​

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

But interracial was indeed a marriage, as it fit the traditional and set legal definition of a marriage as it was a contract between a man and a woman, therefore the right for a man and a woman to enter into a marriage was based on race NOT the definition of a marriage, hence was actually discrimination based on the race of the man or woman as the case may have been. Again the right to contract a civil union carrying all the benefits of a marriage without redefining the traditional and legal set definition falls under YOUR CONstitutions Art. I, Sect. 10, which recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else.

Traditional definition? Whose tradition? Your tradition? What about these traditions:

A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] ancient Mesopotamia,[3] in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.[4] These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
(references cited in link)

Interesting how you avoided the word "Marriage", replacing it with "same sex unions" as in CIVIL UNION. As I have stated time and again....YOUR U.S. CONstitution Art. I, Sect. 10, recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. A civil union accomplishes legal aspect of this "same sex union" without redefining the traditional and set legal definition of a marriage, which is defined as a contract between a man and a woman, NOT a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, nor a cattle purchase between Joe and Mary. It is a marriage contract between a man and a woman. A man and a man, or a woman and a woman may contract the equivalent of a marriage via a civil union and each State would be required under Article I Sect. 10 to recognise that contract and all that it proclaims as long as that contract does not infringe on the life, liberty or property of another. I see no reason to allow the U.S. meaning the central body, (The States in union) or the SCOTUS thereof to violate the jurisdiction of an individual State thus violating the powers not delegated to the States in union, but rather retained by each State individually. There is no violation of rights under either the 14th amendment or the 15th, to use these or either of these amendments is a misuse and an insult to the intent and those who it was intended to protect and the intended protection for which they were ratified.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Marriage has ALWAYS been regulated throughout human history.

Okay, then prove it.

That's not how it works. You're the one making the outlandish claim that there's some society somewhere that didn't regulate marriage. I defy you to produce even a single example of marriage not being subject to the codes of society. You're getting desperate because you know you're wrong.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Government involvement in marriage originated with church/state intermingling

Actually it had something to do with taxation. In that case, government imposed itself on the church.

Actually, the church was the first body to start passing laws on the public regarding marriage.

There was no marriage or marriage laws before Christianity? Another idiotic claim.