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

[Conservative65]

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....

Actually in most states now, a man can marry a man, and a woman can marry a woman.

We have made great progress.

Really? I'm only counting states where the gay marriage was voted in by democratic process. By that measure, you got a LONG way to go.

Should interracial couples have waited until it was popular for them to marry? They would have had to wait until the 1990s...

Just for historical context, interracial marriage bans were ruled unconstitutional in 1967. Where was that graph in 1967?

Now take a look at the same organization's poll on gays marrying each other.

Despite the fact that civil rights should not be a popularity contest, we're pretty ******* popular.

Popular to whom? Being popular among your own freak kind and others who don't understand how abnormal you are is like asking a fox with feathers coming out of his mouth if he raided the chicken house.

 

[Seawytch]

I'll save you the trouble. She's going to keep equating queer marriage to racism and Loving V. Virginia no matter how absurd and at variance with the facts. This one is stuck on stupid.

What you folks keep missing is that it is not race and sexual orientation that is being compared, but the actual bigots. Anti gay bigots are being compared with the racists, not blacks being compared with gays. (That's why it annoys you so)

 

[Conservative65]

How does teaching a child that they can have two daddies or two mommies help children? It doesn't. It teaches them that something absolutely abnormal is OK.

And of course, gays and lesbians are having kids anyway. Denying these parents marriage doesn't mean that their children magically have opposite sex parents. All it means is that they can never have married parents.

How does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

Two fags or lesbians aren't having kids with each other. It simply isn't possible.

Further evidence of the fear, ignorance, and hate common to most on the right.

It's a biologically accurate statement you dumb son of a *****.

It is a biologically irrelevant statement, and the response was accurate and appropriate.

Homosexuals are parenting children- some they give birth to, some they use surrogacy for, and some they adopt.

And regardless of how they have their children- they are the parents of those children.

No matter how much you dumb son's of bitches homophobic bigots want to deny it.

Now- how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

Since two males can't biologically have children, my statement is relevant. If you want to argue they can, someone should explain it to you you stupid ******* moron.

If you think two males or two females attracted to each other, you're as much of a freak as they are and always will be.

Having a different opinion doesn't make me a bigot. In this case, it makes me normal and retards like you deviant. Deny it all you want but two men being together isn't normal.

 

[Conservative65]

I'll save you the trouble. She's going to keep equating queer marriage to racism and Loving V. Virginia no matter how absurd and at variance with the facts. This one is stuck on stupid.

What you folks keep missing is that it is not race and sexual orientation that is being compared, but the actual bigots. Anti gay bigots are being compared with the racists, not blacks being compared with gays. (That's why it annoys you so)

The only people doing that type of comparison are you sexual freaks of nature. What annoys you is that we don't give a shit what you jackasses have to say. If you think that those types of comparisons by some deviant freak like you means anything to me, you think more highly of yourself that anyone else except those who are a freak like you. That means what you say means nothing.

 

[Seawytch]

A civil union, is a contract, just as is a marriage, and as long as they are contracted equally, they are equal. The issue is akin to taking a purchase contract and calling it a marriage; which it is not. A marriage by traditional, and set legal definition is "A contract between a man and a woman". There is no need to label a purchase contract a marriage, and there is no reason to label a civil union a marriage.

Separate but equal is unconstitutional. Same water came out of both fountains.

If ya'll don't like gays using marriage then you should not have set up a system of civil marriages in all 50 states (and US territories). If you don't like us using the word marriage, you can try to change it for everyone, but having marriage for straights and civil unions for gays violates separate but equal.

 

[Seawytch]

Frankly, I agree with them- not with you- and their argument has been a winning argument- while yours is
The homo militia rejected civil unions long ago. Somebody didn't get the memo.

Apparently it was you. Gays never turned down civil unions...but a hell of a lot of states made sure that civil unions also got put into their anti gay marriage laws.

 

[Conservative65]

Frankly, I agree with them- not with you- and their argument has been a winning argument- while yours is
The homo militia rejected civil unions long ago. Somebody didn't get the memo.

Apparently it was you. Gays never turned down civil unions...but a hell of a lot of states made sure that civil unions also got put into their anti gay marriage laws.

There were arguments that civil unions and marriages weren't the same. Seems you are wrong, AGAIN much like the freak life you live.

Why civil unions aren t enough In gay marriage debate separate but equal won t cut it - NY Daily News

 

[JohnAdams]

I find it interesting that while some people argue federal law trumps state law, the same people argue that marijuana should be legal in states where people voted for it, which is against federal law.

 

[Geaux4it]

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.

Children need a mother AND a father for their complete psychological rearing. To deprive them of either is to harm them because a man can't fulfill the role of a mother nor a woman the role of a father.

And yet that is not what studies show. Studies show that there is no difference in outcomes between the children of heterosexuals and the children of gays and lesbians. Studies also show that gender is immaterial in parenting.

But now, the results of a new study challenge this very established line of thinking. The February 2010 issue of Journal of Marriage and Family shows that children without fathers suffer no disadvantage. It also shows that men don't offer a different type of necessary parenting skills as separate from a woman's.

Sociologist Timothy Biblarz of the USC College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences had this to say, "Significant policy decisions have been swayed by the misconception across party lines that children need both a mother and a father. Yet, there is almost no social science research to support this claim. One problem is that proponents of this view routinely ignore research on same-gender parents."

During the course of their analysis, the researchers found no suggestion that parenting abilities were specific to one gender or another, except when it comes to lactation. There seems to be no negative impact on a child who is motherless or fatherless. There are no associated psychological adjustment issues or problems with social success in children with parents of only one sex.​

Thats because studies use the new definition of normal.

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

I'll save you the trouble. She's going to keep equating queer marriage to racism and Loving V. Virginia no matter how absurd and at variance with the facts. This one is stuck on stupid.

What you folks keep missing is that it is not race and sexual orientation that is being compared, but the actual bigots. Anti gay bigots are being compared with the racists, not blacks being compared with gays. (That's why it annoys you so)

No, we know what the aid brigade is doing., They are indeed comparing themselves to the plight of blacks in the 60's. To say otherwise is misleading

-Geaux

 

[Seawytch]

I find it interesting that while some people argue federal law trumps state law, the same people argue that marijuana should be legal in states where people voted for it, which is against federal law.

And nobody is arguing that the state marijuana laws trump Federal. Growers and sellers in states where it is legalized are still getting raided by the Feds.

Supporters of state pot laws are also diligently at work to get rid of Federal laws restricting the sale and use of marijuana as well. Public opinion on both issues is contrary to current Federal law.

 

[Seawytch]

I'll save you the trouble. She's going to keep equating queer marriage to racism and Loving V. Virginia no matter how absurd and at variance with the facts. This one is stuck on stupid.

What you folks keep missing is that it is not race and sexual orientation that is being compared, but the actual bigots. Anti gay bigots are being compared with the racists, not blacks being compared with gays. (That's why it annoys you so)

No, we know what the aid brigade is doing., They are indeed comparing themselves to the plight of blacks in the 60's. To say otherwise is misleading

-Geaux

No silly, we're comparing you bigots to each other. We wouldn't if you weren't so much alike. Bigotry, unlike being gay, is a choice. Turn away from your bigoted lifestyle before it's too late!

 

[Geaux4it]

I'll save you the trouble. She's going to keep equating queer marriage to racism and Loving V. Virginia no matter how absurd and at variance with the facts. This one is stuck on stupid.

What you folks keep missing is that it is not race and sexual orientation that is being compared, but the actual bigots. Anti gay bigots are being compared with the racists, not blacks being compared with gays. (That's why it annoys you so)

No, we know what the aid brigade is doing., They are indeed comparing themselves to the plight of blacks in the 60's. To say otherwise is misleading

-Geaux

No silly, we're comparing you bigots to each other. We wouldn't if you weren't so much alike. Bigotry, unlike being gay, is a choice. Turn away from your bigoted lifestyle before it's too late!

OK,

BTW- one chooses to smoke the main vein or not. I take it you choose the latter, that's cool with me..

-Geaux

 

[Seawytch]

I'll save you the trouble. She's going to keep equating queer marriage to racism and Loving V. Virginia no matter how absurd and at variance with the facts. This one is stuck on stupid.

What you folks keep missing is that it is not race and sexual orientation that is being compared, but the actual bigots. Anti gay bigots are being compared with the racists, not blacks being compared with gays. (That's why it annoys you so)

No, we know what the aid brigade is doing., They are indeed comparing themselves to the plight of blacks in the 60's. To say otherwise is misleading

-Geaux

No silly, we're comparing you bigots to each other. We wouldn't if you weren't so much alike. Bigotry, unlike being gay, is a choice. Turn away from your bigoted lifestyle before it's too late!

OK,

BTW- one chooses to smoke the main vein or not. I take it you choose the latter, that's cool with me..

-Geaux

Yes, people do choose whether or not to engage in the act of sex, the attraction is not a choice.

Do you think you could choose to be attracted to another man? To want to kiss him on the lips and stick your tongue in his mouth? Could you choose to get turned on by him putting his penis in your mouth or anus? Yeah, me neither...but that's because I was born a lesbian.

 

[James Everett]

A civil union, is a contract, just as is a marriage, and as long as they are contracted equally, they are equal.

Says you. The law doesn't recognize them as equal. The same rights and priveldges aren't attached to each, social security didn't recognize civil unions for survivor benefits, for example. And many states didn't recognize the civil unions at all.

Every state recognizes marriage.

So your entire argument is pseudo-legal gibberish. But your position is so much worse than just the meaningless babble:

If civil unions and marriage were identical, why bother with civil unions? Why not just grant gays marriage? Why the pointlessly elaborate 'seperate but equal' bullshit? Easy. Because they aren't equal. And that's the entire point.

That's why gays fought for marriage. And that's why they're winning.

A marriage by traditional, and set legal definition is "A contract between a man and a woman". There is no need to label a purchase contract a marriage, and there is no reason to label a civil union a marriage.

In 37 of 50 States, marriage includes same sex couples. You can disagree. But gays get married just the same.

SKYLAR,
You ask....
"If civil unions and marriage were identical, why bother with civil unions? Why not just grant gays marriage? Why the pointlessly elaborate 'seperate but equal' bullshit? Easy. Because they aren't equal. And that's the entire point."
I would ask, then why not simply call a dog a horse, and a horse a dog? Each are four legged animals, yet they carry different labels to distinguish one from the other in general reference in conversation to avoid confusion. The same question could be applied thus...Why not call a man a woman and a woman a man? A marriage is and has always been traditionally defined, and legally defined as "A contract between a man and a woman, therefore in order to avoid confusion and destroy a set legal definition, a civil union is necessary, to distinguish between the two.
If YOUR 14th amendment were actually realistically meant to do as you state.....
"the 14th amendment fundamentally changed the relationship of the States and the Federal government in relation to rights. And was designed to."
Then SKYLAR.....Women would not be required to cover their breasts in public and be allowed to roam about without a blouse or bra just as do men. Hey I'm all for it!!!!
"Equal protection of the laws"
Is going around topless not a privilege?
Is such law applied equally, or are men treated differently?
Why are men immune from prosecution for going topless?
Is such not a liberty wherein men are allowed to exercise such and women denied?
After all there is no difference between a man and a woman since we are now applying the equal right for man to claim marriage to man, and woman to marry woman under the guise of discrimination.
Does the 14th not apply to women holding the same rights as a man?
Everything fr

I'll save you the trouble. She's going to keep equating queer marriage to racism and Loving V. Virginia no matter how absurd and at variance with the facts. This one is stuck on stupid.

I do not think it productive for anyone to insult another, it only lessens the value of the discussion which is not and should not be relegated to an attempt to change the opinion of the opponent, but rather to illustrate the facts and truth for any who may choose to follow the discussion, so that they may see the truth and facts as they are rather than have them hidden underneath fictional rhetoric.

It's your time, and you seem to have a lot more of it than me. After about 30 more pages, you might finally realize I'm right. .

No one has ever realized that after far more than 30 pages......

This issue is nothing more to me than a catalyst to educate anyone who may be interested in learning the truth concerning their system of government, its limitations and the differing jurisdictions, how it has become under the control of a political party duopoly, and much more that I have learned through countless hours of research

You've done 'countless hours of research', but never noticed the 14th amendment?

Then you really suck at this. As the 14th amendment simply destroys your entire argument. It expressly prohibits states from violating the privileges and immunities of US citizens, or from applying state law unequally to US citizens.

And you completely ignore it, citing only cases that precede the 14th, when the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. No competent researcher ever would. As the 14th amendment fundamentally changed the relationship of the States and the Federal government in relation to rights. And was designed to.

And every ruling overturning gay marriage bans has been on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees. With almost all of them citing the 14th amendment specifically.

And you ignore the 14th? You are rejected as an authoritative source.

SKYLAR,
You ask....
"If civil unions and marriage were identical, why bother with civil unions? Why not just grant gays marriage? Why the pointlessly elaborate 'seperate but equal' bullshit? Easy. Because they aren't equal. And that's the entire point."
I would ask, then why not simply call a dog a horse, and a horse a dog? Each are four legged animals, yet they carry different labels to distinguish one from the other in general reference in conversation to avoid confusion. The same question could be applied thus...Why not call a man a woman and a woman a man? A marriage is and has always been traditionally defined, and legally defined as "A contract between a man and a woman, therefore in order to avoid confusion and destroy a set legal definition, a civil union is necessary, to distinguish between the two.
If YOUR 14th amendment were actually realistically meant to do as you state.....
"the 14th amendment fundamentally changed the relationship of the States and the Federal government in relation to rights. And was designed to."
Then SKYLAR.....Women would not be required to cover their breasts in public and be allowed to roam about without a blouse or bra just as do men. Hey I'm all for it!!!!
"Equal protection of the laws"
Is going around topless not a privilege?

 

[Syriusly]

I'll save you the trouble. She's going to keep equating queer marriage to racism and Loving V. Virginia no matter how absurd and at variance with the facts. This one is stuck on stupid.

What you folks keep missing is that it is not race and sexual orientation that is being compared, but the actual bigots. Anti gay bigots are being compared with the racists, not blacks being compared with gays. (That's why it annoys you so)

No, we know what the aid brigade is doing., They are indeed comparing themselves to the plight of blacks in the 60's. To say otherwise is misleading

-Geaux

That is what the bigots keep saying.

Meanwhile- here is what Mildred Loving- of Loving v. Virginia said:

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry.

I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights. I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

 

[Syriusly]

I find it interesting that while some people argue federal law trumps state law, the same people argue that marijuana should be legal in states where people voted for it, which is against federal law.

Who are those 'same people'?

I think state laws that legalize marijuana are good, but I also know that DEA agents have the legal authority to be in Colorado arresting marijuana growers right now, if that is what they decided to do.

But don't confuse a Federal law- like drug laws- with Federal courts enforcing the Constitution.

Those are two different things.

 

[Syriusly]

Frankly, I agree with them- not with you- and their argument has been a winning argument- while yours is
The homo militia rejected civil unions long ago. Somebody didn't get the memo.

Apparently it was you. Gays never turned down civil unions...but a hell of a lot of states made sure that civil unions also got put into their anti gay marriage laws.

There were arguments that civil unions and marriages weren't the same. Seems you are wrong, AGAIN much like the freak life you live.

Why civil unions aren t enough In gay marriage debate separate but equal won t cut it - NY Daily News

Meanwhile in 36 states and Washington DC, gay couples in love are marrying.

Seems like you are wrong again- much like the freak life you live.

 

[Syriusly]

I'll save you the trouble. She's going to keep equating queer marriage to racism and Loving V. Virginia no matter how absurd and at variance with the facts. This one is stuck on stupid.

What you folks keep missing is that it is not race and sexual orientation that is being compared, but the actual bigots. Anti gay bigots are being compared with the racists, not blacks being compared with gays. (That's why it annoys you so)

The only people doing that type of comparison are you sexual freaks of nature. What annoys you is that we don't give a shit what you jackasses have to say. If you think that those types of comparisons by some deviant freak like you means anything to me, you think more highly of yourself that anyone else except those who are a freak like you. That means what you say means nothing.

For someone who 'doesn't give a shit' you sure post a lot.

Here is how nothing a piece of shit like you are:

36 states- very likely soon to be all 50 allow same gender marriage.

Thats how little your bigotry means.

10 years from now you will be looked at just like the bigots who said mixed race marriage was against gods will.

 

[Syriusly]

And of course, gays and lesbians are having kids anyway. Denying these parents marriage doesn't mean that their children magically have opposite sex parents. All it means is that they can never have married parents.

How does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

Two fags or lesbians aren't having kids with each other. It simply isn't possible.

Further evidence of the fear, ignorance, and hate common to most on the right.

It's a biologically accurate statement you dumb son of a *****.

It is a biologically irrelevant statement, and the response was accurate and appropriate.

Homosexuals are parenting children- some they give birth to, some they use surrogacy for, and some they adopt.

And regardless of how they have their children- they are the parents of those children.

No matter how much you dumb son's of bitches homophobic bigots want to deny it.

Now- how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

Since two males can't biologically have children, my statement is relevant. If you want to argue they can, someone should explain it to you you stupid ******* moron.

If you think two males or two females attracted to each other, you're as much of a freak as they are and always will be.

Having a different opinion doesn't make me a bigot. In this case, it makes me normal and retards like you deviant. Deny it all you want but two men being together isn't normal.

Having your opinions makes you a bigot- you wallow in your homophobia.

Homosexuals are parenting children- some they give birth to, some they use surrogacy for, and some they adopt.

You can keep you head sticked firmly up your posterior and pretend it isn't happening but it is

And regardless of how they have their children- they are the parents of those children.

No matter how much you dumb son's of bitches homophobic bigots want to deny it.


Now- how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?