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

[JakeStarkey]

"And did you know that no lower federal decision may contradict a SCOTUS Finding?" And they haven't. Windsor remains in the domain of SCOTUS to be reaffirmed, amended, or overturned. To suggest it cannot be challenged reveals an immature mind.

Jake, once again you refer to this "federal court" as if a federal system still exists. Please define this federal system and how it operates.

A false a priori premise and a silly question need no answering. If you are curious about 'federalism', read the Constitution and the commentaries on it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Oh JAKE," is nothing more than a statement false sense of personal priority and authority.

You offer no premise that is grounded in reality. The South lost the war. The CSA was never recognized as anything more than a gangster band that took away the lawful power of the southern states. You, like Keys, are not an authority; thus your statements have no authoritative power.

Your statements, a priori, are not grounded in reality, thus they have no standing.

 

[James Everett]

"And did you know that no lower federal decision may contradict a SCOTUS Finding?" And they haven't. Windsor remains in the domain of SCOTUS to be reaffirmed, amended, or overturned. To suggest it cannot be challenged reveals an immature mind.

Jake, once again you refer to this "federal court" as if a federal system still exists. Please define this federal system and how it operates.

A false a priori premise and a silly question need no answering. If you are curious about 'federalism', read the Constitution and the commentaries on it.

I Know YOUR CONstitutional system, sadly you do not. I have spent years studying that CONstitutionsl system, and what is telling is that none of you have yet been able to show me that you do understand that system. I bet not one of you have read, let alone studied the "Federalist papers" and likely have never even heard of the Anti-Federalist papers let alone studied them. I bet you could not even tell what Madison explains in#39, and 62, but please, by all means scramble to find out so that you may get a grasp of the very foundation of what has been taken from you and replaced by the fiction that you accept as reality.

 

[Silhouette]

"And did you know that no lower federal decision may contradict a SCOTUS Finding?" And they haven't. Windsor remains in the domain of SCOTUS to be reaffirmed, amended, or overturned. To suggest it cannot be challenged reveals an immature mind.

It can be challenged by any lower judge all day long. But their challenge isn't binding legally on any specific question of law that has been Constitutionally-upheld. ESPECIALLY recently. As recent as 2013. 56 times in Windsor the Court said on the question of gay marriage, it was up to the states: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The equivalent would be if SCOTUS just Found that Nevada and California had to share the water from Lake Tahoe, say, and then a year later a lower circuit court found that California didn't have to share the water from Lake Tahoe with Nevada and ordered the Truckee River dammed immediately and diverted to the Central Valley instead.

Only SCOTUS can change the Finding on a specific question of law. The lower court's finding would be illegal and Nevada would be within its rights to blockade or destroy any progress on a dam California started.

 

[James Everett]

"Oh JAKE," is nothing more than a statement false sense of personal priority and authority.

You offer no premise that is grounded in reality. The South lost the war. The CSA was never recognized as anything more than a gangster band that took away the lawful power of the southern states. You, like Keys, are not an authority; thus your statements have no authoritative power.

Your statements, a priori, are not grounded in reality, thus they have no standing.

JAKE,
I cannot even begin to discuss the restoration effort with you until you at least understand YOUR own CONstitutional system as established in 1787and ratified in 1789. You are not knowledgeable enough to grasp the reality of the case. You speak of authoritative power as if no one can voice the truth unless they have "authoritative power". Here is a lil reality for you; you have no authoritative power either, and further, you lack the knowledge to even offer any input of value in a discussion. Please take a little time to educate yourself then offer input that may be of some value to discussion, rather than being a cheerleader for others and regurgitating their fiction.

 

[Silhouette]

I cannot even begin to discuss the restoration effort with you until you at least understand YOUR own CONstitutional system as established in 1787and ratified in 1789. Your are not knowledgeable enough to grasp the reality of the case. You speak of authoritative power as if no one can voice the truth unless they have "authorities power". Here is a lil reality for you; you have no authoritative power either, and further, you lack the knowledge to even offer any input of value in a discussion. Please take a little time to educate yourself then offer input that may be of some value to discussion, rather than being a cheerleader for others and regurgitating their fiction.

Nailed him. That's Jake and the situation in general.

 

[Montrovant]

[Marriage is defined by nature... per the design intrinsic to human physiology. ...

Marriage is a human construct. You are conflating sex with marriage. The two are separate.

Oh so humans created humanity?

ROFLMNAO! (You can NOT make this crap up!)

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Reader, can you IMAGINE the weeping and gnashing of Leftist tooth, if I had ACCUSED the idiots of LITERALLY creating humanity?

How do you go from marriage is a human construct to humans created humanity?

 

[Silhouette]

How do you go from marriage is a human construct to humans created humanity?

Got a strawman cookin'!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

[Marriage is defined by nature... per the design intrinsic to human physiology. ...

Marriage is a human construct. You are conflating sex with marriage. The two are separate.

Oh so humans created humanity?

ROFLMNAO! (You can NOT make this crap up!)

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Reader, can you IMAGINE the weeping and gnashing of Leftist tooth, if I had ACCUSED the idiots of LITERALLY creating humanity?

How do you go from marriage is a human construct to humans created humanity?

Its very simple scamp.

Ya see human physiology was designed by Nature. That construct was specifically designed to promote what scientists recognize as the 'Biological Imperative'.

The Biological Imperative provides for the perpetuation of the species and toward that end, Nature designed two distinct, but complimenting genders. Each designed, respectively, to JOIN WITH THE OTHER.

Each gender is designed with distinct traits, which also are designed to compliment and join with the other. And this provides that where the two join, conception is promoted and where conception is achieved, the union of the two individuals; one male and one female, provides that the female's diminished means to provide for herself is offset by the male. As he serves her unique needs, provides for her sustenance, protects her and her developing baby. Afterwards, each bring to bear their own respective traits in the training and nurturing of the child, so that the child will likely become a sound, productive adult and repeat the processes; therein perpetuating the species. A process which is sound, thus sustainable.

We've come to call it: CIVILIZATION.

It's not even a debatable point, it has happened hundreds of billions of times throughout human history and absent it having happened, there would BE NO HUMAN HISTORY.

Yet there you are, demanding that such is a pretense, a construct of humanity... .

To deny this otherwise incontestable fact, presents as an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

Need anything else?

 

[James Everett]

[Marriage is defined by nature... per the design intrinsic to human physiology. ...

Marriage is a human construct. You are conflating sex with marriage. The two are separate.

Oh so humans created humanity?

ROFLMNAO! (You can NOT make this crap up!)

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Reader, can you IMAGINE the weeping and gnashing of Leftist tooth, if I had ACCUSED the idiots of LITERALLY creating humanity?

How do you go from marriage is a human construct to humans created humanity?

The main questions that I would like to have answered concerning the issue, is basic and simple.....
Why does this minority think that they need to redefine the definition of marriage to gain some equality that they feel they are being denied by not redefining marriage?
There is nothing that cannot be gained by redefining marriage that cannot be gained by enforcing the right to contract under a civil union contract.
Some here have used sarcasm that this is separate but equal, and the fact is that that is exactly what it is, and there is nothing wrong with it, as it is not segregation anymore than women and men being segregated by use of rest room facilities or placing their sex in a drivers license.
Happiness is not gained by a word.
Equality is not gained by redefining a word.
Equality would be gained by enforcing contract law, and the right to contract. I believe in free will, and that everyone has the right to do as they wish, as long as in exercising that right they do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another.

 

[Silhouette]

There is nothing that cannot be gained by redefining marriage that cannot be gained by enforcing the right to contract under a civil union contract.

James that's not entirely true. They cannot adopt children in many states if a couple living together isn't married. That's the reason...THE reason they want to redact the word "marriage": to access orphaned kids. Read my signature for possibilities as to why that is.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

[Marriage is defined by nature... per the design intrinsic to human physiology. ...

Marriage is a human construct. You are conflating sex with marriage. The two are separate.

Oh so humans created humanity?

ROFLMNAO! (You can NOT make this crap up!)

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Reader, can you IMAGINE the weeping and gnashing of Leftist tooth, if I had ACCUSED the idiots of LITERALLY creating humanity?

How do you go from marriage is a human construct to humans created humanity?

The main questions that I would like to have answered concerning the issue, is basic and simple.....
Why does this minority think that they need to redefine the definition of marriage to gain some equality that they feel they are being denied by not redefining marriage?
There is nothing that cannot be gained by redefining marriage that cannot be gained by enforcing the right to contract under a civil union contract.
Some here have used sarcasm that this is separate but equal, and the fact is that that is exactly what it is, and there is nothing wrong with it, as it is not segregation anymore than women and men being segregated by use of rest room facilities or placing their sex in a drivers license.
Happiness is not gained by a word.
Equality is not gained by redefining a word.
Equality would be gained by enforcing contract law, and the right to contract.

Legitimacy.

What they fail to understand is that they crave Legitimacy, because their behavior is illegitimate. What they're demanding is that Nature turn toward them and 'deem' them and their chosen behavior: Legitimate.

And they believe that the Legitimacy which is intrinsic to Marriage, will flow through them, once the culture provides such to them.

What they FAIL to recognize is that what provides marriage with the legitimacy they crave, is the standard which they must destroy to achieve it.

It's a very simple paradox, but a paradox nonetheless. It's obvious, yet their subjective NEED is so strong, they simply can't see it.

I suspect it is much the same with the heroin or cocaine addict. All they want is MORE. Nothing else matters... whatever the problem IS, they'll get it figured out when they get SOME MORE.

Everyone around them knows that MORE is the LAST THING that they need... but there's no convincing the addict.

Oddly enough, at least to this point, the culture isn't debating altering the cultural foundation to provide that Coke Heads GET MORE COKE SO THEY CAN FIGURE "IT" OUT... so, if we were to use the reasoning of the Deviant Reasoning common to the Sexually Abnormal, the question would be: WHY NOT?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

JAMES EVERETT SAID:

“Why does this minority think that they need to redefine the definition of marriage to gain some equality that they feel they are being denied by not redefining marriage?”

This fails as a loaded question fallacy.

No one is seeking to 'redefine' marriage.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, marriage unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.' That's why efforts to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law are un-Constitutional.

This also explains why wishing to contrive 'civil unions' for same-sex couples only is also un-Constitutional, it attempts to establish a doctrine of separate but equal, which is just as repugnant to the Constitution as efforts to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.

Again, same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts as the law exists now, and as the law is written now – to segregate same-sex couples to a 'civil union' motivated solely be an animus toward gay Americans is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment; compelling same-sex couples into 'civil unions,' prohibiting them from accessing marriage law they're eligible to participate in, is devoid of a rational basis, has no objective, documented evidence in support, and pursues no proper legislative end – 'civil unions' seek only to designate gay Americans as being 'different' from everyone else; this the states cannot do, the states may not deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws, including marriage law.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

There is nothing that cannot be gained by redefining marriage that cannot be gained by enforcing the right to contract under a civil union contract.

James that's not entirely true. They cannot adopt children in many states if a couple living together isn't married. That's the reason...THE reason they want to redact the word "marriage": to access orphaned kids. Read my signature for possibilities as to why that is.

So true, these people are saddled with a perversion fo human reasoning. And it is that perverse reason; the disordered mind which results in the rationalization that sexual gratification through interaction with others of the same gender, is normal and otherwise 'acceptable'.

Where one accepts THAT, they demonstrate their tendency to accept other deviant behavior... and where such demonstrates such a trait, to allow them to be set into positions of influence and authority over children is the perfect formula for CATASTROPHE.

Fe examples demonstrate this better than the infection of the Catholic Church, wherein they deemed that Sexual Deviancy was irrelevant because the first order of such was chastity.

The problem of course is that the deviant reasoning manifesting sexual abnormality, axiomatically demonstrates the trait which rationalizes around and otherwise disregards, physiological normality, cultural taboos and mores.

Yet, that evidence is dismissed by the ANSA Cult which BLAMES THE SEXUAL ASSAULT OF MINORS, NOT ON THE DEVIANT MIND... :LOL! NO NO! The problem was "THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!".

It's truly an astonishing thing to watch, a raw and rotting mindset, bent around detachment of any sense of reality, at all.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

JAMES EVERETT SAID:

“Why does this minority think that they need to redefine the definition of marriage to gain some equality that they feel they are being denied by not redefining marriage?”

This fails as a loaded question fallacy.

No one is seeking to 'redefine' marriage.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts...

There's no 'loaded question' present, thus the member's query is not fallacious. Once again proving that you understanding of reason is bereft of any kinship with reason.

It is an immutable law of NATURE: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

That is the definition of marriage as required by no less an authority than the force which CREATED HUMANITY, defining such THROUGH THE PHYSIOLOGICAL CONSTRUCT OF THE HUMAN BEING.

This is not even a debatable point and this without regard to the obtuse demand by the deviant mind that such must be debated.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

[Marriage is defined by nature... per the design intrinsic to human physiology. ...

Marriage is a human construct. You are conflating sex with marriage. The two are separate.

Oh so humans created humanity?

ROFLMNAO! (You can NOT make this crap up!)

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Reader, can you IMAGINE the weeping and gnashing of Leftist tooth, if I had ACCUSED the idiots of LITERALLY creating humanity?

How do you go from marriage is a human construct to humans created humanity?

Its very simple scamp.

Ya see human physiology was designed by Nature. That construct was specifically designed to promote what scientists recognize as the 'Biological Imperative'.

The Biological Imperative provides for the perpetuation of the species and toward that end, Nature designed two distinct, but complimenting genders. Each designed, respectively, to JOIN WITH THE OTHER.

Each gender is designed with distinct traits, which also are designed to compliment and join with the other. And this provides that where the two join, conception is promoted and where conception is achieved, the union of the two individuals; one male and one female, provides that the female's diminished means to provide for herself is offset by the male. As he serves her unique needs, provides for her sustenance, protects her and her developing baby. Afterwards, each bring to bear their own respective traits in the training and nurturing of the child, so that the child will likely become a sound, productive adult and repeat the processes; therein perpetuating the species. A process which is sound, thus sustainable.

We've come to call it: CIVILIZATION.

It's not even a debatable point, it has happened hundreds of billions of times throughout human history and absent it having happened, there would BE NO HUMAN HISTORY.

Yet there you are, demanding that such is a pretense, a construct of humanity... .

To deny this otherwise incontestable fact, presents as an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

Need anything else?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

it's always fun to read the musings of brain dead wackjobs who don't understand our legal system or system of government.

federal decisions take precedence over the states.

this is why you can't have nice things.

And did you know that no lower federal decision may contradict a SCOTUS Finding? Especially one made as recently as 2013 that has yet to be Overturned by SCOTUS (The only court in the federal system that may overturn a SCOTUS Finding)?

Speaking of brain dead...lol..

So, because Windsor used the 56-times avered Finding in Windsor 2013 that states have the power to define marriage on the question of same-sex marriage in order to strike down part of DOMA (which was the fed trying to define marriage for states), Alabama made the absolutely brave and correct legal decision to respect its discreet community's consensus that marriage is as it has always been defined there: man/woman.

you're misstating windsor...and the federal court specifically ruled on this. the states loons are actually in contempt. but the supreme court will deal with it.

freak.

No, I'm not: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum 56 times sweetie. Read it and weep.

The LOWER federal court that "ruled" (usurped from underneath) was in error. Alabama was right to correct their mistake in procedure.

Yes, the state has the power to define marriage......unless they violate constitutional guarantees.

Nature defined marriage .

Man defined- and defines marriage. There is no marriage in nature.

If we looked at nature for guidance- well then incestuous and polygamous marriage would be perfectly acceptable

Actually God established marriage. Read Genesis.

Actually there is no evidence that a 'god' exists, or that the bible was written by a 'deity.'

Consequently this is irrelevant and has no bearing on the issue.

 

[Silhouette]

Actually there is no evidence that a 'god' exists, or that the bible was written by a 'deity.'

Consequently this is irrelevant and has no bearing on the issue.

S/he's not talking about God, idjit. S/he's talking about nature. A thing pagans should be delighted to hear. NATURE designed male and female as parents to children.

The idea of using children as lab rats in this neo-experiment is one that even the LGBTs themselves were not subjected to as impotent children who cannot vote. Even they had "mom and dad". Being truly self-absorbed and blind to the consideration of any other on the planet, they now insist that all future generations must include ranks of children of boys without fathers and girls without mothers "as legitimate marriage".

Not on my watch.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And did you know that no lower federal decision may contradict a SCOTUS Finding? Especially one made as recently as 2013 that has yet to be Overturned by SCOTUS (The only court in the federal system that may overturn a SCOTUS Finding)?

Speaking of brain dead...lol..

So, because Windsor used the 56-times avered Finding in Windsor 2013 that states have the power to define marriage on the question of same-sex marriage in order to strike down part of DOMA (which was the fed trying to define marriage for states), Alabama made the absolutely brave and correct legal decision to respect its discreet community's consensus that marriage is as it has always been defined there: man/woman.

No, I'm not: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum 56 times sweetie. Read it and weep.

The LOWER federal court that "ruled" (usurped from underneath) was in error. Alabama was right to correct their mistake in procedure.

Yes, the state has the power to define marriage......unless they violate constitutional guarantees.

Nature defined marriage .

Man defined- and defines marriage. There is no marriage in nature.

If we looked at nature for guidance- well then incestuous and polygamous marriage would be perfectly acceptable

Actually God established marriage. Read Genesis.

Actually there is no evidence that a 'god' exists...

Nonsense...

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Fact: The Universe Exists and like everything else IN the Universe, existence stems from the result of consequences that created it... Therefore, whatever created the Universe is axiomatically defined as "The Creator"; where the creation is recognized as being regulated by laws which provide for structure and order, such indicates the existence of energy bearing the incontestable indications of intelligence; in that energy, the forceful consequence of which is the observed universe; OKA: Nature... and in that, we find: God.

You disagree... but your disagreement rests entirely upon: NOTHING. No reasoning, beyond the whimsy of pure happenstance, wherein order is the fleeting consequence of chaos... which you'll be shocked to learn is a non sequitur... (look it up).

See how easy it is to prove God exists? Nothing to it, beyond OPENING YOUR EYES and seeing the creation... which can only result from the existence of The Creator.

 

[Montrovant]

[Marriage is defined by nature... per the design intrinsic to human physiology. ...

Marriage is a human construct. You are conflating sex with marriage. The two are separate.

Oh so humans created humanity?

ROFLMNAO! (You can NOT make this crap up!)

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Reader, can you IMAGINE the weeping and gnashing of Leftist tooth, if I had ACCUSED the idiots of LITERALLY creating humanity?

How do you go from marriage is a human construct to humans created humanity?

The main questions that I would like to have answered concerning the issue, is basic and simple.....
Why does this minority think that they need to redefine the definition of marriage to gain some equality that they feel they are being denied by not redefining marriage?
There is nothing that cannot be gained by redefining marriage that cannot be gained by enforcing the right to contract under a civil union contract.
Some here have used sarcasm that this is separate but equal, and the fact is that that is exactly what it is, and there is nothing wrong with it, as it is not segregation anymore than women and men being segregated by use of rest room facilities or placing their sex in a drivers license.
Happiness is not gained by a word.
Equality is not gained by redefining a word.
Equality would be gained by enforcing contract law, and the right to contract. I believe in free will, and that everyone has the right to do as they wish, as long as in exercising that right they do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another.

Fair enough. I disagree with you; I think that relegating same sex couples to civil unions while opposite sex couples have marriages is a clear example of separate but equal. And for myself, I'd prefer that all couples receive a civil union and let marriages be the province of private individuals rather than the state. However, that doesn't seem feasible to me.