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

[WorldWatcher]

Somebody must protect the children from homosexuals adopting them

A homosexual can adopt in Alabama with or without Civil Marriage.

So how does denying Civil Marriage stop a homosexual from adopting since they can adopt if they are not married?


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

A February 12–15, 2015 CNN/ORC poll found that 63% of Americans believe same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, while 36% oppose.

Well an ongoing USMB poll found that 82% of Americans believe that same-sex marriage has limitations in how far it can go: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 817 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I would say that a state's interest in depriving (or not depriving) children of the right to call their parents "mom and dad" is paramount. A child's voice defines one of those limits as to how far gay marriage can go. The states must decide this matter. There is no voice more oppressed (therefore the strongest) in this debate than the minor child lodged within the boundaries of any given state and its custodians/voters that live there: A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[JFK_USA]

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

YAY! Stand up to judicial tyranny!

Yes, it's encouraging to have fearless judges stand against the black robed tyrants perverting the Constitution and overturning democracy. The homos will blow their lids (or each other) over this.

So to stand up to "Judicial Tyranny", they must exercise judicial tyranny?

There is something called the Supremacy Clause, you probably should look it up.

There is. Same document as the enumerated powers clause, I believe.

Yes, but we also have amendments like the 14th that provides Equal Protection under the law. The Courts in all the cases have applied the Rational basis test where the government has to only acknowledge a legitimate government interest but they have not convinced the courts that there is a legitimate government interest to prevent people from seeking that social benefit. It's a really low standard yet they can't come up with one secular reason why.

That's why it's failing.

We have what? Tops 5% of the US population are gay? The damned gayest state in the union has voted down gay marriage at least twice.
Why don't we put it to a national referendum? Would you be cool with that?

1. National referendums don't exist.

2. It would vote in favor of gay marriage.

3. A person's constitutional right is not up for a popular vote. The whole idea of the constitution and the Bill of Rights were that people had these rights REGARDLESS of the popular sentiment. Even if the person is the only one in a certain classification, they still have rights. Rights aren't subject to the will of the majority unless amended to the Constitution.

Federal judges who decide cases where they have no jurisdiction are black robed tyrants. That would be at either side of the argument.
Look guy! If Californians vote to change the definition of marriage, I don't believe SCOTUS has authority to step in there either. Are we clear?

Well then we have no argument- Federal judges do have jurisdiction over Constitutional matters- that is why federal judges have overturned State marriage laws multiple times in the past, and federal judges have overturned State gun laws in the past.

State laws are subject to the U.S. Constitution.

Gun laws I can see. Via the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms is a federal guaranteed right. Marriage is not. 14th be damned.
What ever.... We will see SCOTUS weigh in eventually, or simply say they have no standing Marriage law should and shall be left to the states.

Again- you miss the point.

Either a federal judge has the Constitutional authority to decide whether a state law is Constitutional- or a federal judge does not have the Constitutional authority to decide whether a state law is Constitutional.

Which is it?

Apparently Marbury v. Madison doesn't exist in the minds of conservatives.

 

[Syriusly]

A February 12–15, 2015 CNN/ORC poll found that 63% of Americans believe same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, while 36% oppose.

Well an ongoing USMB poll found that 82% of Americans believe that same-sex marriage has limitations

That non-scientific poll says that members of USMB don't believe churches should be forced to marry homosexuals.

You just are lying again.

 

[elektra]

Somebody must protect the children from homosexuals adopting them

A homosexual can adopt in Alabama with or without Civil Marriage.

So how does denying Civil Marriage stop a homosexual from adopting since they can adopt if they are not married?


>>>>

I guess it does nor protect the children, it is very sad
,

 

[Syriusly]

Somebody must protect the children from homosexuals adopting them

What is stopping you?

Rush down to Alabama- homosexuals have been legally adopting children abandoned by their heterosexual biological parents for years.

 

[Syriusly]

Somebody must protect the children from homosexuals adopting them

A homosexual can adopt in Alabama with or without Civil Marriage.

So how does denying Civil Marriage stop a homosexual from adopting since they can adopt if they are not married?


>>>>

I guess it does nor protect the children, it is very sad
,

You find that sad....but not apparently that there are thousands of children who have been abandoned by their biological parents who are waiting to be adopted?

 

[Silhouette]

1. National referendums don't exist.

2. It would vote in favor of gay marriage.

3. A person's constitutional right is not up for a popular vote. The whole idea of the constitution and the Bill of Rights were that people had these rights REGARDLESS of the popular sentiment. Even if the person is the only one in a certain classification, they still have rights. Rights aren't subject to the will of the majority unless amended to the Constitution.

Apparently you missed this post two before yours on the last page:

A February 12–15, 2015 CNN/ORC poll found that 63% of Americans believe same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, while 36% oppose.

Well an ongoing USMB poll found that 82% of Americans believe that same-sex marriage has limitations in how far it can go: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 817 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I would say that a state's interest in depriving (or not depriving) children of the right to call their parents "mom and dad" is paramount. A child's voice defines one of those limits as to how far gay marriage can go. The states must decide this matter. There is no voice more oppressed (therefore the strongest) in this debate than the minor child lodged within the boundaries of any given state and its custodians/voters that live there: A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Syriusly]

Agreed. Furthermore "Bruce and Steve" weddings put their female children at psychological peril..

Yes, but we also have amendments like the 14th that provides Equal Protection under the law. The Courts in all the cases have applied the Rational basis test where the government has to only acknowledge a legitimate government interest but they have not convinced the courts that there is a legitimate government interest to prevent people from seeking that social benefit. It's a really low standard yet they can't come up with one secular reason why.
That's why it's failing.

No, there is quite a huge legitimate interest in states denying gay marriage...and why the idea is gaining traction: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

...And the Justice-destroying precedent set in this kangaroo litigation is intolerable to Americans: Breaking Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

***********
For all the uber liberals celebrating overt judicial bias in their favor on this question, consider the following:

Imagine seeing Justice Roberts or Thomas in a photo op just before a case on the Keystone Pipeline, shaking hands with the president of Haliburton; showing either of the Justices with a shovel, breaking ground for Haliburton on "the soon to be approved project".

Or going one step further as the Court is doing in this case and actively eroding state laws, allowing sections of the pipeline to be built in violation of states laws one by one by inexplicably refusing to uphold stays...so by the time a couple years had passed, nearly the entire length of the pipeline was complete so the Court could throw up its hands in surprise and say "well golly, it looks like the whole pipeline's nearly in anyway, so we'll just have to go ahead and approve this thing"..

That is the EXACT analogy of what's going on with this gay marriage thing. It's illegal. It's undemocratic. And it's Tyranny of the Judicial over the states.

The number of states that have legally-ratified "gay marriage" is under 10, or near that number anyway. It is not "36" or what have you. No way. If this injustice goes forward it will be the equivalent of a cult using our Highest Court to force subjegation of the states. Check your federally-issued rainbow "USA" Harvey Milk stamps (and his biography/Ca laws requiring kids to worship him) for details...

Do you know what The Prince's Trust, Halliburton, The Keystone Pipeline, and Harvey Milk stamps all have in common? None of them have anything to do with gay marriage or gay parents.

Sil's argument has essentially degenerated into rhetorical word salad.

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if he worked in nuclear meltdowns and zombies.

And wolves, do not forget wolves.

She is only using this thread in hopes of generating traffic to her own failed threads. It is why she spams her thread's links in almost every gay marriage thread.

Yes- nothing better explains Silhouette than her talking about wolves raising children and asking whether the wolves should be allowed to get married......

 

[Syriusly]

1. National referendums don't exist.

2. It would vote in favor of gay marriage.

3. A person's constitutional right is not up for a popular vote. The whole idea of the constitution and the Bill of Rights were that people had these rights REGARDLESS of the popular sentiment. Even if the person is the only one in a certain classification, they still have rights. Rights aren't subject to the will of the majority unless amended to the Constitution.

Apparently you missed this post two before yours on the last page:

A February 12–15, 2015 CNN/ORC poll found that 63% of Americans believe same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, while 36% oppose.

Well an ongoing USMB poll found that 82% of Americans believe that same-sex marriage has limitations in how far it can go:

No such poll says any such thing.

You are just lying.

 

[Penrod]

Oh STFU!

Enjoy hanging out with the racist asshole who is the face of Alabama opposition to gay marriage. You picked his side.

He's from Georgia, idiot. I'm in Alabama.
Marriage is a State matter. Nowhere in the US Constitution is there any mention of it, nor power over it granted. SO that right falls to the states or the people.
Interracial marriage..... Obviously, I'm in favor of it or I wouldn't have married my ex, but I think we can at least agree that a black male and a white male are men and a black female and a white female are both women. With me so far? SO an interracial marriage between a white male and a black female follows the historic definition of marriage.

Marriage is a state matter- but subject to Constitutional guarantees.

Once again-
Alabama state marriage law until 2000 said it was illegal for a mixed race couple to marry. The only reason why it would have been legal for you to marry your wife between 1967 and 2000 is because a federal judge said in 1967 that State laws that prohibit mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.

Alabama state marriage law currently says it is illegal for a same gender couple to marry.
A federal judge has said that Alabama's state marriage law is unconstitutional.

Are federal judges 'black robed tyrants' when they overturn State marriage laws- or upholding the Constitution?

It either applies in both cases- or in neither case.

You cannot choose your race. You can however choose to be gay or to choose to marry a person of the same sex for other reasons

You can choose your religion. Does that mean that religious discrimination is perfectly legit? Can we now refuse to serve Christians?

Speech is a choice. Assembly is a choice. Are they no longer protected?

Keeping and bearing arms is a choice. Is it too no longer protected?

Your entire argument is moot nonsense. And of course, legally refuted by the Romer v. Evans which recognizes that the rights of gays and lesbians exist and are protected under the 14th amendment.

Almost 20 years ago.

Yes and when you choose one another can refuse to marry you

 

[g5000]

Well an ongoing USMB poll found that 82% of Americans believe that same-sex marriage has limitations in how far it can go

The limitations on gay marriage should be the same limitations as on any other marriage.

 

[1751_Texan]

Marriage is a state matter- but subject to Constitutional guarantees.

Well since this isn't about race but rather is about lifestyles

All Americans have both a right to marriage, and are guaranteed equal rights before the law.

None of that has to do with race or lifestyle choices such as religion.

Straight or gay you have the right to marry. Agreed! Marriage is the civil and spiritual union of one man and one woman.
Look! I'm just fine with civil union to protect legal rights of gay couples. Just don't call it marriage, OK?

Marriage is not a trademarked term...It does not belong to the religious. Maybe the Religious act of coupling should be renamed and not be used by the State. Keep it in the religious realm.

That is the problem mixing Religion and government...The government belongs to all. If you want your rituals to remain sacred keep them sacred and out of the public square.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It was 38 states a day ago... but now it's 37. It'll be 38 again shortly; and in a couple months 50.

More than likely...tyranny is now welcomed by the sheeple.

You still not over those 'tyrants' telling Alabama that Alabama's law against mixed race marriage was unconstitutional are you? Still upset that a black man can marry a white woman.

Any white whore that marries a negro is not worth my time nor worthy of carrying on the genes her ancestors passed down to her.

Yes- this is the person all of you folks are proud to line up with in the name of 'states rights'

Lol. No one gives a shit what I say. Its my personal opinion that's all. You can try and string others together with my views all you want. I agree with NO ONE here 100%.

Syriously's attempt to frame white people as racist.

LOL....no- I am pointing out that you are on the same side of this issue as Odium- a vile racist- that you both are standing up for 'state's rights'- just Odium also thinks its a state's right to treat African Americans as second class citizens.

Are you serious with this?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Agreed. Furthermore "Bruce and Steve" weddings put their female children at psychological peril..

Yes, but we also have amendments like the 14th that provides Equal Protection under the law. The Courts in all the cases have applied the Rational basis test where the government has to only acknowledge a legitimate government interest but they have not convinced the courts that there is a legitimate government interest to prevent people from seeking that social benefit. It's a really low standard yet they can't come up with one secular reason why.
That's why it's failing.

No, there is quite a huge legitimate interest in states denying gay marriage...and why the idea is gaining traction: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

...And the Justice-destroying precedent set in this kangaroo litigation is intolerable to Americans: Breaking Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

***********
For all the uber liberals celebrating overt judicial bias in their favor on this question, consider the following:

Imagine seeing Justice Roberts or Thomas in a photo op just before a case on the Keystone Pipeline, shaking hands with the president of Haliburton; showing either of the Justices with a shovel, breaking ground for Haliburton on "the soon to be approved project".

Or going one step further as the Court is doing in this case and actively eroding state laws, allowing sections of the pipeline to be built in violation of states laws one by one by inexplicably refusing to uphold stays...so by the time a couple years had passed, nearly the entire length of the pipeline was complete so the Court could throw up its hands in surprise and say "well golly, it looks like the whole pipeline's nearly in anyway, so we'll just have to go ahead and approve this thing"..

That is the EXACT analogy of what's going on with this gay marriage thing. It's illegal. It's undemocratic. And it's Tyranny of the Judicial over the states.

The number of states that have legally-ratified "gay marriage" is under 10, or near that number anyway. It is not "36" or what have you. No way. If this injustice goes forward it will be the equivalent of a cult using our Highest Court to force subjegation of the states. Check your federally-issued rainbow "USA" Harvey Milk stamps (and his biography/Ca laws requiring kids to worship him) for details...

Do you know what The Prince's Trust, Halliburton, The Keystone Pipeline, and Harvey Milk stamps all have in common? None of them have anything to do with gay marriage or gay parents.

Sil's argument has essentially degenerated into rhetorical word salad.

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if he worked in nuclear meltdowns and zombies.

And wolves, do not forget wolves.

She is only using this thread in hopes of generating traffic to her own failed threads. It is why she spams her thread's links in almost every gay marriage thread.

Yes- nothing better explains Silhouette than her talking about wolves raising children and asking whether the wolves should be allowed to get married......

I bet there weren't two male wolves involved either. Homosexuality is a flaw in the human species. Either by genetics or by choice.

 

[Plasmaball]

Federal judges who decide cases where they have no jurisdiction are black robed tyrants. That would be at either side of the argument.
Look guy! If Californians vote to change the definition of marriage, I don't believe SCOTUS has authority to step in there either. Are we clear?

then you are wrong

You are Plasmaball. By definition you are wrong. Dismissed.

and yet im not

 

[Plasmaball]

Agreed. Furthermore "Bruce and Steve" weddings put their female children at psychological peril..

No, there is quite a huge legitimate interest in states denying gay marriage...and why the idea is gaining traction: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

...And the Justice-destroying precedent set in this kangaroo litigation is intolerable to Americans: Breaking Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

***********
For all the uber liberals celebrating overt judicial bias in their favor on this question, consider the following:

Imagine seeing Justice Roberts or Thomas in a photo op just before a case on the Keystone Pipeline, shaking hands with the president of Haliburton; showing either of the Justices with a shovel, breaking ground for Haliburton on "the soon to be approved project".

Or going one step further as the Court is doing in this case and actively eroding state laws, allowing sections of the pipeline to be built in violation of states laws one by one by inexplicably refusing to uphold stays...so by the time a couple years had passed, nearly the entire length of the pipeline was complete so the Court could throw up its hands in surprise and say "well golly, it looks like the whole pipeline's nearly in anyway, so we'll just have to go ahead and approve this thing"..

That is the EXACT analogy of what's going on with this gay marriage thing. It's illegal. It's undemocratic. And it's Tyranny of the Judicial over the states.

The number of states that have legally-ratified "gay marriage" is under 10, or near that number anyway. It is not "36" or what have you. No way. If this injustice goes forward it will be the equivalent of a cult using our Highest Court to force subjegation of the states. Check your federally-issued rainbow "USA" Harvey Milk stamps (and his biography/Ca laws requiring kids to worship him) for details...

Do you know what The Prince's Trust, Halliburton, The Keystone Pipeline, and Harvey Milk stamps all have in common? None of them have anything to do with gay marriage or gay parents.

Sil's argument has essentially degenerated into rhetorical word salad.

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if he worked in nuclear meltdowns and zombies.

And wolves, do not forget wolves.

She is only using this thread in hopes of generating traffic to her own failed threads. It is why she spams her thread's links in almost every gay marriage thread.

Yes- nothing better explains Silhouette than her talking about wolves raising children and asking whether the wolves should be allowed to get married......

I bet there weren't two male wolves involved either. Homosexuality is a flaw in the human species. Either by genetics or by choice.

so is being fat

 

[TemplarKormac]

How does Bruce and Bob getting married harm those 2 children?

For one, those children will wonder why the great majority of other kids have moms and dads, while they have two dads or two moms. The whole idea of these children feeling abnormal is enough to harm them.

Male/female conjugation is the primary way the human species reproduces, making homosexuality an aberration.

 

[Skylar]

How does Bruce and Bob getting married harm those 2 children?

For one, those children will wonder why the great majority of other kids have moms and dads, while they have two dads or two moms. The whole idea of these children feeling abnormal is enough to harm them.

Male/female conjugation is the primary way the human species reproduces, making homosexuality an aberration.

Which assumes that the only reason to ever sex is reproduction. Which would classify everything from head to masterbation to old people ******* as an 'aberration'.

 

[Syriusly]

How does Bruce and Bob getting married harm those 2 children?

For one, those children will wonder why the great majority of other kids have moms and dads, while they have two dads or two moms. The whole idea of these children feeling abnormal is enough to harm them.

Male/female conjugation is the primary way the human species reproduces, making homosexuality an aberration.

And again- what does preventing gay marriage do to change that claim?

Scenario 1: Bruce and Bob are raising 2 children- not married.
Scenario 2: Bruce and Bob are raising 2 children- married.

How does Bruce and Bob getting married harm those 2 children?