Alabama supreme court tells SC to take a hike on marriage opinion

[Preacher]

Marriage is not a right. So. By YOUR own words EVERYONE should be allowed to own a gun since that IS a right.

Marriage is a right.

But gun ownership isn't?

Where did I say gun ownership isn't a right?- please provide the quote.

Meanwhile- marriage is a right. Repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court.

Maybe Alabama should stop sending federal tax money to Washington.

Mark

And then the federal government should pull every military installation out of Alabama and cut off all Social Security payments.

Gonna answer the question or not? 2nd amendment is a RIGHT so everyone should be allowed to own a gun? Right? Or as you libtards LOVE pointing out a right CAN BE restricted.

Rights can be restricted. Everyone with a brain knows that. You just can't restrict rights in violation of the equal protection clause.

So your argument is that the 2nd amendment rights CAN be restricted by rights under the 14th CAN'T be restricted....

Rights can be restricted.

But they can only be restricted when there is a reasonable purpose- denying criminals who have been convicted of violent crimes has a reasonable objective- denying gun ownership to all white men has no reasonable objective.

Just as denying the right to marriage to same gender couples has no reasonable objective.

So to you REASONABLE restrictions can be used..

Not to me- that is the standard the courts use- and have used- for marriage laws, for gun laws- whenever a state passes a law that does restrict a right we have- State's can only restrict a right when it serves a compelling interest(no yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater)

Restricting marriage as its been done for THOUSANDS of years is in the compelling interest.

 

[ogibillm]

Marriage is a right.

But gun ownership isn't?

Where did I say gun ownership isn't a right?- please provide the quote.

Meanwhile- marriage is a right. Repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court.

And then the federal government should pull every military installation out of Alabama and cut off all Social Security payments.
Rights can be restricted. Everyone with a brain knows that. You just can't restrict rights in violation of the equal protection clause.

So your argument is that the 2nd amendment rights CAN be restricted by rights under the 14th CAN'T be restricted....

Rights can be restricted.

But they can only be restricted when there is a reasonable purpose- denying criminals who have been convicted of violent crimes has a reasonable objective- denying gun ownership to all white men has no reasonable objective.

Just as denying the right to marriage to same gender couples has no reasonable objective.

So to you REASONABLE restrictions can be used..

Not to me- that is the standard the courts use- and have used- for marriage laws, for gun laws- whenever a state passes a law that does restrict a right we have- State's can only restrict a right when it serves a compelling interest(no yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater)

Restricting marriage as its been done for THOUSANDS of years is in the compelling interest.

how so?

 

[Silhouette]

Restricting marriage as its been done for THOUSANDS of years is in the compelling interest.

how so?

By assuring that children get the best start in life possible by having both a mother and a father: the reason marriage was created; to remedy all the inferior situations of children having both a mother and a father. Obergefell just substituted an inferior situation for the cure for that inferior situation. And they did so without permission or representation of children, or even the collective states' interest in how children grow up...without both a mother and father... PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY or with both a mother and father:

(Below: a study with 3,000 surveyed young adults who grew up both in normal mother/father homes and those raised in lesbian homes. It was done to contrast small-sampled and cherry-picked "exemplary outcome" lesbian homes submitted "as science" by other sources. It showed, in agreement with the Prince's Trust findings (first link here), that children fare better in homes with both a mother and father compared to two lesbians....well...duh..)

The New Family Structures Study (NFSS) is a social-science data-collection project that fielded a survey to a large, random sample of American young adults (ages 18–39) who were raised in different types of family arrangements. In this debut article of the NFSS, I compare how the young-adult children of a parent who has had a same-sex romantic relationship fare on 40 different social, emotional, and relational outcome variables when compared with six other family-of-origin types. The results reveal numerous, consistent differences, especially between the children of women who have had a lesbian relationship and those with still-married (heterosexual) biological parents. The results are typically robust in multivariate contexts as well, suggesting far greater diversity in lesbian-parent household experiences than convenience-sample studies of lesbian families have revealed. The NFSS proves to be an illuminating, versatile dataset that can assist family scholars in understanding the long reach of family structure and transitions. How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study

Children raised in inferior homes turn out to be statistically a burden upon the criminal justice system and mental health services. They are also more depressed, unhappy and even suicidal. So, states have an extreme vested interest in who they subsidize with tax breaks "as married" vs those they do not entice with money to play house around children.

 

[ogibillm]

Restricting marriage as its been done for THOUSANDS of years is in the compelling interest.

how so?

By assuring that children get the best start in life possible by having both a mother and a father: the reason marriage was created; to remedy all the inferior situations of children having both a mother and a father. Obergefell just substituted an inferior situation for the cure for that inferior situation. And they did so without permission or representation of children, or even the collective states' interest in how children grow up...without both a mother and father... PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY or with both a mother and father:

(Below: a study with 3,000 surveyed young adults who grew up both in normal mother/father homes and those raised in lesbian homes. It was done to contrast small-sampled and cherry-picked "exemplary outcome" lesbian homes submitted "as science" by other sources. It showed, in agreement with the Prince's Trust findings (first link here), that children fare better in homes with both a mother and father compared to two lesbians....well...duh..)

The New Family Structures Study (NFSS) is a social-science data-collection project that fielded a survey to a large, random sample of American young adults (ages 18–39) who were raised in different types of family arrangements. In this debut article of the NFSS, I compare how the young-adult children of a parent who has had a same-sex romantic relationship fare on 40 different social, emotional, and relational outcome variables when compared with six other family-of-origin types. The results reveal numerous, consistent differences, especially between the children of women who have had a lesbian relationship and those with still-married (heterosexual) biological parents. The results are typically robust in multivariate contexts as well, suggesting far greater diversity in lesbian-parent household experiences than convenience-sample studies of lesbian families have revealed. The NFSS proves to be an illuminating, versatile dataset that can assist family scholars in understanding the long reach of family structure and transitions. How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study

Children raised in inferior homes turn out to be statistically a burden upon the criminal justice system and mental health services. They are also more depressed, unhappy and even suicidal. So, states have an extreme vested interest in who they subsidize with tax breaks "as married" vs those they do not entice with money to play house around children.

so... what do you say about single parents, divorced parents, widowed/widower parents, and those married without children?

also marriage isn't required to have children, nor is having children a requirement of marriage

but i would bet, if you were to want to look into it, that children are better off in two parent, married homes, which would be an argument for gay marriage, not against.

 

[Silhouette]

so... what do you say about single parents, divorced parents, widowed/widower parents, and those married without children?

also marriage isn't required to have children, nor is having children a requirement of marriage

1. States anticipate the arrival of children in marriage. They can't sit with a gun at people's heads in their bedrooms forcing them to copulate without birth control. So states do the next best thing and always have: they incentivize people to marry and have children with tax breaks. If not for children, there would be no earthly reason whatsoever, no fiscal benefit derived by offering tax breaks merely for two adults just to live together.

2. The marriage contract and all its implied provisions (including a mother and father both for children) was created to remedy all the inferior situations via enticements that children find themselves in. States hope single parents will marry to cure that ill. So they entice with tax breaks. States reluctantly grant divorce when the home environment becomes too hostile for children to tolerate...but they still keep the parents quasi-married until the children are of age..dangling further enticements should they remarry into more happy man/woman father/mother relationships. Same with widows/widowers.

It's all about the kids. Otherwise: no gain for tax breaks states offer. States want children raised in father/mother married homes because states know that these children turn out to be the most fiscally productive, happy and well adjusted adults statistically speaking. States have to deal with statistical propensities and not random rare examples that you will no doubt offer up "I knew a kid raised in a father/mother married home that turned out terribly" or "I know a boy raised in a lesbian home that turned out great" .. States don't bank on dark horse gambling. They bank on statistical sure-deals...

 

[mdk]

Sil is reduced to lying about the finding in The Prince's Trust and using Mark Regnerus's widely panned and debunked 'study' as evidence. If her points were so compelling should wouldn't have to lie. Too funny.

 

[mdk]

The marriage contract and all its implied provisions (including a mother and father both for children) was created to remedy all the inferior situations via enticements that children find themselves in. States hope single parents will marry to cure that ill. So they entice with tax breaks. States reluctantly grant divorce when the home environment becomes too hostile for children to tolerate...but they still keep the parents quasi-married until the children are of age..dangling further enticements should they remarry into more happy man/woman father/mother relationships. Same with widows/widowers.

Name a single state that recognizes children as implicit parties to a marriage contract. I'll give you a hint: none do.

States do not reluctantly grant divorce. They'll grant a divorce to any couple regardless of the objections of their children or not. This just another one of your many self-serving exemptions that allows you to make peace with motherless or fatherless children of heterosexuals. You're a flaming hypocrite and nothing more.

 

[jillian]

Who's going to stop them?

You have it backwards. They can't stop gay people from marrying, no matter how much they stamp their club feet or how long they hold their stinking breath.

Actually, a state can stop gays from marrying..

No more than a state can stop a mixed race couple from marrying

Which is why in all 50 states it is legal for mixed race couples- and gay couples to marry- despite State's objections.

And why it should be legal for a woman to marry the entire Dallas Cowboy team, if she so chooses.

Mark

So you are in favor of polygamous marriage- thank you for once taking a stand on behalf of that poor woman and the entire Dallas Cowboy team.

Now all they have to do is do what the Lovings and the Obergefell's did- go to the court and claim that their Constitutional rights have been violated and that they should be able to be married.

Like the Lovings and the Obergefells they have to make their case- and the State has to come up with a compelling reason why the State law against polygamous marriage should stand.

BUT if the State can't come up with a valid reason why bans on polygamous marriages are good- then why does the State even have the bans?

You could start the ball rolling tomorrow- by going to court claiming your right to marry 3 women or 3 men is being denied- go for it.

did the woman with the dallas cowboys' team consent? if she did, it's none of your business. which isn't to say there isn't a societal interest that mitigates against polygamy.

as for loving...

they can't do that, moron.

Who's going to stop them?

You have it backwards. They can't stop gay people from marrying, no matter how much they stamp their club feet or how long they hold their stinking breath.

Actually, a state can stop gays from marrying..

No more than a state can stop a mixed race couple from marrying

Which is why in all 50 states it is legal for mixed race couples- and gay couples to marry- despite State's objections.

And why it should be legal for a woman to marry the entire Dallas Cowboy team, if she so chooses.

Mark

interesting and yet irrelevant assertion since that isn't being requested by anyone.

we are speaking only of two consenting adults.

and who consenting adults choose as their life partner isn't your business and the government presented no compelling state interest in preventing marriage equality....something it would have been required to do since marriage is a fundamental right as the court already held in loving.

the fact that loons are still whining about this is bizarre

go on with your lives... if you don't want to marry someone of the same sex...don't.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Try reading the Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;

and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby,

anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

*** "marriage" is not covered under the constitution. Thanks for playing.

Equal protection under the law is protected, so as long as states have marriage LAWs, they are obligated to keep those laws constitutional.

btw, I didn't miss that you are totally oblivious to what the Supremacy Clause says.

Marriage is not a right. So. By YOUR own words EVERYONE should be allowed to own a gun since that IS a right.

It is now.

Gonna answer the question or not? 2nd amendment is a RIGHT so everyone should be allowed to own a gun? Right? Or as you libtards LOVE pointing out a right CAN BE restricted.

Yup Amendment II recognizes a specific RIGHT just as Amendment I free speech recognizes a right. But just as free speech is limited to curb say speech that would incite a riot, Amendment II is also limited. As Justice Scalia wrote in D. C. v. Heller;

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." [Emphasis Added]

Even a trite wing SC Justice like Scalia recognized there were limitations to Amendment II and that decision is the current Law of the Land. Before you go where all the other uninformed 2A nuts go, read up on Judicial Review and the Supremacy Clause!

 

[Silhouette]

The marriage contract and all its implied provisions (including a mother and father both for children) was created to remedy all the inferior situations via enticements that children find themselves in. States hope single parents will marry to cure that ill. So they entice with tax breaks. States reluctantly grant divorce when the home environment becomes too hostile for children to tolerate...but they still keep the parents quasi-married until the children are of age..dangling further enticements should they remarry into more happy man/woman father/mother relationships. Same with widows/widowers.

Name a single state that recognizes children as implicit parties to a marriage contract. I'll give you a hint: none do

Yet as a result of a challenge to the concept... But perhaps there is already case law about that. I'll look around and get back to you on that one.

 

[jillian]

The marriage contract and all its implied provisions (including a mother and father both for children) was created to remedy all the inferior situations via enticements that children find themselves in. States hope single parents will marry to cure that ill. So they entice with tax breaks. States reluctantly grant divorce when the home environment becomes too hostile for children to tolerate...but they still keep the parents quasi-married until the children are of age..dangling further enticements should they remarry into more happy man/woman father/mother relationships. Same with widows/widowers.

Name a single state that recognizes children as implicit parties to a marriage contract. I'll give you a hint: none do

Yet as a result of a challenge to the concept... But perhaps there is already case law about that. I'll look around and get back to you on that one.

save your time...there is no such case...and certainly none that would have any precedential value as to the supreme court.

you need to stop being a lunatic. seek help

 

[bodecea]

Marriage is a right.

But gun ownership isn't?

Where did I say gun ownership isn't a right?- please provide the quote.

Meanwhile- marriage is a right. Repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court.

And then the federal government should pull every military installation out of Alabama and cut off all Social Security payments.
Rights can be restricted. Everyone with a brain knows that. You just can't restrict rights in violation of the equal protection clause.

So your argument is that the 2nd amendment rights CAN be restricted by rights under the 14th CAN'T be restricted....

Rights can be restricted.

But they can only be restricted when there is a reasonable purpose- denying criminals who have been convicted of violent crimes has a reasonable objective- denying gun ownership to all white men has no reasonable objective.

Just as denying the right to marriage to same gender couples has no reasonable objective.

So to you REASONABLE restrictions can be used..

Not to me- that is the standard the courts use- and have used- for marriage laws, for gun laws- whenever a state passes a law that does restrict a right we have- State's can only restrict a right when it serves a compelling interest(no yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater)

Restricting marriage as its been done for THOUSANDS of years is in the compelling interest.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that marriage has been done the same way for "THOUSANDS of years". It has not.

 

[Silhouette]

The marriage contract and all its implied provisions (including a mother and father both for children) was created to remedy all the inferior situations via enticements that children find themselves in. States hope single parents will marry to cure that ill. So they entice with tax breaks. States reluctantly grant divorce when the home environment becomes too hostile for children to tolerate...but they still keep the parents quasi-married until the children are of age..dangling further enticements should they remarry into more happy man/woman father/mother relationships. Same with widows/widowers.

Name a single state that recognizes children as implicit parties to a marriage contract. I'll give you a hint: none do

Yet as a result of a challenge to the concept... But perhaps there is already case law about that. I'll look around and get back to you on that one.

save your time...there is no such case...and certainly none that would have any precedential value as to the supreme court.

you need to stop being a lunatic. seek help

I am seeking help. Legal actions challenging Obergefell's child-abuse ruling are pending in Alabama and Tennessee...and it's about time too. Working alone has been tough. Help is always appreciated!

 

[jillian]

The marriage contract and all its implied provisions (including a mother and father both for children) was created to remedy all the inferior situations via enticements that children find themselves in. States hope single parents will marry to cure that ill. So they entice with tax breaks. States reluctantly grant divorce when the home environment becomes too hostile for children to tolerate...but they still keep the parents quasi-married until the children are of age..dangling further enticements should they remarry into more happy man/woman father/mother relationships. Same with widows/widowers.

Name a single state that recognizes children as implicit parties to a marriage contract. I'll give you a hint: none do

Yet as a result of a challenge to the concept... But perhaps there is already case law about that. I'll look around and get back to you on that one.

save your time...there is no such case...and certainly none that would have any precedential value as to the supreme court.

you need to stop being a lunatic. seek help

I am seeking help. Legal actions challenging Obergefell's child-abuse ruling are pending in Alabama and Tennessee...and it's about time too. Working alone has been tough. Help is always appreciated!

no, loony toon, seek psychological help.

your obsession is scary. and you are probably going to be happier when you address your psychological health.

 

[mdk]

The marriage contract and all its implied provisions (including a mother and father both for children) was created to remedy all the inferior situations via enticements that children find themselves in. States hope single parents will marry to cure that ill. So they entice with tax breaks. States reluctantly grant divorce when the home environment becomes too hostile for children to tolerate...but they still keep the parents quasi-married until the children are of age..dangling further enticements should they remarry into more happy man/woman father/mother relationships. Same with widows/widowers.

Name a single state that recognizes children as implicit parties to a marriage contract. I'll give you a hint: none do

Yet as a result of a challenge to the concept... But perhaps there is already case law about that. I'll look around and get back to you on that one.

save your time...there is no such case...and certainly none that would have any precedential value as to the supreme court.

you need to stop being a lunatic. seek help

I am seeking help. Legal actions challenging Obergefell's child-abuse ruling are pending in Alabama and Tennessee...and it's about time too. Working alone has been tough. Help is always appreciated!

The door was closed on Alabama two days ago:

Alabama high court tosses petitions challenging gay marriage

One person suing in county court is not Tennessee.


No where but your addled mind is gay people raising children is legally considered child abuse.

 

[jillian]

The marriage contract and all its implied provisions (including a mother and father both for children) was created to remedy all the inferior situations via enticements that children find themselves in. States hope single parents will marry to cure that ill. So they entice with tax breaks. States reluctantly grant divorce when the home environment becomes too hostile for children to tolerate...but they still keep the parents quasi-married until the children are of age..dangling further enticements should they remarry into more happy man/woman father/mother relationships. Same with widows/widowers.

Name a single state that recognizes children as implicit parties to a marriage contract. I'll give you a hint: none do

Yet as a result of a challenge to the concept... But perhaps there is already case law about that. I'll look around and get back to you on that one.

save your time...there is no such case...and certainly none that would have any precedential value as to the supreme court.

you need to stop being a lunatic. seek help

I am seeking help. Legal actions challenging Obergefell's child-abuse ruling are pending in Alabama and Tennessee...and it's about time too. Working alone has been tough. Help is always appreciated!

The door was closed on Alabama two days ago:

Alabama high court tosses petitions challenging gay marriage

One person suing in county court is not Tennessee.


No where but your addled mind is gay people raising children is legally considered child abuse.

that case was decided based upon the full faith and credit clause. Alabama had to enforce the Georgia order.

 

[Silhouette]

no, loony toon, seek psychological help.

your obsession is scary. and you are probably going to be happier when you address your psychological health.

Maybe so. I'll get right on that as soon as the legal challenges to Obergefell are well established and cemented. Hey, we all have a cause, right? Yours is to separate children from both a mother and father for life via contract. Mine is to keep them with a mother and father for life via contract.

I'm perfectly happy letting history decide if my "obsession is scary"...

 

[mdk]

no, loony toon, seek psychological help.

your obsession is scary. and you are probably going to be happier when you address your psychological health.

Maybe so. I'll get right on that as soon as the legal challenges to Obergefell are well established and cemented. Hey, we all have a cause, right? Yours is to separate children from both a mother and father for life via contract. Mine is to keep them with a mother and father for life via contract.

I'm perfectly happy letting history decide if my "obsession is scary"...

Unless it comes to divorce and/or single parenthood and suddenly you don't give the slightest of ***** about children missing a mother or father.

 

[Preacher]

*** "marriage" is not covered under the constitution. Thanks for playing.

Equal protection under the law is protected, so as long as states have marriage LAWs, they are obligated to keep those laws constitutional.

btw, I didn't miss that you are totally oblivious to what the Supremacy Clause says.

Marriage is not a right. So. By YOUR own words EVERYONE should be allowed to own a gun since that IS a right.

It is now.

Gonna answer the question or not? 2nd amendment is a RIGHT so everyone should be allowed to own a gun? Right? Or as you libtards LOVE pointing out a right CAN BE restricted.

Yup Amendment II recognizes a specific RIGHT just as Amendment I free speech recognizes a right. But just as free speech is limited to curb say speech that would incite a riot, Amendment II is also limited. As Justice Scalia wrote in D. C. v. Heller;

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." [Emphasis Added]

Even a trite wing SC Justice like Scalia recognized there were limitations to Amendment II and that decision is the current Law of the Land. Before you go where all the other uninformed 2A nuts go, read up on Judicial Review and the Supremacy Clause!

Just as the 14th amendment that you liberals like using for proof of anyone being allowed to marriage can be restricted.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Equal protection under the law is protected, so as long as states have marriage LAWs, they are obligated to keep those laws constitutional.

btw, I didn't miss that you are totally oblivious to what the Supremacy Clause says.

Marriage is not a right. So. By YOUR own words EVERYONE should be allowed to own a gun since that IS a right.

It is now.

Gonna answer the question or not? 2nd amendment is a RIGHT so everyone should be allowed to own a gun? Right? Or as you libtards LOVE pointing out a right CAN BE restricted.

Yup Amendment II recognizes a specific RIGHT just as Amendment I free speech recognizes a right. But just as free speech is limited to curb say speech that would incite a riot, Amendment II is also limited. As Justice Scalia wrote in D. C. v. Heller;

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." [Emphasis Added]

Even a trite wing SC Justice like Scalia recognized there were limitations to Amendment II and that decision is the current Law of the Land. Before you go where all the other uninformed 2A nuts go, read up on Judicial Review and the Supremacy Clause!

Just as the 14th amendment that you liberals like using for proof of anyone being allowed to marriage can be restricted.

Can be, but wasn't. Same sex and opposite sex marriage are sufficiently similar to qualify for equal protection.