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

[Syriusly]

Alabama Supreme Court tells Supreme Court to Take a Hike on Marriage Opinion

Awesome! You tell them Alabama! Keep fighting the good fight!

They will lose....but I like how they put out there just how inbred and backwards they are.....as if we didn't already know.

Nothing inbred nor backwards about shoving back against recent legal gains made by sexual deviants and perverts - a.k.a. homosexuals.

Yep- nothing says "Proud Conservative Americans" like those who want Big Brother to be policing how Americans have sex in the privacy of their beedroom.

 

[Skylar]

Alabama Supreme Court tells Supreme Court to Take a Hike on Marriage Opinion

Awesome! You tell them Alabama! Keep fighting the good fight!

They will lose....but I like how they put out there just how inbred and backwards they are.....as if we didn't already know.

Nothing inbred nor backwards about shoving back against recent legal gains made by sexual deviants and perverts - a.k.a. homosexuals.

And by 'shoving back, you mean utterly capitulating and dismissing all challenges to gay marriage in Alabama?

 

[Kondor3]

Alabama Supreme Court tells Supreme Court to Take a Hike on Marriage Opinion

Awesome! You tell them Alabama! Keep fighting the good fight!

They will lose....but I like how they put out there just how inbred and backwards they are.....as if we didn't already know.

Nothing inbred nor backwards about shoving back against recent legal gains made by sexual deviants and perverts - a.k.a. homosexuals.

And by 'shoving back, you mean utterly capitulating and dismissing all challenges to gay marriage in Alabama?

Nope...

I mean shoving back on the Federal level, even if that means beginning at the State level...

A movement which will probably be gaining considerable momentum after January 20, 2017...

 

[konradv]

Alabama Supreme Court tells Supreme Court to Take a Hike on Marriage Opinion Awesome! You tell them Alabama! Keep fighting the good fight!

If what a state SC says means anything when opposed by the USSC, Gore would have been president.

 

[Skylar]

Alabama Supreme Court tells Supreme Court to Take a Hike on Marriage Opinion

Awesome! You tell them Alabama! Keep fighting the good fight!

They will lose....but I like how they put out there just how inbred and backwards they are.....as if we didn't already know.

Nothing inbred nor backwards about shoving back against recent legal gains made by sexual deviants and perverts - a.k.a. homosexuals.

And by 'shoving back, you mean utterly capitulating and dismissing all challenges to gay marriage in Alabama?

Nope...

I mean shoving back on the Federal level, even if that means beginning at the State level...

A movement which will probably be gaining considerable momentum after January 20, 2017...

Then why did the Alabama Supreme Court just roll over and dismiss all challenges to gay marriage in Alabama?

I wasn't aware 'pushing back' meant complete and total capitulation.

 

[bodecea]

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"...

I find your comments offensive to me as a parent of a loving, wonderful child who has grown into a loving, wonderful adult.

 

[mdk]

Nothing inbred nor backwards about shoving back against recent legal gains made by sexual deviants and perverts - a.k.a. homosexuals.

And by 'shoving back' you mean whining on the internet. lol

 

[bodecea]

Nothing inbred nor backwards about shoving back against recent legal gains made by sexual deviants and perverts - a.k.a. homosexuals.

And by 'shoving back' you mean whining on the internet. lol

It's very effective, don't you think?

 

[Skylar]

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.

No it isn't. Its to hurt gay people by hurting their children. You know that denying gays marriage doesn't remedy anything you're complaining about. As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that they never have married parents.

Which hurts children by the hundreds of thousands and help none.

That's your cause.

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

Like history decided the utility of all your *other* legal predictions?

I believe the verdict was 'perfect failure'. But this time its different, huh?

 

[mdk]

Nothing inbred nor backwards about shoving back against recent legal gains made by sexual deviants and perverts - a.k.a. homosexuals.

And by 'shoving back' you mean whining on the internet. lol

It's very effective, don't you think?

Very. It's almost like it matters. lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

Alabama Supreme Court tells Supreme Court to Take a Hike on Marriage Opinion

Awesome! You tell them Alabama! Keep fighting the good fight!

They will lose....but I like how they put out there just how inbred and backwards they are.....as if we didn't already know.

Nothing inbred nor backwards about shoving back against recent legal gains made by sexual deviants and perverts - a.k.a. homosexuals.

Gays won the argument because those who opposed them, like you, had nothing more than namecalling as their counter argument. Like you.

 

[80zephyr]

Maybe Alabama should stop sending federal tax money to Washington.

they take more than they give fyi

Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?



state constitutions can not violate The Constitution and state courts are legally bound to the supremacy of the supreme court.

State courts are only bound to ruling by SCOTUS that are legal.

Every ruling by the Supreme Court is by definition legal.

Even bad ones.

The legal encyclopedia American Jurisprudence states: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void

Dred Scott was an unconstitutional ruling, and was therefore unenforceable, even if the government treats it as law.

Mark

Mark once again displaying his contempt for reading comprehension.

'unconstitutional statute'- that would be the State law that the Supreme Court rules unconstitutional.
An 'unconstitutional law'- i.e. Virginia's law against mixed race marriages, Texas's law against sodomy, and three states laws against gay marriage- all unconstitutional laws.

Says who? The Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court decides if a law is constitutional or not- by definition every ruling by the Supreme Court is legal- even the bad ones.

Which is why the only way to change a Supreme Court ruling 'we the people' disagree with- is to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

Which is why Dred Scott decision was legal- (and bad) and it was enforced- until reversed by the 13th and the 14th Amendments.

Hmmm. Who to believe? You or my link??? Tough choice, I know.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

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.

What is the reasonable objection to polygamy?

Mark

Good question Mark.

Do you have any objection to polygamous marriage.

If you don't- do you think polygamous marriage should be legal.

My opinion matters not. We are arguing point of law.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

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...

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.

And what about the left? Do they stop whining when they lose? If they did, gay marriage wouldn't be the law of the land. Don't ask me to do something you didn't do yourself.

Mark

 

[Skylar]

they take more than they give fyi

Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?



state constitutions can not violate The Constitution and state courts are legally bound to the supremacy of the supreme court.

State courts are only bound to ruling by SCOTUS that are legal.

Every ruling by the Supreme Court is by definition legal.

Even bad ones.

The legal encyclopedia American Jurisprudence states: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void

Dred Scott was an unconstitutional ruling, and was therefore unenforceable, even if the government treats it as law.

Mark

Mark once again displaying his contempt for reading comprehension.

'unconstitutional statute'- that would be the State law that the Supreme Court rules unconstitutional.
An 'unconstitutional law'- i.e. Virginia's law against mixed race marriages, Texas's law against sodomy, and three states laws against gay marriage- all unconstitutional laws.

Says who? The Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court decides if a law is constitutional or not- by definition every ruling by the Supreme Court is legal- even the bad ones.

Which is why the only way to change a Supreme Court ruling 'we the people' disagree with- is to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

Which is why Dred Scott decision was legal- (and bad) and it was enforced- until reversed by the 13th and the 14th Amendments.

Hmmm. Who to believe? You or my link??? Tough choice, I know.

Mark

And who says that Obergefell is an 'unconstitutional statute'? The USSC says this:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Who to believe? You or my link? Tough choice, I know.

 

[Skylar]

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.

What is the reasonable objection to polygamy?

Mark

Good question Mark.

Do you have any objection to polygamous marriage.

If you don't- do you think polygamous marriage should be legal.

My opinion matters not. We are arguing point of law.

Mark

The law doesn't recognize polygamy as legal.

That was easy.

 

[80zephyr]

Sils theory of contract, children, and marriage may be the looniest POV that we have seen on the Board in years.

If it is, it shouldn't be. Care of our future citizens should be of the utmost importance. They have rights to, or at least they should.

Mark

 

[Skylar]

Sils theory of contract, children, and marriage may be the looniest POV that we have seen on the Board in years.

If it is, it shouldn't be. Care of our future citizens should be of the utmost importance. They have rights to, or at least they should.

Mark

Children do have rights. Being parties to their parents marriage isn't one of them.

And we're speaking on points of law. Not your personal opinion.

 

[80zephyr]

State courts are only bound to ruling by SCOTUS that are legal.

Every ruling by the Supreme Court is by definition legal.

Even bad ones.

The legal encyclopedia American Jurisprudence states: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void

Dred Scott was an unconstitutional ruling, and was therefore unenforceable, even if the government treats it as law.

Mark

Mark once again displaying his contempt for reading comprehension.

'unconstitutional statute'- that would be the State law that the Supreme Court rules unconstitutional.
An 'unconstitutional law'- i.e. Virginia's law against mixed race marriages, Texas's law against sodomy, and three states laws against gay marriage- all unconstitutional laws.

Says who? The Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court decides if a law is constitutional or not- by definition every ruling by the Supreme Court is legal- even the bad ones.

Which is why the only way to change a Supreme Court ruling 'we the people' disagree with- is to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

Which is why Dred Scott decision was legal- (and bad) and it was enforced- until reversed by the 13th and the 14th Amendments.

Hmmm. Who to believe? You or my link??? Tough choice, I know.

Mark

And who says that Obergefell is an 'unconstitutional statute'? The USSC says this:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Who to believe? You or my link? Tough choice, I know.

Deflection. You argued that there was no such thing as an illegal law. I proved to you that there is indeed such a thing.

And I also admitted that even an illegal law could be enforced.

Mark

 

[koshergrl]

**** scotus.