Breaking News: Alabama Chief Justice Orders Judges to Just Ignore Pro-Gay Marriage Federal Ruling

[Preacher]

LOL SPLC Writer Murdered by Blacks While Hiking Daily Stormer

See white anti whites always get what's coming to them..usually by the ones they are trying to "help" LOL

Yeah- not shocking that a white supremacist would laugh at someone being murdered.

And he used an example that is completely off topic. Gay marriage is the topic, but he keeps wanting it to be about race.

You are missing the entire point but whatever...that retard trolling the thread is throwing it off track.

 

[WinterBorn]

LOL SPLC Writer Murdered by Blacks While Hiking Daily Stormer

See white anti whites always get what's coming to them..usually by the ones they are trying to "help" LOL

Yeah- not shocking that a white supremacist would laugh at someone being murdered.

Of course your simple minded self can't comprehend why its funny....this retard is much like you...yet he got what he deserved by those he was trying to promote as our equals! LMAO...What can I expect from someone who can't comprehend sarcasm.

So you think blacks shouldn't be considered our equals? What a shocker. But not really the topic here, now is it?

 

[Preacher]

Of course you would link to The Daily Stormer. Why I am hardly surprised?

I don't really care if you like it or not. DS is awesome its funny as hell...They don't care for the political correctness shit.

 

[WinterBorn]

LOL SPLC Writer Murdered by Blacks While Hiking Daily Stormer

See white anti whites always get what's coming to them..usually by the ones they are trying to "help" LOL

Yeah- not shocking that a white supremacist would laugh at someone being murdered.

And he used an example that is completely off topic. Gay marriage is the topic, but he keeps wanting it to be about race.

You are missing the entire point but whatever...that retard trolling the thread is throwing it off track.

What track? That you claim by allowing gays to marry that straight white men are made into 2nd class citizens? That is hardly worthy of trolling. You are the one who tried to take this thread down that track and include Affirmative Action.

And no, I get the point. You have no basis for your claims that same sex marriage marginalizes you, so you wantto make it about race. I get that. You tried the incest and bestiality route and saw that it is laughable, so you went another route.

 

[WinterBorn]

Of course you would link to The Daily Stormer. Why I am hardly surprised?

I don't really care if you like it or not. DS is awesome its funny as hell...They don't care for the political correctness shit.

I don't care for political correctness either. regardless of which way you try and slant it, it is bullshit.

That is why I keep asking you how gay marriage actually effects you. But you keep trying to make some point about white men being 2nd class citizens, when it is completely bogus.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

The Constitutional Law that covers this Alabama case are the 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments. The 14th Amendment according to SCOTUS. Precedent is about race relations and Citizenship. Not about Marriage. Not one word in the 14th covers Marriage.

Wrong again. You're applying exclusion that the courts never did. The courts found that the 14th amendment applies in race based cases. You're claiming that the 14th amendment ONLY applies in race based cases. And that's not a finding of the courts.

That's you citing yourself. And its blithering nonsense. Like insisting that if a cop pulls over the driver of a Corolla for speeding, that they can ONLY pull over drivers of Corollas for speeding.

There's no such restriction.

In the Romer v. Evans case the court explicitly found that the 14th amendment's equal protection clause had been violated. Utterly destroying your claim that the 14th doesn't apply to gays and that it only applies race and citizenship based cases.

The equal protection clause applies to all citizens, all laws, all privileges and immunities. The restrictions you insist the courts applied, the courts never even mention.

Stop obfuscating.

 

[Syriusly]

LOL SPLC Writer Murdered by Blacks While Hiking Daily Stormer

See white anti whites always get what's coming to them..usually by the ones they are trying to "help" LOL

Yeah- not shocking that a white supremacist would laugh at someone being murdered.

Of course your simple minded self can't comprehend why its funny....this retard is much like you...yet he got what he deserved by those he was trying to promote as our equals! LMAO...What can I expect from someone who can't comprehend sarcasm.

To recap:
You think that someone being murdered is funny and
You don't think blacks are equal to white.
And you are against homosexuals being able to be married.

Thank you for representing the Alabama anti-gay marriage movement.

Between you and Stevie the racist, we are starting to get a real clear picture of the kind of person who supports Judge Moore.

 

[Skylar]

The Constitutional Law that covers this Alabama case are the 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments. The 14th Amendment according to SCOTUS. Precedent is about race relations and Citizenship. Not about Marriage. Not one word in the 14th covers Marriage.

Wrong again. You're applying exclusion that the courts never did. The courts found that the 14th amendment applies in race based cases. You're claiming that the 14th amendment ONLY applies in race based cases. And that's not a finding of the courts.

That's you citing yourself. And its blithering nonsense. Like insisting that if a cop pulls over the driver of a Corolla for speeding, that they can ONLY pull over drivers of Corollas for speeding.

There's no such restriction.

In the Romer v. Evans case the court explicitly found that the 14th amendment's equal protection clause had been violated. Utterly destroying your claim that the 14th doesn't apply to gays and that it only applies race and citizenship based cases.

The equal protection clause applies to all citizens, all laws, all privileges and immunities. The restrictions you insist the courts applied, the courts never even mention.

Stop obfuscating.

And by 'obfuscating' you mean destroying your silly argument with better reasoning, better evidence and better sources?

Um, no. I rather enjoy systematically disassembling your claims.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

The Constitutional Law that covers this Alabama case are the 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments. The 14th Amendment according to SCOTUS. Precedent is about race relations and Citizenship. Not about Marriage. Not one word in the 14th covers Marriage.

Wrong again. You're applying exclusion that the courts never did. The courts found that the 14th amendment applies in race based cases. You're claiming that the 14th amendment ONLY applies in race based cases. And that's not a finding of the courts.

That's you citing yourself. And its blithering nonsense. Like insisting that if a cop pulls over the driver of a Corolla for speeding, that they can ONLY pull over drivers of Corollas for speeding.

There's no such restriction.

In the Romer v. Evans case the court explicitly found that the 14th amendment's equal protection clause had been violated. Utterly destroying your claim that the 14th doesn't apply to gays and that it only applies race and citizenship based cases.

The equal protection clause applies to all citizens, all laws, all privileges and immunities. The restrictions you insist the courts applied, the courts never even mention.

Stop obfuscating.

And by 'obfuscating' you mean destroying your silly argument with better reasoning, better evidence and better sources?

Um, no. I rather enjoy systematically disassembling your claims.

No. You are obfuscating the facts I have provided to fit your silly argument. Judge Moore knows the facts. That is why he is Chief Justice.

 

[Syriusly]

The Constitutional Law that covers this Alabama case are the 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments. The 14th Amendment according to SCOTUS. Precedent is about race relations and Citizenship. Not about Marriage. Not one word in the 14th covers Marriage.

Wrong again. You're applying exclusion that the courts never did. The courts found that the 14th amendment applies in race based cases. You're claiming that the 14th amendment ONLY applies in race based cases. And that's not a finding of the courts.

That's you citing yourself. And its blithering nonsense. Like insisting that if a cop pulls over the driver of a Corolla for speeding, that they can ONLY pull over drivers of Corollas for speeding.

There's no such restriction.

In the Romer v. Evans case the court explicitly found that the 14th amendment's equal protection clause had been violated. Utterly destroying your claim that the 14th doesn't apply to gays and that it only applies race and citizenship based cases.

The equal protection clause applies to all citizens, all laws, all privileges and immunities. The restrictions you insist the courts applied, the courts never even mention.

Stop obfuscating.

And by 'obfuscating' you mean destroying your silly argument with better reasoning, better evidence and better sources?

Um, no. I rather enjoy systematically disassembling your claims.

No. You are obfuscating the facts I have provided to fit your silly argument.

You have never posted facts

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

The Constitutional Law that covers this Alabama case are the 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments. The 14th Amendment according to SCOTUS. Precedent is about race relations and Citizenship. Not about Marriage. Not one word in the 14th covers Marriage.

Wrong again. You're applying exclusion that the courts never did. The courts found that the 14th amendment applies in race based cases. You're claiming that the 14th amendment ONLY applies in race based cases. And that's not a finding of the courts.

That's you citing yourself. And its blithering nonsense. Like insisting that if a cop pulls over the driver of a Corolla for speeding, that they can ONLY pull over drivers of Corollas for speeding.

There's no such restriction.

In the Romer v. Evans case the court explicitly found that the 14th amendment's equal protection clause had been violated. Utterly destroying your claim that the 14th doesn't apply to gays and that it only applies race and citizenship based cases.

The equal protection clause applies to all citizens, all laws, all privileges and immunities. The restrictions you insist the courts applied, the courts never even mention.

Stop obfuscating.

And by 'obfuscating' you mean destroying your silly argument with better reasoning, better evidence and better sources?

Um, no. I rather enjoy systematically disassembling your claims.

No. You are obfuscating the facts I have provided to fit your silly argument.

You have never posted facts

I always post facts, especially about Obama being a non-natural born citizen with a 100% forged birth certificate in pdf form confirmed by the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office and Reed Hayes.

 

[WinterBorn]

Wrong again. You're applying exclusion that the courts never did. The courts found that the 14th amendment applies in race based cases. You're claiming that the 14th amendment ONLY applies in race based cases. And that's not a finding of the courts.

That's you citing yourself. And its blithering nonsense. Like insisting that if a cop pulls over the driver of a Corolla for speeding, that they can ONLY pull over drivers of Corollas for speeding.

There's no such restriction.

In the Romer v. Evans case the court explicitly found that the 14th amendment's equal protection clause had been violated. Utterly destroying your claim that the 14th doesn't apply to gays and that it only applies race and citizenship based cases.

The equal protection clause applies to all citizens, all laws, all privileges and immunities. The restrictions you insist the courts applied, the courts never even mention.

Stop obfuscating.

And by 'obfuscating' you mean destroying your silly argument with better reasoning, better evidence and better sources?

Um, no. I rather enjoy systematically disassembling your claims.

No. You are obfuscating the facts I have provided to fit your silly argument.

You have never posted facts

I always post facts, especially about Obama being a non-natural born citizen with a 100% forged birth certificate in pdf form confirmed by the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office and Reed Hayes.

So you think your posting that blacks are 3/5 of a person or that they are not human is factual? lmao

 

[WinterBorn]

The Constitutional Law that covers this Alabama case are the 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments. The 14th Amendment according to SCOTUS. Precedent is about race relations and Citizenship. Not about Marriage. Not one word in the 14th covers Marriage.

Wrong again. You're applying exclusion that the courts never did. The courts found that the 14th amendment applies in race based cases. You're claiming that the 14th amendment ONLY applies in race based cases. And that's not a finding of the courts.

That's you citing yourself. And its blithering nonsense. Like insisting that if a cop pulls over the driver of a Corolla for speeding, that they can ONLY pull over drivers of Corollas for speeding.

There's no such restriction.

In the Romer v. Evans case the court explicitly found that the 14th amendment's equal protection clause had been violated. Utterly destroying your claim that the 14th doesn't apply to gays and that it only applies race and citizenship based cases.

The equal protection clause applies to all citizens, all laws, all privileges and immunities. The restrictions you insist the courts applied, the courts never even mention.

Stop obfuscating.

And by 'obfuscating' you mean destroying your silly argument with better reasoning, better evidence and better sources?

Um, no. I rather enjoy systematically disassembling your claims.

No. You are obfuscating the facts I have provided to fit your silly argument. Judge Moore knows the facts. That is why he is Chief Justice.

He is the Chief Justice because he won an election.

 

[Skylar]

The Constitutional Law that covers this Alabama case are the 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments. The 14th Amendment according to SCOTUS. Precedent is about race relations and Citizenship. Not about Marriage. Not one word in the 14th covers Marriage.

Wrong again. You're applying exclusion that the courts never did. The courts found that the 14th amendment applies in race based cases. You're claiming that the 14th amendment ONLY applies in race based cases. And that's not a finding of the courts.

That's you citing yourself. And its blithering nonsense. Like insisting that if a cop pulls over the driver of a Corolla for speeding, that they can ONLY pull over drivers of Corollas for speeding.

There's no such restriction.

In the Romer v. Evans case the court explicitly found that the 14th amendment's equal protection clause had been violated. Utterly destroying your claim that the 14th doesn't apply to gays and that it only applies race and citizenship based cases.

The equal protection clause applies to all citizens, all laws, all privileges and immunities. The restrictions you insist the courts applied, the courts never even mention.

Stop obfuscating.

And by 'obfuscating' you mean destroying your silly argument with better reasoning, better evidence and better sources?

Um, no. I rather enjoy systematically disassembling your claims.

No. You are obfuscating the facts I have provided to fit your silly argument. Judge Moore knows the facts. That is why he is Chief Justice.

The Supreme Court has explicitly contradicted you. They have found in Romer v. Evans that the State of Colorado violated the equal protection clause by explicitly withholding rights from gays and lesbians. The equal protection clause is in Section 1 of the 14th amendment.

You claimed that the 14th amendment didn't cover gays and it didn't apply save in race and citizenship issues. Romer V. Evans explicitly contradicts you. You can't get around it. Your claims have been disproven. You were wrong.

As for Judge Moore.....he's already been removed from office for doing exactly this in 2003. He was wrong then. He is wrong now. He'll be removed from office a second time. And gays will be granted the marriage licenses they deserve.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

Wrong again. You're applying exclusion that the courts never did. The courts found that the 14th amendment applies in race based cases. You're claiming that the 14th amendment ONLY applies in race based cases. And that's not a finding of the courts.

That's you citing yourself. And its blithering nonsense. Like insisting that if a cop pulls over the driver of a Corolla for speeding, that they can ONLY pull over drivers of Corollas for speeding.

There's no such restriction.

In the Romer v. Evans case the court explicitly found that the 14th amendment's equal protection clause had been violated. Utterly destroying your claim that the 14th doesn't apply to gays and that it only applies race and citizenship based cases.

The equal protection clause applies to all citizens, all laws, all privileges and immunities. The restrictions you insist the courts applied, the courts never even mention.

Stop obfuscating.

And by 'obfuscating' you mean destroying your silly argument with better reasoning, better evidence and better sources?

Um, no. I rather enjoy systematically disassembling your claims.

No. You are obfuscating the facts I have provided to fit your silly argument.

You have never posted facts

I always post facts, especially about Obama being a non-natural born citizen with a 100% forged birth certificate in pdf form confirmed by the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office and Reed Hayes.

Nope. You've abandoned every thread you've ever started about Obama's citizenship. And you're trying to abandon this one by changing the topic.

You're done, Steven. Your claims were disproven by the USSC is Romer v. Evans.....more than 15 years ago.

 

[Syriusly]

Wrong again. You're applying exclusion that the courts never did. The courts found that the 14th amendment applies in race based cases. You're claiming that the 14th amendment ONLY applies in race based cases. And that's not a finding of the courts.

That's you citing yourself. And its blithering nonsense. Like insisting that if a cop pulls over the driver of a Corolla for speeding, that they can ONLY pull over drivers of Corollas for speeding.

There's no such restriction.

In the Romer v. Evans case the court explicitly found that the 14th amendment's equal protection clause had been violated. Utterly destroying your claim that the 14th doesn't apply to gays and that it only applies race and citizenship based cases.

The equal protection clause applies to all citizens, all laws, all privileges and immunities. The restrictions you insist the courts applied, the courts never even mention.

Stop obfuscating.

And by 'obfuscating' you mean destroying your silly argument with better reasoning, better evidence and better sources?

Um, no. I rather enjoy systematically disassembling your claims.

No. You are obfuscating the facts I have provided to fit your silly argument.

You have never posted facts

I always post facts, especially about Obama being a non-natural born citizen with a 100% forged birth certificate in pdf form confirmed by the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office and Reed Hayes.

There is literally not a fact in that entire post.

Well done.

That requires effort.