Gay Marriage Is About to Be Legal in Alabama

[EatMorChikin]

Judge Roy Moore has ordered ALL probate judges to follow STATE LAW and ignore the tyrant thug in the robe that thinks she can overrule state law without the SC ruling first. At least 1 so far has PUBLICLY said he will not be issuing homosexuals marriage licenses.

You don't need a SC ruling to overrule unconstitutional state law. Where did you ever get that idea? Its blithering nonsense.

If it's in the state constitution you do. Federal laws only apply when dealing with federal entities.
And if it is indeed in the state constitution, it isn't unconstitutional.

 

[hortysir]

So now not only can ya marry yur sister but ya can marry yur brother too

 

[Skylar]

Judge Roy Moore has ordered ALL probate judges to follow STATE LAW and ignore the tyrant thug in the robe that thinks she can overrule state law without the SC ruling first. At least 1 so far has PUBLICLY said he will not be issuing homosexuals marriage licenses.

You don't need a SC ruling to overrule unconstitutional state law. Where did you ever get that idea? Its blithering nonsense.

If it's in the state constitution you do. Federal laws only apply when dealing with federal entities.

You're confused. Its not Federal law that the judge is applying. Its constitutional rights that the judge is guaranteeing. And State constitutions are most definitely subject to constitutional guarantees.

And if it is indeed in the state constitution, it isn't unconstitutional.

It is if it violates the rights and privileges of US citizens. Or applies the law unequally to any US citizen.

As the rights guaranteed in the US constitution trump any State constitution.

 

[Skylar]

The Daily Fix Gay Marriage Is About to Be Legal in Alabama - Yahoo News

Tomorrow Alabama is open for marriage equality.

This is good, this is American, this is our values.

Those who don't like it, I have a hint: don't marry someone of your own sex.

Or open a bakery, because obviously you can forced into baking them cakes. And even though they could just go someplace else, they will push it to get their way. That will get sticky in Alabama, there is a lot of old guard left there.

I don't believe Alabama's public accommodation includes gays so bakers are free to not serve gays all they wish.

Yup. You can always count on Alabama for bone deep discrimination.

No doubt some folks will make a lot of noise but that is as far as it will go. I wonder how long until Moore is handed is his hat again?

Not long. But unlikely last time when he was removed from office, he'll likely take a few fellow idiots with him.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It will be imposed by force just like in every other state.

If gays were men they would be raping women by holding a knife to their throats then claim "she said yes".

I used to think Stephanie would set the daily bar so low no one else could reach it, but you just have.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Daily Fix Gay Marriage Is About to Be Legal in Alabama - Yahoo News

Tomorrow Alabama is open for marriage equality.

This is good, this is American, this is our values.

Those who don't like it, I have a hint: don't marry someone of your own sex.

Since you homo marriage proponents like to misuse the word equality so much, I have one question for you to answer; why should the general public be forced by law to subsidize male-on-male buttfucking? Simple question. What's your answer?

The answer is that is regulating marriage. You don't like it, don't marry someone who looks like you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Judge Roy Moore has ordered ALL probate judges to follow STATE LAW and ignore the tyrant thug in the robe that thinks she can overrule state law without the SC ruling first. At least 1 so far has PUBLICLY said he will not be issuing homosexuals marriage licenses.

The federal court judge will incarcerate him for six months in contempt of court and fine him. Perhaps Judge Moore will pay his fine because he won't be able to get the clerk out of his own county jail.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Judge Roy Moore has ordered ALL probate judges to follow STATE LAW and ignore the tyrant thug in the robe that thinks she can overrule state law without the SC ruling first. At least 1 so far has PUBLICLY said he will not be issuing homosexuals marriage licenses.

You don't need a SC ruling to overrule unconstitutional state law. Where did you ever get that idea? Its blithering nonsense.

If it's in the state constitution you do. Federal laws only apply when dealing with federal entities.
And if it is indeed in the state constitution, it isn't unconstitutional.

You just demonstrated you don't know the law.

 

[Skylar]

It will be imposed by force just like in every other state.

If gays were men they would be raping women by holding a knife to their throats then claim "she said yes".

I used to think Stephanie would set the daily bar so low no one else could reach it, but you just have.

There's a "Thanks" button. And an "Agree" button. And an "Informative" button.

That post is a solid argument for a 'WTF' button.

 

[EatMorChikin]

Judge Roy Moore has ordered ALL probate judges to follow STATE LAW and ignore the tyrant thug in the robe that thinks she can overrule state law without the SC ruling first. At least 1 so far has PUBLICLY said he will not be issuing homosexuals marriage licenses.

You don't need a SC ruling to overrule unconstitutional state law. Where did you ever get that idea? Its blithering nonsense.

If it's in the state constitution you do. Federal laws only apply when dealing with federal entities.

You're confused. Its not Federal law that the judge is applying. Its constitutional rights that the judge is guaranteeing. And State constitutions are most definitely subject to constitutional guarantees.

And if it is indeed in the state constitution, it isn't unconstitutional.

It is if it violates the rights and privileges of US citizens. Or applies the law unequally to any US citizen.

As the rights guaranteed in the US constitution trump any State constitution.

You are the one who is confused, maybe you should learn the differences between state and federal law, and also how those laws can and can't be applied. Let me say this again. If it is in their state constitution, it would need to be voted on to ratify. A judge cannot override constitutional law. In your liberal dream world where hopes and wishes overrule reality that works. In the real world there are checks and balances.

And again, it is only unconstitutional if it violates the constitution. And when it is concerning state law, and state authorities the state constitution applies. When dealing with federal entities, the federal constitution applies.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Judge Roy Moore has ordered ALL probate judges to follow STATE LAW and ignore the tyrant thug in the robe that thinks she can overrule state law without the SC ruling first. At least 1 so far has PUBLICLY said he will not be issuing homosexuals marriage licenses.

You don't need a SC ruling to overrule unconstitutional state law. Where did you ever get that idea? Its blithering nonsense.

If it's in the state constitution you do. Federal laws only apply when dealing with federal entities.

You're confused. Its not Federal law that the judge is applying. Its constitutional rights that the judge is guaranteeing. And State constitutions are most definitely subject to constitutional guarantees.

And if it is indeed in the state constitution, it isn't unconstitutional.

It is if it violates the rights and privileges of US citizens. Or applies the law unequally to any US citizen.

As the rights guaranteed in the US constitution trump any State constitution.

You are the one who is confused, maybe you should learn the differences between state and federal law, and also how those laws can and can't be applied. Let me say this again. If it is in their state constitution, it would need to be voted on to ratify. A judge cannot override constitutional law. In your liberal dream world where hopes and wishes overrule reality that works. In the real world there are checks and balances.

Yes, federal judges can and do over rule state constitutions and laws when they violate the federal constitution.

You never, ever took a civis or government class.

 

[Skylar]

You are the one who is confused, maybe you should learn the differences between state and federal law, and also how those laws can and can't be applied. Let me say this again. If it is in their state constitution, it would need to be voted on to ratify. A judge cannot override constitutional law. In your liberal dream world where hopes and wishes overrule reality that works. In the real world there are checks and balances.

You're clearly not familiar with the basis of the ruling. It wasn't the application of federal law. But the violation of constitutional rights by the state same sex marriage ban.

The Federal Judiciary can and has overturned state laws that violate the constitutional rights of individual citizens. And Constitutional rights trump State constitutions, no matter how many times you claim otherwise.

A federal judge can absolutely overrule any portion of a State constitution that violates individual rights. And has, repeatedly, on this very issue. Take a look at the fate of prop 8. It was overturned by a federal judges ruling, despite being part of the California Constitution. You insist this can never happen.

History demonstrates it did. And again in Oregon. And again in Utah. And again in Oklahoma. Virginia, Colorado, Idaho, Arizona, Kansas, the list goes on and on. All had gay marriage bans as part of their constitution. All were overturned by federal judges.

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

 

[Skylar]

Judge Roy Moore has ordered ALL probate judges to follow STATE LAW and ignore the tyrant thug in the robe that thinks she can overrule state law without the SC ruling first. At least 1 so far has PUBLICLY said he will not be issuing homosexuals marriage licenses.

You don't need a SC ruling to overrule unconstitutional state law. Where did you ever get that idea? Its blithering nonsense.

If it's in the state constitution you do. Federal laws only apply when dealing with federal entities.

You're confused. Its not Federal law that the judge is applying. Its constitutional rights that the judge is guaranteeing. And State constitutions are most definitely subject to constitutional guarantees.

And if it is indeed in the state constitution, it isn't unconstitutional.

It is if it violates the rights and privileges of US citizens. Or applies the law unequally to any US citizen.

As the rights guaranteed in the US constitution trump any State constitution.

You are the one who is confused, maybe you should learn the differences between state and federal law, and also how those laws can and can't be applied. Let me say this again. If it is in their state constitution, it would need to be voted on to ratify. A judge cannot override constitutional law. In your liberal dream world where hopes and wishes overrule reality that works. In the real world there are checks and balances.

Yes, federal judges can and do over rule state constitutions and laws when the violate the federal constitution.

You never, ever took a civis or government class.

Or apparently, a history class. As the very thing that Chikin insists can't happen...a federal judge overruling part of the state constitution as violating the US constitution.....has already happened 26 times.

Shrugs....some people prefer to be consistent rather than accurate.

 

[EatMorChikin]

Judge Roy Moore has ordered ALL probate judges to follow STATE LAW and ignore the tyrant thug in the robe that thinks she can overrule state law without the SC ruling first. At least 1 so far has PUBLICLY said he will not be issuing homosexuals marriage licenses.

You don't need a SC ruling to overrule unconstitutional state law. Where did you ever get that idea? Its blithering nonsense.

If it's in the state constitution you do. Federal laws only apply when dealing with federal entities.

You're confused. Its not Federal law that the judge is applying. Its constitutional rights that the judge is guaranteeing. And State constitutions are most definitely subject to constitutional guarantees.

And if it is indeed in the state constitution, it isn't unconstitutional.

It is if it violates the rights and privileges of US citizens. Or applies the law unequally to any US citizen.

As the rights guaranteed in the US constitution trump any State constitution.

You are the one who is confused, maybe you should learn the differences between state and federal law, and also how those laws can and can't be applied. Let me say this again. If it is in their state constitution, it would need to be voted on to ratify. A judge cannot override constitutional law. In your liberal dream world where hopes and wishes overrule reality that works. In the real world there are checks and balances.

Yes, federal judges can and do over rule state constitutions and laws when the violate the federal constitution.

You never, ever took a civis or government class.

Wow really? You dropped that piece of garbage and asked if I took a civics class? If you are speaking of nullification, maybe you should read up on it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You don't need a SC ruling to overrule unconstitutional state law. Where did you ever get that idea? Its blithering nonsense.

If it's in the state constitution you do. Federal laws only apply when dealing with federal entities.

You're confused. Its not Federal law that the judge is applying. Its constitutional rights that the judge is guaranteeing. And State constitutions are most definitely subject to constitutional guarantees.

And if it is indeed in the state constitution, it isn't unconstitutional.

It is if it violates the rights and privileges of US citizens. Or applies the law unequally to any US citizen.

As the rights guaranteed in the US constitution trump any State constitution.

You are the one who is confused, maybe you should learn the differences between state and federal law, and also how those laws can and can't be applied. Let me say this again. If it is in their state constitution, it would need to be voted on to ratify. A judge cannot override constitutional law. In your liberal dream world where hopes and wishes overrule reality that works. In the real world there are checks and balances.

Yes, federal judges can and do over rule state constitutions and laws when the violate the federal constitution.

You never, ever took a civis or government class.

Wow really? You dropped that piece of garbage and asked if I took a civics class? If you are speaking of nullification, maybe you should read up on it.

Your truly do not have a clue. Amazing.

Here, this may help. If your state passes an amendment do the state constitution or passes a law that legalizes slavery or denies women the vote, a federal court will over rule it pronto.

 

[Skylar]

You don't need a SC ruling to overrule unconstitutional state law. Where did you ever get that idea? Its blithering nonsense.

If it's in the state constitution you do. Federal laws only apply when dealing with federal entities.

You're confused. Its not Federal law that the judge is applying. Its constitutional rights that the judge is guaranteeing. And State constitutions are most definitely subject to constitutional guarantees.

And if it is indeed in the state constitution, it isn't unconstitutional.

It is if it violates the rights and privileges of US citizens. Or applies the law unequally to any US citizen.

As the rights guaranteed in the US constitution trump any State constitution.

You are the one who is confused, maybe you should learn the differences between state and federal law, and also how those laws can and can't be applied. Let me say this again. If it is in their state constitution, it would need to be voted on to ratify. A judge cannot override constitutional law. In your liberal dream world where hopes and wishes overrule reality that works. In the real world there are checks and balances.

Yes, federal judges can and do over rule state constitutions and laws when the violate the federal constitution.

You never, ever took a civis or government class.

Wow really? You dropped that piece of garbage and asked if I took a civics class? If you are speaking of nullification, maybe you should read up on it.

Chikin.....federal judges have already overturned portions of the State constitutions banning gay marriage 26 times. Alabama is the 27th.

Not only are you wrong. You're wrong by a literal order of magnitude. You don't understand the relationship of the State and Federal governments, or the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary.

 

[Skylar]

If it's in the state constitution you do. Federal laws only apply when dealing with federal entities.

You're confused. Its not Federal law that the judge is applying. Its constitutional rights that the judge is guaranteeing. And State constitutions are most definitely subject to constitutional guarantees.

And if it is indeed in the state constitution, it isn't unconstitutional.

It is if it violates the rights and privileges of US citizens. Or applies the law unequally to any US citizen.

As the rights guaranteed in the US constitution trump any State constitution.

You are the one who is confused, maybe you should learn the differences between state and federal law, and also how those laws can and can't be applied. Let me say this again. If it is in their state constitution, it would need to be voted on to ratify. A judge cannot override constitutional law. In your liberal dream world where hopes and wishes overrule reality that works. In the real world there are checks and balances.

Yes, federal judges can and do over rule state constitutions and laws when the violate the federal constitution.

You never, ever took a civis or government class.

Wow really? You dropped that piece of garbage and asked if I took a civics class? If you are speaking of nullification, maybe you should read up on it.

Your truly do not have a clue. Amazing.

Here, this may help. If your state passes an amendment do the state constitution or passes a law that legalizes slavery or denies women the vote, a federal court will over rule it pronto.

Put it in terms Chikin will understand. If a state passes an amendment that bans hand guns, a federal court will overrule it pronto.

 

[EatMorChikin]

If it's in the state constitution you do. Federal laws only apply when dealing with federal entities.

You're confused. Its not Federal law that the judge is applying. Its constitutional rights that the judge is guaranteeing. And State constitutions are most definitely subject to constitutional guarantees.

And if it is indeed in the state constitution, it isn't unconstitutional.

It is if it violates the rights and privileges of US citizens. Or applies the law unequally to any US citizen.

As the rights guaranteed in the US constitution trump any State constitution.

You are the one who is confused, maybe you should learn the differences between state and federal law, and also how those laws can and can't be applied. Let me say this again. If it is in their state constitution, it would need to be voted on to ratify. A judge cannot override constitutional law. In your liberal dream world where hopes and wishes overrule reality that works. In the real world there are checks and balances.

Yes, federal judges can and do over rule state constitutions and laws when the violate the federal constitution.

You never, ever took a civis or government class.

Wow really? You dropped that piece of garbage and asked if I took a civics class? If you are speaking of nullification, maybe you should read up on it.

Your truly do not have a clue. Amazing.

Here, this may help. If your state passes an amendment do the state constitution or passes a law that legalizes slavery or denies women the vote, a federal court will over rule it pronto.

Here is the hole in your weak argument. There is nothing in the federal constitution that prohibits the banning of same sex marriage. Therefore, state law applies here, and as does the constitution. There is no way nullification can be applied. End of argument Mr. Civics class, have a good day.

 

[Skylar]

You're confused. Its not Federal law that the judge is applying. Its constitutional rights that the judge is guaranteeing. And State constitutions are most definitely subject to constitutional guarantees.

It is if it violates the rights and privileges of US citizens. Or applies the law unequally to any US citizen.

As the rights guaranteed in the US constitution trump any State constitution.

You are the one who is confused, maybe you should learn the differences between state and federal law, and also how those laws can and can't be applied. Let me say this again. If it is in their state constitution, it would need to be voted on to ratify. A judge cannot override constitutional law. In your liberal dream world where hopes and wishes overrule reality that works. In the real world there are checks and balances.

Yes, federal judges can and do over rule state constitutions and laws when the violate the federal constitution.

You never, ever took a civis or government class.

Wow really? You dropped that piece of garbage and asked if I took a civics class? If you are speaking of nullification, maybe you should read up on it.

Your truly do not have a clue. Amazing.

Here, this may help. If your state passes an amendment do the state constitution or passes a law that legalizes slavery or denies women the vote, a federal court will over rule it pronto.

Here is the hole in your weak argument. There is nothing in the federal constitution that prohibits the banning of same sex marriage. Therefore, state law applies here, and as does the constitution. There is no way nullification can be applied.

And here's the hole in your argument: there is something in federal constitution that forbids a state from applying its law unequally. Its called the 14th amendment. That and the 5th amendment's constitutional guarantee of liberty, have been the basis of every federal court ruling overturning gay marriage bans.

Either statutory or state constitutional bans, it made no difference. If the ban violated individual rights, its overturned by the federal courts. And not ONE was ruled upon by the USSC. Well, I suppose you could say that California was, but they only ruled on issues of standing. Not the constitutionality of any of the bans.

As for my argument being 'weak', its already been used 26 times to overturn state gay marriage bans. This is history. You insist it could never happen. And its already happened 26 times. Alabama is merely the 27th.

You can't get around that.

 

[EatMorChikin]

How many of those states had a constitutional amendment, which banned gay marriage? No judge can just erase that! And you can't get around that! This is why Alabama is having a constitutional crisis, and Alabama's chief justice has ordered a ban on licenses. In fact he has barred one county from issuing them all together. If someone with unicorn dreams could just wipe out constitutional amendments, we would be in big trouble. That is why we have checks and balances. Have a good night.

Nullification of a state constitutional amendment, you can't make this shit up.

If it happens there should be another civil war, because that is massive.