Gay Marriage Is About to Be Legal in Alabama

[bodecea]

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.

It depends on whether Alabama has PA laws....I doubt they do.

 

[elektra]

I am still amazed at the vehemnce against same-sex marriage. What the hell difference does it make to any of you?

I am 55 years old and have been married twice. I have also been divorced twice. Once it was a big church wedding, and once it was a civil ceremony. Did that have any effect on you?

Does anyone think recognizing gay marriages will mean we have more gays? If so, you are an idiot.

So you completely support forcing 3 year old orphans into homosexual lifestyles, that is what you wanted for yourself if your parents died and left you an Orphan, or is it simply okay for everyone else's children if they happen to suffer the lost of both parents?

Three year olds are not being forced into a homosexual lifestyle. They are being adopted and raised by homosexuals. There IS a difference. A 3 year old has not learned to hate yet. They will see that they have 2 parents that love them and wantto create a solid, supportive, loving home for them. My daughter knew that her aunt was with another woman from the time she could understand that people were in relationships. She is fine. All 3 of my children lived in a household run by 2 lesbians. They turned out better than most kids. Perhaps it will improve the overall lives of children and teens everywhere.

Homosexuality will improve the lives of teens and children? Orphans always adopt to homosexual parents when that is not true of children of heterosexual parents?

Sounds like a fantasy to me. Contrary to what you think, children have a mind of their own, some will be repulsed see dad and dad kiss, some will be repulsed knowing what homosexual sex entails.

There is a reason there is an extreme minority of people who practice homosexuality, people are actually repulsed by the sexual act of anal sex, for most of us nothing but smells come out of our butt. Not many children will be okay with dad and dad getting it on.

What is true, of Orphans, and all children, they want a mother and father, who love one another, and nothing will or can ever replace that, and to do so if they are Orphaned is horrid abuse.

Your children were not Orphans.

Your kids are perfect, I hope your not in denial.

I did not say my children are perfect. But I did brag on their accomplishments.

As for anal sex, plenty of straight couples engage in it too. Whether gay couples do or not is up to them and between them and their partner. Not anyone else's business.

Kids raised by gay couples show no greater propensity towards being gay than do children of straight couples.

Oh, and my kids were repulsed when they would see me kiss their mother if it was anything more than just a peck.

Excuse me, I have been speaking in the context of Orphans. When you adopt it does become my business, your neighbors business, the business of our Republic. What happens to Orphans is fundamentally societies business.

And again, you forget the context, Orphans.

If sex is nobodies business why do you flippantly state "straight couples engage in it to"? You made it your business to know?

As for Anal sex by mom and dad, a child would never know. Yet an Orphan adopted by homosexuals will know that dad and dad are not having normal sex, an Orphan adopted will learn the first day of school every detail of homosexuality, such is the way kids are, they will tell the Orphan what the Orphan lives with.

This idea that children will not learn what homosexuality is if the have homosexual parents is about the most absurd statement I have ever heard.

Oh, and my kids were repulsed when they would see me kiss their mother if it was anything more than just a peck

Now imagine your kids, orphaned, adopted by two amorous loving homosexual men that kissed all the time. Your kids would be less repulsed?

You think this is about kids propensity to being gay? You think we worry or fear they will be gay? That they will be taught to be gay? HARDLY, its simply a matter that you do not force a child into a homosexual lifestyle, into a family of your design, that does not occur naturally, because in that situation not all kids will accept it, but of course you think they will have zero problems when your kids have a problem when you kissed your wife?

 

[WinterBorn]

I am still amazed at the vehemnce against same-sex marriage. What the hell difference does it make to any of you?

I am 55 years old and have been married twice. I have also been divorced twice. Once it was a big church wedding, and once it was a civil ceremony. Did that have any effect on you?

Does anyone think recognizing gay marriages will mean we have more gays? If so, you are an idiot.

So you completely support forcing 3 year old orphans into homosexual lifestyles, that is what you wanted for yourself if your parents died and left you an Orphan, or is it simply okay for everyone else's children if they happen to suffer the lost of both parents?

Three year olds are not being forced into a homosexual lifestyle. They are being adopted and raised by homosexuals. There IS a difference. A 3 year old has not learned to hate yet. They will see that they have 2 parents that love them and wantto create a solid, supportive, loving home for them. My daughter knew that her aunt was with another woman from the time she could understand that people were in relationships. She is fine. All 3 of my children lived in a household run by 2 lesbians. They turned out better than most kids. Perhaps it will improve the overall lives of children and teens everywhere.

Homosexuality will improve the lives of teens and children? Orphans always adopt to homosexual parents when that is not true of children of heterosexual parents?

Sounds like a fantasy to me. Contrary to what you think, children have a mind of their own, some will be repulsed see dad and dad kiss, some will be repulsed knowing what homosexual sex entails.

There is a reason there is an extreme minority of people who practice homosexuality, people are actually repulsed by the sexual act of anal sex, for most of us nothing but smells come out of our butt. Not many children will be okay with dad and dad getting it on.

What is true, of Orphans, and all children, they want a mother and father, who love one another, and nothing will or can ever replace that, and to do so if they are Orphaned is horrid abuse.

Your children were not Orphans.

Your kids are perfect, I hope your not in denial.

I did not say my children are perfect. But I did brag on their accomplishments.

As for anal sex, plenty of straight couples engage in it too. Whether gay couples do or not is up to them and between them and their partner. Not anyone else's business.

Kids raised by gay couples show no greater propensity towards being gay than do children of straight couples.

Oh, and my kids were repulsed when they would see me kiss their mother if it was anything more than just a peck.

Excuse me, I have been speaking in the context of Orphans. When you adopt it does become my business, your neighbors business, the business of our Republic. What happens to Orphans is fundamentally societies business.

And again, you forget the context, Orphans.

If sex is nobodies business why do you flippantly state "straight couples engage in it to"? You made it your business to know?

As for Anal sex by mom and dad, a child would never know. Yet an Orphan adopted by homosexuals will know that dad and dad are not having normal sex, an Orphan adopted will learn the first day of school every detail of homosexuality, such is the way kids are, they will tell the Orphan what the Orphan lives with.

This idea that children will not learn what homosexuality is if the have homosexual parents is about the most absurd statement I have ever heard.

Oh, and my kids were repulsed when they would see me kiss their mother if it was anything more than just a peck

Now imagine your kids, orphaned, adopted by two amorous loving homosexual men that kissed all the time. Your kids would be less repulsed?

You think this is about kids propensity to being gay? You think we worry or fear they will be gay? That they will be taught to be gay? HARDLY, its simply a matter that you do not force a child into a homosexual lifestyle, into a family of your design, that does not occur naturally, because in that situation not all kids will accept it, but of course you think they will have zero problems when your kids have a problem when you kissed your wife?

Kids often think any kissing is yucky.

 

[elektra]

There are many kinds of ammunition. You just won't be able to fight them all.

As I said. There are myriad ways normals can make the lives of forceful gays absolutely miserable. Isn't that something gays point to when they address the high number of gay suicides? Go. Fight that.

I have and I will continue to do so. The tide has turned and homosexuality is more accepted today than ever before. You are losing. If causing more teens to commit suicide is your goal, you are simply a despicable human being.

That's because once a culture starts on the path of perversion and depravity it doesn't stop until that culture is dead.

Our culture already has gays. They are more accepted now than ever before. Marriage does not change that. Nor will it increase the number of such couples.

Actually, they are less accepted, people are pushing back against the advocates which is hurting the non-advocate homosexuals. There is an increase in bullying in schools, there is a push against pride parades, people are avoiding places like Palm Springs because it is now a majority Gay City. People are careful about going to disneyland on the gay days. People are voting against Gays at the ballot. In California I see a bigger divide than ever, especially when it comes to the mexicans and blacks accepting what is being forced in the schools.

At least in southern California gays are being pushed into gay enclaves like West Hollywood and Palm Springs by simple social rejection. We have a lot of immigrants here that aren't as easily manipulated by propaganda.

Now you are flat out liar, nobody pushes gays out, they are not socially rejected, in super cool california having a gay friend is like hanging fuzzy dice on your review mirror. Gays moving to enclaves is simply that birds of a feather flock together. Despite acceptance people of common interests have a tendency to congregate together, to live together.

Pushed? Not even close. You believe we are socially rejecting gay, and pushing them out of our neighborhoods? You best go get the rubber hoses and german sheppards and put a stop to this injustice. And my, if your so wrong about why more gay people live in one area than another, how are you right about a thing, beings how you base things on wrong assumptions.

 

[bodecea]

It will be up to the people to fight back on their own. The ballot box has failed. The jury box has failed. There's only one box left.

What box would that be exactly?

Oh, you know Katzndogz. She likes to hint around violence. I think she gets off on writing about it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ekektra is talking silly, tipsydogz is doing the implied violence thing, and they both know that marriage equality and orphan laws are almost a done deal for the entire country.

Let them vent, for their anger is impotent.

 

[mdk]

It will be up to the people to fight back on their own. The ballot box has failed. The jury box has failed. There's only one box left.

What box would that be exactly?

Oh, you know Katzndogz. She likes to hint around violence. I think she gets off on writing about it.

All hat, no cattle.

 

[JFK_USA]

It will be up to the people to fight back on their own. The ballot box has failed. The jury box has failed. There's only one box left.

What box would that be exactly?

Oh, you know Katzndogz. She likes to hint around violence. I think she gets off on writing about it.

Because killing people who are trying to access equal protecton are against American principles like "All men are created equal."

 

[bodecea]

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.

State constitutions must still abide by the Federal Constitution. That's why it is called the Supreme Law of the Land.

 

[Katzndogz]

I have and I will continue to do so. The tide has turned and homosexuality is more accepted today than ever before. You are losing. If causing more teens to commit suicide is your goal, you are simply a despicable human being.

That's because once a culture starts on the path of perversion and depravity it doesn't stop until that culture is dead.

Our culture already has gays. They are more accepted now than ever before. Marriage does not change that. Nor will it increase the number of such couples.

Actually, they are less accepted, people are pushing back against the advocates which is hurting the non-advocate homosexuals. There is an increase in bullying in schools, there is a push against pride parades, people are avoiding places like Palm Springs because it is now a majority Gay City. People are careful about going to disneyland on the gay days. People are voting against Gays at the ballot. In California I see a bigger divide than ever, especially when it comes to the mexicans and blacks accepting what is being forced in the schools.

At least in southern California gays are being pushed into gay enclaves like West Hollywood and Palm Springs by simple social rejection. We have a lot of immigrants here that aren't as easily manipulated by propaganda.

Now you are flat out liar, nobody pushes gays out, they are not socially rejected, in super cool california having a gay friend is like hanging fuzzy dice on your review mirror. Gays moving to enclaves is simply that birds of a feather flock together. Despite acceptance people of common interests have a tendency to congregate together, to live together.

Pushed? Not even close. You believe we are socially rejecting gay, and pushing them out of our neighborhoods? You best go get the rubber hoses and german sheppards and put a stop to this injustice. And my, if your so wrong about why more gay people live in one area than another, how are you right about a thing, beings how you base things on wrong assumptions.

You are discussing my neighborhood. Do you live here too? I seriously doubt that my muslim neighbors have cool gay friends. Mostly their friends speak farsi. Just like they do.

 

[bodecea]

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.

You apparently do not know how our government works. State constitutions cannot override Federal Constitutional guarantees. For example, a state cannot ignore the 2nd amendment any more than it can ignore the 14th amendment.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Nullification. How'd that work for the South? How'd that work for John C. Calhoun?

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Why should the general public be forced by law to subsidize male on female buttfucking? Simple question. What's your answer?

Oh wait- no one is subsidizing any kind of sex.

Maybe you are different than I am, but when I go to a marriage, I don't spend the wedding fantasizing how the couple are having sex. Yes- there will likely be sex within a marriage- but we as a society do not have the right to demand that couple only have the 'right kind of sex'- or to even ask what kind of sex they are- or are not having.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

And that is exactly what the judges have said- that Alabama laws violate the constitution and are unconstitutional.

And that is what the Supreme Court will rule upon.

 

[elektra]

That's because once a culture starts on the path of perversion and depravity it doesn't stop until that culture is dead.

Our culture already has gays. They are more accepted now than ever before. Marriage does not change that. Nor will it increase the number of such couples.

Actually, they are less accepted, people are pushing back against the advocates which is hurting the non-advocate homosexuals. There is an increase in bullying in schools, there is a push against pride parades, people are avoiding places like Palm Springs because it is now a majority Gay City. People are careful about going to disneyland on the gay days. People are voting against Gays at the ballot. In California I see a bigger divide than ever, especially when it comes to the mexicans and blacks accepting what is being forced in the schools.

At least in southern California gays are being pushed into gay enclaves like West Hollywood and Palm Springs by simple social rejection. We have a lot of immigrants here that aren't as easily manipulated by propaganda.

Now you are flat out liar, nobody pushes gays out, they are not socially rejected, in super cool california having a gay friend is like hanging fuzzy dice on your review mirror. Gays moving to enclaves is simply that birds of a feather flock together. Despite acceptance people of common interests have a tendency to congregate together, to live together.

Pushed? Not even close. You believe we are socially rejecting gay, and pushing them out of our neighborhoods? You best go get the rubber hoses and german sheppards and put a stop to this injustice. And my, if your so wrong about why more gay people live in one area than another, how are you right about a thing, beings how you base things on wrong assumptions.

You are discussing my neighborhood. Do you live here too? I seriously doubt that my muslim neighbors have cool gay friends. Mostly their friends speak farsi. Just like they do.

Well, I can easily see you, may be a bit quick to stereotype people.

Farsi, Persians from Iran who came to Los Angeles after the fall of the Shah of Iran. Persians as in People who fled Islam, not devote Muslims.

Back then when we looked at Iran its population was not pure Arab-Muslim, not even close, half at best.

How about the Zoroastirans (from Iran speak farsi), I bet you had no idea that the Persians from Iran here include Zoroastirans, how about the Persian Jews in your neighborhood who speak farsi, I bet you had zero idea you would have to stammer out of this question when you woke this morning.

I seriously doubt that the half that is muslim neighbors are not gay, why do you think they fled radical Islamist to begin with?

 

[martybegan]

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.

You apparently do not know how our government works. State constitutions cannot override Federal Constitutional guarantees. For example, a state cannot ignore the 2nd amendment any more than it can ignore the 14th amendment.

And yet several States and local governments repeatedly violate the 2nd amendment, and liberal assholes applaud it.

How does this federal judge propose to enforce her decision if the probate judges refuse to cooperate? Those judges are elected officials, not appointed ones.

 

[Preacher]

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.

You apparently do not know how our government works. State constitutions cannot override Federal Constitutional guarantees. For example, a state cannot ignore the 2nd amendment any more than it can ignore the 14th amendment.

And yet states around the country continue to pass laws violating the 2nd amendment...I guess they missed the part that said SHALL NOT INFRINGE...aka pass no laws against it...your argument holds no water.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

What was the status of this case before it went to a judge? Was it ever voted on by AL citizens?

Alabama citizens didn't approve eliminating Alabama laws against mixed race marriages until the year 2000- 23 years after the Supreme Court found such laws to be unconstitutional.

What does that tell us?
a) that the Constitution does indeed trump state law
b) that the voters opinion is not always correct

 

[JakeStarkey]

Elektra, quit whining.

Marriage equality is a fact.

The issue is abusive parents and other adults, who come as heterosexuals, homosexuals, and pedophiles.

 

[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.

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.

You apparently do not know how our government works. State constitutions cannot override Federal Constitutional guarantees. For example, a state cannot ignore the 2nd amendment any more than it can ignore the 14th amendment.

And yet states around the country continue to pass laws violating the 2nd amendment...I guess they missed the part that said SHALL NOT INFRINGE...aka pass no laws against it...your argument holds no water.

Deflection and fallacy of false comparison.