Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[
(B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?

To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.

But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..

Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.

Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.

Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.

What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.

Except of course no one agrees with your interpretation.

The courts have been involving themselves with State's marriage laws since before Loving v Virginia- and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot violate a couples Constitutional rights.

Whose point of view is going to prevail? Well the Supreme Court's has for the last 50 years- not yours.

You don't really get the whole concept of advocating for change, do you?

No, the ‘whole concept’ of change is perfectly understood, including advocating for ‘change’ that is reactionary, detrimental, and predicated on fear, ignorance, and hate – ‘change’ seeking to disadvantage various classes of persons because they are incorrectly perceived to be a ‘threat.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[
(B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?

To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.

But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..

Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.

Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.

Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.

What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.

Except of course no one agrees with your interpretation.

The courts have been involving themselves with State's marriage laws since before Loving v Virginia- and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot violate a couples Constitutional rights.

Whose point of view is going to prevail? Well the Supreme Court's has for the last 50 years- not yours.

Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts. This isn't about the courts. If you want to cite a court case as an argument with me, you need to defend it in its constitutional basis. A monkey with a keyboard and an Internet connection can find a court case. If your only argument is that a court ruled, you do not have an argument unless the topic is limited to court rulings only.

Wrong.

Only a frightened, ignorant minority agrees with your nonsense.

Indeed, before the advent of the Republic is was the original understanding and intent of the Founding Generation that citizens’ rights be safeguarded from abuse by government, both state and Federal; and that the states and local jurisdictions would be subject to Federal law, the Federal Constitution, and rulings by the Federal courts – including the Supreme Court – binding on the states and local jurisdictions.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why can't we have marriage laws written that well, where both sides agree to how it's written
and can still get out of it the interpretation that matches their beliefs.

Because, for most people, the point of government is to force their values on others.

Not for most people, no, but for a minority of frightened reactionary conservatives, yes.

Unfortunately, in some states and jurisdictions, that frightened, reactionary minority manifests as a majority which advocates denying citizens of the United States their rights and protected liberties motivated by unwarranted fear and hate.

That’s why we have a Constitution and its case law, to protect the rights and protected liberties of citizens from abuse by state and local governments.

Such is the ridiculous hypocrisy of conservatives and libertarians: they rail against the perceived ‘abuse’ and ‘overreach’ of the Federal government, yet when state governments engage in the same abuse and overreach, conservatives and libertarians are suddenly blind to that abuse and overreach.

 

[dblack]

Why can't we have marriage laws written that well, where both sides agree to how it's written
and can still get out of it the interpretation that matches their beliefs.

Because, for most people, the point of government is to force their values on others.

Not for most people, no, but for a minority of frightened reactionary conservatives, yes.

I hope you're right. But sadly, it's not what I've seen.

We expect it from 'frightened reactionary conservatives'. It more or less defines them. But now we see the traditional champions of tolerance embracing the kind authoritarian government that, for so long, was their named enemy. And they make this leap with apparently no appreciation for the irony of it all.

 

[dblack]

Except of course no one agrees with your interpretation.

The courts have been involving themselves with State's marriage laws since before Loving v Virginia- and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot violate a couples Constitutional rights.

Whose point of view is going to prevail? Well the Supreme Court's has for the last 50 years- not yours.

You don't really get the whole concept of advocating for change, do you?

No, the ‘whole concept’ of change is perfectly understood, including advocating for ‘change’ that is reactionary, detrimental, and predicated on fear, ignorance, and hate – ‘change’ seeking to disadvantage various classes of persons because they are incorrectly perceived to be a ‘threat.’

You seem to be missing the point here as well. I'm not commenting on the merits of the change in question. Mostly I agree you. The homophobes are wrong. I'm talking about some of the reactionary responses to their arguments that we're seeing here.

"No one agrees with you."
"It is decided"
"It's been like this for a long time, it's not going to change"
"The Supreme Court has ruled"
...
"Sit down and shut up."

These were exactly the responses used to dismiss civil rights activists for most of the last century. They didn't listen. They knew that right and wrong wasn't a matter of majority rule and fought to make their case regardless of reactionaries trying to silence them. And that was a good thing.

 

[Syriusly]

Except of course no one agrees with your interpretation.

The courts have been involving themselves with State's marriage laws since before Loving v Virginia- and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot violate a couples Constitutional rights.

Whose point of view is going to prevail? Well the Supreme Court's has for the last 50 years- not yours.

Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts..

Really? Pretty much 'everyone'?

Any living people?

Meanwhile- you are in the same league as those who argue that the income tax is unconstitutional, and that the 13th amendment was never legally ratified- you are spitting into the wind.

You are more than welcome to write out an argument regarding what I have stated that is incorrect.

You cited something as a fact- that was not an argument.
Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts

You have not supported your claim.

Virtually no living legal authority agrees with your claim- see how easy it is for me to make an unsubstantiated claim also?

Just happens mine is correct.

'

If you want to lie and drag this into the gutter, I am out. I gave you the opportunity to write out an argument.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass as you run out.

 

[Syriusly]

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it state the Supremacy clause is limited to only one section of the Constitution. Nowhere in U.S. law does it limit the Supremacy clause to one section of the Constitution.

You're making that up and it's not supported anywhere in American jurisprudence. Even worse for your claim, the U.S. Constitution defines its own Supremacy as, "this Constitution, and the Laws of the United States," not "Article I, Section 8, of this Constitution."

I am actually basing that off the debates. What purpose and evidence do you have for the reason for the purpose of the supremacy clause other than for Congress to protect their enumerated grants of power?

It does not say a lot of things. That is why the founders said to go back to the debates and capture the spirit.

The wording is quite clear ... "this Constitution, and the Laws of the United States,"

Do you discount the purpose and intent of the Constitution? Your "this Constitution and laws of the United Startes" are enumerated powers. The supremacy clause was understood by all the founders as a limitation on the federal government.\

You want to ignore the clear and concise language of the Constitution- and instead rely upon interpretations of 'the purpose and intent of the Constitution"

The language of the Constitution was ratified by the states- not the intent of the Constitution.

The Constitution was based 100% on its intent. Every single deputy had to go home to their state and sell the Constitution. These were long drawn events with each word being debated.

An interpretation is not using the words of the men who wrote the Constitution, debated it, and ratified it.

Every single deputy had to go home and sell the words of the Constitution.

That was what was voted on- not your interpretation of what men wrote in the 18th century.

 

[Tennyson]

[
(B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?

To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.

But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..

Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.

Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.

Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.

What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.

And it’s the 5th Amendment’s Liberty Clause that acknowledges and protects the right of all Americans to make personal choices and decisions about their lives absent unwarranted interference from the state.

And the 5th Amendment right of choice applies to gay and transgender Americans, prohibiting government from seeking to disadvantage citizens for no other reason than who they are, or for no other reason than life choices they’ve made; including denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in.

The Fifth Amendment’s liberty clause was not created to protect the rights of all Americans. The entire Bill of Rights was created to prohibit the federal government from infringing on the enumerated rights of the citizens of the states. What you cannot produce is one piece of historical evidence to substantiate your claim. All the historical evidence from the Philadelphia convention, the First Congress’s debates regarding the Bill of Rights, and all the way through to twentieth century judicial activism demonstrate that you are wrong.


The Fifth Amendment’s liberty clause was not created to protect the rights of all Americans. The entire Bill of Rights was created to prohibit the federal government from infringing on the enumerated rights of the citizens of the states. What you cannot produce is one piece of historical evidence to substantiate your claim. All the historical evidence from the Philadelphia convention, the First Congress’s debates regarding the Bill of Rights, and all the way through to twentieth century judicial activism demonstrate that you are wrong.

 

[miketx]

So, how many queers are there here?

 

[Tennyson]

[
(B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?

To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.

But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..

Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.

Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.

Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.

What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.

Except of course no one agrees with your interpretation.

The courts have been involving themselves with State's marriage laws since before Loving v Virginia- and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot violate a couples Constitutional rights.

Whose point of view is going to prevail? Well the Supreme Court's has for the last 50 years- not yours.

Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts. This isn't about the courts. If you want to cite a court case as an argument with me, you need to defend it in its constitutional basis. A monkey with a keyboard and an Internet connection can find a court case. If your only argument is that a court ruled, you do not have an argument unless the topic is limited to court rulings only.

Wrong.

Only a frightened, ignorant minority agrees with your nonsense.

Indeed, before the advent of the Republic is was the original understanding and intent of the Founding Generation that citizens’ rights be safeguarded from abuse by government, both state and Federal; and that the states and local jurisdictions would be subject to Federal law, the Federal Constitution, and rulings by the Federal courts – including the Supreme Court – binding on the states and local jurisdictions.

What you cannot do is produce a single piece of historical evidence that the original understanding and intent of the founding generation that citizen’s rights be safeguarded from abuse by a state government or that a state and local jurisdiction would be subject to federal law, federal courts and binding them.

All the evidence contradicts your claim.

 

[Tennyson]

Why can't we have marriage laws written that well, where both sides agree to how it's written
and can still get out of it the interpretation that matches their beliefs.

Because, for most people, the point of government is to force their values on others.

Not for most people, no, but for a minority of frightened reactionary conservatives, yes.

Unfortunately, in some states and jurisdictions, that frightened, reactionary minority manifests as a majority which advocates denying citizens of the United States their rights and protected liberties motivated by unwarranted fear and hate.

That’s why we have a Constitution and its case law, to protect the rights and protected liberties of citizens from abuse by state and local governments.

Such is the ridiculous hypocrisy of conservatives and libertarians: they rail against the perceived ‘abuse’ and ‘overreach’ of the Federal government, yet when state governments engage in the same abuse and overreach, conservatives and libertarians are suddenly blind to that abuse and overreach.

That is not why we have a constitution. We have a constitution because of the reasons outlined in the Annapolis convention, and rights were not one of the reasons.

 

[Tennyson]

[
(B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?

To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.

But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..

Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.

Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.

Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.

What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.

No one ever said it was – Obergefell concerned state governments violating the 14th Amendment, not any branch of the Federal government.

It was state government which sought to deny same-sex couples access to state marriage law; same-sex couples who were first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that.

And the states are subject to the Federal Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, where any laws enacted by the states repugnant to the Constitution are appropriately struck down by the courts, in accordance with Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

Obergefell concerned Kennedy creating constitutional concepts that do not exist.

State governments did not seek to deny same-sex couple access to state marriages. That concept has been a law or statute in this country since the 1600s. So to seek that is incorrect.

The states are only subjected to the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8, and the state to state interactions in Article IV. There is no Article III jurisdiction over the states other than a conflict between the states of a lawsuit between parties of different states. This was kept in check first time the Supreme Court overstepped its jurisdiction with the creation of the Eleventh Amendment. Article VI’s supremacy clause only applied to Article I, Section 8 powers and a conflict between those powers and a state law that conflicted with those powers. What is absent in Article VI is the Supreme Court.

You are using the word "repugnant," which dates to Trevett v. Weeden of 1786, Ten Pound Act Cases (1786-1787,
Holmes v. Watson (1780), and culminating in Vidal v. Girard's Executors, which found that anti-Christian laws were repugnant to the law. This does not reconcile with same-sex marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

So, how many queers are there here?

I think you are on the wrong site to look for dates.

 

[Tennyson]

Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts..

Really? Pretty much 'everyone'?

Any living people?

Meanwhile- you are in the same league as those who argue that the income tax is unconstitutional, and that the 13th amendment was never legally ratified- you are spitting into the wind.

You are more than welcome to write out an argument regarding what I have stated that is incorrect.

You cited something as a fact- that was not an argument.
Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts

You have not supported your claim.

Virtually no living legal authority agrees with your claim- see how easy it is for me to make an unsubstantiated claim also?

Just happens mine is correct.

'

If you want to lie and drag this into the gutter, I am out. I gave you the opportunity to write out an argument.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass as you run out.

You seem to misunderstand. I am referring to your subterranean gutter form of "debate." There are many people I am sure that will willingly engage in this form of "debate." I am not one because this type of "debate" is only the manifestation of a lack of knowledge.

 

[Syriusly]

[
(B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?

To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.

But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..

Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.

Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.

Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.

What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.

No one ever said it was – Obergefell concerned state governments violating the 14th Amendment, not any branch of the Federal government.

It was state government which sought to deny same-sex couples access to state marriage law; same-sex couples who were first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that.

And the states are subject to the Federal Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, where any laws enacted by the states repugnant to the Constitution are appropriately struck down by the courts, in accordance with Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

Obergefell concerned Kennedy creating constitutional concepts that do not exist.

State governments did not seek to deny same-sex couple access to state marriages. That concept has been a law or statute in this country since the 1600s. So to seek that is incorrect..

LOL- really? Are you ignorant- or just lying to us?

States started banning same sex marriages specifically to deny same sex couples access to state marriage

Alabama 1996
`I signed this order because of pending legislation in Hawaii to legalize homosexual marriages,'' James said. ``There would have been the chance that Alabama would have to recognize those same-sex marriages.''

Alabama later became the 30th state to specifically ban same sex marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

Really? Pretty much 'everyone'?

Any living people?

Meanwhile- you are in the same league as those who argue that the income tax is unconstitutional, and that the 13th amendment was never legally ratified- you are spitting into the wind.

You are more than welcome to write out an argument regarding what I have stated that is incorrect.

You cited something as a fact- that was not an argument.
Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts

You have not supported your claim.

Virtually no living legal authority agrees with your claim- see how easy it is for me to make an unsubstantiated claim also?

Just happens mine is correct.

'

If you want to lie and drag this into the gutter, I am out. I gave you the opportunity to write out an argument.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass as you run out.

You seem to misunderstand. I am referring to your subterranean gutter form of "debate." There are many people I am sure that will willingly engage in this form of "debate." I am not one because this type of "debate" is only the manifestation of a lack of knowledge.

So when you said 'I am out'- you were lying.

 

[Tennyson]

[
(B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?

To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.

But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..

Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.

Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.

Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.

What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.

No one ever said it was – Obergefell concerned state governments violating the 14th Amendment, not any branch of the Federal government.

It was state government which sought to deny same-sex couples access to state marriage law; same-sex couples who were first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that.

And the states are subject to the Federal Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, where any laws enacted by the states repugnant to the Constitution are appropriately struck down by the courts, in accordance with Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

Obergefell concerned Kennedy creating constitutional concepts that do not exist.

State governments did not seek to deny same-sex couple access to state marriages. That concept has been a law or statute in this country since the 1600s. So to seek that is incorrect..

LOL- really? Are you ignorant- or just lying to us?

States started banning same sex marriages specifically to deny same sex couples access to state marriage

Alabama 1996
`I signed this order because of pending legislation in Hawaii to legalize homosexual marriages,'' James said. ``There would have been the chance that Alabama would have to recognize those same-sex marriages.''

Alabama later became the 30th state to specifically ban same sex marriage.

Laws against same-sex marriages have been on the books in this country since the 1600s.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - Ninth Amendment

In other words, the federal government has no power to outlaw any marriage, gay or otherwise.

Kevin_Kennedy
and by the First Amendment,
neither can govt ESTABLISH nor PROHIBIT
the free exercise of one's personal or spiritual beliefs about marriage.

marriage beliefs cannot be endorsed or penalized by govt without violating
Amendment one, and thus Fourteenth and Civil Rights principles
on equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed.

Agreed. The federal government may not establish any legal definition of marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.

Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.

Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.

What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.

No one ever said it was – Obergefell concerned state governments violating the 14th Amendment, not any branch of the Federal government.

It was state government which sought to deny same-sex couples access to state marriage law; same-sex couples who were first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that.

And the states are subject to the Federal Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, where any laws enacted by the states repugnant to the Constitution are appropriately struck down by the courts, in accordance with Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

Obergefell concerned Kennedy creating constitutional concepts that do not exist.

State governments did not seek to deny same-sex couple access to state marriages. That concept has been a law or statute in this country since the 1600s. So to seek that is incorrect..

LOL- really? Are you ignorant- or just lying to us?

States started banning same sex marriages specifically to deny same sex couples access to state marriage

Alabama 1996
`I signed this order because of pending legislation in Hawaii to legalize homosexual marriages,'' James said. ``There would have been the chance that Alabama would have to recognize those same-sex marriages.''

Alabama later became the 30th state to specifically ban same sex marriage.

Laws against same-sex marriages have been on the books in this country since the 1600s.

Feel free to cite Alabama's. Or California's.

Since both states specifically passed laws outlawing same sex marriages.

Odd isn't it that they would pass a law that was already in existence?

 

[Tennyson]

What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.

No one ever said it was – Obergefell concerned state governments violating the 14th Amendment, not any branch of the Federal government.

It was state government which sought to deny same-sex couples access to state marriage law; same-sex couples who were first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that.

And the states are subject to the Federal Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, where any laws enacted by the states repugnant to the Constitution are appropriately struck down by the courts, in accordance with Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

Obergefell concerned Kennedy creating constitutional concepts that do not exist.

State governments did not seek to deny same-sex couple access to state marriages. That concept has been a law or statute in this country since the 1600s. So to seek that is incorrect..

LOL- really? Are you ignorant- or just lying to us?

States started banning same sex marriages specifically to deny same sex couples access to state marriage

Alabama 1996
`I signed this order because of pending legislation in Hawaii to legalize homosexual marriages,'' James said. ``There would have been the chance that Alabama would have to recognize those same-sex marriages.''

Alabama later became the 30th state to specifically ban same sex marriage.

Laws against same-sex marriages have been on the books in this country since the 1600s.

Feel free to cite Alabama's. Or California's.

Since both states specifically passed laws outlawing same sex marriages.

Odd isn't it that they would pass a law that was already in existence?

How far back in time? 1799 with the Sargent’s Code of the territory and the adopted common laws against buggery? The adoption of common laws against buggery in 1833? 1841 when Alabama with the Penal Code in the Annual Session of the General Assembly of the State of Alabama January 9, 1841 that converted common law to statutory law regarding buggery?