In Elegant Ruling, Carter Appointed Federal Judge Upholds Traditional Marriage

[Syriusly]

One, he is just one against dozens of judges and benches who disagree with him.

Precisely how do they disagree with him Jake? I'd like to see your dissertation on that. Name how they are right and he is wrong with regards to Windsor and all the rest?

Read the rulings.

Clearly there is a disagreement- because of the outcome. Regarding who is right and who is wrong is a legal question that can only ultimately be resolved by either the Appellate Court- or the Supreme Court.

 

[Silhouette]

Precisely how do they disagree with him Jake? I'd like to see your dissertation on that. Name how they are right and he is wrong with regards to Windsor and all the rest?

Read the rulings.

Clearly there is a disagreement- because of the outcome. Regarding who is right and who is wrong is a legal question that can only ultimately be resolved by either the Appellate Court- or the Supreme Court.

You aren't Jake. And furthermore, I've noticed you are following me around the forums stalking nearly every post I make. So I suggest you stop and stick to the topic.

Jake. Share your dissertation on how this judge was "wrong" interpreting Windsor and all the rest vs the other judges.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Translation: Sil stalks like crazy, and accuses others of doing it. Sil claims others of doing this and that and who knows what else, while doing the same. Sil can't defend Sil's point of view, so ad homs others'. I answered Sil's question to my satisfaction.

Sil: you are losing and going to continue losing this discussion.

This is nearly as certain as the sun coming up in the morning.

No really cares that you disagree.

Most are merely amusing themselves with your silly arguments.

Sil: I am sorry for what happened to you, but it is time to move along.

 

[Syriusly]

Precisely how do they disagree with him Jake? I'd like to see your dissertation on that. Name how they are right and he is wrong with regards to Windsor and all the rest?

Read the rulings.

Clearly there is a disagreement- because of the outcome. Regarding who is right and who is wrong is a legal question that can only ultimately be resolved by either the Appellate Court- or the Supreme Court.

You aren't Jake. .

Probably the only accurate analysis you have made in this thread.

 

[Skylar]

Go ahead and read the ruling. Get an adult to explain it.

Translation: you've got exactly jack shit to back anything you've said. And you have no idea what you're talking about.

Run along, kiddo. You're welcome back at the adult table once you've read the ruling and can comment on it intelligently.

 

[The Rabbi]

Go ahead and read the ruling. Get an adult to explain it.

Translation: you've got exactly jack shit to back anything you've said. And you have no idea what you're talking about.

Run along, kiddo. You're welcome back at the adult table once you've read the ruling and can comment on it intelligently.

Translation: I've got jack shit to back anything I've written and have no idea what I'm talking about.

If you knew you woldnt have a problem explaining it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

To oppose gay marriage does not equal hate. Another fallicy in thinking is you weren't born that way either. You were inducted by the LGBT culture.

Yes it does. Without a valid reason to deny gays the right to same sex marriage, the only reason left is malice.

Ah, well then you'll agree that since marriage allows a legal shoehorn into adoption for couples, lewd sex performers in front of children with 100% expressed/implied support or 0% denouncement from the LGBT subculture means that society can expect this group to be a danger to children.

That isn't hate. It's protecting children. Unless stating the obvious disturbing trends around kids in LGBT is now also a form of "hate"?

That's not a disturbing trend, it's an imaginary one.

 

[Skylar]

If you knew you woldnt have a problem explaining it.

Laughing.....keep running, kiddo. All you have are excuses why you can't possibly quote the Windsor ruling backing any part of your claims. There's simply no place in the ruling where they say that gay marriage bans are constitutional.....or Prop 8 is reauthorized. Here's the ruling:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

Show us. Don't tell us. And what are the odds we'll get yet another excuse for your perfect record of failure to back up your claims?

I'd say pretty close to 100%.

 

[Skylar]

That's not a disturbing trend, it's an imaginary one.

Winna winna chicken dinner!

 

[Syriusly]

That's not a disturbing trend, it's an imaginary one.

Winna winna chicken dinner!

If we could bet on forum predictions, we could make good money on betting against anything Sihouette predicts.

 

[Pop23]

Loving only addressed race, an obvious trait. It would have been impossible for loving to have addressed same sex marriage as none existed prior to the ruling.

What Loving establishes is the Federal Government's authority to overrule a State definition of marriage that violates the rights of citizens. It reiterates marriage as a right. It also establishes that public support is irrelevant to the application of one's rights, as interracial marriage was polling at 80 - 20 against the year that Loving came down. A 60 point margin of opposition.

As a point of contrast, gay marriage enjoys a 12 to 19 point margin of support.

Rights to those eligible. They said that all males may marry all females.

Oh wait, they limited that also!

So sad that you delusional types have taken a just ruling and turned it into an enabling tool.

So tell me, how could the courts rule on something that never existed?

 

[Pop23]

Why should traditional marriage need to be "upheld"?

In 2008, this nation entered an era where the norm became the exception and wrong suddenly became acceptable commonplace.

To think of Obama or his administration as being any semblance of authority or makers of rule is quite simply insanity defined.

This black skinned community organizer has set our country aflame.

I can think of at least one other definition "traditional marriage" used to have.

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Loving only addressed race, an obvious trait. It would have been impossible for loving to have addressed same sex marriage as none existed prior to the ruling.

To assume that loving did is to assume that Loving legalized incestuous marriage.

Can't do one without the other

Translation: I, Pop, know I am wrong but I will blab and blab.

Yet you don't dispute the facts presented

Oh, how could you, you said you were ignoring me.

What a delusional looney tune

 

[Skylar]

Rights to those eligible. They said that all males may marry all females.

Virginia made the same argument, insisting that whites weren't eligible to marry black folks. That didn't work out so well for them.

If you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you're going to need a good reason. A rational reason and a compelling state interest. And there's none of either.

So sad that you delusional types have taken a just ruling and turned it into an enabling tool.

With a 50 to 2 record in the Federal Judiciary in favor of gay marriage, I'm pretty comfortable with my position and its legal validity. Especially with the USSC overturning the 'eligibility' issues in DOMA. And preserving every lower court ruling that overturns gay marriage bans.

 

[Skylar]

Yet you don't dispute the facts presented

The facts you've presented have no relevance to the argument you're making. As Loving's importance is in establishing the federal government's authority to overrule unconstitutional restrictions on marriage. You don't dispute this authority or this jurisdiction.

Good. Neither do the circuit appeals court. Which have found that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional in 5 different circuit districts. In fact, every circuit appeals district to rule on the issue has overturned gay marriage bans.

That's a perfect record of failure for you gay marriage opponents.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why should traditional marriage need to be "upheld"?

In 2008, this nation entered an era where the norm became the exception and wrong suddenly became acceptable commonplace.

To think of Obama or his administration as being any semblance of authority or makers of rule is quite simply insanity defined.

This black skinned community organizer has set our country aflame.

I can think of at least one other definition "traditional marriage" used to have.

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Loving only addressed race, an obvious trait. It would have been impossible for loving to have addressed same sex marriage as none existed prior to the ruling.

To assume that loving did is to assume that Loving legalized incestuous marriage.

Can't do one without the other

Translation: I, Pop, know I am wrong but I will blab and blab.

Yet you don't dispute the facts presented

Oh, how could you, you said you were ignoring me.

What a delusional looney tune

Until I decided otherwise; you, clown, have nothing to say about it except weep because I make you look like such a fool.

No facts need to be disputed.

Loving is about marriage rights, and nothing you can say can change that.

Pop's response translated ahead of time: Pop is such a fool.



Oh, Pop, I love the one where you state gays could marry each other legally.

As Skylar points out so correctly to you above, "As Loving's importance is in establishing the federal government's authority to overrule unconstitutional restrictions on marriage. You don't dispute this authority or this jurisdiction." Nor can you without acting the clown.

 

[Pop23]

Why should traditional marriage need to be "upheld"?

In 2008, this nation entered an era where the norm became the exception and wrong suddenly became acceptable commonplace.

To think of Obama or his administration as being any semblance of authority or makers of rule is quite simply insanity defined.

This black skinned community organizer has set our country aflame.

I can think of at least one other definition "traditional marriage" used to have.

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Loving only addressed race, an obvious trait. It would have been impossible for loving to have addressed same sex marriage as none existed prior to the ruling.

To assume that loving did is to assume that Loving legalized incestuous marriage.

Can't do one without the other

Translation: I, Pop, know I am wrong but I will blab and blab.

Yet you don't dispute the facts presented

Oh, how could you, you said you were ignoring me.

What a delusional looney tune

Until I decided otherwise; you, clown, have nothing to say about it except weep because I make you look like such a fool.

No facts need to be disputed.

Loving is about marriage rights, and nothing you can say can change that.

Pop's response translated ahead of time: Pop is such a fool.



Oh, Pop, I love the one where you state gays could marry each other legally.

As Skylar points out so correctly to you above, "As Loving's importance is in establishing the federal government's authority to overrule unconstitutional restrictions on marriage. You don't dispute this authority or this jurisdiction." Nor can you without acting the clown.

Hey assclown, gays have been allowed to marry other gays for eva.

Gay males were never prohibited from marrying gay females.

Your easier than a crack whore.

And just as delusional.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pop, thank you for FINALLY BEING HONEST, the LGBT going only marry those of the opposite sex.

But you always said they had the right to marry other gays, so either you are lying now or back then.

Can't get away from this, because I have the screen shot of your admission, dude.

Slink away, trash.

 

[Pop23]

Flakey Jakey

Gays could always marry. No lie, reality

One simply had to be male, the other female.

Link one place where I've said same genders could.

Oh Snap, you can't.

Your delusions are even blinding yourself.

LMAO.

Poor you, so sad

 

[Syriusly]

Loving only addressed race, an obvious trait. It would have been impossible for loving to have addressed same sex marriage as none existed prior to the ruling.

What Loving establishes is the Federal Government's authority to overrule a State definition of marriage that violates the rights of citizens. It reiterates marriage as a right. It also establishes that public support is irrelevant to the application of one's rights, as interracial marriage was polling at 80 - 20 against the year that Loving came down. A 60 point margin of opposition.

As a point of contrast, gay marriage enjoys a 12 to 19 point margin of support.

Rights to those eligible. They said that all males may marry all females.

Nowhere in Loving v. Virginia does it say that.

 

[Syriusly]

I can think of at least one other definition "traditional marriage" used to have.

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Loving only addressed race, an obvious trait. It would have been impossible for loving to have addressed same sex marriage as none existed prior to the ruling.

To assume that loving did is to assume that Loving legalized incestuous marriage.

Can't do one without the other

Translation: I, Pop, know I am wrong but I will blab and blab.

Yet you don't dispute the facts presented

Oh, how could you, you said you were ignoring me.

What a delusional looney tune

Until I decided otherwise; you, clown, have nothing to say about it except weep because I make you look like such a fool.

No facts need to be disputed.

Loving is about marriage rights, and nothing you can say can change that.

Pop's response translated ahead of time: Pop is such a fool.



Oh, Pop, I love the one where you state gays could marry each other legally.

As Skylar points out so correctly to you above, "As Loving's importance is in establishing the federal government's authority to overrule unconstitutional restrictions on marriage. You don't dispute this authority or this jurisdiction." Nor can you without acting the clown.

Hey assclown, gays have been allowed to marry other gays for eva.

Gay males were never prohibited from marrying gay females.

Your easier than a crack whore.

And just as delusional.

Same old claim.

Same rationale as the State of Virginia used "White Males can marry any woman they want....as long as they are White"