Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Skylar]

Adoption used to give priority to hetero, married couples. As demonstrated by the changes over the past forty years, that is the best situation to place a kid in.

And that criteria is not going to change. Adoption agencies are not required to meet equality demands of anyone, the very nature of what they do is discriminatory to the benefit of the child being adopted. Affirmative Action doesn't apply to adoption. Can someone challenge that? I suppose they could... you can challenge anything these days and no telling how the liberal SCOTUS would rule... but as of now, there is no danger of adoption agencies having to dole out children to gay couples in order to be "fair."

Unfortunately, with legal marriage comes equal adoption privilege for homos. My main argument against homo marriage.

And that is a stupid ******* argument bubba!

No, troglodyte neocon. It's the most relevant argument against homo marriage.

Says you. The Supreme Court disagree.....actually arguing the exact opposite of what you do. That denying same sex marriage hurts children.

I'm gonna go with the courts over you citing yourself.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Adoption used to give priority to hetero, married couples. As demonstrated by the changes over the past forty years, that is the best situation to place a kid in.

And that criteria is not going to change. Adoption agencies are not required to meet equality demands of anyone, the very nature of what they do is discriminatory to the benefit of the child being adopted. Affirmative Action doesn't apply to adoption. Can someone challenge that? I suppose they could... you can challenge anything these days and no telling how the liberal SCOTUS would rule... but as of now, there is no danger of adoption agencies having to dole out children to gay couples in order to be "fair."

Unfortunately, with legal marriage comes equal adoption privilege for homos. My main argument against homo marriage.

And that is a stupid ******* argument bubba!

No, troglodyte neocon. It's the most relevant argument against homo marriage.

Says you. The Supreme Court disagree.....actually arguing the exact opposite of what you do. That denying same sex marriage hurts children.

I'm gonna go with the courts over you citing yourself.

Kids need a mother and a father. Empirical. Homo marriage lacks half of that. You do the rest of the math.

 

[Skylar]

And that criteria is not going to change. Adoption agencies are not required to meet equality demands of anyone, the very nature of what they do is discriminatory to the benefit of the child being adopted. Affirmative Action doesn't apply to adoption. Can someone challenge that? I suppose they could... you can challenge anything these days and no telling how the liberal SCOTUS would rule... but as of now, there is no danger of adoption agencies having to dole out children to gay couples in order to be "fair."

Unfortunately, with legal marriage comes equal adoption privilege for homos. My main argument against homo marriage.

And that is a stupid ******* argument bubba!

No, troglodyte neocon. It's the most relevant argument against homo marriage.

Says you. The Supreme Court disagree.....actually arguing the exact opposite of what you do. That denying same sex marriage hurts children.

I'm gonna go with the courts over you citing yourself.

Kids need a mother and a father. Empirical. Homo marriage lacks half of that. You do the rest of the math.

Kids need two parents. And they have them in same sex couples.

 

[Montrovant]

You say that Alabama is going to stop sanctioning marriages. THEY ARE! You are shown that is untrue, NO IT'S NOT.

Under the proposed legislation Alabama would still have state sanctioned marriages. Let me repeat that in case you somehow didn't understand. Under the proposed law, the one you are touting as a removal of state sanctioned marriage, Alabama would still have state sanctioned marriage.

And let me repeat, no they won't. If we need to go through this again, we can.

The elimination of marriage licenses means the state is no longer recognizing marriage of any kind. They're not recognizing it, endorsing it or sanctioning it. If you wish to believe otherwise, that's perfectly fine with me, you won't have a problem with Alabama's new law.

Explain which part of this, the opening of the proposed bill, removes state sanctioned marriage?

To amend Sections 22-9A-17, 30-1-5, 30-1-12, 30-1-13, and 30-1-16 of the Code of Alabama 1975, to abolish the requirement that a marriage license be issued by the judge of probate and replace existing state statutory marriage law with a statutory contract for marriage; to provide that a marriage would be entered into by contract; to provide that the judge of probate would record each contract of marriage presented to the probate court for recording and would forward the contract to the Office of Vital Statistics; to provide for the content of a properly executed contract of marriage; to confirm the continued existence of common law marriage in Alabama; and to repeal Sections 30-1-9, 30-1-10, 30-1-11, and 30-1-14 of the Code of Alabama 1975.

There would still be 'a statutory contract for marriage'. Marriage would be 'entered into by contract'. A judge would 'record each contract of marriage'. It would 'provide for the content of a properly executed contract of marriage'. It would 'confirm the continued existence of common law marriage in Alabama'. Where is state sanctioned marriage ended by any of this?

You say the elimination of marriage licenses means the state is no longer recognizing marriage, but the text of the bill contradicts that, multiple times.

I am not going to argue statutory requirements and rules of law, that's public record. It seems to me it clearly states that marriage licenses will no longer be issued by the probate judge. Therefore, there is no more state sanctioning of marriages. Matters of contract between parties is not marriage, it's contracts between parties. The State is not sanctioning, endorsing or recognizing any aspect of any private contract intent. That is between the parties not the State. The text of the bill doesn't contradict this at all, it's essentially what it establishes.

What is happening is, you have tried to twist my OP around and make it appear that I have argued the State removing itself from endorsing gay marriages is an end to gay marriage. That is not what my OP says or my argument. If that is what you believe my argument is, you need to go and read the OP again because you've misinterpreted me.

People can arrange contracts for virtually anything they want to, they always have been able to do this. Gay couples have been doing this for longer than "Gay Marriage" has been around. So no matter what is done on Gay Marriage, people will still always have that option just as it has always been. Nothing is going to change that. Even a Constitutional Amendment that marriage is between a man and woman, would not stop private two-party contractual agreements in America... they would still exist and gay couples would still have that option.

The State is not compelled to recognize the nature of any domestic partnership. There is no requirement of them to do so and the Constitution doesn't say they have to. And this is what you are now going to see happening. States are going to get out of the marrying business.

I happen to think that is Step 1 in killing gay marriage. Once the State no longer sanctions it, no longer affords any benefit to it or for it... the motivation to do it becomes unimportant. Contract law will cover the bases, there is no need for "marriage" per say. We will see fewer and fewer gay couples bothering with the formalities. In 20 years it will be a curiosity.

Marriages are only sanctioned by the issuance of licenses? So the state treating marriages the same, including using the word marriage, is meaningless if a license is not issued in order to obtain the marriage? What about common law marriages and the fact that the proposed bill confirmed its continued existence? A license is the difference between a contract which is not marriage and a marriage? That is perhaps the most ridiculous argument I've seen you make, a high bar to surpass.

Marriage with a license is still a contract. What do you think civil marriage is?

I have said nothing about the end of gay marriage. Again, WTF are you talking about? What I've said is that your contention that the proposed bill in Alabama would end state sanctioned marriage is false. I've provided the evidence that the state will continue to sanction marriage, quoting the actual text of the bill. You have attempted to refute that with the inane claim that only marriages obtained by issuance of a license are really marriages. That's pretty funny considering how vehemently you've argued that removing state sanctioned marriages would not end marriage (which I agree with). When did a license become the be-all end-all when it comes to civil marriage?

 

[Boss]

Simply recognize them as legally valid and enforce them...

Legally valid for what? Enforce what aspect?

Again... there is no Constitutional requirement for a State to even acknowledge existence of marriage, much less "recognize or enforce" it. I don't know what you mean by this. Enforce it how? You want to state to make sure the man is sticking his penis in the right hole? The State will recognize legal contracts between parties, is that what you meant? I'm fine with that, they always have done that. They just won't be sanctioning or recognizing marriages anymore.

 

[Boss]

I've said is that your contention that the proposed bill in Alabama would end state sanctioned marriage is false.

And you're wrong. The text of the bill specifically says you're wrong. I'm sorry you're misinterpreting statutory contract law and confusing that with marriage... I understand, you seem to have a problem with what Marriage is. This is why the State is no longer going to sanction them.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I do not think they should dimwit, give me the compelling state interest in denying the right to same sex heterosexual sibling from entering into a marriage.

No one is saying that there is a compelling reason to not allow siblings to marry-dimwit. If you want to marry your brother, or your mother, or your lawn mower, petition the court for permission. It would then be up to the state to defend their prohibition of such things. They may or may not prevail. It's a separate issue . Next stupid question?

But there are physiological reasons to deny marrying anything other than a non-sibling hetero partner. Procreation for anything beyond hetero and birth defects among siblings.
Next ridiculous question that the originators of marriage didn't think would need to asked...

Yet sex is not a requirement of marriage. You presume two people would break a law without probable cause? That doesn't withstand judicial muster.

My neighbor put 4 kids through college, he doesn't make enough money to do so, so I guess he should be jailed for bank robbery because........

Again, the originators of marriage likely assumed the obvious and didn't expect this kind of semantic twisting to occur. Legitimizing sex was the impetus for marriage once upon a time.

'the originators of marriage'? LOL.

Throughout history marriage was not much more than the transfer of ownership of a woman from her father to her husband.

The 'originators of marriage' likely didn't anticipate wives being equal partners in marriage either.

Marriage has not only changed radically in time- it has improved.

'Improved'? Hell, it is about meaningless now, and in a few years we will have people marrying goats, their own sisters, robots and electric toothbrushes for all anyone can guess.

Yeah, maybe we should have kept marriage in line with the idea of buying cattle.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No one is saying that there is a compelling reason to not allow siblings to marry-dimwit. If you want to marry your brother, or your mother, or your lawn mower, petition the court for permission. It would then be up to the state to defend their prohibition of such things. They may or may not prevail. It's a separate issue . Next stupid question?

But there are physiological reasons to deny marrying anything other than a non-sibling hetero partner. Procreation for anything beyond hetero and birth defects among siblings.
Next ridiculous question that the originators of marriage didn't think would need to asked...

Yet sex is not a requirement of marriage. You presume two people would break a law without probable cause? That doesn't withstand judicial muster.

My neighbor put 4 kids through college, he doesn't make enough money to do so, so I guess he should be jailed for bank robbery because........

Again, the originators of marriage likely assumed the obvious and didn't expect this kind of semantic twisting to occur. Legitimizing sex was the impetus for marriage once upon a time.

'the originators of marriage'? LOL.

Throughout history marriage was not much more than the transfer of ownership of a woman from her father to her husband.

The 'originators of marriage' likely didn't anticipate wives being equal partners in marriage either.

Marriage has not only changed radically in time- it has improved.

Can you link to the law that made this a transfer of ownership? I would appreciate seeing this.

I think he is either 1 talking out of his libtard ass, or 2 is going back to preRoman history.

 

[Skylar]

Simply recognize them as legally valid and enforce them...

Legally valid for what? Enforce what aspect?

Whatever you'd recognize for a straight couple under Alabama's 'contract' conception of marriage.As whatever terms for marriage apply for straight couples apply for gays. Says who? Says the USSC.

Again... there is no Constitutional requirement for a State to even acknowledge existence of marriage, much less "recognize or enforce" it.

Says you. But remember, you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

Article 4 Section 1 of the United States Constitution.

Just because you've never read this portion of the constitution doesn't mean it magically disappears. Just as your failure to read this portion of the Obergefell ruling doesn't mean it ceases to disappear.

"It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to
refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character."

Obergefell v. Hodges

You know this portion....the one you said didn't exist in the Obergefell ruling? But very clearly does?

Boss.....your pseudo-legal gibberish always fails for the same reason: its based on what you WANT the law to be. Not what the law actually is. You almost always argue your imagination.

And your imagination is meaningless.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Simply recognize them as legally valid and enforce them...

Legally valid for what? Enforce what aspect?

Whatever you'd recognize for a straight couple under Alabama's 'contract' conception of marriage.As whatever terms for marriage apply for straight couples apply for gays. Says who? Says the USSC.

Again... there is no Constitutional requirement for a State to even acknowledge existence of marriage, much less "recognize or enforce" it.

Says you. But remember, you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

Article 4 Section 1 of the United States Constitution.

Just because you've never read this portion of the constitution doesn't mean it magically disappears. Just as your failure to read this portion of the Obergefell ruling doesn't mean it ceases to disappear.

"It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to
refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character."

Obergefell v. Hodges

You know this portion....the one you said didn't exist in the Obergefell ruling? But very clearly does?

Boss.....your pseudo-legal gibberish always fails for the same reason: its based on what you WANT the law to be. Not what the law actually is. You almost always argue your imagination.

And your imagination is meaningless.

And your imagination is meaningless as well as pointless, degenerate and goofy as ****.

Marriage is marriage and that will NEVER include two fags butt ******* each other.

 

[Skylar]

I've said is that your contention that the proposed bill in Alabama would end state sanctioned marriage is false.

And you're wrong. The text of the bill specifically says you're wrong. I'm sorry you're misinterpreting statutory contract law and confusing that with marriage... I understand, you seem to have a problem with what Marriage is. This is why the State is no longer going to sanction them.

Confused it...according to you. Which is meaningless, as you don't know what you're talking about. I'm sorry you confused your personal opinion with the law.

They're not the same thing.

Back in the realm of ACTUAL case law, it doesn't matter what Alabama calls marriage. As whatever it is, the same terms apply for same sex couples as apply for straights:

"The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.

Obergefell v. Hodges

Call marriage a 'contract' instead of a 'license'. The same terms apply for straights and gays. Call marriage a 'compact' instead of a contract'. The same terms apply for straights and gays. Call marriage a turkey sandwich on rye instead of a 'compact'. The same terms apply for straights and gays.

Once again, your entire argument is just meaningless gibberish. Signifying nothing. Nor having the slightest relevance to the actual law.

 

[Montrovant]

I've said is that your contention that the proposed bill in Alabama would end state sanctioned marriage is false.

And you're wrong. The text of the bill specifically says you're wrong. I'm sorry you're misinterpreting statutory contract law and confusing that with marriage... I understand, you seem to have a problem with what Marriage is. This is why the State is no longer going to sanction them.

Which text of the bill specifically says I am wrong? You make the claim, but I'm the only one of the two of us actually quoting from the bill. The bill says, over and over, right in the opening paragraph, that there will still be marriage contracts, still be common law marriage, civil marriage simply will not require the issuance of a license. Is this another example of your deciding what the definition of marriage is and claiming it cannot be changed? I don't ever recall hearing anyone say that part of the definition of marriage is that one must obtain a license, but I wouldn't be surprised if you decided that was the case.

If I am misinterpreting statutory contract law and confusing it with marriage, it seems the proposed bill does the same.

 

[Skylar]

Simply recognize them as legally valid and enforce them...

Legally valid for what? Enforce what aspect?

Whatever you'd recognize for a straight couple under Alabama's 'contract' conception of marriage.As whatever terms for marriage apply for straight couples apply for gays. Says who? Says the USSC.

Again... there is no Constitutional requirement for a State to even acknowledge existence of marriage, much less "recognize or enforce" it.

Says you. But remember, you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

Article 4 Section 1 of the United States Constitution.

Just because you've never read this portion of the constitution doesn't mean it magically disappears. Just as your failure to read this portion of the Obergefell ruling doesn't mean it ceases to disappear.

"It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to
refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character."

Obergefell v. Hodges

You know this portion....the one you said didn't exist in the Obergefell ruling? But very clearly does?

Boss.....your pseudo-legal gibberish always fails for the same reason: its based on what you WANT the law to be. Not what the law actually is. You almost always argue your imagination.

And your imagination is meaningless.

And your imagination is meaningless as well as pointless, degenerate and goofy as ****.

I'm not quoting myself. I'm quoting the USSC.....and their rulings are binding precedent.

Marriage is marriage and that will NEVER include two fags butt ******* each other.

Says you, citing yourself. And legally, you're nobody.

 

[Boss]

You have attempted to refute that with the inane claim that only marriages obtained by issuance of a license are really marriages.

No I haven't and you won't find anywhere that I've said that. Marriages are whatever people want to call them. I can marry my ******* mailbox if I want to call it that. So it's ridiculous to claim that the only kind of marriages that exist are the ones ordained and sanctioned by the state.

Removing States from the obligation of issuing a license for marriage, eliminates the state sanctioning of said marriage. It's no longer a state-sanctioned thing. It might be replaced by a private contract between parties but the State doesn't endorse whatever intent is of any contract. Marriage has been a type of contract, but with a marriage license the State is specifically endorsing marriage.

Again... private party contracts have been around forever. We're going to have those no matter what happens to gay marriage. You can argue that the state would still be sanctioning gay marriage in a round about way, but that has been the case for over 200 years in America, or as long as two parties have had contract law available.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Simply recognize them as legally valid and enforce them...

Legally valid for what? Enforce what aspect?

Whatever you'd recognize for a straight couple under Alabama's 'contract' conception of marriage.As whatever terms for marriage apply for straight couples apply for gays. Says who? Says the USSC.

Again... there is no Constitutional requirement for a State to even acknowledge existence of marriage, much less "recognize or enforce" it.

Says you. But remember, you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

Article 4 Section 1 of the United States Constitution.

Just because you've never read this portion of the constitution doesn't mean it magically disappears. Just as your failure to read this portion of the Obergefell ruling doesn't mean it ceases to disappear.

"It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to
refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character."

Obergefell v. Hodges

You know this portion....the one you said didn't exist in the Obergefell ruling? But very clearly does?

Boss.....your pseudo-legal gibberish always fails for the same reason: its based on what you WANT the law to be. Not what the law actually is. You almost always argue your imagination.

And your imagination is meaningless.

And your imagination is meaningless as well as pointless, degenerate and goofy as ****.

I'm not quoting myself. I'm quoting the USSC.....and their rulings are binding precedent.

No more binding than Dred Scot, wanker.

Marriage is marriage and that will NEVER include two fags butt ******* each other.

Says you, citing yourself. And legally, you're nobody.

I am nothing more than a man speaking his conscience, something a libtard like you will never understand.

 

[Skylar]

Simply recognize them as legally valid and enforce them...

Legally valid for what? Enforce what aspect?

Whatever you'd recognize for a straight couple under Alabama's 'contract' conception of marriage.As whatever terms for marriage apply for straight couples apply for gays. Says who? Says the USSC.

Again... there is no Constitutional requirement for a State to even acknowledge existence of marriage, much less "recognize or enforce" it.

Says you. But remember, you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

Article 4 Section 1 of the United States Constitution.

Just because you've never read this portion of the constitution doesn't mean it magically disappears. Just as your failure to read this portion of the Obergefell ruling doesn't mean it ceases to disappear.

"It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to
refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character."

Obergefell v. Hodges

You know this portion....the one you said didn't exist in the Obergefell ruling? But very clearly does?

Boss.....your pseudo-legal gibberish always fails for the same reason: its based on what you WANT the law to be. Not what the law actually is. You almost always argue your imagination.

And your imagination is meaningless.

And your imagination is meaningless as well as pointless, degenerate and goofy as ****.

I'm not quoting myself. I'm quoting the USSC.....and their rulings are binding precedent.

No more binding than Dred Scot, wanker.

And that's why same sex couples are getting married in every state. Because the USSC ruling *isn't* binding?

Laughing....don't stop believing, buddy.

Marriage is marriage and that will NEVER include two fags butt ******* each other.

Says you, citing yourself. And legally, you're nobody.

I am nothing more than a man speaking his conscience, something a libtard like you will never understand.

You're more than welcome to your personal opinion. This is a legal discussion. And in terms of the law, your personal opinion means two things:

Jack. And Shit.

I'm surprised you don't already know this.

 

[Skylar]

You have attempted to refute that with the inane claim that only marriages obtained by issuance of a license are really marriages.

No I haven't and you won't find anywhere that I've said that. Marriages are whatever people want to call them. I can marry my ******* mailbox if I want to call it that.

The law doesn't recognize your marriage with your mail box as legally valid. As a mailbox is inanimate. It can't offer the consent necessary to enter into any legal arrangement.

Just so that we're clear.

So it's ridiculous to claim that the only kind of marriages that exist are the ones ordained and sanctioned by the state.

When you're speaking of the Alabama law, you're speaking of marriage under the law. Alabama still recognizes marriage. It still recognizes the State's role in marriage. It merely eliminates the licensing portion.

The obvious problem with your reasoning is that you assume that by renaming marriage from a marriage 'license' to a marriage 'contract', that somehow Alabama can exclude gays.

Nope.

"The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex."

Obergefell v. Hodges

Whatever terms regarding marriage that are used for straight couples are accorded same sex couples as well.

Making your entire argument more pseudo-legal gibberish. And gloriously irrelevant to the actual law.

It's no longer a state-sanctioned thing. It might be replaced by a private contract between parties but the State doesn't endorse whatever intent is of any contract. Marriage has been a type of contract, but with a marriage license the State is specifically endorsing marriage.

And all the same terms apply for straights as apply for gays. And visa versa. You can't get around that. Oh, you can ignore the portions of Obergefell that are inconvenient to your argument.

But you can't make us, the courts, or the USSC ignore them. And that's why your predictions are once again meaningless nonsense. As they are an expression of your hopeless desires rather than the actual law.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Legally valid for what? Enforce what aspect?

Whatever you'd recognize for a straight couple under Alabama's 'contract' conception of marriage.As whatever terms for marriage apply for straight couples apply for gays. Says who? Says the USSC.

Again... there is no Constitutional requirement for a State to even acknowledge existence of marriage, much less "recognize or enforce" it.

Says you. But remember, you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

Article 4 Section 1 of the United States Constitution.

Just because you've never read this portion of the constitution doesn't mean it magically disappears. Just as your failure to read this portion of the Obergefell ruling doesn't mean it ceases to disappear.

"It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to
refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character."

Obergefell v. Hodges

You know this portion....the one you said didn't exist in the Obergefell ruling? But very clearly does?

Boss.....your pseudo-legal gibberish always fails for the same reason: its based on what you WANT the law to be. Not what the law actually is. You almost always argue your imagination.

And your imagination is meaningless.

And your imagination is meaningless as well as pointless, degenerate and goofy as ****.

I'm not quoting myself. I'm quoting the USSC.....and their rulings are binding precedent.

No more binding than Dred Scot, wanker.

And that's why same sex couples are getting married in every state. Because the USSC ruling *isn't* binding?

Laughing....don't stop believing, buddy.

It is a bullshit opinion, just like Kelo, Untied and Dred. The Constitution does not give SCOTUS the authority to redefine words, dude. IT may come as a shock to read that somewhere, but the SCOTUS did a major over-reach there that will eventually be fixed properly.

Marriage is marriage and that will NEVER include two fags butt ******* each other.

Says you, citing yourself. And legally, you're nobody.

I am nothing more than a man speaking his conscience, something a libtard like you will never understand.

You're more than welcome to your personal opinion. This is a legal discussion. And in terms of the law, your personal opinion means two things:

Jack. And Shit.

I'm surprised you don't already know this.

What you don't seem to grasp is that the law of the land does not merely float above the people of this country, rule over us. It emanates from the culture and most commonly shared values of WE the PEOPLE

This outrageous piece of judicial shit will be fixed over time. You can bank on that.

 

[Skylar]

Whatever you'd recognize for a straight couple under Alabama's 'contract' conception of marriage.As whatever terms for marriage apply for straight couples apply for gays. Says who? Says the USSC.

Says you. But remember, you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

Just because you've never read this portion of the constitution doesn't mean it magically disappears. Just as your failure to read this portion of the Obergefell ruling doesn't mean it ceases to disappear.

You know this portion....the one you said didn't exist in the Obergefell ruling? But very clearly does?

Boss.....your pseudo-legal gibberish always fails for the same reason: its based on what you WANT the law to be. Not what the law actually is. You almost always argue your imagination.

And your imagination is meaningless.

And your imagination is meaningless as well as pointless, degenerate and goofy as ****.

I'm not quoting myself. I'm quoting the USSC.....and their rulings are binding precedent.

No more binding than Dred Scot, wanker.

And that's why same sex couples are getting married in every state. Because the USSC ruling *isn't* binding?

Laughing....don't stop believing, buddy.

It is a bullshit opinion, just like Kelo, Untied and Dred. The Constitution does not give SCOTUS the authority to redefine words, dude. IT may come as a shock to read that somewhere, but the SCOTUS did a major over-reach there that will eventually be fixed properly.

And you're more than welcome to your personal opinion. It still has nothing to do with the law.

As all the same sex couples getting married in every state demonstrate elegantly.

 

[Boss]

No state is going to get away with not sanctioning any marriages as we have been trying to drive home to you.

You can keep trying to drive it home. We're going to stop State sanctioning of marriage. Then we will see if you can force states to sponsor your sexual behavior. I'm betting we see they don't have to. In the meantime, we are all entertained by your bombastic opinions but you haven't backed anything up with the Constitution.