Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Skylar]

Except that they can't.

Why not? The Supreme Court ruling does not forbid it.

Ask the States that do.

I asked you. The Supreme Court's ruling opened the door for almost any marriage to take place. There is already one case before the court now where one man is trying to marry his two common-law wives. Of course the married filing jointly deduction will need to be looked at again.

Says you. The Obergefell ruling never even mentions polygamy let alone authorizes it.

See, I've actually read the ruling. You never have. You might want to try. Here, I'll even give you the link:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Show me where it authorizes polygamy. Specifically.

It doesn't. It doesn't forbid it either. It opens the door though with its wording.

Forbidding bigamy is what the States do.

The Obergefell ruling never so much as mentions polygamy or bigamy. Let alone authorize them.

So what else have you got?

 

[the_human_being]

Yeah- hardly worth treating them equally.

Same thing with Jews and Mormons.

Almost insignificant.

Who treated them equally? The Supreme Court nullified the votes and will of the people and took upon themselves the rights of the states and their own citizens to determine in a democratic election the definition and legality of marriage among themselves. It was a huge power grab by the Supreme Court.

Which case are you referring to?

Loving v. Virginia?

Zablocki v. Rehail?

Turner v. Safley?

Or Obergefel?

All cases where the Supreme Court 'nullified the votes and will of the people and took upon themselvs the rights of their states'- i.e. ruled a State law unconstitutional.

If you think this was a 'huge power' grab- you are about 50 years behind the ball.

It is. It overruled the wishes of the people who expressed their wishes in a legal election.

You should read the Constitution some time.

Meanwhile- you are a dollar short and 50 years too late.

Feel free to start a thread about how upset you are that the Supreme Court overturned the rights of Virginia voters to ban mixed race marriages.

I have. Marriage laws are not specifically under the prevue of the federal government. Marriage laws have long been under the prevue of the states themselves. It was purely a power grab and only then by one vote.

Do you think Sally's the shemale in its marriage? I think so. She's probably got the butt hurts.

 

[Boss]

Yes the States are required to recognize marriages from other States. As the USSC makes ludicrously clear.

Here's the thing... You guys are not explaining what you mean by this. "Recognize" HOW?

Record it as a marriage in the Office of Vital Statistics. Uphold the laws surrounding marriage. And apply those laws to those who are legally married.

Just like SB377 does.

They are required by Federal law to record information... that's not the State sanctioning or recognizing gay marriage. Sorry. Uphold WHAT laws surrounding marriage? Contract law takes care of that already, it always has. I don't really know what you're talking about. The State of Alabama is not going to sanction marriages. Did I say in that sentence that Alabama isn't going to comply with federal laws? I don't think I did... doesn't look like I said that... but it seems to be what you are hearing for some reason. I think you've gone off the deep end.

 

[the_human_being]

Why not? The Supreme Court ruling does not forbid it.

Ask the States that do.

I asked you. The Supreme Court's ruling opened the door for almost any marriage to take place. There is already one case before the court now where one man is trying to marry his two common-law wives. Of course the married filing jointly deduction will need to be looked at again.

Says you. The Obergefell ruling never even mentions polygamy let alone authorizes it.

See, I've actually read the ruling. You never have. You might want to try. Here, I'll even give you the link:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Show me where it authorizes polygamy. Specifically.

It doesn't. It doesn't forbid it either. It opens the door though with its wording.

Forbidding bigamy is what the States do.

The Obergefell ruling never so much as mentions polygamy or bigamy. Let alone authorize them.

So what else have you got?

Well, again for the umpteenth time Sally, it doesn't forbid either.

 

[Skylar]

I have. Marriage laws are not specifically under the prevue of the federal government. Marriage laws have long been under the prevue of the states themselves. It was purely a power grab and only then by one vote.

So the Supreme Court had no authority to overturn interracial marriage bans?

Does that mean that none of those interracial marriages since the ruling are legally valid?

 

[Skylar]

Ask the States that do.

I asked you. The Supreme Court's ruling opened the door for almost any marriage to take place. There is already one case before the court now where one man is trying to marry his two common-law wives. Of course the married filing jointly deduction will need to be looked at again.

Says you. The Obergefell ruling never even mentions polygamy let alone authorizes it.

See, I've actually read the ruling. You never have. You might want to try. Here, I'll even give you the link:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Show me where it authorizes polygamy. Specifically.

It doesn't. It doesn't forbid it either. It opens the door though with its wording.

Forbidding bigamy is what the States do.

The Obergefell ruling never so much as mentions polygamy or bigamy. Let alone authorize them.

So what else have you got?

Well, again for the umpteenth time Sally, it doesn't forbid either.

For the Umpteeth time, Mary....it doesn't even mention it. Let alone authorize it.

Try again.

 

[the_human_being]

Yes the States are required to recognize marriages from other States. As the USSC makes ludicrously clear.

Here's the thing... You guys are not explaining what you mean by this. "Recognize" HOW?

Record it as a marriage in the Office of Vital Statistics. Uphold the laws surrounding marriage. And apply those laws to those who are legally married.

Just like SB377 does.

They are required by Federal law to record information... that's not the State sanctioning or recognizing gay marriage. Sorry. Uphold WHAT laws surrounding marriage? Contract law takes care of that already, it always has. I don't really know what you're talking about. The State of Alabama is not going to sanction marriages. Did I say in that sentence that Alabama isn't going to comply with federal laws? I don't think I did... doesn't look like I said that... but it seems to be what you are hearing for some reason. I think you've gone off the deep end.

Boss, this one is kind of slow and a real bigot. He doesn't want polygamists to get married and be happy. Just the fags.

 

[jillian]

Yeah- hardly worth treating them equally.

Same thing with Jews and Mormons.

Almost insignificant.

Who treated them equally? The Supreme Court nullified the votes and will of the people and took upon themselves the rights of the states and their own citizens to determine in a democratic election the definition and legality of marriage among themselves. It was a huge power grab by the Supreme Court.

Which case are you referring to?

Loving v. Virginia?

Zablocki v. Rehail?

Turner v. Safley?

Or Obergefel?

All cases where the Supreme Court 'nullified the votes and will of the people and took upon themselvs the rights of their states'- i.e. ruled a State law unconstitutional.

If you think this was a 'huge power' grab- you are about 50 years behind the ball.

It is. It overruled the wishes of the people who expressed their wishes in a legal election.

You should read the Constitution some time.

Meanwhile- you are a dollar short and 50 years too late.

Feel free to start a thread about how upset you are that the Supreme Court overturned the rights of Virginia voters to ban mixed race marriages.

I have. Marriage laws are not specifically under the prevue of the federal government. Marriage laws have long been under the prevue of the states themselves. It was purely a power grab and only then by one vote.

again... STATUS is the purview of the state. if that status is given out in discriminatory fashion it is up to the court to rule those regulations unconstitutional.

 

[the_human_being]

I have. Marriage laws are not specifically under the prevue of the federal government. Marriage laws have long been under the prevue of the states themselves. It was purely a power grab and only then by one vote.

So the Supreme Court had no authority to overturn interracial marriage bans?

Does that mean that none of those interracial marriages since the ruling are legally valid?

Not if the ban was voted on by the duly registered voters of a state, they didn't. You are allowing 5 people to overrule the wishes of thousands.

 

[the_human_being]

Who treated them equally? The Supreme Court nullified the votes and will of the people and took upon themselves the rights of the states and their own citizens to determine in a democratic election the definition and legality of marriage among themselves. It was a huge power grab by the Supreme Court.

Which case are you referring to?

Loving v. Virginia?

Zablocki v. Rehail?

Turner v. Safley?

Or Obergefel?

All cases where the Supreme Court 'nullified the votes and will of the people and took upon themselvs the rights of their states'- i.e. ruled a State law unconstitutional.

If you think this was a 'huge power' grab- you are about 50 years behind the ball.

It is. It overruled the wishes of the people who expressed their wishes in a legal election.

You should read the Constitution some time.

Meanwhile- you are a dollar short and 50 years too late.

Feel free to start a thread about how upset you are that the Supreme Court overturned the rights of Virginia voters to ban mixed race marriages.

I have. Marriage laws are not specifically under the prevue of the federal government. Marriage laws have long been under the prevue of the states themselves. It was purely a power grab and only then by one vote.

again... STATUS is the purview of the state. if that status is given out in discriminatory fashion it is up to the court to rule those regulations unconstitutional.

What would you homos do without the big old 5 members of the SCOUS protecting you?

 

[Boss]

again... STATUS is the purview of the state. if that status is given out in discriminatory fashion it is up to the court to rule those regulations unconstitutional.

And what part of the constitution mandates the states must give status at all?

I'll wait while you dig that up for us!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I was responding to your one, inane comment about "sponsoring sexual behavior" I'm not arguing the law with you at this point. That is clearly a dead end. It's apparent that you will not own up to truth about your underlying attitude towards gay people. You cant see the issue in human terms.

And all you've done is make bigoted assumptions about me. Now you seek to imply or infer those assumptions onto me by claiming that I am being dishonest about my true views.

First of all, I don't need to prove anything to you. I don't need to defend myself by telling you how many gay friends I have or what my sentiments are toward homosexuality. You are not my moral judge, you don't get a vote. Second, it doesn't bother me to be attacked with the PC meme about "attitude toward gays" because I am comfortable with my attitude.

Finally, I am the one who sees marriage in human terms, you are the one who advocates the legal terms. I support marriage being defined by the individual and not government. You support marriage as defined by the court to ensure some protection from a perception of inequity under the law.

From MY perspective, you are really no different than some radical religious wacko telling me my 'marriage' can ONLY be to a Christian woman who doesn't wear makeup and attends church on Wednesdays and Sundays and the only "sex" I can have is in the government-approved missionary position. I don't want you telling me these things! Not through government or the court! Understand?

Yes, I know, bigots always try to turn it around and call me a bigot- that is called projection . I am not making any assumptions at all about you. I am reading what you have written, and it is all quite clear. You are indeed being dishonest. You do not even have the integrity to admit to what you are. I would have slightly more respect for you if you would just be truthful instead of constructing an elaborate scheme about how marriage can be abolished while lying about your motives. Yes I see marriage in legal terms because it is the legal rights that ensures human rights. Don’t try to tell me that you care about the legal or the human rights of gays.

You started this thread for the purpose of railing against gay marriage. From the beginning you have been on a crusade to deny gays the right to marry and the benefits that go with it. It is clear that you see gays as flawed and fundamentally different, and underserving of the same rights and benefits as others. Let’s look at some of the highlights from your rants:

From the OP

Is my idea an unconventional strategy? Perhaps, but there are not many options remaining if we hope to get rid of this atrocious SCOTUS ruling. There isn't enough support to adopt a Constitutional Amendment and prohibition amendments don't historically last anyway.

“atrocious SCOTUS ruling” ? And, you would support a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage, which you insist on calling homosexual marriage-if you thought that you could.

Also from the OP

What the giddy left has not come down off their clouds enough to realize is how much vehement opposition is out there, who have no intention of accepting this as a "norm" of society

Vehement opposition? Really? It’s pretty quiet around here. No demonstrations, no riots. Among the defendants in Obergefell, there was not even the motivation to file a motion to rehear the case as the law allows within 25 days. The “vehement opposition is on the part of a small number of homophobic religious right bigots, and the voices in your head.

More from the OP

Heterosexuals, you have to believe, are not supporting it because homosexuality appeals to them personally, it is because there has been a perceived discrimination and inequity presented. This denial of actual discrimination is something that you repeat several times more.

And you sanctimoniously declare :

Now, what they have been denied is same-sex marriage licenses, which curiously didn't exist because marriage is the union of a man and woman.

And ask:

After all, if there is no benefit to marriage from government, what is the point for homosexuals?

(This is repeated again in post 44)This really strikes a nerve and speaks clearly to your pejorative viw of gay people. What is the point for anyone then? Are you suggesting that gay folks only want to marry for those government bennies. Are you saying that they do not marry for a variety of reasons-such as love, companionship, social status-like other people?

In # 84 you said

I reserve the right to raise an issue with it. Anyone who has followed me on this issue knows I've advocated for a Civil Unions solution for years, in order to resolve this issue and get government unattached to the institution of marriage once and for all. No one wanted to listen and now we have this ruling making gay marriage a constitutional right.

Really? How is supporting civil unions over marriage for gays NOT discrimination. Civil unions are not equal to marriage, as I have explained to you. And again here you lament the SCOTUS ruling on marriage. But no, you’re not a bigot.

You claim that there is no law that discriminates on the basis of sexuality, but who the **** do you think all of those state bans on same sex marriage are aimed at, and who is the target of all of this religious discrimination crap ?

You idiotically claimed that it is permissible for adoption agencies to discriminate against gay people, and had nothing to say in your own defense when I called you on it.

You have said Gay marriage is not real marriage/ It is a man and a woman. But no! You’re not a bigot. That is if you think that you can treat others differently, or advocate treating them differently-just because you disapprove of them and see them as inferior- is not bigotry. And same the crap about wanting to abolish state sanctioned marriage for everyone because we know why you want to do that and you believe that straight and traditional people will continue to get married but somehow gays will not. You have admitted as much but no, you not a bigot. We are done here bubba.

 

[Skylar]

They are required by Federal law to record information... that's not the State sanctioning or recognizing gay marriage. Sorry.

Not in the Office of Vital Statistics and not as a legal record of marriage. Yet under SB377......they do both.

You've never actually read SB377. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Uphold WHAT laws surrounding marriage?

Again, look at SB377. It tells you exactly what:

(f) This section shall not affect any other legal aspects of marriage in this state, including, but not limited to, divorce, spousal support, child custody, child support, or common law marriage.

Alabama SB377 | 2015 | Regular Session

All those laws surrounding marriage. You keep arguing your own ignorance, insisting that since you refuse to actually look at SB377, that Alabama is getting out of the marriage business and no longer recognizes any marriage.

Laughing....nope. Your refusal to look at SB377 doesn't change a single letter of the text. It merely demonstrates how little evidence has to do with your argument.

Read it and then try again. The link is above.

 

[jillian]

Which case are you referring to?

Loving v. Virginia?

Zablocki v. Rehail?

Turner v. Safley?

Or Obergefel?

All cases where the Supreme Court 'nullified the votes and will of the people and took upon themselvs the rights of their states'- i.e. ruled a State law unconstitutional.

If you think this was a 'huge power' grab- you are about 50 years behind the ball.

It is. It overruled the wishes of the people who expressed their wishes in a legal election.

You should read the Constitution some time.

Meanwhile- you are a dollar short and 50 years too late.

Feel free to start a thread about how upset you are that the Supreme Court overturned the rights of Virginia voters to ban mixed race marriages.

I have. Marriage laws are not specifically under the prevue of the federal government. Marriage laws have long been under the prevue of the states themselves. It was purely a power grab and only then by one vote.

again... STATUS is the purview of the state. if that status is given out in discriminatory fashion it is up to the court to rule those regulations unconstitutional.

What would you homos do without the big old 5 members of the SCOUS protecting you?

my husband would probably find that assertion amusing.

as for the courts... the supreme court exists to protect normal people from bigots like you. they don't always do it, but they did here, bless their little hearts.

and asking what normal people would do without the courts is like saying what would we do if we lived under another system of government that didn't have courts protecting civil rights... you know, like in Saudi Arabia.... someplace you'd probably be much happier.

 

[the_human_being]

I asked you. The Supreme Court's ruling opened the door for almost any marriage to take place. There is already one case before the court now where one man is trying to marry his two common-law wives. Of course the married filing jointly deduction will need to be looked at again.

Says you. The Obergefell ruling never even mentions polygamy let alone authorizes it.

See, I've actually read the ruling. You never have. You might want to try. Here, I'll even give you the link:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Show me where it authorizes polygamy. Specifically.

It doesn't. It doesn't forbid it either. It opens the door though with its wording.

Forbidding bigamy is what the States do.

The Obergefell ruling never so much as mentions polygamy or bigamy. Let alone authorize them.

So what else have you got?

Well, again for the umpteenth time Sally, it doesn't forbid either.

For the Umpteeth time, Mary....it doesn't even mention it. Let alone authorize it.

Try again.

Look fool, let me try to make it easier for you. We have a law in Pensacola that states one can make a right at a red light after coming to a complete stop and insuring there is no approaching traffic. There are NO signs indicating one may do this. Now, where it is not desirous of the state to allow this turn on red, there must be posted in plain view a sign PROHIBITING the turning on a red signal.

The Supreme Court's ruling does NOT prohibit these marriages.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

again... STATUS is the purview of the state. if that status is given out in discriminatory fashion it is up to the court to rule those regulations unconstitutional.

And what part of the constitution mandates the states must give status at all?

I'll wait while you dig that up for us!

The 14th Amendment Bubba!

 

[Skylar]

again... STATUS is the purview of the state. if that status is given out in discriminatory fashion it is up to the court to rule those regulations unconstitutional.

And what part of the constitution mandates the states must give status at all?

Full Faith and Credit Clause for those married outside of Alabama.

And SB377 still recognizes marriage. Nixing your entire argument.

 

[the_human_being]

It is. It overruled the wishes of the people who expressed their wishes in a legal election.

You should read the Constitution some time.

Meanwhile- you are a dollar short and 50 years too late.

Feel free to start a thread about how upset you are that the Supreme Court overturned the rights of Virginia voters to ban mixed race marriages.

I have. Marriage laws are not specifically under the prevue of the federal government. Marriage laws have long been under the prevue of the states themselves. It was purely a power grab and only then by one vote.

again... STATUS is the purview of the state. if that status is given out in discriminatory fashion it is up to the court to rule those regulations unconstitutional.

What would you homos do without the big old 5 members of the SCOUS protecting you?

my husband would probably find that assertion amusing.

as for the courts... the supreme court exists to protect normal people from bigots like you. they don't always do it, but they did here, bless their little hearts.

and asking what normal people would do without the courts is like saying what would we do if we lived under another system of government that didn't have courts protecting civil rights... you know, like in Saudi Arabia.... someplace you'd probably be much happier.

Most NORMAL people don't need 9 people interfering in their lives.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You should read the Constitution some time.

Meanwhile- you are a dollar short and 50 years too late.

Feel free to start a thread about how upset you are that the Supreme Court overturned the rights of Virginia voters to ban mixed race marriages.

I have. Marriage laws are not specifically under the prevue of the federal government. Marriage laws have long been under the prevue of the states themselves. It was purely a power grab and only then by one vote.

again... STATUS is the purview of the state. if that status is given out in discriminatory fashion it is up to the court to rule those regulations unconstitutional.

What would you homos do without the big old 5 members of the SCOUS protecting you?

my husband would probably find that assertion amusing.

as for the courts... the supreme court exists to protect normal people from bigots like you. they don't always do it, but they did here, bless their little hearts.

and asking what normal people would do without the courts is like saying what would we do if we lived under another system of government that didn't have courts protecting civil rights... you know, like in Saudi Arabia.... someplace you'd probably be much happier.

Most NORMAL people don't need 9 people interfering in their lives.

You look real normal LOL

 

[Skylar]

Says you. The Obergefell ruling never even mentions polygamy let alone authorizes it.

See, I've actually read the ruling. You never have. You might want to try. Here, I'll even give you the link:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Show me where it authorizes polygamy. Specifically.

It doesn't. It doesn't forbid it either. It opens the door though with its wording.

Forbidding bigamy is what the States do.

The Obergefell ruling never so much as mentions polygamy or bigamy. Let alone authorize them.

So what else have you got?

Well, again for the umpteenth time Sally, it doesn't forbid either.

For the Umpteeth time, Mary....it doesn't even mention it. Let alone authorize it.

Try again.

Look fool, let me try to make it easier for you. We have a law in Pensacola that states one can make a right at a red light after coming to a complete stop and insuring there is no approaching traffic. There are NO signs indicating one may do this. Now, where it is not desirous of the state to allow this turn on red, there must be posted in plain view a sign PROHIBITING the turning on a red signal.

The Supreme Court's ruling does NOT prohibit these marriages.

Look, dipshit....let me try this slowly. The States forbid bigamy. The Obergefell ruling never so much as mentions it.

Do you understand the difference between the State and Federal government? Good.

Thus, what relevance does a supreme court ruling have with a State law unless that law violates the constitution?