Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Boss]

rrelevant. As the law is talking about 'sanctioning' anything. SB377 doesn't even mention the word. You do. Citing you. Making it meaningless to our discussion.

And again... the 14th Amendment isn't talking about marrying anything and doesn't mention gays.
(same exact point, same exact logic.)

 

[Skylar]

rrelevant. As the law is talking about 'sanctioning' anything. SB377 doesn't even mention the word. You do. Citing you. Making it meaningless to our discussion.

And again... the 14th Amendment isn't talking about marrying anything and doesn't mention gays.
(same exact point, same exact logic.)

Again, there's nothing about sanctioning in the SB377. And by your own admission, no laws change save how marriage is entered. You can't even explain hypothetically how your 'killing homosexual marriage' babble works under SB377.

You've conceded the entire argument.

While the 14th amendment explicitly cites equal protection of law. One of the bases of the the Obergefell ruling.

See, that's the difference between our respective positions. You've straight up hallucinated your quotes and pseudo-legal gibberish. It doesn't exist in anything you've quoted. Where as equal protection of the law is most definitely part of the 14th amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

See how that works? I can actually quote my source saying what I claim it did. You can't.

 

[Boss]

I'd still like to see your definition of 'sanctioning marriage'. From everything you've posted, it appears to be 'requiring a license to obtain a civil marriage'.

When you obtain a driver's license, what does that mean?
When you obtain a hunting license, what does that mean?
When you obtain a business license, what does that mean?

What does your 3rd grade dictionary say is the meaning of "license?"

Are you objecting to the use of the word "sanctioning" or what? Why is this such a problem for your obtuse ass to understand? A "licensing" denotes an approval, endorsement, sanctioning or permission from the issuing authority. A "contract" denotes a legal instrument between parties, of which the administrator of the contract itself, may or may not be a party to. In this case, the State is not a party. You're not marrying the State and the State is not marrying you.

Now, Montro... I really don't know how much simpler I can explain this to you. If you still can't comprehend the difference between issuing a licence and providing a contract, there's not much more I can do. I've patiently explained this several times now, and you keep coming back with the same befuddlement. I am done explaining it.

I object to your unsubstantiated claim that removing the licensing requirement of marriage means the state no longer sanctions or recognizes marriages. I object to your claim that marriage becomes a contract without a license.

The state of Alabama would still sanction and recognize marriages after the bill as before. The only difference would be in how the marriages are obtained.

Marriage, even with a license, is still a form of contract. So saying that without a license marriage becomes a contract is ridiculous.

You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence other than your own opinion that the issuance of a license is the determining factor in whether the state sanctions something. While getting a license certainly indicates approval by the state, that doesn't preclude the ability to gain state approval through other means. One might obtain a permit or file appropriate paperwork for a state sanctioned activity. What makes you think that a license is the only valid way for something to be state sanctioned?

You can be done explaining if you like. That's pretty easy for you considering your explanations have contained no actual evidence.

No, I've given you a detailed explanation supported by definitions in the dictionary about what the words we're using mean. Your failure to comprehend is not my problem. The fact that you want to continue to spin and manipulate what I've said and "find a way" to contradict me, is also not my problem.

Of course there are other ways for the state to 'sanction' something besides licensing it. But we're not talking about the state changing from one way of sanctioning to another. We're specifically talking about the state changing from sanctioning marriage to administering a contract.

Now... I don't have any problem with this, you don't have any problem with it... it doesn't effect anyone's rights to make this change... all it really does is change the state's association with your action. But for some weird and strange reason unbeknownst to me, you want to argue and fight about something. And you are joined by every pro-gay-marriage advocate out there.

You guys have the right to object to this and explain why you are opposed to it but none of you are. All I keep getting is that you disagree with my understanding of this and I've even offered that you don't have to agree with my understanding. That still doesn't seem to be good enough.

It's almost funny, it's like you are all worked up and pissed off because my side has found a solution we can all live with that doesn't interfere with your rights and lets us live with what has been done. Does it upset you that we're not trying to pass a law that violates your rights or the constitution? Apparently, that is the problem here... you want to fight something but there is really nothing to fight.

 

[Boss]

Again, there's nothing about sanctioning in the SB377.

Again, there is nothing about gay marriage in the 14th Amendment OR the Constitution.

Same argument. Same logic and reasoning.

 

[Boss]

rrelevant. As the law is talking about 'sanctioning' anything. SB377 doesn't even mention the word. You do. Citing you. Making it meaningless to our discussion.

And again... the 14th Amendment isn't talking about marrying anything and doesn't mention gays.
(same exact point, same exact logic.)

Again, there's nothing about sanctioning in the SB377. And by your own admission, no laws change save how marriage is entered. You can't even explain hypothetically how your 'killing homosexual marriage' babble works under SB377.

You've conceded the entire argument.

While the 14th amendment explicitly cites equal protection of law. One of the bases of the the Obergefell ruling.

See, that's the difference between our respective positions. You've straight up hallucinated your quotes and pseudo-legal gibberish. It doesn't exist in anything you've quoted. Where as equal protection of the law is most definitely part of the 14th amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

See how that works? I can actually quote my source saying what I claim it did. You can't.

Then you really don't have any objection to SB377 or similar bills, correct?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

rrelevant. As the law is talking about 'sanctioning' anything. SB377 doesn't even mention the word. You do. Citing you. Making it meaningless to our discussion.

And again... the 14th Amendment isn't talking about marrying anything and doesn't mention gays.
(same exact point, same exact logic.)

You are truly amazing. I would never have thought that anyone could be so impervious to facts and logic. I'm still waiting for you to tell me how the reasons that I gave for the states not being able to abolish state sanctioned marriage are wrong. You're hiding from me , aren't you? You have me on ignore!

 

[Boss]

This after insisting that there would be NO laws accomdinating marriage.

You're going to need to post my quote on this because I never said it. As usual, you are playing word salad, popping in words in place of other words, as you construct your objections. We can't have civil conversations like that.

 

[Pop23]

rrelevant. As the law is talking about 'sanctioning' anything. SB377 doesn't even mention the word. You do. Citing you. Making it meaningless to our discussion.

And again... the 14th Amendment isn't talking about marrying anything and doesn't mention gays.
(same exact point, same exact logic.)

Again, there's nothing about sanctioning in the SB377. And by your own admission, no laws change save how marriage is entered. You can't even explain hypothetically how your 'killing homosexual marriage' babble works under SB377.

You've conceded the entire argument.

While the 14th amendment explicitly cites equal protection of law. One of the bases of the the Obergefell ruling.

See, that's the difference between our respective positions. You've straight up hallucinated your quotes and pseudo-legal gibberish. It doesn't exist in anything you've quoted. Where as equal protection of the law is most definitely part of the 14th amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

See how that works? I can actually quote my source saying what I claim it did. You can't.

Then you really don't have any objection to SB377 or similar bills, correct?

It actually makes a world of sense. Let's make clear what a marriage licence actually is. It's simply a contract between two individuals and should be treated no differently than an LLC or S-Corp.

 

[Skylar]

rrelevant. As the law is talking about 'sanctioning' anything. SB377 doesn't even mention the word. You do. Citing you. Making it meaningless to our discussion.

And again... the 14th Amendment isn't talking about marrying anything and doesn't mention gays.
(same exact point, same exact logic.)

Again, there's nothing about sanctioning in the SB377. And by your own admission, no laws change save how marriage is entered. You can't even explain hypothetically how your 'killing homosexual marriage' babble works under SB377.

You've conceded the entire argument.

While the 14th amendment explicitly cites equal protection of law. One of the bases of the the Obergefell ruling.

See, that's the difference between our respective positions. You've straight up hallucinated your quotes and pseudo-legal gibberish. It doesn't exist in anything you've quoted. Where as equal protection of the law is most definitely part of the 14th amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

See how that works? I can actually quote my source saying what I claim it did. You can't.

Then you really don't have any objection to SB377 or similar bills, correct?

The actual SB377.....or the hapless batshit that you've made up?

The actual SB377, I'm fine with. As converting a license to a contract actually makes same sex marriage easier. As it removes a judge from the equation. All the same marriage laws otherwise apply. And the contract of marriage is a legal record of marriage, just like a marriage license is now.

The silly nonsense you've imagined where Alabama 'no longer recognizes marriage' and there are 'zero laws accommodating marriage', with Alabama 'not recognizing marriages from any state'? That batshit I'd probably take issue with. But since no such law exists nor even proposed, its a moot point.

 

[Skylar]

rrelevant. As the law is talking about 'sanctioning' anything. SB377 doesn't even mention the word. You do. Citing you. Making it meaningless to our discussion.

And again... the 14th Amendment isn't talking about marrying anything and doesn't mention gays.
(same exact point, same exact logic.)

Again, there's nothing about sanctioning in the SB377. And by your own admission, no laws change save how marriage is entered. You can't even explain hypothetically how your 'killing homosexual marriage' babble works under SB377.

You've conceded the entire argument.

While the 14th amendment explicitly cites equal protection of law. One of the bases of the the Obergefell ruling.

See, that's the difference between our respective positions. You've straight up hallucinated your quotes and pseudo-legal gibberish. It doesn't exist in anything you've quoted. Where as equal protection of the law is most definitely part of the 14th amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

See how that works? I can actually quote my source saying what I claim it did. You can't.

Then you really don't have any objection to SB377 or similar bills, correct?

It actually makes a world of sense. Let's make clear what a marriage licence actually is. It's simply a contract between two individuals and should be treated no differently than an LLC or S-Corp.

LLCs and S-Corps aren't held with the Heath Department as a legal record of marriage. Nor do you have to go to court to end them. Nor do they involve child support, divorce, etc. Nor are they limited to two participants. Nor can only enter into one at a time. Nor are marriages limited in name to those that haven't been taken yet. Nor does a marriage require a registering agent. Nor does a marriage require articles of organization, an operating agreement, or any of the other self defined documents that an LLC needs. Nor does a marriage require a unique Employer Indentification number. Nor would marriages require a license under the contract model. Nor does a marriage fall under the Uniform Commercial Code.

But other than that laundry list of fundamental differences, oh, they're treated identically.

 

[Skylar]

This after insisting that there would be NO laws accomdinating marriage.

You're going to need to post my quote on this because I never said it. As usual, you are playing word salad, popping in words in place of other words, as you construct your objections. We can't have civil conversations like that.

Oh, I've posted it repeatedly, once this morning alone. And I'll happily post your silly batshit again:

LOL... And now, there will be ZERO laws to accommodate ZERO kinds of marriage. Subsequently, ZERO discrimination or inequity. --Game Over!

Post 11
Killing Homosexual Marriage | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Deny saying it. It would amuse me.

 

[Montrovant]

I'd still like to see your definition of 'sanctioning marriage'. From everything you've posted, it appears to be 'requiring a license to obtain a civil marriage'.

When you obtain a driver's license, what does that mean?
When you obtain a hunting license, what does that mean?
When you obtain a business license, what does that mean?

What does your 3rd grade dictionary say is the meaning of "license?"

Are you objecting to the use of the word "sanctioning" or what? Why is this such a problem for your obtuse ass to understand? A "licensing" denotes an approval, endorsement, sanctioning or permission from the issuing authority. A "contract" denotes a legal instrument between parties, of which the administrator of the contract itself, may or may not be a party to. In this case, the State is not a party. You're not marrying the State and the State is not marrying you.

Now, Montro... I really don't know how much simpler I can explain this to you. If you still can't comprehend the difference between issuing a licence and providing a contract, there's not much more I can do. I've patiently explained this several times now, and you keep coming back with the same befuddlement. I am done explaining it.

I object to your unsubstantiated claim that removing the licensing requirement of marriage means the state no longer sanctions or recognizes marriages. I object to your claim that marriage becomes a contract without a license.

The state of Alabama would still sanction and recognize marriages after the bill as before. The only difference would be in how the marriages are obtained.

Marriage, even with a license, is still a form of contract. So saying that without a license marriage becomes a contract is ridiculous.

You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence other than your own opinion that the issuance of a license is the determining factor in whether the state sanctions something. While getting a license certainly indicates approval by the state, that doesn't preclude the ability to gain state approval through other means. One might obtain a permit or file appropriate paperwork for a state sanctioned activity. What makes you think that a license is the only valid way for something to be state sanctioned?

You can be done explaining if you like. That's pretty easy for you considering your explanations have contained no actual evidence.

No, I've given you a detailed explanation supported by definitions in the dictionary about what the words we're using mean. Your failure to comprehend is not my problem. The fact that you want to continue to spin and manipulate what I've said and "find a way" to contradict me, is also not my problem.

Of course there are other ways for the state to 'sanction' something besides licensing it. But we're not talking about the state changing from one way of sanctioning to another. We're specifically talking about the state changing from sanctioning marriage to administering a contract.

Now... I don't have any problem with this, you don't have any problem with it... it doesn't effect anyone's rights to make this change... all it really does is change the state's association with your action. But for some weird and strange reason unbeknownst to me, you want to argue and fight about something. And you are joined by every pro-gay-marriage advocate out there.

You guys have the right to object to this and explain why you are opposed to it but none of you are. All I keep getting is that you disagree with my understanding of this and I've even offered that you don't have to agree with my understanding. That still doesn't seem to be good enough.

It's almost funny, it's like you are all worked up and pissed off because my side has found a solution we can all live with that doesn't interfere with your rights and lets us live with what has been done. Does it upset you that we're not trying to pass a law that violates your rights or the constitution? Apparently, that is the problem here... you want to fight something but there is really nothing to fight.

You have not given a detailed explanation supported by definitions in the dictionary. You have yet to provide a single dictionary definition of sanction or license which supports your claim that removing the licensing requirement for marriage means the state will no longer sanction marriage. You have given no evidence that the proposed bill, or any proposed bill, will end the perks and benefits of marriage. You have, in fact, changed your claims along the way to say that some hypothetical bill in the future will end state sanctioning of marriage, yet still seem to want to claim the proposed Alabama bill will do that.

You say we're not talking about the state changing from one way of sanctioning to another. The only change the bill would make is that marriages would be obtained by filing paperwork through an office rather than obtaining a license. Every single other detail of marriage law would remain the same. Every benefit, every perk, every change in legal status of the participants would remain the same. Common law marriages, which are already marriages without a license, would continue to be recognized by the state. The law regarding marriage would remain the same in all ways except the means by which marriage is obtained. Despite this, you continue to say that it means the state will no longer sanction marriage and instead will simply be allowing couples to enter into a contract; this, despite the fact that licensed marriage is itself a form of contract.

What is the detailed explanation and what are the dictionary definition which back your claims, again?

I'm not upset about 'your side' finding a solution. I don't believe 'your side' constitutes anyone but you, however, besides that, it is not your proposed solution I am arguing against. It is your erroneous claims about what the proposed Alabama bill would do, what the difference between obtaining a marriage through a license and through filing with a government office is, what the meaning of the state sanctioning something that I am arguing. I am arguing against you pulling claims out of the air and trying to pretend they are backed by evidence when you refuse to provide one iota of that supposed evidence.

Are you only comfortable with an us vs them mentality? You couch your arguments in those terms almost constantly. 'We' have come up with a solution. 'We're' not trying to pass a law. 'Your side' is opposed. Is there a reason you don't want this to be between two people and instead keep trying to push the discussion into groups and sides?

 

[Pop23]

rrelevant. As the law is talking about 'sanctioning' anything. SB377 doesn't even mention the word. You do. Citing you. Making it meaningless to our discussion.

And again... the 14th Amendment isn't talking about marrying anything and doesn't mention gays.
(same exact point, same exact logic.)

Again, there's nothing about sanctioning in the SB377. And by your own admission, no laws change save how marriage is entered. You can't even explain hypothetically how your 'killing homosexual marriage' babble works under SB377.

You've conceded the entire argument.

While the 14th amendment explicitly cites equal protection of law. One of the bases of the the Obergefell ruling.

See, that's the difference between our respective positions. You've straight up hallucinated your quotes and pseudo-legal gibberish. It doesn't exist in anything you've quoted. Where as equal protection of the law is most definitely part of the 14th amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

See how that works? I can actually quote my source saying what I claim it did. You can't.

Then you really don't have any objection to SB377 or similar bills, correct?

It actually makes a world of sense. Let's make clear what a marriage licence actually is. It's simply a contract between two individuals and should be treated no differently than an LLC or S-Corp.

LLCs and S-Corps aren't held with the Heath Department as a legal record of marriage. Nor do you have to go to court to end them. Nor do they involve child support, divorce, etc. Nor are they limited to two participants. Nor can only enter into one at a time. Nor are marriages limited in name to those that haven't been taken yet. Nor does a marriage require a registering agent. Nor does a marriage require articles of organization, an operating agreement, or any of the other self defined documents that an LLC needs. Nor does a marriage require a unique Employer Indentification number. Nor would marriages require a license under the contract model. Nor does a marriage fall under the Uniform Commercial Code.

But other than that laundry list of fundamental differences, oh, they're treated identically.

Why are they held at the Health a department in the first place?

You don't think LLC's never are in court to force dissolution?

Not all marriages would require child support to begin with

What are you babbling about?

Traditions?

 

[Syriusly]

Great! Then you should have no problem with it whatsoever!

Why all the emotion?

Emotion? I'm just stating the facts.

SB377 doesn't eliminate Alabama's recognition of marriage. A contract of marriage is a legal record of a marriage under SB377. Its still filed with the Department of Health, just like licenses are now. There's no mention of any refusal to acknowledge marriages from other States in SB377. And SB377 changes no marriage laws save the method of entering a marriage.

None of your imaginary nonsense is actually part of the bill. And your imagination isn't 'killing homosexual marriage'.

See how that works?

So typical!! When they run out of equine excrement, they accuse others of being "emotional" and therefor think that they can dismiss the very rational argument that is being made. Really pathetic.

The argument you keep presenting is for equality of homosexual couples. That argument has been made before SCOTUS and a ruling issued. If you want to argue philosophically about it, we can do that but the law is a matter of record, I can't do anything about that. We've moved on to a new argument now, but you seem to be stuck like a broken record on the argument that is settled.

And I have moved on also. But, because you can't deal with the facts and the logic that I presented , you pretend that I said something else. The argument that I am now making is for the equality of all people-straight and gay- who have the ability to marry vs. those who would not if any state refused to sanction marriage. You just can't seem to get that.

What Alabama is essentially going to do is replace marriage licenses with civil union contracts. Something I have personally been advocating for more than a decade. This resolves the problem for everyone involved. Society, churches, individuals all get to define marriage however they please and the government is not a party to that.

Again- you are just making crap up.

Government still is a party to marriage.
Alabama still says what is a legal marriage and what is not.

You still can't legally marry your brother or sibling- unless of course Alabama changes that law also.

 

[Skylar]

And again... the 14th Amendment isn't talking about marrying anything and doesn't mention gays.
(same exact point, same exact logic.)

Again, there's nothing about sanctioning in the SB377. And by your own admission, no laws change save how marriage is entered. You can't even explain hypothetically how your 'killing homosexual marriage' babble works under SB377.

You've conceded the entire argument.

While the 14th amendment explicitly cites equal protection of law. One of the bases of the the Obergefell ruling.

See, that's the difference between our respective positions. You've straight up hallucinated your quotes and pseudo-legal gibberish. It doesn't exist in anything you've quoted. Where as equal protection of the law is most definitely part of the 14th amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

See how that works? I can actually quote my source saying what I claim it did. You can't.

Then you really don't have any objection to SB377 or similar bills, correct?

It actually makes a world of sense. Let's make clear what a marriage licence actually is. It's simply a contract between two individuals and should be treated no differently than an LLC or S-Corp.

LLCs and S-Corps aren't held with the Heath Department as a legal record of marriage. Nor do you have to go to court to end them. Nor do they involve child support, divorce, etc. Nor are they limited to two participants. Nor can only enter into one at a time. Nor are marriages limited in name to those that haven't been taken yet. Nor does a marriage require a registering agent. Nor does a marriage require articles of organization, an operating agreement, or any of the other self defined documents that an LLC needs. Nor does a marriage require a unique Employer Indentification number. Nor would marriages require a license under the contract model. Nor does a marriage fall under the Uniform Commercial Code.

But other than that laundry list of fundamental differences, oh, they're treated identically.

Why are they held at the Health a department in the first place?

Presumably because they are vital records of the type the Heath Department keeps. Births, deaths, marriages, divorces, health statistics and the like. None of which fall under the Uniform Commercial Code.

But hey, its not like we expected you to know what the **** you were talking about.

 

[Pop23]

Emotion? I'm just stating the facts.

SB377 doesn't eliminate Alabama's recognition of marriage. A contract of marriage is a legal record of a marriage under SB377. Its still filed with the Department of Health, just like licenses are now. There's no mention of any refusal to acknowledge marriages from other States in SB377. And SB377 changes no marriage laws save the method of entering a marriage.

None of your imaginary nonsense is actually part of the bill. And your imagination isn't 'killing homosexual marriage'.

See how that works?

So typical!! When they run out of equine excrement, they accuse others of being "emotional" and therefor think that they can dismiss the very rational argument that is being made. Really pathetic.

The argument you keep presenting is for equality of homosexual couples. That argument has been made before SCOTUS and a ruling issued. If you want to argue philosophically about it, we can do that but the law is a matter of record, I can't do anything about that. We've moved on to a new argument now, but you seem to be stuck like a broken record on the argument that is settled.

And I have moved on also. But, because you can't deal with the facts and the logic that I presented , you pretend that I said something else. The argument that I am now making is for the equality of all people-straight and gay- who have the ability to marry vs. those who would not if any state refused to sanction marriage. You just can't seem to get that.

What Alabama is essentially going to do is replace marriage licenses with civil union contracts. Something I have personally been advocating for more than a decade. This resolves the problem for everyone involved. Society, churches, individuals all get to define marriage however they please and the government is not a party to that.

Again- you are just making crap up.

Government still is a party to marriage.
Alabama still says what is a legal marriage and what is not.

You still can't legally marry your brother or sibling- unless of course Alabama changes that law also.

Just a slight change for perspective....


Just a few months so:

You still can't legally marry your same sex lover - unless of course Alabama changes that law also.

See how well your simpleton arguments work when the shoes on the other foot?

 

[Montrovant]

This after insisting that there would be NO laws accomdinating marriage.

You're going to need to post my quote on this because I never said it. As usual, you are playing word salad, popping in words in place of other words, as you construct your objections. We can't have civil conversations like that.

Oh, I've posted it repeatedly, once this morning alone. And I'll happily post your silly batshit again:

LOL... And now, there will be ZERO laws to accommodate ZERO kinds of marriage. Subsequently, ZERO discrimination or inequity. --Game Over!

Post 11
Killing Homosexual Marriage | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Deny saying it. I would amuse me.

How many times between this thread and the 'Easier to Condemn Homosexuality' thread has Boss made a claim about something he said which was then proven to be completely untrue by quoting his own words, I wonder?

 

[Boss]

rrelevant. As the law is talking about 'sanctioning' anything. SB377 doesn't even mention the word. You do. Citing you. Making it meaningless to our discussion.

And again... the 14th Amendment isn't talking about marrying anything and doesn't mention gays.
(same exact point, same exact logic.)

You are truly amazing. I would never have thought that anyone could be so impervious to facts and logic. I'm still waiting for you to tell me how the reasons that I gave for the states not being able to abolish state sanctioned marriage are wrong. You're hiding from me , aren't you? You have me on ignore!

I'm not hiding. I already responded to your post. The State of Alabama is going to abolish state sanctioning of marriage. If you don't think they are, that's fine with me, you are entitled to that opinion. We're not passing the law to piss you off and challenge your rights under the Constitution.

If you believe this law doesn't change anything, that's great... It means you don't object to it. If it satisfies others who are opposed to gay marriage and it doesn't interfere with your rights (which it doesn't) then you should be happy that the opposition has found a way to accept this. But for some odd reason, you can't tolerate that.

I really think this illustrates the level of outright HATE you have for those who oppose gay marriage. It is causing you to be completely irrational and angry about something that you admit, doesn't make any difference. There is nothing in the Constitution about us having to share the same opinions.

 

[Syriusly]

As for State recognition of marriage, we've been through this... very slowly, so you could comprehend. But you want to ignore that and cling to your ignorance. The State issuing a license is not the same as the State making contracts available for interested parties

A contract of marriage....that is recognized as a record of marriage by the State of Alabama and the Department of Health of Alabama. Says who? Says SB377:

The contract shall be filed in the office of the judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal record of the marriage. A copy of the contract shall be transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the Department of Public Health and made a part of its record

Yet you keep ignoring the very bill you claim to be citing. A bill you've never even read. Worse, you're insisting there will be zero laws to accomindate marriage. And of course, you're wrong. Says who? Says SB377 of course!

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

So 'zero laws to accommodate marriage'.....except for every law currently on book, statutory or common law.

Again, you ignore the very bill you claim to cite. And you have nothing save your imagination to back your claims. You're literally making this shit up as you go along. And you have no idea what you're talking about.

Instead, you want to denigrate, attack, insult, ridicule and mock anything that doesn't march in lockstep with your worldview. Even when there is nothing to fight about, you want to pick a fight. You just can't stand it.

That pretty much covers most of your posts.

We all know what Alabama current law is- current law allows couples in Alabama to legally marry- regardless of their race, religion or gender- and recognizes marriage- those performed in Alabama and without.

The proposed law will allow couples in Alabama to legally marry- regardless of their race, religion or gender- and recognizes marriage- those performed in Alabama and without.

I have no problem with the proposed law- I only object to how you falsely characterize what it is.

But since the law itself allows Alabamans to continue to marry equally- I have no objection to it.

Probably is going to **** over Alabamans when they need to provide a marriage license in another state or to insurance companies- but hey- it will **** over Alabamans equally.

 

[Syriusly]

rrelevant. As the law is talking about 'sanctioning' anything. SB377 doesn't even mention the word. You do. Citing you. Making it meaningless to our discussion.

And again... the 14th Amendment isn't talking about marrying anything and doesn't mention gays.
(same exact point, same exact logic.)

You are truly amazing. I would never have thought that anyone could be so impervious to facts and logic. I'm still waiting for you to tell me how the reasons that I gave for the states not being able to abolish state sanctioned marriage are wrong. You're hiding from me , aren't you? You have me on ignore!

I'm not hiding. I already responded to your post. The State of Alabama is going to abolish state sanctioning of marriage..

And that is your opinion.

Nothing in the proposed law says any such thing.

In my opinion your opinion is as wrong about this as with everything else- but IF it makes you sleep better at night believing that- fine with me.