Killing Homosexual Marriage

[JakeStarkey]

Boss and Pop23 are simply whining and pining.

They have nothing, they know they have nothing, and they know they will never have nothing.

Lozers and boozers are what they are.

Imagine what these boards would have been like if they had existed back when Loving v. Virginia passed?

"Well we can just end legal marriage to 'kill mixed race marriage'
'If mixed race couples can marry- well why can't brothers and sisters?"

What they said was, "why can't gays marry then?" So what?

 

[Boss]

Just as before- siblings- and mother and sons- and fathers and daughters still cannot legally marry.

Do you have a problem with that? Do you object to bans on a father marrying his daughter?

Maybe YOU should explain why we can deny a constitutional right to one couple and not another?

I mean, I see you saying that fathers can't marry daughters "cuz it ain't right" but I'm not seeing how that is any different from the argument made against homosexuals marrying. And I don't see you explaining that, other than to say "t'aint normal!"

I asked before, what is the compelling reason for the state to deny a marriage license to two homosexual brothers? Previously, sibling marriage wasn't allowed because of the humanitarian concerns regarding procreation but that was when marriage was male-female and it's not that anymore. So that same concern no longer exists as a reason to exclude certain siblings from marriage. On what basis are you now discriminating?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nah, just keep messing with Boss. This has been explained to him over and over, and his come back is, "Nuh uh," what a dork.

 

[Skylar]

Nothing in the text of the bill even MENTIONS what he's claimed. Which is why he never cites the bill. It has nothing to do with his argument. Its a canvas. A blank space upon which he casts his hopes and desires.

What the bill actually says is utterly irrelevant to his argument, and in most cases, a hindrance to it. As the actual bill repeatedly contracts his imaginary version.

And nothing in the 14th Amendment or Constitution MENTIONS marriage, homosexuals or homosexual marriage. As we can clearly see, that doesn't mean jack shit-- It doesn't have to MENTION it! Why is that fact not penetrating your empty cranium?

Which might have some relevance if 'homosexual' or 'homosexual marriage' was the basis of the Obergefell citation of the 14th amendment. Its not.

Instead, the equal protection of the law clause of the 14th Amendment is one of the bases of the Obergefell ruing. And as I've taught you again and again, the equal protection clause is most definitely part of the 14th amendment.

So you're refuting an argument neither I nor the courts ever made. Also known as a strawman. A fallacy of logic.

The court's basis for citing the 14th is actually part of the 14th amendment. Your basis for citing SB377....exists nowhere. Just the wastelands of your imagination.

See how that works?

As for "my version" ...we have three "versions" floating around in this discussion... We have my actual version, your version and your false perception of my version

Remember the last time you tried accused me of a 'false' perception? Remember the pardons you had to ask of me? I know your position better than you do, and I can quote you.

You've claimed that the Alabama bill eliminates state recognition of marriage. I can quote you. I can also quote SB377 obliterating your argument by citing the contract of marriage being a legal record of marriage in the State.

You've insisted that Alabama isn't required to recognize marriage. I can quote you. And I can also quote the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US constitution that requires every state to recognize the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other State.

And I can cite the Obegefell decision explictily stating that states must recognize marriages from other States. Contradicting you twice.

And backing your claim? You. Citing you. Or as we call it in this thread: jack shit.

You've said that SB377 is about 'sanctioning marriage'. I can quote you. And you're clearly wrong. SB377 never even mentions 'sanctioning marriage'.

You said that under SB377 the State isn't going to have any marriages of any kind. Which is clearly nonsense. As the bill obviously states that a contract of marriage is considered a legal record of marriage. And that none of the marriage laws save the method of entering into marriage are changed.

You claimed that under SB377 that citizens can call whatever they want marriage. And I can quote you. But SB377 sets strict criteria for marriage. Contradicting you.

Deny any of those claims I attribute to you. I know your argument better than you do. And can refute you, with evidence, on every point. You can't back any of those points with anything. As none of your claims are mentioned in SB377...or anywhere else.

. You're hell bent on insisting your false perception of my version is actually my version and it doesn't seem to matter how many times I correct you and school your ass on it, you keep right on lying and insisting your false perception of my version is my version.

I'm hell bent on holding you to your actual claims. And disproving them with better evidence, reasoning and command of the topic.

And I've already done that. Repeatedly. You're squirming now. Whining vaguely about 'misrepresentations' you can neither cite nor articulate. While I can quote you on every one of your claims.

Try again. This time with less whining.

 

[Boss]

Reason, on your part, is to claim that removing licensing is removing state sanction and recognition of marriage.....while providing no evidence or reason why this is the case.

Again... pretend I am a State...

I hand you an official license that says: I hereby officially authorize you to enter into a gay marriage with the same-sex partner of your choice by the power vested to me by the people. This clearly signifies that I am an authority giving you explicit permission to do a particular thing and I am sanctioning that thing by law.

As opposed to:

I hand you a form you can fill out and submit which will establish a private contract between you and another party and serve as a statutory legal apparatus of contract law. This does not make me a party to your reason for contract nor does it mean I condone, sanction or otherwise approve of your reasons for such arrangement.

As I've said, I don't know how to break it down any further. One is clearly state implication in authorizing a specific act, the other is required state administration of statutory and contractual law. If you want to pretend there is no difference, I don't care. It doesn't matter to me if you understand the difference between the two or not. As long as neither of us have a problem with it, what is the beef here? Why is this thread blowing up to such huge proportions over something meaningless?

 

[Skylar]

Nothing in the text of the bill even MENTIONS what he's claimed. Which is why he never cites the bill. It has nothing to do with his argument. Its a canvas. A blank space upon which he casts his hopes and desires.

What the bill actually says is utterly irrelevant to his argument, and in most cases, a hindrance to it. As the actual bill repeatedly contracts his imaginary version.

And nothing in the 14th Amendment or Constitution MENTIONS marriage, homosexuals or homosexual marriage. As we can clearly see, that doesn't mean jack shit-- It doesn't have to MENTION it! Why is that fact not penetrating your empty cranium?

As for "my version" ...we have three "versions" floating around in this discussion... We have my actual version, your version and your false perception of my version. You're hell bent on insisting your false perception of my version is actually my version and it doesn't seem to matter how many times I correct you and school your ass on it, you keep right on lying and insisting your false perception of my version is my version.

Reason no longer seems to matter here... it left the building a long time ago.

Reason, on your part, is to claim that removing licensing is removing state sanction and recognition of marriage.....while providing no evidence or reason why this is the case. In fact, you ignore that Alabama recognizes common law marriage, which is a type of marriage which does not include a license. How can the state recognize common law marriage if not having a licensing requirement means it is not a recognized marriage?

How can the state recognize a contract of marriage as a legal record of marriage if they don't recognize marriage.

Boss' argument is hapless nonsense from beginning to end. And even he can't explain it.

 

[Skylar]

Reason, on your part, is to claim that removing licensing is removing state sanction and recognition of marriage.....while providing no evidence or reason why this is the case.

Again... pretend I am a State...

I hand you an official license that says: I hereby officially authorize you to enter into a gay marriage with the same-sex partner of your choice by the power vested to me by the people. This clearly signifies that I am an authority giving you explicit permission to do a particular thing and I am sanctioning that thing by law.

As opposed to:

I hand you a form you can fill out and submit which will establish a private contract between you and another party and serve as a statutory legal apparatus of contract law.

To the contract of marriage....which is a legal record of marriage. A record submitted to the State Health Department and held by the State Health Department. With no other marriage laws changing.

How can Alabama no longer recognize marriage......when contracts of marriage are legal records of marriage in Alabama under SB377?

This is the part where your argument always breaks. You insist that the State no longer recognizes marriage.....when they obviously do. They've merely changed the way marriage is entered into. This is why you can't find any support for your claims in SB377.....because SB377 does nothing you claim it does.

It doesn't mention 'sanctioning' marriage. Killing your silly argument yet again.

 

[Faun]

Sure it's defined by the individuals you pinhead.

Obtaining a marriage licence only requires that the individuals meet a few criteria, which is not defining the marriage, it simply sets minimum standards.

The individuals get to define what the marriage is to them.

Not the State.

Also, the State does not have to meet my criteria for what constitutes a marriage. It doesn't have to sanction it or recognize it, but it can't control my personal opinion of what makes a marriage.

If I am Jewish, I might believe that the only legitimate marriage for me it to a Jewish woman. The State can't tell me that I can't marry a Jewish woman or that I must marry a Catholic woman. Take it completely out of a religious context... the State can't tell me that I have to marry a brunette woman or a fat woman. If I want to marry a blond skinny woman, that's my own criteria and the state is not involved with that.

But you think the state can tell you, you have to marry a woman if you want to get married.

Not very consistent with what you believe the state can enforce on you, are you?

But you think the state can tell you, you have to marry a woman if you want to get married.

No, I have advocated for civil unions at least the past 10 years, maybe longer. I don't think it's any of the government's business what I define as marriage or what you define as marriage. I also don't think the government should allow any benefit or advantage to those who are married or in a domestic partnership.

Furthermore, I believe the Gay Marriage movement will ultimately result in government removing itself from association with marriage in general and that's a good thing. It's certainly what I have advocated all along. YOU are the one who seems to have a problem here, not me.

I have no problem. Folks who love each other can marry anywhere in the U.S. and their gender is no longer a roadblock.

Unless their siblings, right?

Yes, unless they're siblings. Or any other immediate family members. Or under the age of consent. Or one is not human.

There are restrictions on marriage. None of these have changed because of Obergefell.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Boss and Pop23 are simply whining and pining.

They have nothing, they know they have nothing, and they know they will never have nothing.

Lozers and boozers are what they are.

Imagine what these boards would have been like if they had existed back when Loving v. Virginia passed?

"Well we can just end legal marriage to 'kill mixed race marriage'
'If mixed race couples can marry- well why can't brothers and sisters?"

Yup! Haters have to hate. Is just a matter of the target de jour.

 

[Boss]

Instead, the equal protection of the law clause of the 14th Amendment is one of the bases of the Obergefell ruing. And as I've taught you again and again, the equal protection clause is most definitely part of the 14th amendment.

And as you have already pointed out, the measure in Alabama does not violate equal protection... so why are you vociferously protesting?

To me, it's a very dangerous thing when a political party goes this far off the deep end and can't be reasoned with anymore. When you become trapped in perpetual "protest mode" and simply can't be dealt with rationally, then eventually it culminates in violence. Is that what you want? That's exactly where you are headed if you don't snap out of it and start being reasonable with people.

Now, here has been presented a solution that traditionalists are satisfied with and it doesn't interfere with gay couples rights in any way... but you are hell bent on protesting... proving me wrong... denigrating me and insulting me... continuing to infer awful things about me... lying and manipulating things I've said... arguing just to hear yourself argue over things you admit don't really matter.

I've not said that you aren't entitled to your opinion, but that continues to be your argument against me... I'm somehow not entitled to my opinion on this... you won't allow that. Well, you don't get to decide what my opinions are. If you ever manage to get SCOTUS to say you can, you can expect me to take up arms and declare war on you. I'm not a slave to you or government.

 

[Faun]

Nothing in the text of the bill even MENTIONS what he's claimed. Which is why he never cites the bill. It has nothing to do with his argument. Its a canvas. A blank space upon which he casts his hopes and desires.

What the bill actually says is utterly irrelevant to his argument, and in most cases, a hindrance to it. As the actual bill repeatedly contracts his imaginary version.

And nothing in the 14th Amendment or Constitution MENTIONS marriage, homosexuals or homosexual marriage. As we can clearly see, that doesn't mean jack shit-- It doesn't have to MENTION it! Why is that fact not penetrating your empty cranium?

As for "my version" ...we have three "versions" floating around in this discussion... We have my actual version, your version and your false perception of my version. You're hell bent on insisting your false perception of my version is actually my version and it doesn't seem to matter how many times I correct you and school your ass on it, you keep right on lying and insisting your false perception of my version is my version.

Reason no longer seems to matter here... it left the building a long time ago.

The Constitution also doesn't mention munchkins. That's because it's neither a statute nor the Wizard of Oz.

Unlike the Constitution, statutes, however; must contain all attributes of the desired law. Anything missing is not covered by the statute.

 

[Skylar]

Instead, the equal protection of the law clause of the 14th Amendment is one of the bases of the Obergefell ruing. And as I've taught you again and again, the equal protection clause is most definitely part of the 14th amendment.

And as you have already pointed out, the measure in Alabama does not violate equal protection... so why are you vociferously protesting?

Strawman. I'm not protesting SB377. As you well know, as you've quoted me saying as much.

I'm objecting to your mischaracertizations of it. SB377 doesn't eliminate marriage in Alabama, nor does it eliminate Alabama's recognition of marriage. It has nothing to do with 'sanctioning' anything. It doesn't even mention 'sanctioning'.

And when I challenge you to show us ANY of your claims in SB377.......you start babbling about the 14th amendment. The basis that the courts cited the 14th amendment under actually exists in the 14th amendment: equal protection of the law.

On the other hand, none of your batshit is anywhere in SB377. Nor have you ever been able to quote anything supporting your argument about 'killing homosexual marriage' in SB377.

You made it all up.

To me, it's a very dangerous thing when a political party goes this far off the deep end and can't be reasoned with anymore. When you become trapped in perpetual "protest mode" and simply can't be dealt with rationally, then eventually it culminates in violence. Is that what you want? That's exactly where you are headed if you don't snap out of it and start being reasonable with people.

Or....I've actually read SB377 and recognize that your claims have nothing to do with it. As you do as well, as you can't cite any portion of the bill that supports your claims. And have ignored any citation of it.

The harder you try to change the subject, the more I know I've got you in the corner.

Now, here has been presented a solution that traditionalists are satisfied with and it doesn't interfere with gay couples rights in any way... but you are hell bent on protesting... proving me wrong... denigrating me and insulting me... continuing to infer awful things about me... lying and manipulating things I've said... arguing just to hear yourself argue over things you admit don't really matter.

Here's what I've attributed to you. Highlight those that are 'lies and manipulation'.

1. You've claimed that the Alabama bill eliminates state recognition of marriage.
2. You've insisted that Alabama isn't required to recognize marriage.
3. You've said that SB377 is about 'sanctioning marriage'
4. You said that under SB377 the State isn't going to have any marriages of any kind.
   
5. You claimed that under SB377 that citizens can call whatever they want marriage

You don't deny any of these claims. As you know I can quote you making them all. And I've already refuted every single one of your batshit allegations.

You keep running. I'll keep laughing. Deal?

 

[Syriusly]

Just as before- siblings- and mother and sons- and fathers and daughters still cannot legally marry.

Do you have a problem with that? Do you object to bans on a father marrying his daughter?

Maybe YOU should explain why we can deny a constitutional right to one couple and not another?

I mean, I see you saying that fathers can't marry daughters "cuz it ain't right" but I'm not seeing how that is any different from the argument made against homosexuals marrying. And I don't see you explaining that, other than to say "t'aint normal!"

I asked before, what is the compelling reason for the state to deny a marriage license to two homosexual brothers? Previously, sibling marriage wasn't allowed because of the humanitarian concerns regarding procreation but that was when marriage was male-female and it's not that anymore. So that same concern no longer exists as a reason to exclude certain siblings from marriage. On what basis are you now discriminating?

There are several problems with you post.

• You keep saying that I am saying "I see you saying that fathers can't marry daughters "cuz it ain't right" - but that of course is to be charitable- false. I haven't said that at all.
  
• I have explained repeatedly why a constitutional right can be denied to one couple and not to another- for the same reason a state can deny the right to legally own a gun to one person- but not another. Why should I explain it again- when you will ignore it again?
• But I will anyway- the State can deny a right when there is a compelling benefit- a legitimate interest- to the State- quoting from Wisconsin again:.

but if the state is going to deprive an entire class of citizens of a right as fundamental as
marriage, then it must do more than say “this is the way it has always been” or “we’re not
ready yet.” At the very least it must make a showing that the deprivation furthers a
legitimate interest separate from a wish to maintain the status quo
...
Accordingly, this interest, like all the others asserted by defendants and amici, does not provide a legitimate
basis for discriminating against same-sex couples.

• And what is that 'compelling state interest'? Well an interest most people can figure out- but not you?
  
• Why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son cannot marry his infertile mother?

Really- why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son cannot marry his infertile mother?

IF you can't think of one- why do you demand everyone else tell you why?

 

[Skylar]

Nothing in the text of the bill even MENTIONS what he's claimed. Which is why he never cites the bill. It has nothing to do with his argument. Its a canvas. A blank space upon which he casts his hopes and desires.

What the bill actually says is utterly irrelevant to his argument, and in most cases, a hindrance to it. As the actual bill repeatedly contracts his imaginary version.

And nothing in the 14th Amendment or Constitution MENTIONS marriage, homosexuals or homosexual marriage. As we can clearly see, that doesn't mean jack shit-- It doesn't have to MENTION it! Why is that fact not penetrating your empty cranium?

As for "my version" ...we have three "versions" floating around in this discussion... We have my actual version, your version and your false perception of my version. You're hell bent on insisting your false perception of my version is actually my version and it doesn't seem to matter how many times I correct you and school your ass on it, you keep right on lying and insisting your false perception of my version is my version.

Reason no longer seems to matter here... it left the building a long time ago.

The Constitution also doesn't mention munchkins. That's because it's neither a statute nor the Wizard of Oz.

Unlike the Constitution, statutes, however; must contain all attributes of the desired law. Anything missing is not covered by the statute.

The concept of the 9th amendment confuses Boss. He keeps arguing that if a right isn't in the constitution, it doesn't exist.

Alas, the constitution isn't an exhaustive list of rights. Nor was ever meant to be. A point the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear.

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

9th Amendment of the United States Constitution

And 'poof'....another piece of Bossy Batshit collapses in a little brown puddle.

 

[Boss]

Reason, on your part, is to claim that removing licensing is removing state sanction and recognition of marriage.....while providing no evidence or reason why this is the case.

Again... pretend I am a State...

I hand you an official license that says: I hereby officially authorize you to enter into a gay marriage with the same-sex partner of your choice by the power vested to me by the people. This clearly signifies that I am an authority giving you explicit permission to do a particular thing and I am sanctioning that thing by law.

As opposed to:

I hand you a form you can fill out and submit which will establish a private contract between you and another party and serve as a statutory legal apparatus of contract law.

To the contract of marriage....which is a legal record of marriage. A record submitted to the State Health Department and held by the State Health Department. With no other marriage laws changing.

How can Alabama no longer recognize marriage......when contracts of marriage are legal records of marriage in Alabama under SB377?

This is the part where your argument always breaks. You insist that the State no longer recognizes marriage.....when they obviously do. They've merely changed the way marriage is entered into. This is why you can't find any support for your claims in SB377.....because SB377 does nothing you claim it does.

It doesn't mention 'sanctioning' marriage. Killing your silly argument yet again.

Then you should have absolutely no opposition to this and it wouldn't even concern you enough to comment. If you were compelled to take ANY position it should be that of absolute support for this... how can you possibly condone a state issuing a license for a constitutional right? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Again, I think you've done an outstanding job of pointing out how nothing in the Alabama law will change the constitutional rights of any couple. We both agree on that! Now we are going to pass this bill in the next session and I think other states will follow.

 

[Faun]

Just as before- siblings- and mother and sons- and fathers and daughters still cannot legally marry.

Do you have a problem with that? Do you object to bans on a father marrying his daughter?

Maybe YOU should explain why we can deny a constitutional right to one couple and not another?

I mean, I see you saying that fathers can't marry daughters "cuz it ain't right" but I'm not seeing how that is any different from the argument made against homosexuals marrying. And I don't see you explaining that, other than to say "t'aint normal!"

I asked before, what is the compelling reason for the state to deny a marriage license to two homosexual brothers? Previously, sibling marriage wasn't allowed because of the humanitarian concerns regarding procreation but that was when marriage was male-female and it's not that anymore. So that same concern no longer exists as a reason to exclude certain siblings from marriage. On what basis are you now discriminating?

For the same reasons a father couldn't marry his daughter before Obergefell even though marriage between a man and a woman was allowed.

You really suck at this.

 

[Syriusly]

Reason, on your part, is to claim that removing licensing is removing state sanction and recognition of marriage.....while providing no evidence or reason why this is the case.

Again... pretend I am a State...

I hand you an official license that says: I hereby officially authorize you to enter into a gay marriage with the same-sex partner of your choice by the power vested to me by the people. This clearly signifies that I am an authority giving you explicit permission to do a particular thing and I am sanctioning that thing by law.

As opposed to:

I hand you a form you can fill out and submit which will establish a private contract between you and another party and serve as a statutory legal apparatus of contract law. This does not make me a party to your reason for contract nor does it mean I condone, sanction or otherwise approve of your reasons for such arrangement.

As I've said, I don't know how to break it down any further. One is clearly state implication in authorizing a specific act, the other is required state administration of statutory and contractual law. If you want to pretend there is no difference, I don't care. It doesn't matter to me if you understand the difference between the two or not. As long as neither of us have a problem with it, what is the beef here? Why is this thread blowing up to such huge proportions over something meaningless?

Yet here you go writing three paragraphs demanding that we understand your opinion.

Clearly you do care every bit as much as we do.

You are the one who started the thread- you were the one who insisted on arguing over 'sanction and recognition'.

Stop arguing the points and no one will argue back.

 

[Montrovant]

Reason, on your part, is to claim that removing licensing is removing state sanction and recognition of marriage.....while providing no evidence or reason why this is the case.

Again... pretend I am a State...

I hand you an official license that says: I hereby officially authorize you to enter into a gay marriage with the same-sex partner of your choice by the power vested to me by the people. This clearly signifies that I am an authority giving you explicit permission to do a particular thing and I am sanctioning that thing by law.

As opposed to:

I hand you a form you can fill out and submit which will establish a private contract between you and another party and serve as a statutory legal apparatus of contract law. This does not make me a party to your reason for contract nor does it mean I condone, sanction or otherwise approve of your reasons for such arrangement.

As I've said, I don't know how to break it down any further. One is clearly state implication in authorizing a specific act, the other is required state administration of statutory and contractual law. If you want to pretend there is no difference, I don't care. It doesn't matter to me if you understand the difference between the two or not. As long as neither of us have a problem with it, what is the beef here? Why is this thread blowing up to such huge proportions over something meaningless?

You keep ignoring the fact that Alabama recognizes common law marriages and those are marriages without license. You keep ignoring that licensed marriage is a form of contract law.

If the form you have to fill out says that the state of Alabama will grant you a marriage, does that still mean the state does not recognize your marriage? The proposed bill stated repeatedly that marriage would remain the same under the law, just that the method of entering into that legal relationship would change.

I don't get why you put so much stock in a license with regards to state recognition of marriage. I also don't get why you seem to think that marriages obtained through a license are not a form of contractual law.

Let me ask you this : do you think that anyone can write up a contract and legally become the immediate family member of another person? Not through marriage, not through adoption, instead through a separate contract. Do you think that Alabama would recognize those unmarried, not adopted people as immediate family members? I believe there are certain aspects to marriage unique in contract law, but perhaps I am wrong.

Most everything discussed here could be construed as meaningless. Certainly predictions of future laws which have no current precedents or backing might fall into that category.

 

[Boss]

Just as before- siblings- and mother and sons- and fathers and daughters still cannot legally marry.

Do you have a problem with that? Do you object to bans on a father marrying his daughter?

Maybe YOU should explain why we can deny a constitutional right to one couple and not another?

I mean, I see you saying that fathers can't marry daughters "cuz it ain't right" but I'm not seeing how that is any different from the argument made against homosexuals marrying. And I don't see you explaining that, other than to say "t'aint normal!"

I asked before, what is the compelling reason for the state to deny a marriage license to two homosexual brothers? Previously, sibling marriage wasn't allowed because of the humanitarian concerns regarding procreation but that was when marriage was male-female and it's not that anymore. So that same concern no longer exists as a reason to exclude certain siblings from marriage. On what basis are you now discriminating?

There are several problems with you post.

• You keep saying that I am saying "I see you saying that fathers can't marry daughters "cuz it ain't right" - but that of course is to be charitable- false. I haven't said that at all.
  
• I have explained repeatedly why a constitutional right can be denied to one couple and not to another- for the same reason a state can deny the right to legally own a gun to one person- but not another. Why should I explain it again- when you will ignore it again?
• But I will anyway- the State can deny a right when there is a compelling benefit- a legitimate interest- to the State- quoting from Wisconsin again:.

but if the state is going to deprive an entire class of citizens of a right as fundamental as
marriage, then it must do more than say “this is the way it has always been” or “we’re not
ready yet.” At the very least it must make a showing that the deprivation furthers a
legitimate interest separate from a wish to maintain the status quo
...
Accordingly, this interest, like all the others asserted by defendants and amici, does not provide a legitimate
basis for discriminating against same-sex couples.

• And what is that 'compelling state interest'? Well an interest most people can figure out- but not you?
  
• Why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son cannot marry his infertile mother?

Really- why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son cannot marry his infertile mother?

IF you can't think of one- why do you demand everyone else tell you why?

LMFAooo... A-GAIN.... you tear off on a long-winded rant that simply dodges the question!

"Most people can figure out why it's wrong" is NOT answering the question!

In fact, it is the very SAME ARGUMENT made by those who once opposed gay marriages.

SUDDENLY... it seems to be a valid argument!

 

[Skylar]

Reason, on your part, is to claim that removing licensing is removing state sanction and recognition of marriage.....while providing no evidence or reason why this is the case.

Again... pretend I am a State...

I hand you an official license that says: I hereby officially authorize you to enter into a gay marriage with the same-sex partner of your choice by the power vested to me by the people. This clearly signifies that I am an authority giving you explicit permission to do a particular thing and I am sanctioning that thing by law.

As opposed to:

I hand you a form you can fill out and submit which will establish a private contract between you and another party and serve as a statutory legal apparatus of contract law.

To the contract of marriage....which is a legal record of marriage. A record submitted to the State Health Department and held by the State Health Department. With no other marriage laws changing.

How can Alabama no longer recognize marriage......when contracts of marriage are legal records of marriage in Alabama under SB377?

This is the part where your argument always breaks. You insist that the State no longer recognizes marriage.....when they obviously do. They've merely changed the way marriage is entered into. This is why you can't find any support for your claims in SB377.....because SB377 does nothing you claim it does.

It doesn't mention 'sanctioning' marriage. Killing your silly argument yet again.

Then you should have absolutely no opposition to this and it wouldn't even concern you enough to comment.

Strawman. For the 7th time...its not SB377 that I object to. As you well know, as you've quoted me saying as much.

Its your characterizations of SB377 that I object to:

1. You've claimed that the Alabama bill eliminates state recognition of marriage.
2. You've insisted that Alabama isn't required to recognize marriage.
3. You've said that SB377 is about 'sanctioning marriage'
4. You said that under SB377 the State isn't going to have any marriages of any kind.
   
5. You claimed that under SB377 that citizens can call whatever they want marriage

None of your claims are true. All of which I can quote you saying. All of which I've already disproven with citations from the actual bill. Which is why you won't discuss any of them any more.

The harder you try to change the topic....the more I know I've got you in the corner.