Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige

[Silhouette]

As to the lingering problem Maddow mentioned that is the already "married" couples with, I guess legitimate licenses even though the interim law was that state's get to decide and always have... Perhaps the Court will punt that issue back to each individual state to vote on or legislate a fix for. However, that won't supersede any language that ultimately declares that the "yes or no" question is and always was up to each state's electorate. States would be well advised in-advance to have some type of ballot measure that says "this law will preserve those marriages but permit none further". If appealed, the Supreme Court would simply cite its 2015 Decision reiterating that it is up to the individual states.

That ruling cannot be correct. Marriage is a purely private Act and natural right. It is Only commuted Public, for full faith and credit purposes. There can be no collusion or conspiracy to subvert our supreme law of the land, merely for sake of the subjective value of Individual morals.

Oh, if only there was no Windsor 2013 and the 56 times in it that was reiterated that marriage is the jurisdiction of the states.

And if only children weren't intimately involved in the marriage contract...then it would be a perfectly sterile legal world as you are trying to portray.

They have a right to a mother and a father. They have an innate right. And they have to come first in consideration because they cannot vote to affect their destiny.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, if only there was no Windsor 2013 and the 56 times in it that was reiterated that marriage is the jurisdiction of the states.

...subject to constitutional guarantees. And every single challenge to state gay marriage bans being heard by the USSC is on the basis of violation of these very guarantees.

Again, ignoring it won't change it.

And if only children weren't intimately involved in the marriage contract...then it would be a perfectly sterile legal world as you are trying to portray.

Alas, the courts have taken a side on the issue of children and gay marriage. Finding that these children are harmed when their same sex parents are denied access to marriage.

" And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.....

.....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security. "

Windsor v. US.

And while you can choose to ignore the court's findings, you can't make the court ignore them.

They have a right to a mother and a father. They have an innate right. And they have to come first in consideration because they cannot vote to affect their destiny.

Says you, citing yourself. Which is meaningless.

Worse, even the premise of your argument is nonsense. As gays and lesbians are having children already. Denying them the right to marry doesn't provide their children with two gender households. It merely guarantees that these children won't have married parents.

Which eexplicitly harms the children, as the USSC made ludicrously clear above.

 

[Geaux4it]

I didn't "defend" anything, I AM AGAINST GOVERNMENT MARRIAGE.

That doesn't mean I can't read. I find it far scarier to ignore the Constitution and get my way on a particular issue than to get my way on a particular issue and set yet another precedent that the Constitutions says whatever we want it to. It doesn't.

This is 'RW bigot posing as a Libertarian' argument. ...I don't want gays to have the right to marry because I don't believe in government marriage..

Well, government marriage is never going away. Period. The bigot gets to deny gays their rights while hiding behind some fantasy scenario.

Except he's full of shit. He defends DOMA which was an unconstitutional power grab on the issue of marriage and gave the federal government power to decide who's married and who's not. True libertarians and conservatives believe that issue belongs to the state. He probably also supports the 1862 Morrill Anti Bigomy Act.

The issue can't belong to the states because it's an equal rights issue and there can only be one right answer on an equal rights issue.

If the Court managed to decide that it's not an equal rights issue - if by some madness they decided that gays are not entitled to equal marriage rights,

then the states could do with it what they wished.

You missed the point. It won't be restated.

The Supreme Court has the right to decide whether state laws are violating constitutionally protected rights.

maybe... maybe not

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

Because that worked so well for them on both interracial marriage and segregation.

Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay doesn't. Fail.

Being gay doesn't change who you can marry?

kaz doesn't understand that the ban on interracial marriage was the same as a ban on same sex marriage:

1. with an interracial marriage ban, everyone has the right to marry someone as long as that person is of the opposite sex and the same color.

2. with a same sex marriage ban, everyone gets to marry someone of the opposite sex.


He is misapplying his own concocted logic. By his argument, banning interracial marriage should be constitutional,

because everyone still has the same rights.

Loving Vs. Virginia rejected the law because it was applied in favor of one race over another, not because of the reason you cite. So your whole argument turns to shit.

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, the union between man and man,,, woman and woman,,, or man with a chicken,,,fail to meet muster under definition of what common sense people call marriage.

-Geaux

 

[Skylar]

Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay doesn't. Fail.

Being gay doesn't change who you can marry?

kaz doesn't understand that the ban on interracial marriage was the same as a ban on same sex marriage:

1. with an interracial marriage ban, everyone has the right to marry someone as long as that person is of the opposite sex and the same color.

2. with a same sex marriage ban, everyone gets to marry someone of the opposite sex.


He is misapplying his own concocted logic. By his argument, banning interracial marriage should be constitutional,

because everyone still has the same rights.

Loving Vs. Virginia rejected the law because it was applied in favor of one race over another, not because of the reason you cite. So your whole argument turns to shit.

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, the union between man and man,,, woman and woman,,, or man with a chicken,,,fail to meet muster under definition of what common sense people call marriage.

-Geaux

With a solid 55% of the population supporting gay marriage, the 'common sense' definition may be different than you think it is.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay doesn't. Fail.

Being gay doesn't change who you can marry?

kaz doesn't understand that the ban on interracial marriage was the same as a ban on same sex marriage:

1. with an interracial marriage ban, everyone has the right to marry someone as long as that person is of the opposite sex and the same color.

2. with a same sex marriage ban, everyone gets to marry someone of the opposite sex.


He is misapplying his own concocted logic. By his argument, banning interracial marriage should be constitutional,

because everyone still has the same rights.

Loving Vs. Virginia rejected the law because it was applied in favor of one race over another, not because of the reason you cite. So your whole argument turns to shit.

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, the union between man and man,,, woman and woman,,, or man with a chicken,,,fail to meet muster under definition of what common sense people call marriage.

-Geaux

Yes, it is discrimination.

Marriage is a contract of commitment between two equal, consenting adult partners recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts; to deny them access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

That some might perceive marriage as between only a man and woman is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, as neither history nor tradition justify discriminating against a given class of persons.

 

[danielpalos]

As to the lingering problem Maddow mentioned that is the already "married" couples with, I guess legitimate licenses even though the interim law was that state's get to decide and always have... Perhaps the Court will punt that issue back to each individual state to vote on or legislate a fix for. However, that won't supersede any language that ultimately declares that the "yes or no" question is and always was up to each state's electorate. States would be well advised in-advance to have some type of ballot measure that says "this law will preserve those marriages but permit none further". If appealed, the Supreme Court would simply cite its 2015 Decision reiterating that it is up to the individual states.

That ruling cannot be correct. Marriage is a purely private Act and natural right. It is Only commuted Public, for full faith and credit purposes. There can be no collusion or conspiracy to subvert our supreme law of the land, merely for sake of the subjective value of Individual morals.

Oh, if only there was no Windsor 2013 and the 56 times in it that was reiterated that marriage is the jurisdiction of the states.

And if only children weren't intimately involved in the marriage contract...then it would be a perfectly sterile legal world as you are trying to portray.

They have a right to a mother and a father. They have an innate right. And they have to come first in consideration because they cannot vote to affect their destiny.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws

 

[Skylar]

As to the lingering problem Maddow mentioned that is the already "married" couples with, I guess legitimate licenses even though the interim law was that state's get to decide and always have... Perhaps the Court will punt that issue back to each individual state to vote on or legislate a fix for. However, that won't supersede any language that ultimately declares that the "yes or no" question is and always was up to each state's electorate. States would be well advised in-advance to have some type of ballot measure that says "this law will preserve those marriages but permit none further". If appealed, the Supreme Court would simply cite its 2015 Decision reiterating that it is up to the individual states.

That ruling cannot be correct. Marriage is a purely private Act and natural right. It is Only commuted Public, for full faith and credit purposes. There can be no collusion or conspiracy to subvert our supreme law of the land, merely for sake of the subjective value of Individual morals.

Oh, if only there was no Windsor 2013 and the 56 times in it that was reiterated that marriage is the jurisdiction of the states.

And if only children weren't intimately involved in the marriage contract...then it would be a perfectly sterile legal world as you are trying to portray.

They have a right to a mother and a father. They have an innate right. And they have to come first in consideration because they cannot vote to affect their destiny.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws

Which means what in reference to this conversation?

Specifically.

I'm starting to get the impression that you're trolling this thread. As your posts are too uselessly vague and too consistently so to be mere chance. Its like you're some sort of graduate student with a program that spits out a random political phrase. And you're using it to see how long you can keep the conversation going.

 

[The Rabbi]

Being gay doesn't change who you can marry?

kaz doesn't understand that the ban on interracial marriage was the same as a ban on same sex marriage:

1. with an interracial marriage ban, everyone has the right to marry someone as long as that person is of the opposite sex and the same color.

2. with a same sex marriage ban, everyone gets to marry someone of the opposite sex.


He is misapplying his own concocted logic. By his argument, banning interracial marriage should be constitutional,

because everyone still has the same rights.

Loving Vs. Virginia rejected the law because it was applied in favor of one race over another, not because of the reason you cite. So your whole argument turns to shit.

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, the union between man and man,,, woman and woman,,, or man with a chicken,,,fail to meet muster under definition of what common sense people call marriage.

-Geaux

Yes, it is discrimination.

Marriage is a contract of commitment between two equal, consenting adult partners recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts; to deny them access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

That some might perceive marriage as between only a man and woman is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, as neither history nor tradition justify discriminating against a given class of persons.

And the same arguments can and will be made for incest, polygamy, who knows what.

 

[Skylar]

kaz doesn't understand that the ban on interracial marriage was the same as a ban on same sex marriage:

1. with an interracial marriage ban, everyone has the right to marry someone as long as that person is of the opposite sex and the same color.

2. with a same sex marriage ban, everyone gets to marry someone of the opposite sex.


He is misapplying his own concocted logic. By his argument, banning interracial marriage should be constitutional,

because everyone still has the same rights.

Loving Vs. Virginia rejected the law because it was applied in favor of one race over another, not because of the reason you cite. So your whole argument turns to shit.

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, the union between man and man,,, woman and woman,,, or man with a chicken,,,fail to meet muster under definition of what common sense people call marriage.

-Geaux

Yes, it is discrimination.

Marriage is a contract of commitment between two equal, consenting adult partners recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts; to deny them access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

That some might perceive marriage as between only a man and woman is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, as neither history nor tradition justify discriminating against a given class of persons.

And the same arguments can and will be made for incest, polygamy, who knows what.

When the USSC is hearing a case for polgomy or incest, lets discuss it.

In the meantime, the USSC is hearing a case for gay marriage on the basis that gay marriage bans violate rights.

The odds of the courts ruling in favor of gay marriage are quite high. The odds of the courts ruling in favor of States without gay marriage being forced to recognize the validity of States with gay marriage is pretty much 100%. Either way, gay marriage will be recognized by all 50 States by June.

 

[Syriusly]

As to the lingering problem Maddow mentioned that is the already "married" couples with, I guess legitimate licenses even though the interim law was that state's get to decide and always have... Perhaps the Court will punt that issue back to each individual state to vote on or legislate a fix for. However, that won't supersede any language that ultimately declares that the "yes or no" question is and always was up to each state's electorate. States would be well advised in-advance to have some type of ballot measure that says "this law will preserve those marriages but permit none further". If appealed, the Supreme Court would simply cite its 2015 Decision reiterating that it is up to the individual states.

That ruling cannot be correct. Marriage is a purely private Act and natural right. It is Only commuted Public, for full faith and credit purposes. There can be no collusion or conspiracy to subvert our supreme law of the land, merely for sake of the subjective value of Individual morals.

Oh, if only there was no Windsor 2013 and the 56 times in it that was reiterated that marriage is the jurisdiction of the states.

And if only children weren't intimately involved in the marriage contract...then it would be a perfectly sterile legal world as you are trying to portray.

They have a right to a mother and a father. They have an innate right. And they have to come first in consideration because they cannot vote to affect their destiny.

If only you weren't delusional and had any clue as reality.

 

[Syriusly]

kaz doesn't understand that the ban on interracial marriage was the same as a ban on same sex marriage:

1. with an interracial marriage ban, everyone has the right to marry someone as long as that person is of the opposite sex and the same color.

2. with a same sex marriage ban, everyone gets to marry someone of the opposite sex.


He is misapplying his own concocted logic. By his argument, banning interracial marriage should be constitutional,

because everyone still has the same rights.

Loving Vs. Virginia rejected the law because it was applied in favor of one race over another, not because of the reason you cite. So your whole argument turns to shit.

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, the union between man and man,,, woman and woman,,, or man with a chicken,,,fail to meet muster under definition of what common sense people call marriage.

-Geaux

Yes, it is discrimination.

Marriage is a contract of commitment between two equal, consenting adult partners recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts; to deny them access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

That some might perceive marriage as between only a man and woman is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, as neither history nor tradition justify discriminating against a given class of persons.

And the same arguments can and will be made for incest, polygamy, who knows what.

The same thing was being said when Loving v. Virginia was ruled on.

Such is the slippery slope argument.

 

[Syriusly]

Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay doesn't. Fail.

Being gay doesn't change who you can marry?

kaz doesn't understand that the ban on interracial marriage was the same as a ban on same sex marriage:

1. with an interracial marriage ban, everyone has the right to marry someone as long as that person is of the opposite sex and the same color.

2. with a same sex marriage ban, everyone gets to marry someone of the opposite sex.


He is misapplying his own concocted logic. By his argument, banning interracial marriage should be constitutional,

because everyone still has the same rights.

Loving Vs. Virginia rejected the law because it was applied in favor of one race over another, not because of the reason you cite. So your whole argument turns to shit.

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. /QUOTE]

And in some 30 odd states, and in multiple countries marriage is also between a man and a man or a woman and woman.

 

[Silhouette]

What does the slippery slope argument have to do with this.. Not saying it too isn't valid, but this is an issue about children's civil rights...

As to the lingering problem Maddow mentioned that is the already "married" couples with, I guess legitimate licenses even though the interim law was that state's get to decide and always have... Perhaps the Court will punt that issue back to each individual state to vote on or legislate a fix for. However, that won't supersede any language that ultimately declares that the "yes or no" question is and always was up to each state's electorate. States would be well advised in-advance to have some type of ballot measure that says "this law will preserve those marriages but permit none further". If appealed, the Supreme Court would simply cite its 2015 Decision reiterating that it is up to the individual states.

That ruling cannot be correct. Marriage is a purely private Act and natural right. It is Only commuted Public, for full faith and credit purposes. There can be no collusion or conspiracy to subvert our supreme law of the land, merely for sake of the subjective value of Individual morals.

Oh, if only there was no Windsor 2013 and the 56 times in it that was reiterated that marriage is the jurisdiction of the states.
And if only children weren't intimately involved in the marriage contract...then it would be a perfectly sterile legal world as you are trying to portray.
They have a right to a mother and a father. They have an innate right. And they have to come first in consideration because they cannot vote to affect their destiny.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, if only there was no Windsor 2013 and the 56 times in it that was reiterated that marriage is the jurisdiction of the states.

...subject to constitutional guarantees. And every single challenge to state gay marriage bans being heard by the USSC is on the basis of violation of these very guarantees.

Again, ignoring it won't change it.

And if only children weren't intimately involved in the marriage contract...then it would be a perfectly sterile legal world as you are trying to portray.

Alas, the courts have taken a side on the issue of children and gay marriage. Finding that these children are harmed when their same sex parents are denied access to marriage.

" And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.....

.....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security. "

Windsor v. US.

And while you can choose to ignore the court's findings, you can't make the court ignore them.

They have a right to a mother and a father. They have an innate right. And they have to come first in consideration because they cannot vote to affect their destiny.

Says you, citing yourself. Which is meaningless.

Worse, even the premise of your argument is nonsense. As gays and lesbians are having children already. Denying them the right to marry doesn't provide their children with two gender households. It merely guarantees that these children won't have married parents.

Which eexplicitly harms the children, as the USSC made ludicrously clear above.

 

[Geaux4it]

Loving Vs. Virginia rejected the law because it was applied in favor of one race over another, not because of the reason you cite. So your whole argument turns to shit.

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, the union between man and man,,, woman and woman,,, or man with a chicken,,,fail to meet muster under definition of what common sense people call marriage.

-Geaux

Yes, it is discrimination.

Marriage is a contract of commitment between two equal, consenting adult partners recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts; to deny them access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

That some might perceive marriage as between only a man and woman is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, as neither history nor tradition justify discriminating against a given class of persons.

And the same arguments can and will be made for incest, polygamy, who knows what.

When the USSC is hearing a case for polgomy or incest, lets discuss it.

In the meantime, the USSC is hearing a case for gay marriage on the basis that gay marriage bans violate rights.

The odds of the courts ruling in favor of gay marriage are quite high. The odds of the courts ruling in favor of States without gay marriage being forced to recognize the validity of States with gay marriage is pretty much 100%. Either way, gay marriage will be recognized by all 50 States by June.

Which is another fine example and addition to the host of other immoral and destructive societal changes impacting America. The list is broad indeed

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

Being gay doesn't change who you can marry?

kaz doesn't understand that the ban on interracial marriage was the same as a ban on same sex marriage:

1. with an interracial marriage ban, everyone has the right to marry someone as long as that person is of the opposite sex and the same color.

2. with a same sex marriage ban, everyone gets to marry someone of the opposite sex.


He is misapplying his own concocted logic. By his argument, banning interracial marriage should be constitutional,

because everyone still has the same rights.

Loving Vs. Virginia rejected the law because it was applied in favor of one race over another, not because of the reason you cite. So your whole argument turns to shit.

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. /QUOTE]

And in some 30 odd states, and in multiple countries marriage is also between a man and a man or a woman and woman.

But I don't care.... Far as Im concerned, marry a chicken

-Geaux

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay doesn't. Fail.

Being gay doesn't change who you can marry?

kaz doesn't understand that the ban on interracial marriage was the same as a ban on same sex marriage:

1. with an interracial marriage ban, everyone has the right to marry someone as long as that person is of the opposite sex and the same color.

2. with a same sex marriage ban, everyone gets to marry someone of the opposite sex.


He is misapplying his own concocted logic. By his argument, banning interracial marriage should be constitutional,

because everyone still has the same rights.

Loving Vs. Virginia rejected the law because it was applied in favor of one race over another, not because of the reason you cite. So your whole argument turns to shit.

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

Sexual orientation isnt a protected class. Nor does sexual orientation have rights.
/fail.

Nonsense.

In Romer and Lawrence the Supreme Court held that homosexuals are entitled to Constitutional protections, and are entitled to the rights of due process and equal protection of the law.

 

[Seawytch]

kaz doesn't understand that the ban on interracial marriage was the same as a ban on same sex marriage:

1. with an interracial marriage ban, everyone has the right to marry someone as long as that person is of the opposite sex and the same color.

2. with a same sex marriage ban, everyone gets to marry someone of the opposite sex.


He is misapplying his own concocted logic. By his argument, banning interracial marriage should be constitutional,

because everyone still has the same rights.

Loving Vs. Virginia rejected the law because it was applied in favor of one race over another, not because of the reason you cite. So your whole argument turns to shit.

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. /QUOTE]

And in some 30 odd states, and in multiple countries marriage is also between a man and a man or a woman and woman.

But I don't care.... Far as Im concerned, marry a chicken

-Geaux

I really wish ya'll would learn the meaning of consent...for the sake of farm animals everywhere.

 

[Kosh]

Loving Vs. Virginia rejected the law because it was applied in favor of one race over another, not because of the reason you cite. So your whole argument turns to shit.

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. /QUOTE]

And in some 30 odd states, and in multiple countries marriage is also between a man and a man or a woman and woman.

But I don't care.... Far as Im concerned, marry a chicken

-Geaux

I really wish ya'll would learn the meaning of consent...for the sake of farm animals everywhere.

Why did you forge your chickens signature?