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

[kaz]

I'm sure glad we have government to tell us what marriage is. Makes me sleep well at night that we don't have to make these choices for ourselves. Don't you think so, Geaux and Michael?

And Kaz and his wife...who have a civil marriage license issued by the evil government.

When you get to the point you value your partner as much as yourself, then you may be ready for marriage. Let me know when you get there.

My statement said nothing about you and your values. It merely pointed out that when you ask these silly questions about civil marriage, you already have the answer living in your own home...civilly married guy.

Ah, this is the part where you are married to a conservative christian who she and her parents were apparently OK with her being gay but not with her living without government marriage. Gotcha, I do remember you said it was for the same reason. I also said you are full of shit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period. Well, unless they are wrong, then the courts fix it. Period.

Hmm...seems you don't give a shit about the majority, you just want your way...

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

Wow you're dumb, you can't even get OBVIOUS sarcasm.

She cant do anything but repeat the same 2 arguments over and over either Of course there arent any other arguments so she's sort of stuck.
To review:
Argument 1: Homosexuals are really blacks c.1960. This is patently absurd on its face.
Argument 2: We're winning this argument in the courts. That is a statement of fact not an argument.
And that's it. You'll see every post of hers and anyone else supporting gay marriage makes one or both of those arguments.

Gays have the same argument blacks had on marriage.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period. Well, unless they are wrong, then the courts fix it. Period.

Hmm...seems you don't give a shit about the majority, you just want your way...

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

Wow you're dumb, you can't even get OBVIOUS sarcasm.

She cant do anything but repeat the same 2 arguments over and over either Of course there arent any other arguments so she's sort of stuck.
To review:
Argument 1: Homosexuals are really blacks c.1960. This is patently absurd on its face.
Argument 2: We're winning this argument in the courts. That is a statement of fact not an argument.
And that's it. You'll see every post of hers and anyone else supporting gay marriage makes one or both of those arguments.

Gays have the same argument blacks had on marriage.

They use the same argument. And it is grossly offensive. They are in no ways similar. It is a failed argument.

 

[kaz]

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period. Well, unless they are wrong, then the courts fix it. Period.

Hmm...seems you don't give a shit about the majority, you just want your way...

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

Wow you're dumb, you can't even get OBVIOUS sarcasm.

She cant do anything but repeat the same 2 arguments over and over either Of course there arent any other arguments so she's sort of stuck.
To review:
Argument 1: Homosexuals are really blacks c.1960. This is patently absurd on its face.
Argument 2: We're winning this argument in the courts. That is a statement of fact not an argument.
And that's it. You'll see every post of hers and anyone else supporting gay marriage makes one or both of those arguments.

Gays have the same argument blacks had on marriage.

They use the same argument. And it is grossly offensive. They are in no ways similar. It is a failed argument.

Agreed. Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay does not change who you can marry. End of argument.

 

[Seawytch]

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

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period. Well, unless they are wrong, then the courts fix it. Period.

Hmm...seems you don't give a shit about the majority, you just want your way...

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

Wow you're dumb, you can't even get OBVIOUS sarcasm.

She cant do anything but repeat the same 2 arguments over and over either Of course there arent any other arguments so she's sort of stuck.
To review:
Argument 1: Homosexuals are really blacks c.1960. This is patently absurd on its face.
Argument 2: We're winning this argument in the courts. That is a statement of fact not an argument.
And that's it. You'll see every post of hers and anyone else supporting gay marriage makes one or both of those arguments.

Gays have the same argument blacks had on marriage.

Discrimination based solely on animus is discrimination based solely on animus...which is why their arguments are losing in court.

 

[kaz]

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period. Well, unless they are wrong, then the courts fix it. Period.

Hmm...seems you don't give a shit about the majority, you just want your way...

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

Wow you're dumb, you can't even get OBVIOUS sarcasm.

She cant do anything but repeat the same 2 arguments over and over either Of course there arent any other arguments so she's sort of stuck.
To review:
Argument 1: Homosexuals are really blacks c.1960. This is patently absurd on its face.
Argument 2: We're winning this argument in the courts. That is a statement of fact not an argument.
And that's it. You'll see every post of hers and anyone else supporting gay marriage makes one or both of those arguments.

Gays have the same argument blacks had on marriage.

Discrimination based solely on animus is discrimination based solely on animus...which is why their arguments are losing in court.

The first Amendment should have been that government should recognize the inherent truth of liberalism. That way you wouldn't need to solicit liberal judges to commit crimes against the people when they legislate authoritarian leftism from the bench.

 

[kaz]

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period. Well, unless they are wrong, then the courts fix it. Period.

Hmm...seems you don't give a shit about the majority, you just want your way...

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

Wow you're dumb, you can't even get OBVIOUS sarcasm.

She cant do anything but repeat the same 2 arguments over and over either Of course there arent any other arguments so she's sort of stuck.
To review:
Argument 1: Homosexuals are really blacks c.1960. This is patently absurd on its face.
Argument 2: We're winning this argument in the courts. That is a statement of fact not an argument.
And that's it. You'll see every post of hers and anyone else supporting gay marriage makes one or both of those arguments.

Gays have the same argument blacks had on marriage.

Discrimination based solely on animus is discrimination based solely on animus...which is why their arguments are losing in court.

My view is a legal one, there is no basis for the courts to rule, they have no legitimate power to make life fair. You can go to the legislature and do it legitimately. But as for you versus the morality crowd, let's examine your arguments.

Them) Men and women can procreate, there is an interest the people, government and society share to perpetuate the species.

You) You cry yourself to sleep every night that the collective isn't patting you on the back and validating who you sleep with and backing it up with $$$ and other perks.

They have a better argument. However, my response to them is there is a better solution than government marriage to achieve their objective, flat taxes, eliminate the death tax, recognize paternity on genes not paper, ... Then we get government out of the discrimination business.

You keep whining about discrimination, but the reality is I want to end it and you just want to move the line.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

What due process and equal protection are they not receiving? Be specific here.

the right to marry whom they choose in a manner indistinguishable from that same privilege and immunity of all other citizens in the several States.

 

[danielpalos]

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

Wow you're dumb, you can't even get OBVIOUS sarcasm.

She cant do anything but repeat the same 2 arguments over and over either Of course there arent any other arguments so she's sort of stuck.
To review:
Argument 1: Homosexuals are really blacks c.1960. This is patently absurd on its face.
Argument 2: We're winning this argument in the courts. That is a statement of fact not an argument.
And that's it. You'll see every post of hers and anyone else supporting gay marriage makes one or both of those arguments.

Gays have the same argument blacks had on marriage.

Discrimination based solely on animus is discrimination based solely on animus...which is why their arguments are losing in court.

The first Amendment should have been that government should recognize the inherent truth of liberalism. That way you wouldn't need to solicit liberal judges to commit crimes against the people when they legislate authoritarian leftism from the bench.

Ok. I agree to only complain when the authoritarian right does it.

 

[kaz]

Wow you're dumb, you can't even get OBVIOUS sarcasm.

She cant do anything but repeat the same 2 arguments over and over either Of course there arent any other arguments so she's sort of stuck.
To review:
Argument 1: Homosexuals are really blacks c.1960. This is patently absurd on its face.
Argument 2: We're winning this argument in the courts. That is a statement of fact not an argument.
And that's it. You'll see every post of hers and anyone else supporting gay marriage makes one or both of those arguments.

Gays have the same argument blacks had on marriage.

Discrimination based solely on animus is discrimination based solely on animus...which is why their arguments are losing in court.

The first Amendment should have been that government should recognize the inherent truth of liberalism. That way you wouldn't need to solicit liberal judges to commit crimes against the people when they legislate authoritarian leftism from the bench.

Ok. I agree to only complain when the authoritarian right does it.

Not that the right don't want them to, but what is it you think they are actually getting? The courts are overwhelmingly left.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

Wow you're dumb, you can't even get OBVIOUS sarcasm.

She cant do anything but repeat the same 2 arguments over and over either Of course there arent any other arguments so she's sort of stuck.
To review:
Argument 1: Homosexuals are really blacks c.1960. This is patently absurd on its face.
Argument 2: We're winning this argument in the courts. That is a statement of fact not an argument.
And that's it. You'll see every post of hers and anyone else supporting gay marriage makes one or both of those arguments.

Gays have the same argument blacks had on marriage.

Discrimination based solely on animus is discrimination based solely on animus...which is why their arguments are losing in court.

My view is a legal one, there is no basis for the courts to rule, they have no legitimate power to make life fair. You can go to the legislature and do it legitimately. But as for you versus the morality crowd, let's examine your arguments.

.

Wrong. The Court has the legal authority via the authority of the Constitution they are interpreting, and via the authority they have been given to interpret the Constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period. Well, unless they are wrong, then the courts fix it. Period.

Hmm...seems you don't give a shit about the majority, you just want your way...

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

Wow you're dumb, you can't even get OBVIOUS sarcasm.

She cant do anything but repeat the same 2 arguments over and over either Of course there arent any other arguments so she's sort of stuck.
To review:
Argument 1: Homosexuals are really blacks c.1960. This is patently absurd on its face.
Argument 2: We're winning this argument in the courts. That is a statement of fact not an argument.
And that's it. You'll see every post of hers and anyone else supporting gay marriage makes one or both of those arguments.

Gays have the same argument blacks had on marriage.

They use the same argument. And it is grossly offensive. They are in no ways similar. It is a failed argument.

She cant do anything but repeat the same 2 arguments over and over either Of course there arent any other arguments so she's sort of stuck.
To review:
Argument 1: Homosexuals are really blacks c.1960. This is patently absurd on its face.
Argument 2: We're winning this argument in the courts. That is a statement of fact not an argument.
And that's it. You'll see every post of hers and anyone else supporting gay marriage makes one or both of those arguments.

Gays have the same argument blacks had on marriage.

Discrimination based solely on animus is discrimination based solely on animus...which is why their arguments are losing in court.

The first Amendment should have been that government should recognize the inherent truth of liberalism. That way you wouldn't need to solicit liberal judges to commit crimes against the people when they legislate authoritarian leftism from the bench.

Ok. I agree to only complain when the authoritarian right does it.

Not that the right don't want them to, but what is it you think they are actually getting? The courts are overwhelmingly left.

No, they just appear leftist from the laughably far right perspective you're seeing them.

 

[danielpalos]

She cant do anything but repeat the same 2 arguments over and over either Of course there arent any other arguments so she's sort of stuck.
To review:
Argument 1: Homosexuals are really blacks c.1960. This is patently absurd on its face.
Argument 2: We're winning this argument in the courts. That is a statement of fact not an argument.
And that's it. You'll see every post of hers and anyone else supporting gay marriage makes one or both of those arguments.

Gays have the same argument blacks had on marriage.

Discrimination based solely on animus is discrimination based solely on animus...which is why their arguments are losing in court.

The first Amendment should have been that government should recognize the inherent truth of liberalism. That way you wouldn't need to solicit liberal judges to commit crimes against the people when they legislate authoritarian leftism from the bench.

Ok. I agree to only complain when the authoritarian right does it.

Not that the right don't want them to, but what is it you think they are actually getting? The courts are overwhelmingly left.

A social concept called and styled, Equality.

 

[danielpalos]

Wow you're dumb, you can't even get OBVIOUS sarcasm.

She cant do anything but repeat the same 2 arguments over and over either Of course there arent any other arguments so she's sort of stuck.
To review:
Argument 1: Homosexuals are really blacks c.1960. This is patently absurd on its face.
Argument 2: We're winning this argument in the courts. That is a statement of fact not an argument.
And that's it. You'll see every post of hers and anyone else supporting gay marriage makes one or both of those arguments.

Gays have the same argument blacks had on marriage.

Discrimination based solely on animus is discrimination based solely on animus...which is why their arguments are losing in court.

My view is a legal one, there is no basis for the courts to rule, they have no legitimate power to make life fair. You can go to the legislature and do it legitimately. But as for you versus the morality crowd, let's examine your arguments.

.

Wrong. The Court has the legal authority via the authority of the Constitution they are interpreting, and via the authority they have been given to interpret the Constitution.

Yes, and, there is no privilege or immunity for any of the several citizens in the several States, to Appeal to Ignorance of the law under our republican form of Government.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

What due process and equal protection are they not receiving? Be specific here.

the right to marry whom they choose in a manner indistinguishable from that same privilege and immunity of all other citizens in the several States.

That's total argle-bargle.

 

[The Rabbi]

She cant do anything but repeat the same 2 arguments over and over either Of course there arent any other arguments so she's sort of stuck.
To review:
Argument 1: Homosexuals are really blacks c.1960. This is patently absurd on its face.
Argument 2: We're winning this argument in the courts. That is a statement of fact not an argument.
And that's it. You'll see every post of hers and anyone else supporting gay marriage makes one or both of those arguments.

Gays have the same argument blacks had on marriage.

Discrimination based solely on animus is discrimination based solely on animus...which is why their arguments are losing in court.

My view is a legal one, there is no basis for the courts to rule, they have no legitimate power to make life fair. You can go to the legislature and do it legitimately. But as for you versus the morality crowd, let's examine your arguments.

.

Wrong. The Court has the legal authority via the authority of the Constitution they are interpreting, and via the authority they have been given to interpret the Constitution.

Yes, and, there is no privilege or immunity for any of the several citizens in the several States, to Appeal to Ignorance of the law under our republican form of Government.

That completely misses the point of habeas corpus and the rights of the sovereign citizen under the Griswold doctine.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

What due process and equal protection are they not receiving? Be specific here.

the right to marry whom they choose in a manner indistinguishable from that same privilege and immunity of all other citizens in the several States.

That's total argle-bargle.

No it isn't; your response is total non-sequitur and that form of fallacy.

the right to marry whom they choose in a manner indistinguishable from that same privilege and immunity of all other citizens in the several States

why not try with an actual and valid argument, to prove your sincerity to your Cause.

 

[danielpalos]

Gays have the same argument blacks had on marriage.

Discrimination based solely on animus is discrimination based solely on animus...which is why their arguments are losing in court.

My view is a legal one, there is no basis for the courts to rule, they have no legitimate power to make life fair. You can go to the legislature and do it legitimately. But as for you versus the morality crowd, let's examine your arguments.

.

Wrong. The Court has the legal authority via the authority of the Constitution they are interpreting, and via the authority they have been given to interpret the Constitution.

Yes, and, there is no privilege or immunity for any of the several citizens in the several States, to Appeal to Ignorance of the law under our republican form of Government.

That completely misses the point of habeas corpus and the rights of the sovereign citizen under the Griswold doctine.

No, it doesn't. Those cases are irrelevant to the right of freedom of association and liberty from the right and their claim to religious morals.

 

[kaz]

Not that the right don't want them to, but what is it you think they are actually getting? The courts are overwhelmingly left.

A social concept called and styled, Equality.

So you don't know either? I didn't think so. You just liked the way it sounded.

 

[kaz]

Wrong. The Court has the legal authority via the authority of the Constitution they are interpreting, and via the authority they have been given to interpret the Constitution.

Yes, and, there is no privilege or immunity for any of the several citizens in the several States, to Appeal to Ignorance of the law under our republican form of Government.

LOL, the courts "have been given" the power to interpret the Constitution. They took it in Marbury v. Madison.