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

[The Rabbi]

If history repeats itself, Alabama will try to defy the courts. They will hurt a lot of innocent people and will eventually be forced into it.

Kind of like Colorado and marijuana? Yeah.
Roll, Tide Roll.

Which court has told Colorado that their marijuana law is illegal again?

And when did the Feds have to bring troops into Colorado like has happened in Alabama history?

Whut? What does that have to do with anything?

YOU started it

"Mommmm!! He started it!!" Nhnnhnhnnnn

 

[Syriusly]

what has any of that got to do with pot and Colorado?

That's probably the most random, off-the-wall reply I've ever seen.

The state is defying federal law in the matter, based on the will of their citizens.
Alabama should do the same if the Supreme Court has a moment of insanity and says the people are not sovereign.

And if the Federal government wants to it can either:
a) file suit against Colorado, as it did against Arizona or
b) send DEA agents in and arrest pot growers.

Alabama will no more prevent gay marriages than it prevented mixed race marriages when the Court told the people of Alabama that their state laws are subject to the Constitution also.

 

[The Rabbi]

what has any of that got to do with pot and Colorado?

That's probably the most random, off-the-wall reply I've ever seen.

The state is defying federal law in the matter, based on the will of their citizens.
Alabama should do the same if the Supreme Court has a moment of insanity and says the people are not sovereign.

And if the Federal government wants to it can either:
a) file suit against Colorado, as it did against Arizona or
b) send DEA agents in and arrest pot growers.

Alabama will no more prevent gay marriages than it prevented mixed race marriages when the Court told the people of Alabama that their state laws are subject to the Constitution also.

I dunno. The move towards nullification is pretty strong. People around here dont take well to a bunch of pointy headed faggots telling us what to do.

 

[Syriusly]

what has any of that got to do with pot and Colorado?

That's probably the most random, off-the-wall reply I've ever seen.

The state is defying federal law in the matter, based on the will of their citizens.
Alabama should do the same if the Supreme Court has a moment of insanity and says the people are not sovereign.

And if the Federal government wants to it can either:
a) file suit against Colorado, as it did against Arizona or
b) send DEA agents in and arrest pot growers.

Alabama will no more prevent gay marriages than it prevented mixed race marriages when the Court told the people of Alabama that their state laws are subject to the Constitution also.

I dunno. The move towards nullification is pretty strong. People around here dont take well to a bunch of pointy headed faggots telling us what to do.

Bigots use the same kinds of words for the same kind of purpose

People around here dont take well to a bunch of pointy headed f*ggots telling us what to do
People around here dont take well to a bunch of pointy headed n*ggers telling us what to do
People around here dont take well to a bunch of pointy headed c*nts telling us what to do
People around here dont take well to a bunch of pointy headed k*kes telling us what to do

 

[danielpalos]

Is it really surprising that Alabama is on the trailing edge of offering equal rights to ANYONE?

Who cares what this backwoods peckerwood thinks. Marriage equality is happening. And honestly, it is happening faster than I thought it would.

No, it's not surprising that Alabama is once again behind the times when it comes to Civil Rights, but what the backwoods peckerwood will DO when marriage equality comes to his state should concern everyone who recalls Alabama's history.

If history repeats itself, Alabama will try to defy the courts. They will hurt a lot of innocent people and will eventually be forced into it.

Kind of like Colorado and marijuana? Yeah.
Roll, Tide Roll.

Which court has told Colorado that their marijuana law is illegal again?

And when did the Feds have to bring troops into Colorado like has happened in Alabama history?

The Southern Strategy is usually only for the South.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Let the States Decide..."

The ignorance and idiocy of this is considerable.

Who, exactly, is supposed to 'let' the states 'decide,' and by what authority.

Is the OP advocating that citizens be denied their First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances by filing suit in Federal court to seek relief from the overreach of state governments. Does the OP expect Federal judges to ignore Articles III and VI of the Constitution and refuse to review the suits for merit or hear arguments in the cases brought by the people against their state governments.

The ridiculous premise of the OP's thread seems to suggest that somewhere in the Constitution and its case law there exists the 'authorization' allowing the states to violate the civil liberties of the American citizens residing in the states and subject those citizens' civil rights to 'majority rule.'

Needless to say no such 'authorization' exists in the Constitution, and likely exists only in the OP's head.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Be aware that Syriusly is trying to equate gay sex with either a race or a religion...

...OK, now , proceed...

Actually not.

The right to make decisions concerning one's personal life absent unwarranted interference from the state is a protected liberty guaranteed by the Constitution, as recognized by the Lawrence Court; when the state seeks to enact measures designed to disadvantage gay Americans motivated solely by animus, such measures are invalidated by the courts – and this includes measures designed to deny same-sex couples their right to access marriage law.

The state is prohibited from discriminating against gay Americans for making this choice, just as the state is prohibited from discriminating against African-Americans because of their race or Muslim Americans because of their religion.

 

[The Rabbi]

"Let the States Decide..."

The ignorance and idiocy of this is considerable.

Who, exactly, is supposed to 'let' the states 'decide,' and by what authority.

Is the OP advocating that citizens be denied their First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances by filing suit in Federal court to seek relief from the overreach of state governments. Does the OP expect Federal judges to ignore Articles III and VI of the Constitution and refuse to review the suits for merit or hear arguments in the cases brought by the people against their state governments.

The ridiculous premise of the OP's thread seems to suggest that somewhere in the Constitution and its case law there exists the 'authorization' allowing the states to violate the civil liberties of the American citizens residing in the states and subject those citizens' civil rights to 'majority rule.'

Needless to say no such 'authorization' exists in the Constitution, and likely exists only in the OP's head.

What an abysmally ignorant comment. This is truly monumental.
Marriage and matters of personal status have been the province of state governments forever. See Amendment X. Ginning up spurious claims about denial of rights does not contradict that in any way.
You would give power to unelected judges and take it fro the people. That is tyranny.

 

[elektra]

And who will protect the orphaned heterosexual children from being adopted into homosexual lifestyles?

 

[Pete7469]

And who will protect the orphaned heterosexual children from being adopted into homosexual lifestyles?

No one...

That's why we have abortion, to help prevent queers from becoming grandparents.

 

[elektra]

And who will protect the orphaned heterosexual children from being adopted into homosexual lifestyles?

No one...

That's why we have abortion, to help prevent queers from becoming grandparents.

So there are no orphaned children being adopted by homosexuals? It is a serious issue.

 

[Pete7469]

And who will protect the orphaned heterosexual children from being adopted into homosexual lifestyles?

No one...

That's why we have abortion, to help prevent queers from becoming grandparents.

So there are no orphaned children being adopted by homosexuals? It is a serious issue.

I don't care, as long as they don't breed if they convert to liberal stupidity.

Otherwise I hope they have a happy and fulfilled life.

 

[Seawytch]

And who will protect the orphaned heterosexual children from being adopted into homosexual lifestyles?

There is nothing to protect from. We're adopting the kids, we're having kids and they're doing great.

I know you're all afeared that you and the wife are gonna bite it and someone who is gay might adopt your kids. Make arrangements.

 

[Seawytch]

And who will protect the orphaned heterosexual children from being adopted into homosexual lifestyles?

No one...

That's why we have abortion, to help prevent queers from becoming grandparents.

So there are no orphaned children being adopted by homosexuals? It is a serious issue.

I don't care, as long as they don't breed if they convert to liberal stupidity.

Otherwise I hope they have a happy and fulfilled life.

Well, we do. We breed. We have kids, we adopt kids. Sucks to be you.

 

[Geaux4it]

And who will protect the orphaned heterosexual children from being adopted into homosexual lifestyles?

No one...

That's why we have abortion, to help prevent queers from becoming grandparents.

So there are no orphaned children being adopted by homosexuals? It is a serious issue.

I don't care, as long as they don't breed if they convert to liberal stupidity.

Otherwise I hope they have a happy and fulfilled life.

Well, we do. We breed. We have kids, we adopt kids. Sucks to be you.

Thanks for reminding us what social decay is.

=Geaux

 

[Seawytch]

And who will protect the orphaned heterosexual children from being adopted into homosexual lifestyles?

No one...

That's why we have abortion, to help prevent queers from becoming grandparents.

So there are no orphaned children being adopted by homosexuals? It is a serious issue.

I don't care, as long as they don't breed if they convert to liberal stupidity.

Otherwise I hope they have a happy and fulfilled life.

Well, we do. We breed. We have kids, we adopt kids. Sucks to be you.

Thanks for reminding us what social decay is.

=Geaux

If you think loving parents giving children a good home is what social decay is, I feel very, very sorry for you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And who will protect the orphaned heterosexual children from being adopted into homosexual lifestyles?

The lifestyle of two women or two men being married is harmful how?

 

[NYcarbineer]

what has any of that got to do with pot and Colorado?

That's probably the most random, off-the-wall reply I've ever seen.

The state is defying federal law in the matter, based on the will of their citizens.
Alabama should do the same if the Supreme Court has a moment of insanity and says the people are not sovereign.

Should Alabama bring back segregation as well?

 

[NYcarbineer]

what has any of that got to do with pot and Colorado?

That's probably the most random, off-the-wall reply I've ever seen.

The state is defying federal law in the matter, based on the will of their citizens.
Alabama should do the same if the Supreme Court has a moment of insanity and says the people are not sovereign.

You might want to read this:

Nebraska to challenge Colorado s legalization of marijuana in US Supreme Court Politics - KETV Home

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Let the States Decide..."

The ignorance and idiocy of this is considerable.

Who, exactly, is supposed to 'let' the states 'decide,' and by what authority.

Is the OP advocating that citizens be denied their First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances by filing suit in Federal court to seek relief from the overreach of state governments. Does the OP expect Federal judges to ignore Articles III and VI of the Constitution and refuse to review the suits for merit or hear arguments in the cases brought by the people against their state governments.

The ridiculous premise of the OP's thread seems to suggest that somewhere in the Constitution and its case law there exists the 'authorization' allowing the states to violate the civil liberties of the American citizens residing in the states and subject those citizens' civil rights to 'majority rule.'

Needless to say no such 'authorization' exists in the Constitution, and likely exists only in the OP's head.

What an abysmally ignorant comment. This is truly monumental.
Marriage and matters of personal status have been the province of state governments forever. See Amendment X. Ginning up spurious claims about denial of rights does not contradict that in any way.
You would give power to unelected judges and take it fro the people. That is tyranny.

Personal matters have always been a state government 'province'?

You mean like an individual's right to own a gun?