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

[kaz]

Yes you do. You want to force churches to accept gays because you hate churches that don't. Oh sure you claim to want to force them through peer pressure rather than law, but in either case you hate them and want to force them to YOUR way of thinking rather than just accepting them for what they are.

You militant queers are no better than the militant anti gays.

Yes, she is a militant queer. She chastised me for a post ... I agreed with her ...

 

[kaz]

You can ignore this and pretend it never happened. But its not like the USSC is going to ignore itself because you imagine a 'false analogy'

Mutually agreed, we don't care what each other says. The Supreme Court has proven it is not worthy of respect and it justifies liberal activism with the logic of a PMSing teenage girl. That they want it is enough. A court that says congress can regulate political speech heading into elections (campaign "finance reform"), government can take land from one citizen and give it to another, not for public use (New London), that there is a Constitutional right to an abortion (Roe v. Wade), that people can be property (Dred Scott) that there are no Constitutional limits on Federal power (FDR on), and ... that government can force you to enter into a contract with a corporation (Obamacare) categorically deserves no respect.

So when they read that gay = black where laws changed based on being black in a country which doesn't give a shit about gays except for conservative gay bigots who don't do anything to them, they are idiots. Just as they regularly are.

 

[kaz]

I don't agree with you gay sodomy laws are the same as man/woman marriage though. As I said before literally you are right. But man/woman marriage was the way it always was, gay marriage didn't occur to anyone who created government marriage. Gay sodomy laws were created with the intention of targeting gays. Be honest about that.

The statutory restrictions and state constitution amendments declaring that marriage was only one man and one woman that almost universally came after Hawaii extended civil union recognition to same sex couples were done to prevent gays from entering marriage. Be honest about that.

Lame. Not the same thing. Word game

 

[kaz]

The statutory restrictions and state constitution amendments declaring that marriage was only one man and one woman that almost universally came after Hawaii extended civil union recognition to same sex couples were done to prevent gays from entering marriage. Be honest about that.

Yes. But that is only because nature designed marriage as the union between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN and only because such is a critical function of the viability of the species.

Skylar is playing word games anyway. He implied that marriage was open to gays until Hawaii. It wasn't. He used that to play games with my talking about people who created government marriage, long before Hawaii.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes you do. You want to force churches to accept gays because you hate churches that don't. Oh sure you claim to want to force them through peer pressure rather than law, but in either case you hate them and want to force them to YOUR way of thinking rather than just accepting them for what they are.

You militant queers are no better than the militant anti gays.

Yes, she is a militant queer. She chastised me for a post ... I agreed with her ...

Offering you a cookie is chastising? I'll bake from scratch.

Yes, we agree that sodomy laws were based on animus. We diverge when speaking of civil marriage. You don't think anti gay marriage laws are based on animus and I disagree. Of course, I still remember all the vile things people said when these anti gay laws were being debated...being compared to barn animals by state legislators and such.

 

[kaz]

Judicial activism is in the eyes of the beholder

No, judicial activism is when judges do not rule based on the Constitution and the law and infringe on the rights of the people and the powers of the other branches of government like upholding Campaign finance, New London and Obamacare and making up rights like Roe v. Wade.

The following are cited as examples of judicial activism:

• Brown v. Board of Education – 1954 Supreme Court ruling ordering the desegregation of public schools.[16]
• Roe v. Wade – 1973 Supreme Court ruling decriminalizing abortion.[17]
• Bush v. Gore – The United States Supreme Court case between the major-party candidates in the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush and Al Gore. The judges voted 5-4 to halt the recount of ballots in Florida and, as a result, George Bush was elected President.[18]
• Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – 2010 Supreme Court decision declaring Congressionally enacted limitations on corporate political spending and transparency as unconstitutional restrictions on free speech.[19][20]
• Hollingsworth v. Perry – 2013 decision by federal judge Vaughn R. Walker overturning California's constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.[21]

Brown v Brown was clearly the right ruling by the 14th amendment. Being black changed how the law affects you.

Roe v. Wade was clear legislating from the bench. I'm pro choice, that doesn't put the right to an abortion in the Constitution..

Bush v. Gore - That was a cluster. What do you do when a State Court goes rogue to control the other two branches to swing an election when it is a Federal election?

CU v FEC court ruling was a clear violation of the 1st amendment

Hollings v. Perry, ruling was a clear violation of the 10th amendment and pure legislating from the bench

 

[Seawytch]

The statutory restrictions and state constitution amendments declaring that marriage was only one man and one woman that almost universally came after Hawaii extended civil union recognition to same sex couples were done to prevent gays from entering marriage. Be honest about that.

Yes. But that is only because nature designed marriage as the union between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN and only because such is a critical function of the viability of the species.

Skylar is playing word games anyway. He implied that marriage was open to gays until Hawaii. It wasn't. He used that to play games with my talking about people who created government marriage, long before Hawaii.

I do believe Skylar was referring to this: How Same-Sex Marriage Came to Be

Litigation and Backlash
IN 1991, three gay couples in Hawaii challenged the constitutionality of laws limiting marriage to a man and woman. No national gay-rights organization would support litigation considered hopeless—but in 1993, the state supreme court unexpectedly ruled that excluding same-sex couples from marriage was presumptively unconstitutional. The case was remanded for a trial, at which the government had the opportunity to show a compelling justification for banning gay marriage. In 1996, a trial judge ruled that same-sex couples were entitled to marry. But even in a relatively gay-friendly state, marriage equality was then a radical concept: in 1998, Hawaiian voters rejected it, 69 percent to 31 percent. (A similar vote in Alaska that year produced a nearly identical outcome.)

For the Republican Party in the 1990s, gay marriage was a dream issue that mobilized its religious-conservative base and put it on the same side as most swing voters. Objecting that “some radical judges in Hawaii may get to dictate the moral code for the entire nation,” Republicans in 1996 introduced bills in most state legislatures to deny recognition to gay marriages lawfully performed elsewhere. (Such marriages were nonexistent at the time.) One poll showed that 68 percent of Americans opposed gay marriage. By 2001, 35 states had enacted statutes or constitutional provisions to “defend” traditional marriage—usually by overwhelming margins.

Gay marriage also entered the national political arena in 1996. Just days before the Republican Party’s Iowa caucuses, antigay activists conducted a “marriage protection” rally at which presidential candidates denounced the “homosexual agenda,” which was said to be “destroying the integrity of the marriage-based family.” A few months later, the party’s nominee, Senator Robert Dole, co-sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which provided that no state was required to recognize another’s same-sex marriages and that the federal government would not recognize them for purposes of determining eligibility for federal benefits. Congress passed the bill by lopsided margins, and President Bill Clinton, eager to neutralize the issue, signed it.
​

And there began the animus...

 

[kaz]

.

Incorrect.

There were laws that controlled the lives of gay Americans as well, laws that violated their civil rights just as the rights of African-Americans were violated.

For example, in Colorado, Amendment 2 made it illegal for LGBT residents of that state to avail themselves of anti-discrimination laws. The Colorado Supreme Court struck down that measure as a violation of the 14th Amendment, whose ruling was affirmed by the US Supreme Court (Romer v. Evans).

In Texas it was illegal for consenting adult gay men to engage in sex in the privacy of their own homes. The Texas law was likewise invalidated by the Supreme Court for violating the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (Lawrence v. Texas).

Just as African-Americans were compelled to fight for their civil rights in the courts a generation ago to strike down discriminatory, un-Constitutional measures, so too must gay Americans fight for their civil rights today; against unjust measures violating the equal protection rights of same-sex couples.

You are incorrect. The Texas statute made male sodomy a crime. It didnt matter if you were gay or straight. Similarly with all the other examples.

Well, how many straights were arrested and charged with that statute?

How many gays were? Virtually none.

And the ones who were wanted to be to make the point.
.

Please feel free to show how the defendants in Lawrence v. Kansas 'wanted to be to make the point'

The police responded to a false report, entered Lawrence's apartment- one of 4 officers said he saw the two men engaging in anal sex- and arrested them for what was a crime in Texas.

What about the 12 men arrested in Louisiana between 2011 and 2013? You think they wanted to be arrested to make the point?

At least a dozen men have been arrested by the East Baton Rouge sheriff's office in Louisiana since 2011 for agreeing to have consensual sex with an undercover male officer, according to a report by The Advocate newspaper.

These men weren't handing over money or having sex in a public place.
Instead, they were arrested under Louisiana's anti-sodomy law, despite the fact that such laws were deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas.

The most recent case discovered by The Advocate involved a 65-year-old man who was approached by an undercover cop earlier this month in a park. The police officer, who denied he was a cop, reportedly asked if the man wanted to go back to the man's apartment for "some drinks and some fun." After the man agreed and led the officer back to his apartment, he was arrested for an attempted "crime against nature."

Similar stings had been conducted by the sheriff's office even after the district attorney refused to prosecute them. Its rationale for the arrests?

"This is a law that is currently on the Louisiana books, and the sheriff is charged with enforcing the laws passed by our Louisiana Legislature," Casey Rayborn Hicks, a spokesman for the sheriff's office, told The Advocate. "Whether the law is valid is something for the courts to determine, but the sheriff will enforce the laws that are enacted."

I look forward to hearing exactly why you believe that all of these men wanted to be arrested to make a point.

You added the word "all." Most were, a few anecdotal examples doesn't change that

 

[kaz]

You were the one who called Mildred Loving- whose only 'offense' was to dare to want to marry a black man 'a *****'

Here were your exact words: if she[Mildred Loving] said she's a conservative you'd be out to destroy the *****

My God, you are making yourself look stupid. You even provided the quote that you don't understand. That quote for the literacy challenged (e.g., you) says that YOU would be calling her a ***** if she were not a liberal. As demonstrated by far worse things that Rice, Thomas, Palin and other blacks and women are called by tolerant (LOL) liberals when they dare to leave the Democratic plantation.

Remedial reading, it's just your speed...

 

[kaz]

Yes you do. You want to force churches to accept gays because you hate churches that don't. Oh sure you claim to want to force them through peer pressure rather than law, but in either case you hate them and want to force them to YOUR way of thinking rather than just accepting them for what they are.

You militant queers are no better than the militant anti gays.

Yes, she is a militant queer. She chastised me for a post ... I agreed with her ...

Offering you a cookie is chastising? I'll bake from scratch.

Yes, we agree that sodomy laws were based on animus. We diverge when speaking of civil marriage. You don't think anti gay marriage laws are based on animus and I disagree. Of course, I still remember all the vile things people said when these anti gay laws were being debated...being compared to barn animals by state legislators and such.

So you learned a new word, animus, you sure use it a lot now. Do you like it because gays like words that sound like anus?

Again you characterizing other people as hostile is just laughable.

 

[kaz]

nature designed marriage as the union between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN

Skylar is playing word games anyway. He implied that marriage was open to gays until Hawaii. It wasn't. He used that to play games with my talking about people who created government marriage, long before Hawaii.

I do believe Skylar was referring to this: How Same-Sex Marriage Came to Be

"IN 1991..."​

​

You realize you just backed up my point. Read the conversation, if you can read.

And there began the animus...

So do you giggle or get excited when you see words that look like anus?

 

[Seawytch]

Yes you do. You want to force churches to accept gays because you hate churches that don't. Oh sure you claim to want to force them through peer pressure rather than law, but in either case you hate them and want to force them to YOUR way of thinking rather than just accepting them for what they are.

You militant queers are no better than the militant anti gays.

Yes, she is a militant queer. She chastised me for a post ... I agreed with her ...

Offering you a cookie is chastising? I'll bake from scratch.

Yes, we agree that sodomy laws were based on animus. We diverge when speaking of civil marriage. You don't think anti gay marriage laws are based on animus and I disagree. Of course, I still remember all the vile things people said when these anti gay laws were being debated...being compared to barn animals by state legislators and such.

So you learned a new word, animus, you sure use it a lot now. Do you like it because gays like words that sound like anus?

Again you characterizing other people as hostile is just laughable.

Deflection, deflection, deflection. Try throwing out some "Strawmans" or "Begging the questions". Hey, try "stupid *****". That one seems to serve you well.

Go back and read the transcripts from some of those legislative debates about these anti gay marriage laws. The malice is quite evident.

 

[Seawytch]

nature designed marriage as the union between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN

Skylar is playing word games anyway. He implied that marriage was open to gays until Hawaii. It wasn't. He used that to play games with my talking about people who created government marriage, long before Hawaii.

I do believe Skylar was referring to this: How Same-Sex Marriage Came to Be

"IN 1991..."​

​

You realize you just backed up my point. Read the conversation, if you can read.

And there began the animus...

So do you giggle or get excited when you see words that look like anus?

Skylar was pointing out that Hawaii precipitated all the anti gay laws (showing the clear animus). And apparently you went from deflection to projection. I can see why the animus makes you uncomfortable...because it's true, but does "anus" also make you feel all icky inside?

 

[Seawytch]

You were the one who called Mildred Loving- whose only 'offense' was to dare to want to marry a black man 'a *****'

Here were your exact words: if she[Mildred Loving] said she's a conservative you'd be out to destroy the *****

My God, you are making yourself look stupid. You even provided the quote that you don't understand. That quote for the literacy challenged (e.g., you) says that YOU would be calling her a ***** if she were not a liberal. As demonstrated by far worse things that Rice, Thomas, Palin and other blacks and women are called by tolerant (LOL) liberals when they dare to leave the Democratic plantation.

Remedial reading, it's just your speed...

Grammatically, that's not the way it reads. If you wanted to attribute the words to him, you'd put quotes around it. The way you said it, you called her a *****.

And if she was anti gay, I wouldn't call her a *****, just a bigot. But she wasn't one.

 

[Seawytch]

Isn't it funny that Kaz is continually accusing others of reading comprehension problems...

 

[kaz]

Isn't it funny that Kaz is continually accusing others of reading comprehension problems...

You just demonstrated yet again how just on one post I was right twice. You two yahoos can't read a one sentence quote and comprehend it.

And again, you showed my point with you are in no position to call anyone hostile, LOL.

 

[kaz]

Grammatically, that's not the way it reads. If you wanted to attribute the words to him, you'd put quotes around it. The way you said it, you called her a *****.

I doubted college, but I thought you probably finished high school. Now I wonder.

If I quoted it, I would be saying he would use that literal word. I was referring to the animus liberals feel towards non liberals, particularly women and black non liberals since they are your property. So I was saying the attitude he would have if that were the case. You don't quote that, it's a paraphrase of his attitude, not a literal word he would necessarily say.

Seriously, you didn't learn quoting in high school? Be honest, you went to a government school, didn't you?

 

[kaz]

Go back and read the transcripts from some of those legislative debates about these anti gay marriage laws. The malice is quite evident.

That is irrelevant to the point I made. I said you calling people hostile is funny because you are hostile. Saying someone else is hostile doesn't change that.

You really can't engage in a conversation beyond about a 5th grade level.

 

[kaz]

Isn't it funny that Kaz is continually accusing others of reading comprehension problems...

Is it time to go to work yet? You know, work, what you call running to the mailbox for your government check...

 

[Seawytch]

Grammatically, that's not the way it reads. If you wanted to attribute the words to him, you'd put quotes around it. The way you said it, you called her a *****.

I doubted college, but I thought you probably finished high school. Now I wonder.

If I quoted it, I would be saying he would use that literal word. I was referring to the animus liberals feel towards non liberals, particularly women and black non liberals since they are your property. So I was saying the attitude he would have if that were the case. You don't quote that, it's a paraphrase of his attitude, not a literal word he would necessarily say.

Seriously, you didn't learn quoting in high school? Be honest, you went to a government school, didn't you?

My apologies, you're correct. I thought about it after I wrote it...still, the way you wrote it, the ***** is attributed to you and only you.

As to college, no I never did get a college degree but I do have all the credits to get one and yes, I attended Public School. See, I decided to serve my country right out of High School and did so for 20 years. Feel free to dismiss me as a stupid ***** if it'll make you feel all superior and stuff.