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

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. Therefore, there is nothing to be "anti-" toward.

So... well, you see how it is.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

There are no "anti gay marriage" laws. Any more than they are anti incestuous marriage laws. Or anti polygamy laws. There are laws that define marriage.

Numerous states have laws that prevent gay marriage, and the Federal government passed a similar law and were enacted specifically to prevent homosexuals from marrying, or from recognizing homosexual marriage.

You may prefer not to call them 'anti-gay marriage laws' but the courts have recognized that that was the specific intent and result of those laws.

The history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the States in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute. It was its essence. The House Report announced its conclusion that “it is both appropriate and necessary for Congress to do what it can to defend the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage. . . . H. R. 3396 is appropriately entitled the ‘Defense of Marriage Act.’ The effort to redefine ‘marriage’ to extend to homosexual couples is a truly radical proposal that would fundamentally alter the institution of marriage.” H. R. Rep. No. 104–664, pp. 12–13 (1996). The House concluded that DOMA expresses “both moral disapproval of homosexuality, and a moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially Judeo-Christian) morality.” Id., at 16 (footnote deleted). The stated purpose of the law was to promote an “interest in protecting the traditional moral teachings reflected in heterosexual-only marriage laws.” Ibid. Were there any doubt of this far-reaching purpose, the title of the Act confirms it: The Defense of Marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

What point were you referring to? You are of the opinion that anti gay laws are not based on hostility and animus towards gays. I disagree and I provide the reason I disagree...because I remember the legislative sessions debating these laws.

What about your hostility and animus towards children's civil rights to have both genders in the home as parents? ..

There is no such right.

Otherwise the States would be able to require that all children have a home with both genders as parents.

Nor does that have anything to do with 'gay' marriage- since gay parents are raising children- preventing them from marrying only ensures that the children don't have married parents.

What about those 'children's civil rights' to have married parents?

 

[Syriusly]

"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.

So you are still upset that the courts told Alabama...and Virginia....and every other state that they cannot forbid mixed race marriages?

That they took that 'power' away from the people?

The people of Alabama didn't decide that mixed race marriage was okay until 2000.

 

[Syriusly]

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

How exactly do you propose checking to see which 'orphans' are heterosexuals?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

No its not a 'serious issue'.

First of all- there are very few 'orphans' in modern America. Most children who are being adopted are children abandoned- either willfully or by their acts- by their biological heterosexual parents.

Secondly, there is a huge shortage of people willing to step up and adopt American children awaiting adoption- in other words- heterosexuals are not adopting all of the American children who can be adopted.

In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.

Thirdly- far too many of these children will age out of foster care without any family to help support them financially or emotionally

In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.

This is the serious issue- 101,666 children available for adoption- 32,000 waiting over 3 years to be adopted, 23,396 children age out of the system and are likely to end up homeless.

And your concern is whether or not homosexuals adopt children? You should be applauding homosexuals- and heterosexuals- who step up and offer to take care of the children abandoned by their parents.

 

[Syriusly]

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'

. The Supreme Court has proven it is not worthy of respect.

Well thanks for your opinion- which essentially means nothing.

 

[Syriusly]

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.....

blah blah blah

Judicial activism is whatever anyone who doesn't agree with a decision says it is- on both the right and the left.

The following are cited as examples of judicial activism- by people who disagree with the rulings either on the left or the right

• 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]

This is why the whole argument of 'judicial activism' is just spurious- nobody ever argues that the Court was being activist when the Court rules the way the person wants it to rule.

 

[Syriusly]

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...

Look- I never used the word '*****' in association with Mildred Loving except to point out where you had.

You were the one who called Mildred Loving a ***** in your post.

Not me.

Once again- here is you calling Mildred Loving a *****:
if she[Mildred Loving] said she's a conservative you'd be out to destroy the *****

 

[Syriusly]

.

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

Then by all means show 'most were'- I offered actual examples- you? You just quibble.

What were the examples I provided?

• The actual gay men arrested that were the basis for Lawrence v. Kansas.
• The 12 men arrested between 2011 and 2013 in Louisiana

You want to claim that 'most were' arrested were "ones who were wanted to be to make the point."

You have offered no proof for your claim- you just try weasel out by saying my examples were "a few anecdotal examples"

That is 100% more than you have offered to support your claim.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

. Do you like it because gays like words that sound like anus?

Again you characterizing other people as hostile is just laughable.

Because you are clearly not hostile to gays when you said 'gays like words that sound like anus'.........

 

[Skylar]

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'm saying exactly what I said. That the constitutional amendments and statutory restrictions that declared marriage marriage was only one man and one woman were almost universally created after Hawaiian civil union recognition. And such were explicit attempts to prevent gays from entering into the union of marriage.

Prop 8 being in 2008 wasn't some random coincidence. Gays being excluded from marriage wasn't some mysterious unintended consequence. It was the purpose of the amendment.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

Yes idiot. The 2A originally applied only to the federal gov't. Many state governments also had similar rights in their own state costitutions.
That's your lesson for today. I take PayPal.

Really? So how was it possible for the Supreme Court to overturn McDonald v Chicago?

Read the opinion.
The Court decided that the 2A like every other part of the Constitution also applied to the states.

That makes no sense.

Because you have no idea what you are talking about.
That was the holding in McDonald.

 

[Skylar]

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

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

Yes idiot. The 2A originally applied only to the federal gov't. Many state governments also had similar rights in their own state costitutions.
That's your lesson for today. I take PayPal.

Really? So how was it possible for the Supreme Court to overturn McDonald v Chicago?

Read the opinion.
The Court decided that the 2A like every other part of the Constitution also applied to the states.

That makes no sense.

Because you have no idea what you are talking about.
That was the holding in McDonald.

Rabbi.....the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government during the era of the founders. It did not limit the States in any way. It wasn't until the 14th amendment was created that the federal government could apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

However, rather than applying the entire Bill of Rights, they courts adopted the doctrine of 'selective incorporation'. Where they applied amendments or parts of amendments individually. The 2nd amendment had never been applied to the States. The 'District of Columbia v. Heller' decision in 2008 articulated the 'right to self defense with a firearm'. But it didn't indicate if this right or the 2nd amendment applied to the States.

The McDonald v. Chicago affirmed that the rights articulated in Heller and the 2nd amendment in general did limit the States.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes idiot. The 2A originally applied only to the federal gov't. Many state governments also had similar rights in their own state costitutions.
That's your lesson for today. I take PayPal.

Really? So how was it possible for the Supreme Court to overturn McDonald v Chicago?

Read the opinion.
The Court decided that the 2A like every other part of the Constitution also applied to the states.

That makes no sense.

Because you have no idea what you are talking about.
That was the holding in McDonald.

Rabbi.....the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government during the era of the founders. It did not limit the States in any way. It wasn't until the 14th amendment was created that the federal government could apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

However, rather than applying the entire Bill of Rights, they courts adopted the doctrine of 'selective incorporation'. Where they applied amendments or parts of amendments individually. The 2nd amendment had never been applied to the States. The 'District of Columbia v. Heller' decision in 2008 articulated the 'right to self defense with a firearm'. But it didn't indicate if this right or the 2nd amendment applied to the States.

The McDonald v. Chicago affirmed that the rights articulated in Heller and the 2nd amendment in general did limit the States.

So your point is I am right? Thanks a bunch.

 

[Skylar]

Really? So how was it possible for the Supreme Court to overturn McDonald v Chicago?

Read the opinion.
The Court decided that the 2A like every other part of the Constitution also applied to the states.

That makes no sense.

Because you have no idea what you are talking about.
That was the holding in McDonald.

Rabbi.....the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government during the era of the founders. It did not limit the States in any way. It wasn't until the 14th amendment was created that the federal government could apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

However, rather than applying the entire Bill of Rights, they courts adopted the doctrine of 'selective incorporation'. Where they applied amendments or parts of amendments individually. The 2nd amendment had never been applied to the States. The 'District of Columbia v. Heller' decision in 2008 articulated the 'right to self defense with a firearm'. But it didn't indicate if this right or the 2nd amendment applied to the States.

The McDonald v. Chicago affirmed that the rights articulated in Heller and the 2nd amendment in general did limit the States.

So your point is I am right? Thanks a bunch.

So my point is that you're not actually disagreeing with NYCarb.

 

[Seawytch]

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...

No, not for another few minutes. Kids lunches are already made, but your concern is touching, truly. Government checks are directed deposited and they come on the 1st of the month, by the way. I'll be heading off soon to earn my other government direct deposit...serving the voters of my county.

So you don't think serving in the military for 20 years was work and that I earned that check?

Strawman

Wow, dug deep in the bag for that one.

I'm on my break, BTW...since you're so concerned with when I work. I'll have an hour for lunch later...just so we're clear on my schedule.

 

[Seawytch]

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

You are of the opinion that anti gay laws are not based on hostility and animus towards gays

Strawman, and LOL, demonstrated my point...l

Apparently you don't have one you can articulate.

 

[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.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. Therefore, there is nothing to be "anti-" toward.

So... well, you see how it is.

I do "see how it is" in a majority of states now...and it's not what you claim.

 

[Skylar]

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.

What federal court order forbid Colorado from selling marajuana?