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

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I didn't say you didn't mean what you said, I said you were playing word games with what I said. I talked about the people who created marriage, they were not thinking about gay marriage at all. Wasn't in their mind. Never occurred to them government would recognize that as marriage. I agreed gay sodomy laws were directed at gays.

You came back with that wasn't true and you started with Hawaii in 1991. So, you either think government marriage did not exist before 1991 or you are playing word games. You tell me...

BTW, I got a government marriage in 1988, so I'm pretty sure government marriage was pre-1991...

Oh my, the guy who opposes government marriage is enjoying HIS government marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

No, it's when they don't follow the law but make law

Well there's nothing to ***** about in this thread since judges haven't been making law when it come to gays and lesbians being able to civilly marry each other.

Of course they have. Dont be silly.

Please give us the name of one of those laws.

Ignoring legislatures and enacting government gay marriage

Not how it worked. What happened was that laws violating the U.S. Constitution were passed by state legislators and by referendum. Those who felt they were harmed by these laws are within their rights to redress their grievances through the courts.

And courts are agreeing that laws prohibiting gays from marrying each other violate their equal protection under existing laws.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

I didn't say you didn't mean what you said, I said you were playing word games with what I said. I talked about the people who created marriage, they were not thinking about gay marriage at all. Wasn't in their mind. Never occurred to them government would recognize that as marriage. I agreed gay sodomy laws were directed at gays.

You came back with that wasn't true and you started with Hawaii in 1991. So, you either think government marriage did not exist before 1991 or you are playing word games. You tell me...

BTW, I got a government marriage in 1988, so I'm pretty sure government marriage was pre-1991...

Oh my, the guy who opposes government marriage is enjoying HIS government marriage.

Oh, he doesn't enjoy it. He hates it. His wife makes him stay married. He's a VERY reluctant hypocrite.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

I didn't say you didn't mean what you said, I said you were playing word games with what I said. I talked about the people who created marriage, they were not thinking about gay marriage at all. Wasn't in their mind. Never occurred to them government would recognize that as marriage. I agreed gay sodomy laws were directed at gays.

You came back with that wasn't true and you started with Hawaii in 1991. So, you either think government marriage did not exist before 1991 or you are playing word games. You tell me...

BTW, I got a government marriage in 1988, so I'm pretty sure government marriage was pre-1991...

Oh my, the guy who opposes government marriage is enjoying HIS government marriage.

Wow, big hyporcisy, right? No, wrong.
Libs are so quick to throw the hypocrisy card. It's literally meaningless at this point.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, it's when they don't follow the law but make law

Well there's nothing to ***** about in this thread since judges haven't been making law when it come to gays and lesbians being able to civilly marry each other.

Of course they have. Dont be silly.

Please give us the name of one of those laws.

Ignoring legislatures and enacting government gay marriage

Not how it worked. What happened was that laws violating the U.S. Constitution were passed by state legislators and by referendum. Those who felt they were harmed by these laws are within their rights to redress their grievances through the courts.

And courts are agreeing that laws prohibiting gays from marrying each other violate their equal protection under existing laws.

Argument 2
What actually happened was that legislatures passed laws consistent with their state constitutions, often amended by large majorities of voters. The fags couldnt sell their snake oil to the public so after a few electoral beatings they shopped for gay judges who would gin up a non existent equal protection rationale to impose gay marriage on populations that consistently rejected it. Until the Circuit Court ruling that stopped that nonsense in some states.

 

[kaz]

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.

I didn't say you didn't mean what you said, I said you were playing word games with what I said. I talked about the people who created marriage, they were not thinking about gay marriage at all. Wasn't in their mind. Never occurred to them government would recognize that as marriage. I agreed gay sodomy laws were directed at gays.

You came back with that wasn't true and you started with Hawaii in 1991. So, you either think government marriage did not exist before 1991 or you are playing word games. You tell me...

BTW, I got a government marriage in 1988, so I'm pretty sure government marriage was pre-1991...

Oh my, the guy who opposes government marriage is enjoying HIS government marriage.

Oh, he doesn't enjoy it. He hates it. His wife makes him stay married. He's a VERY reluctant hypocrite.

Strawman

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

I didn't say you didn't mean what you said, I said you were playing word games with what I said. I talked about the people who created marriage, they were not thinking about gay marriage at all. Wasn't in their mind. Never occurred to them government would recognize that as marriage. I agreed gay sodomy laws were directed at gays.

You came back with that wasn't true and you started with Hawaii in 1991. So, you either think government marriage did not exist before 1991 or you are playing word games. You tell me...

BTW, I got a government marriage in 1988, so I'm pretty sure government marriage was pre-1991...

Oh my, the guy who opposes government marriage is enjoying HIS government marriage.

Oh, he doesn't enjoy it. He hates it. His wife makes him stay married. He's a VERY reluctant hypocrite.

Strawman

Is that a strawman or blatant slander?

 

[Syriusly]

Well there's nothing to ***** about in this thread since judges haven't been making law when it come to gays and lesbians being able to civilly marry each other.

Of course they have. Dont be silly.

Please give us the name of one of those laws.

Ignoring legislatures and enacting government gay marriage

Not how it worked. What happened was that laws violating the U.S. Constitution were passed by state legislators and by referendum. Those who felt they were harmed by these laws are within their rights to redress their grievances through the courts.

And courts are agreeing that laws prohibiting gays from marrying each other violate their equal protection under existing laws.

Argument 2
What actually happened was that legislatures passed laws consistent with their state constitutions, often amended by large majorities of voters. The fags couldnt sell their snake oil to the public so after a few electoral beatings they shopped for gay judges who would gin up a non existent equal protection rationale to impose gay marriage on populations that consistently rejected it. Until the Circuit Court ruling that stopped that nonsense in some states.

The f*gs couldn't...
The n*ggers couldn't....
The c*nts couldn't....
The k*kes couldn't....

Argument #3
Its the fault of 'gay judges'

 

[Syriusly]

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.

I didn't say you didn't mean what you said, I said you were playing word games with what I said. I talked about the people who created marriage, they were not thinking about gay marriage at all. Wasn't in their mind. Never occurred to them government would recognize that as marriage. I agreed gay sodomy laws were directed at gays.

You came back with that wasn't true and you started with Hawaii in 1991. So, you either think government marriage did not exist before 1991 or you are playing word games. You tell me...

BTW, I got a government marriage in 1988, so I'm pretty sure government marriage was pre-1991...

People may have not been thinking about the possibility of homosexuals marrying when marriage was legally created in California, but people were specifically excluding the possibility of homosexuals marrying when they passed laws against same gender marriage:


On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled in a 4–3 decision that laws directed at gays and lesbians are subject to strict scrutiny and same-sex couples' access to marriage is a fundamental right under Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution. The court found that two statutes barring same-sex marriage in California, one enacted in 1977 by the legislature and the other in 2000 by state voters (Proposition 22), were unconstitutional. The decision was the first in the United States to establish sexual orientation as asuspect classification.[2] On June 4, 2008, the court denied a request for rehearing and a request to put a hold on the ruling, affirming that the decision would take effect as scheduled.[3] The writ of mandate directing the state government to comply with the ruling and grant same-sex marriages was issued by the Superior Court of California on June 19, 2008.[4]

And then my fellow citizen's changed our Constitution specifically to ensure that homosexuals could not legally marry.

Californians passed 2 laws, and one Amendment from 1977 on to prevent homosexuals from marrying- those laws were directed specifically at homosexuals.

From 1991 to 2008, you're headed the wrong direction...

Oh we have already arrived at the right destination.

People in love are getting married.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

No, it's when they don't follow the law but make law

Well there's nothing to ***** about in this thread since judges haven't been making law when it come to gays and lesbians being able to civilly marry each other.

Of course they have. Dont be silly.

Please give us the name of one of those laws.

Ignoring legislatures and enacting government gay marriage

I missed that law- which state has a law named "ignoring legislatures and enacting government gay marriage"?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

I didn't say you didn't mean what you said, I said you were playing word games with what I said. I talked about the people who created marriage, they were not thinking about gay marriage at all. Wasn't in their mind. Never occurred to them government would recognize that as marriage. I agreed gay sodomy laws were directed at gays.

You came back with that wasn't true and you started with Hawaii in 1991. So, you either think government marriage did not exist before 1991 or you are playing word games. You tell me...

BTW, I got a government marriage in 1988, so I'm pretty sure government marriage was pre-1991...

Oh my, the guy who opposes government marriage is enjoying HIS government marriage.

Oh, he doesn't enjoy it. He hates it. His wife makes him stay married. He's a VERY reluctant hypocrite.

Strawman

Is that a strawman or blatant slander?

Slander would have to be untrue.

 

[The Rabbi]

I didn't say you didn't mean what you said, I said you were playing word games with what I said. I talked about the people who created marriage, they were not thinking about gay marriage at all. Wasn't in their mind. Never occurred to them government would recognize that as marriage. I agreed gay sodomy laws were directed at gays.

You came back with that wasn't true and you started with Hawaii in 1991. So, you either think government marriage did not exist before 1991 or you are playing word games. You tell me...

BTW, I got a government marriage in 1988, so I'm pretty sure government marriage was pre-1991...

Oh my, the guy who opposes government marriage is enjoying HIS government marriage.

Oh, he doesn't enjoy it. He hates it. His wife makes him stay married. He's a VERY reluctant hypocrite.

Strawman

Is that a strawman or blatant slander?

Slander would have to be untrue.

Defamation, perhaps.

 

[Seawytch]

Oh my, the guy who opposes government marriage is enjoying HIS government marriage.

Oh, he doesn't enjoy it. He hates it. His wife makes him stay married. He's a VERY reluctant hypocrite.

Strawman

Is that a strawman or blatant slander?

Slander would have to be untrue.

Defamation, perhaps.

Nope, but keep flailing.

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh, he doesn't enjoy it. He hates it. His wife makes him stay married. He's a VERY reluctant hypocrite.

Strawman

Is that a strawman or blatant slander?

Slander would have to be untrue.

Defamation, perhaps.

Nope, but keep flailing.

Translation: Nailed it.

 

[Seawytch]

Strawman

Is that a strawman or blatant slander?

Slander would have to be untrue.

Defamation, perhaps.

Nope, but keep flailing.

Translation: Nailed it.

Sure Rabbi, you "nailed it". I'll wait for the subpoena. Why not ask the reluctant hypocrite himself?

 

[The Rabbi]

Is that a strawman or blatant slander?

Slander would have to be untrue.

Defamation, perhaps.

Nope, but keep flailing.

Translation: Nailed it.

Sure Rabbi, you "nailed it". I'll wait for the subpoena. Why not ask the reluctant hypocrite himself?

Butt hurt?

 

[Seawytch]

Slander would have to be untrue.

Defamation, perhaps.

Nope, but keep flailing.

Translation: Nailed it.

Sure Rabbi, you "nailed it". I'll wait for the subpoena. Why not ask the reluctant hypocrite himself?

Butt hurt?

Are you just using some kind of phrase generator? You're certainly not making sense as it relates to the conversation. What on earth would I be "butt hurt" about?

 

[WorldWatcher]

What on earth would I be "butt hurt" about?

As a lesbian, the only reason I can think of is that you and your wife are doing it wrong.

That or you recently took up cycling and are in the process of breaking the gluteus maximus.




>>>>

 

[danielpalos]

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.

No, it's when they don't follow the law but make law

Well there's nothing to ***** about in this thread since judges haven't been making law when it come to gays and lesbians being able to civilly marry each other.

Of course they have. Dont be silly.

Please give us the name of one of those laws.

Ignoring legislatures and enacting government gay marriage

Those legislatures or the People, simply don't retain the Power to deny and disparage those privileges and immunities to the citizens in the several States, without changing our Constitution, to allow it.

 

[The Rabbi]

What on earth would I be "butt hurt" about?

As a lesbian, the only reason I can think of is that you and your wife are doing it wrong.

That or you recently took up cycling and are in the process of breaking the gluteus maximus.




>>>>

I had no idea you were a lesbian.