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

[Syriusly]

It is good when 4 year old children who have been abandoned by their parents are adopted into a family- regardless of whether that family is a single mom or dad, a homosexual couple or a heterosexual couple.

I supposed using your reasoning, it's better when a 4 year old is adopted by wolves, or even a pedophile...better than being abandoned, right?

Clearly you are challenged by the word 'reasoning'

Wolves don't get to adopt children.
Known pedophiles don't get to adopt children.

It is good when 4 year old children who have been abandoned by their parents are adopted into a family- regardless of whether that family is a single mom or dad, a homosexual couple or a heterosexual couple.

 

[Syriusly]

And I conceded you have the paper, you have government marriage. You just don't know what marriage is.

And you assume I do without any knowledge

No, I do because of what you keep telling me to do in my marriage. Or is this yet another overt hypocrisy you practice? I should not assume you act how you tell me to act?

I haven't told you to DO anything other than, instead of asking gays why they want to marry, ask yourself and your civilly married wife.

I'm even wishing you luck in your "battle" to get rid of the marriage benefits you and millions of straights (and a few thousand gays) enjoy. Let us know how it goes.

I'm kinda curious. If kaz wants marriage benefits like lower taxes stripped from all married couples.....why doesn't he just pay the higher taxes that people filing individually would pay?

You don't have to file jointly.

Or why he doesn't get legally divorced?

 

[Syriusly]

Slander would have to be untrue.

I agree, it is basically true except for your butt hurt telling me how I feel. Don't go into psychology, you suck at it. As I keep telling you I'm not a hypocrite, I'm following my values because my values are that if something is more important to my spouse I do it her way. That is as you continually tell us beyond your capability. You get your way or you compromise or you show them the door. Doing it their way isn't part of your world.

Yes Kaz, so honorable of you to stay married to your wife when you don't want to. We get it. Big sacrifice on your part to take those tax breaks...that you want to deny gay couples.

LOL, I don't want to pay taxes that I oppose in the first place, I keep saying I think taxes should be flat and marriage irrelevant to the taxes. You don't want to pay taxes that you support. You want to **** single people then get out of those taxes.

And YOU call ME a hypocrite...

Single people aren't denied access to them if they marry, gays are. If you don't buy a house, you don't get the credit. If you don't buy energy efficient appliances you don't get the tax credit. If you don't own a private jet you don't get the private jet credit. Start a flat tax thread.

You want the high taxes, you are a flaming hypocrite to turn around and evade them. Why just because you paired off should you not pay the taxes you advocate other people pay? Doing things like getting family insurance rates is one thing, but you don't pay the taxes you stick on other people. That is just flat out hypocrisy. I advocate low taxes, I don't think singles should pay higher taxes, but I don't think I should either.

She wants to be treated legally exactly the same as you and your wife are.

You oppose that.

That is what your argument boils down to.

 

[Syriusly]

It is good when 4 year old children who have been abandoned by their parents are adopted into a family- regardless of whether that family is a single mom or dad, a homosexual couple or a heterosexual couple.

I supposed using your reasoning, it's better when a 4 year old is adopted by wolves, or even a pedophile...better than being abandoned, right?

Only if you equate a single mom, single dad, homosexual couple or heterosexual couple with 'wolves'.

An argument I don't think most rational people would join you in.

She seems to be under the impression that wolves go around adopting children

 

[NYcarbineer]

Thomas Paine once said:

A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.

That applies quite aptly to the long held belief of many that marriage should be restricted to heterosexuals only.

Or as I would put it, Tradition often consists of being wrong about something for a very very long time.

 

[Seawytch]

I agree, it is basically true except for your butt hurt telling me how I feel. Don't go into psychology, you suck at it. As I keep telling you I'm not a hypocrite, I'm following my values because my values are that if something is more important to my spouse I do it her way. That is as you continually tell us beyond your capability. You get your way or you compromise or you show them the door. Doing it their way isn't part of your world.

Yes Kaz, so honorable of you to stay married to your wife when you don't want to. We get it. Big sacrifice on your part to take those tax breaks...that you want to deny gay couples.

LOL, I don't want to pay taxes that I oppose in the first place, I keep saying I think taxes should be flat and marriage irrelevant to the taxes. You don't want to pay taxes that you support. You want to **** single people then get out of those taxes.

And YOU call ME a hypocrite...

Single people aren't denied access to them if they marry, gays are. If you don't buy a house, you don't get the credit. If you don't buy energy efficient appliances you don't get the tax credit. If you don't own a private jet you don't get the private jet credit. Start a flat tax thread.

You want the high taxes, you are a flaming hypocrite to turn around and evade them. Why just because you paired off should you not pay the taxes you advocate other people pay? Doing things like getting family insurance rates is one thing, but you don't pay the taxes you stick on other people. That is just flat out hypocrisy. I advocate low taxes, I don't think singles should pay higher taxes, but I don't think I should either.

She wants to be treated legally exactly the same as you and your wife are.

You oppose that.

That is what your argument boils down to.

Ding, ding, ding!!!! We have a winner!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It is good when 4 year old children who have been abandoned by their parents are adopted into a family- regardless of whether that family is a single mom or dad, a homosexual couple or a heterosexual couple.

It's a rare four year old that is abandoned and it rarer yet one which manages to get abandoned which is not readily adopted by a married couple; which is to say a man and a woman who have joined as one entity for the purposes of procreation and the raising of children... .

And under no circumstances should a four year old ever be left alone with a homosexual or any other variation of the mentally disordered.

 

[Seawytch]

And I conceded you have the paper, you have government marriage. You just don't know what marriage is.

And you assume I do without any knowledge

No, I do because of what you keep telling me to do in my marriage. Or is this yet another overt hypocrisy you practice? I should not assume you act how you tell me to act?

I haven't told you to DO anything other than, instead of asking gays why they want to marry, ask yourself and your civilly married wife.

I'm even wishing you luck in your "battle" to get rid of the marriage benefits you and millions of straights (and a few thousand gays) enjoy. Let us know how it goes.

I'm kinda curious. If kaz wants marriage benefits like lower taxes stripped from all married couples.....why doesn't he just pay the higher taxes that people filing individually would pay?

You don't have to file jointly.

To be fair, that isn't what he wants. He thinks single folks should get the same breaks as married folks. Keeping gays from the tax breaks will surely achieve that unrealistic goal.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Thomas Paine once said:

A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.

That applies quite aptly to the long held belief of many that marriage should be restricted to heterosexuals only.

ROFLMNAO!

Sweet mother that is ADORABLE!

So heterosexuals marrying is just sorta a habit of the culture?

Good lord you people are daft.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... as that is the nature of the human species; a component of the physiological design of the species.

What you're saying is that people walk with their feet down and head up because we've just sort of gotten into the habit of doing so. It would be perfectly acceptable for people to walk around on the hands and sit with the thighs on the cushion, and their heads on the floor. And where a person felt that they NEEDED to do so, it would be the responsibility of the culture to accommodate their abnormal configuration? Waiters would need to get down on their elbows to serve such people on the deck. ... .

Folks, again... what you're seeing in the feckless reasoning of the above cited contributor is a perversion of human reasoning.

That they utter such nonsense in no way obligates anyone to tolerate their doing so, or accept it as reasonable.

What humanity HAS done, in terms of bad habits... is to lend credence to the pitiful screeds of the intellectually less fortunate.

We should return to locking such creatures away. As to do so protects the culture from being influenced by their foolishness.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

To be fair, that isn't what he wants. He thinks single folks should get the same breaks as married folks. Keeping gays from the tax breaks will surely achieve that unrealistic goal.

Who is keeping the sexually abnormal from receiving tax breaks? It sure as hell isn't Americans. We're for stripping the US citizen of all tax liability above 10% of the profits they realize as a product of their labor. PERIOD.

If you spend $100 and in the process of providing the service, product or combination receive $300, you subtract the $100 in expenses from the $300, leaving $200 profit, you owe the government $20.

From that the government operates every conceivable function, from building roads and bridges to defending the nation from attack, to local, state and federal law enforcement, firefighters, EMTS, Schools, libraries, prisons, all government salaries... parking, light bills, water bills, space exploration... what have you.

If a Citizen wants to contribute to the government more than 10%... do so.

Married couple pay 10% of the profits from their labor, same as single couples, the sexually abnormal pay the same as normal people, blacks, browns soft pastels... everyone pays the same.

Of course there is no welfare, no subsidies for being stupid, inept and a poor decision maker... crackheads, methheads, pillheads, you're gonna die, potheads, you're gonna die too, just slower.

(The Reader should stand by for the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality to throw the classic socialist hissy fit. Which will demonstrate that they're no interests in tax-breaks, but in welfare subsidies for all of the above noted afflictions... .)

 

[Skylar]

And I conceded you have the paper, you have government marriage. You just don't know what marriage is.

And you assume I do without any knowledge

No, I do because of what you keep telling me to do in my marriage. Or is this yet another overt hypocrisy you practice? I should not assume you act how you tell me to act?

I haven't told you to DO anything other than, instead of asking gays why they want to marry, ask yourself and your civilly married wife.

I'm even wishing you luck in your "battle" to get rid of the marriage benefits you and millions of straights (and a few thousand gays) enjoy. Let us know how it goes.

I'm kinda curious. If kaz wants marriage benefits like lower taxes stripped from all married couples.....why doesn't he just pay the higher taxes that people filing individually would pay?

You don't have to file jointly.

To be fair, that isn't what he wants. He thinks single folks should get the same breaks as married folks. Keeping gays from the tax breaks will surely achieve that unrealistic goal.

So either gays get the tax breaks that married folks do.....or he should be paying higher taxes since he doesn't believe married folks should get the breaks.

Those are the only two consistent positions.

 

[Skylar]

To be fair, that isn't what he wants. He thinks single folks should get the same breaks as married folks. Keeping gays from the tax breaks will surely achieve that unrealistic goal.

Who is keeping the sexually abnormal from receiving tax breaks? It sure as hell isn't Americans. We're for stripping the US citizen of all tax liability above 10% of the profits they realize as a product of their labor. PERIOD.

Who is 'we'? Because you certainly don't speak for a majority of Americans.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

Sil,

There is a stay request at the Supreme Court from Alabama. As of Monday SSCM will become a reality in Alabama unless the SCOTUS grants a stay pending a final ruling from them on the issue.

So what is your call? Will the SCOTUS issue the stay to Alabama or will they reject the stay meaning SSCM starts on Monday?


(Cross posting just to make sure you see it.)


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

>

Sil,

There is a stay request at the Supreme Court from Alabama. As of Monday SSCM will become a reality in Alabama unless the SCOTUS grants a stay pending a final ruling from them on the issue.

So what is your call? Will the SCOTUS issue the stay to Alabama or will they reject the stay meaning SSCM starts on Monday?


(Cross posting just to make sure you see it.)


>>>>

There was a stay request to the USSC from Alabama. I heard that yesterday the 11th extended the stay until after the USSC has ruled on the topic.

 

[The Rabbi]

Strawman, I'm not reluctant. I'm glad it makes my spouse happy. When you grasp that, maybe you can move past government marriage just being collective validation and start to get the real thing. Gays are not all like you BTW. My VP of sales for my business is gay. She has worked for me about three years. She has been in a serious committed relationship for about one. She and her partner very much do things for each other's interest. Isn't it interesting? You have the paper, she doesn't want it, but I consider her far more married than you are.

Oh...so you're happy to be a raging hypocrite. Good to know. Can I call you the happy hypocrite instead?

Really? You're gonna try the "I have a gay friend" thing too?

Being civilly married was in the interest of both my spouse and I. We both wanted it and to you that means we're worthy of derision...because we want the same civil marriage you and your wife wanted that now only she wants.

And your opinion of my marriage doesn't make me any less married or any less in love with my wife.

You should consider that sometimes when you do things because they are in your partner's interest rather than your own and you don't demand your way or even a compromise, you get more in your own interest than getting your way. Blows your mind, doesn't it?

And I conceded you have the paper, you have government marriage. You just don't know what marriage is.

And you assume I do without any knowledge.

I have a marriage. We've been together 20 and married 7.

Let me tell you what that "piece of paper" has done for our family. First and foremost, our children can say their parents are married and if you talk to child experts, they'll tell you that's important to the children. Also importantly for our children, our civil marriage has allowed my spouse to not work. She can be on my employer sponsored health plan and so she can stay home and be there when the kids get home from school, have a hot meal cooked, clean clothes and a house for them.

What it could have done if we had access to it 15 years ago was save a lot of money. Instead of paying thousands of dollars for my spouse to legally adopt our children and change her name, a $75 marriage license would have taken care of the whole shebang in one fell swoop.

It's great you compromise. You deserve husband of the year for staying married when you don't want to. What makes you a dick is wanting to deny those same rights, benefits and privileges to gay couples who want to care for their spouses like you do.

Civil marriage has enabled you to sponge off others. That's really the bottom line here. All the crap about civil rights and liberties etc is just smokesreen.
I was wrong. There are 3 arguments for gay marriage:
1) Gays are really oppressed black people c.1965
2 We're winning in the courts
3) Give us the money.

There is really only one argument

Same gender couples deserve to be treated under the law, exactly the same as my wife and I are.

Why do they deserve that? WHy dont triples deserve the same protection? Or any group that wants the benefits of marriage? Why shouldnt a mother and son be able to get married to take advantage of the marital inheritance loophole? Or two business partners get married so one can't testify against the other in a criminal proceeding?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Which amendment does the SCOTUS have the power to make life fair when the legislature doesn't? I can't find that one?

Judicial review can be considered necessary and proper simply because our federal Congress cannot always tell the difference between the common defense and the common offense, or any Thing more nuanced than that.

It's not in the Constitution, they took it in Marbury v. Madison, and it's not a basis to change laws or make up laws they don't like.

Please provide an example of a law that the Supreme Court has made up?

Obamacare.
The law that Congress passed and the president signed is not the law the SUpreme Court declared constitutional. The law passed explicitly said the mandate was not a tax. The Supreme Court said it was a tax. They simply made that up.

 

[Skylar]

Oh...so you're happy to be a raging hypocrite. Good to know. Can I call you the happy hypocrite instead?

Really? You're gonna try the "I have a gay friend" thing too?

Being civilly married was in the interest of both my spouse and I. We both wanted it and to you that means we're worthy of derision...because we want the same civil marriage you and your wife wanted that now only she wants.

And your opinion of my marriage doesn't make me any less married or any less in love with my wife.

You should consider that sometimes when you do things because they are in your partner's interest rather than your own and you don't demand your way or even a compromise, you get more in your own interest than getting your way. Blows your mind, doesn't it?

And I conceded you have the paper, you have government marriage. You just don't know what marriage is.

And you assume I do without any knowledge.

I have a marriage. We've been together 20 and married 7.

Let me tell you what that "piece of paper" has done for our family. First and foremost, our children can say their parents are married and if you talk to child experts, they'll tell you that's important to the children. Also importantly for our children, our civil marriage has allowed my spouse to not work. She can be on my employer sponsored health plan and so she can stay home and be there when the kids get home from school, have a hot meal cooked, clean clothes and a house for them.

What it could have done if we had access to it 15 years ago was save a lot of money. Instead of paying thousands of dollars for my spouse to legally adopt our children and change her name, a $75 marriage license would have taken care of the whole shebang in one fell swoop.

It's great you compromise. You deserve husband of the year for staying married when you don't want to. What makes you a dick is wanting to deny those same rights, benefits and privileges to gay couples who want to care for their spouses like you do.

Civil marriage has enabled you to sponge off others. That's really the bottom line here. All the crap about civil rights and liberties etc is just smokesreen.
I was wrong. There are 3 arguments for gay marriage:
1) Gays are really oppressed black people c.1965
2 We're winning in the courts
3) Give us the money.

There is really only one argument

Same gender couples deserve to be treated under the law, exactly the same as my wife and I are.

Why do they deserve that? WHy dont triples deserve the same protection? Or any group that wants the benefits of marriage? Why shouldnt a mother and son be able to get married to take advantage of the marital inheritance loophole? Or two business partners get married so one can't testify against the other in a criminal proceeding?

Slippery slope.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Which amendment does the SCOTUS have the power to make life fair when the legislature doesn't? I can't find that one?

Judicial review can be considered necessary and proper simply because our federal Congress cannot always tell the difference between the common defense and the common offense, or any Thing more nuanced than that.

It's not in the Constitution, they took it in Marbury v. Madison, and it's not a basis to change laws or make up laws they don't like.

Please provide an example of a law that the Supreme Court has made up?

Obamacare.
The law that Congress passed and the president signed is not the law the SUpreme Court declared constitutional. The law passed explicitly said the mandate was not a tax. The Supreme Court said it was a tax. They simply made that up.

Where did ACA say it wasn't a tax. Explicitly.

 

[The Rabbi]

Which amendment does the SCOTUS have the power to make life fair when the legislature doesn't? I can't find that one?

Judicial review can be considered necessary and proper simply because our federal Congress cannot always tell the difference between the common defense and the common offense, or any Thing more nuanced than that.

It's not in the Constitution, they took it in Marbury v. Madison, and it's not a basis to change laws or make up laws they don't like.

Please provide an example of a law that the Supreme Court has made up?

Obamacare.
The law that Congress passed and the president signed is not the law the SUpreme Court declared constitutional. The law passed explicitly said the mandate was not a tax. The Supreme Court said it was a tax. They simply made that up.

Where did ACA say it wasn't a tax. Explicitly.

The law explicitly calls it a "penalty".

 

[Skylar]

Judicial review can be considered necessary and proper simply because our federal Congress cannot always tell the difference between the common defense and the common offense, or any Thing more nuanced than that.

It's not in the Constitution, they took it in Marbury v. Madison, and it's not a basis to change laws or make up laws they don't like.

Please provide an example of a law that the Supreme Court has made up?

Obamacare.
The law that Congress passed and the president signed is not the law the SUpreme Court declared constitutional. The law passed explicitly said the mandate was not a tax. The Supreme Court said it was a tax. They simply made that up.

Where did ACA say it wasn't a tax. Explicitly.

The law explicitly calls it a "penalty".

And where did it explicitly say the mandate was not a tax.