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

[danielpalos]

Alabama needs to stand firm against federal tyranny.

What federal tyranny is that?

Article 4, Section 2 was ratified by the several States.
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Marriage is neither a privilege nor an immunity.
On your argument I should be entitled t tax breaks because VW got tax breaks when they located a factory here.

Freedom of association and (marriage) Contract is a natural right in the several States of the Union.

 

[kaz]

No, you never did provide evidence of your claim that Skylar, WW, Jake, etc wanted to "freeze the system".

That isn't what I said. I'm tired of explaining and reexplaining conversations to you.

Maybe it's just that you forget what you said and that's why you won't support ANY of your claims. Here's what you said:

Kaz: How many liberal straights are arguing for gay marriage? It's not just the gays who actually get married, it's all the liberals who want a different system. They all will want the system to freeze once they get their way.

When I asked you who, you listed Skylar, Syriusly, World Watcher and JakeStarkey so I asked you to provide links to where they advocated "getting their way and then freezing the system". You then proceeded to do your usual deflection. It's okay, I understand that I called you on something you can't back up so you react with vehemence. It's textbook something I'm sure.

Even in this quote, you changed the standard, which is exactly my point. First you didn't know what I meant, then I said they wanted to freeze it now. Now you found the actual quote and seem to finally grasp it. But it took you a while to get there. I'm not going to work at posts with you when you can't follow a simple conversation or accurately read a post.

As for how I know that, they are advocating gay government marriage and they support government marriage tax breaks privileges and benefits, they argue with me they do not want government marriage to go away and they do want gays to get it. That is directly adding gay marriage and freezing the system. As I said, you can't read or follow simple discussions.

 

[The Rabbi]

Alabama needs to stand firm against federal tyranny.

What federal tyranny is that?

Article 4, Section 2 was ratified by the several States.
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Marriage is neither a privilege nor an immunity.
On your argument I should be entitled t tax breaks because VW got tax breaks when they located a factory here.

Freedom of association and (marriage) Contract is a natural right in the several States of the Union.

That utterly contradicts Heisenberg's Principle and the Rule of 72. You fail.

 

[The Rabbi]

Alabama needs to stand firm against federal tyranny.

What federal tyranny is that?

Article 4, Section 2 was ratified by the several States.
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Good... Then that means my non-resident CCW's from Florida and Arizona must be recognized by California too?

-Geaux

You know what? That would be a great subject for a thread, why CCW permits are not treated the same as marriage licenses, but the fact is they are so you are trying to compare apples to kumquats.

If you and I get a CCW permit in FL, it is treated exactly the same. Yours isn't valid in some states and not in another because you are straight. Now, if you and I both get a CA marriage license, yours is valid in all 50 states...mine, issued by the same authority is not. Understand the difference now?

Nope.
You marry a man in FL. Your marriage certificate is valid in all 50 states. If I marry a man in FL it isnt valid in a bunch. You're gay and I'm straight but that's irrelevant.
You have a handgun carry permit. It isnt valid in CA or NJ.

Silly, I'm not married to a man, I'm married to a woman...legally and everything. I have a civil marriage license issued by the state of California.

Did you know that some states allow 1st cousins to marry and some states don't but that even in the states that don't marry 1st cousins, their marriage is valid?

This is why I know that my marriage will be valid in all 50 states come June because that is the least of what the SCOTUS will do, get rid of the rest of DOMA.

It isnt that you dont know anything.
Its that most of what you know is wrong.

 

[Geaux4it]

What federal tyranny is that?

Article 4, Section 2 was ratified by the several States.
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Good... Then that means my non-resident CCW's from Florida and Arizona must be recognized by California too?

-Geaux

You know what? That would be a great subject for a thread, why CCW permits are not treated the same as marriage licenses, but the fact is they are so you are trying to compare apples to kumquats.

If you and I get a CCW permit in FL, it is treated exactly the same. Yours isn't valid in some states and not in another because you are straight. Now, if you and I both get a CA marriage license, yours is valid in all 50 states...mine, issued by the same authority is not. Understand the difference now?

Nope.
You marry a man in FL. Your marriage certificate is valid in all 50 states. If I marry a man in FL it isnt valid in a bunch. You're gay and I'm straight but that's irrelevant.
You have a handgun carry permit. It isnt valid in CA or NJ.

Silly, I'm not married to a man, I'm married to a woman...legally and everything. I have a civil marriage license issued by the state of California.

Did you know that some states allow 1st cousins to marry and some states don't but that even in the states that don't marry 1st cousins, their marriage is valid?

This is why I know that my marriage will be valid in all 50 states come June because that is the least of what the SCOTUS will do, get rid of the rest of DOMA.

It isnt that you dont know anything.
Its that most of what you know is wrong.

Indeed- They just know so much that isn't so.

-Geaux

 

[Seawytch]

No, you never did provide evidence of your claim that Skylar, WW, Jake, etc wanted to "freeze the system".

That isn't what I said. I'm tired of explaining and reexplaining conversations to you.

Maybe it's just that you forget what you said and that's why you won't support ANY of your claims. Here's what you said:

Kaz: How many liberal straights are arguing for gay marriage? It's not just the gays who actually get married, it's all the liberals who want a different system. They all will want the system to freeze once they get their way.

When I asked you who, you listed Skylar, Syriusly, World Watcher and JakeStarkey so I asked you to provide links to where they advocated "getting their way and then freezing the system". You then proceeded to do your usual deflection. It's okay, I understand that I called you on something you can't back up so you react with vehemence. It's textbook something I'm sure.

Even in this quote, you changed the standard, which is exactly my point. First you didn't know what I meant, then I said they wanted to freeze it now. Now you found the actual quote and seem to finally grasp it. But it took you a while to get there. I'm not going to work at posts with you when you can't follow a simple conversation or accurately read a post.

As for how I know that, they are advocating gay government marriage and they support government marriage tax breaks privileges and benefits, they argue with me they do not want government marriage to go away and they do want gays to get it. That is directly adding gay marriage and freezing the system. As I said, you can't read or follow simple discussions.

I got it fine...which is why I asked you to provide proof of your claim...which you still have not done. You're deflecting and projecting since I don't think any of them said they'd "freeze the system" once the gays got in. You certainly want to freeze it now that you're in, married guy.

 

[kaz]

This is why I know that my marriage will be valid in all 50 states come June because that is the least of what the SCOTUS will do, get rid of the rest of DOMA.

It isnt that you dont know anything.
Its that most of what you know is wrong.

Indeed- They just know so much that isn't so.

-Geaux

Well, lawyers told them and we all know a lawyer wouldn't lie, don't we?

 

[kaz]

No, you never did provide evidence of your claim that Skylar, WW, Jake, etc wanted to "freeze the system".

That isn't what I said. I'm tired of explaining and reexplaining conversations to you.

Maybe it's just that you forget what you said and that's why you won't support ANY of your claims. Here's what you said:

Kaz: How many liberal straights are arguing for gay marriage? It's not just the gays who actually get married, it's all the liberals who want a different system. They all will want the system to freeze once they get their way.

When I asked you who, you listed Skylar, Syriusly, World Watcher and JakeStarkey so I asked you to provide links to where they advocated "getting their way and then freezing the system". You then proceeded to do your usual deflection. It's okay, I understand that I called you on something you can't back up so you react with vehemence. It's textbook something I'm sure.

Even in this quote, you changed the standard, which is exactly my point. First you didn't know what I meant, then I said they wanted to freeze it now. Now you found the actual quote and seem to finally grasp it. But it took you a while to get there. I'm not going to work at posts with you when you can't follow a simple conversation or accurately read a post.

As for how I know that, they are advocating gay government marriage and they support government marriage tax breaks privileges and benefits, they argue with me they do not want government marriage to go away and they do want gays to get it. That is directly adding gay marriage and freezing the system. As I said, you can't read or follow simple discussions.

I got it fine...which is why I asked you to provide proof of your claim...which you still have not done. You're deflecting and projecting since I don't think any of them said they'd "freeze the system" once the gays got in. You certainly want to freeze it now that you're in, married guy.

LOL, you aren't even aware I answered your question, are you? Your lack of reading comprehension is actually pretty comical. Tell me how you have an equivalent to a college degree again, that was funny.

 

[Silhouette]

Even in this quote, you changed the standard, which is exactly my point. First you didn't know what I meant, then I said they wanted to freeze it now. Now you found the actual quote and seem to finally grasp it. But it took you a while to get there. I'm not going to work at posts with you when you can't follow a simple conversation or accurately read a post....As for how I know that, they are advocating gay government marriage and they support government marriage tax breaks privileges and benefits, they argue with me they do not want government marriage to go away and they do want gays to get it. That is directly adding gay marriage and freezing the system. As I said, you can't read or follow simple discussions.

Well, of course polygamy and any other conceivable situation in the name of "love and marriage" will have access to the benefits... which will be meaningless...

..because as everyone knows, the benefits of marriage extended by any state are to incentivize people to marry. Otherwise it's a net loss. And the only reason, the only singular reason a state would incentivize marriage is to create that best environment for children to be raised in.

Turns out it's a huge financial loss for the state when kids grow up like those who are reporting from the Prince's Trust study, the largest of its kind; of what happens when children's minds are formed without an adult of their gender as a role model. 50% of children in "gay marriage" would experience these problems..

Page 8 (the left side on the green background) http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.

Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)

Young people without a role model of the same gender in their lives

The Daily Mail article from the Prince's Trust study... Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

 

[danielpalos]

Alabama needs to stand firm against federal tyranny.

What federal tyranny is that?

Article 4, Section 2 was ratified by the several States.
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Marriage is neither a privilege nor an immunity.
On your argument I should be entitled t tax breaks because VW got tax breaks when they located a factory here.

Freedom of association and (marriage) Contract is a natural right in the several States of the Union.

That utterly contradicts Heisenberg's Principle and the Rule of 72. You fail.

Sorry; I can't "fail" if I don't resort to fallacy. There is no Appeal to Ignorance of our supreme law of the land.

 

[Syriusly]

Gay marrae today is still viewed as immoral.
\

By you.

Not by me.

Again, that's because you're immoral.

-Geaux

On a moral code, I am flying with angels, you are rolling in the mud with demons.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Strawman. I want us treated equally also. I want everyone treated equally. You don't want that.

Your little tax issue is separate from the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage. Take away the tax breaks...gays will still want civil marriage and you'll still want to deny it.

Marriage Rights and Benefits
Learn some of the legal and practical ways that getting married changes your life.

• Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
• Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
• Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
• Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.
• Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
• Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
• Receiving public assistance benefits.
• Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
• Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
• Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
• Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.
• Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
• • Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
  • Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
  • Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
  • Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
  • Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
  • Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
  • Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

"rights, privileges and benefits" you deny straights, bigot

'rights, priveleges and benefits" you and your wife enjoy, and you would deny same gender couples.

Actually, no, I Skippy, I keep saying that I would give gay couples the same privilegess.

Yet you keep arguing against same gender marriages at the same time you enjoy the same rights, priveleges and benefits' you and your wife enjoy.

 

[Silhouette]

On a moral code, I am flying with angels, you are rolling in the mud with demons.

What angel would be into situations that are detrimental to children?

Page 8 (the left side on the green background) http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.

Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)

Young people without a role model of the same gender in their lives

The Daily Mail article from the Prince's Trust study... Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

 

[Syriusly]

Even in this quote, you changed the standard, which is exactly my point. First you didn't know what I meant, then I said they wanted to freeze it now. Now you found the actual quote and seem to finally grasp it. But it took you a while to get there. I'm not going to work at posts with you when you can't follow a simple conversation or accurately read a post....As for how I know that, they are advocating gay government marriage and they support government marriage tax breaks privileges and benefits, they argue with me they do not want government marriage to go away and they do want gays to get it. That is directly adding gay marriage and freezing the system. As I said, you can't read or follow simple discussions.

Well, of course polygamy and any other conceivable situation in the name of "love and marriage" will have access to the benefits... which will be meaningless...]

the supreme court is not considering polygamy- there is no court case pending on polygamy- that is just a straw man raised by the bigots.

 

[Syriusly]

On a moral code, I am flying with angels, you are rolling in the mud with demons.

What angel would be into situations that are detrimental to children?
]

The side that says that children of gay couples should be able to have married parents just like the children of straight couples can.

The side that says that children abandoned by their biological parents deserve a loving family, not to languish for years in foster care, or to age out of the system, with no family for emotional or financial support, because you don't think homosexuals should be allowed to adopt.

 

[kaz]

as everyone knows, the benefits of marriage extended by any state are to incentivize people to marry

That's why the general public supports it, but the State extends the benefits to divide people and control them. That is why they never go anywhere with flat taxes, why they go from discriminating against blacks, women and gays to discriminating for them. When the people are equal, the politicians don't have the levers to control us, that's the last thing they want.

 

[kaz]

Even in this quote, you changed the standard, which is exactly my point. First you didn't know what I meant, then I said they wanted to freeze it now. Now you found the actual quote and seem to finally grasp it. But it took you a while to get there. I'm not going to work at posts with you when you can't follow a simple conversation or accurately read a post....As for how I know that, they are advocating gay government marriage and they support government marriage tax breaks privileges and benefits, they argue with me they do not want government marriage to go away and they do want gays to get it. That is directly adding gay marriage and freezing the system. As I said, you can't read or follow simple discussions.

Well, of course polygamy and any other conceivable situation in the name of "love and marriage" will have access to the benefits... which will be meaningless...]

the supreme court is not considering polygamy- there is no court case pending on polygamy- that is just a straw man raised by the bigots.

That is again your hypocrisy. It's not fair government doesn't let gays get government marriages, they don't want what straight couples want. So what about polygamists? What about them? Who cares what they want? Government doesn't have to give you something just because you want it. So what about the gays then. Government has to give it to them, they want it. That is what it is like arguing with liberals...

 

[Syriusly]

...Saddest part of what you describe is the suicide rate is highest in children that come from a home such as the one you created. You would be wise to take that as gospel and not dismiss it, that kind of information could possible wake you up before you make another gross error in your life....I would hope you do not need a link for that, your children are in a high risk group for suicide, you must be so careful now that you put them in that situation....I would hate to see you in denial when the stakes are so high...

The simple fact is that people like Syriusly argue to suppress the voices of the most important people in marriage ...

The simple facts are that
a) you are a liar- the Prince's study doesn't mention homosexuals at all and
b) you want to deny children married parents, if their parents are homosexual.

 

[Syriusly]

Even in this quote, you changed the standard, which is exactly my point. First you didn't know what I meant, then I said they wanted to freeze it now. Now you found the actual quote and seem to finally grasp it. But it took you a while to get there. I'm not going to work at posts with you when you can't follow a simple conversation or accurately read a post....As for how I know that, they are advocating gay government marriage and they support government marriage tax breaks privileges and benefits, they argue with me they do not want government marriage to go away and they do want gays to get it. That is directly adding gay marriage and freezing the system. As I said, you can't read or follow simple discussions.

Well, of course polygamy and any other conceivable situation in the name of "love and marriage" will have access to the benefits... which will be meaningless...]

the supreme court is not considering polygamy- there is no court case pending on polygamy- that is just a straw man raised by the bigots.

That is again your hypocrisy. It's not fair government doesn't let gays get government marriages, they don't want what straight couples want...

My hypocrisy?

You enjoy all of the legal benefits of marriage while you actively argue against same gender couples being allowed the same benefits.

No- the Supreme Court is not considering polygamy- it is a strawman raised by bigots.

 

[Seawytch]

No, you never did provide evidence of your claim that Skylar, WW, Jake, etc wanted to "freeze the system".

That isn't what I said. I'm tired of explaining and reexplaining conversations to you.

Maybe it's just that you forget what you said and that's why you won't support ANY of your claims. Here's what you said:

Kaz: How many liberal straights are arguing for gay marriage? It's not just the gays who actually get married, it's all the liberals who want a different system. They all will want the system to freeze once they get their way.

When I asked you who, you listed Skylar, Syriusly, World Watcher and JakeStarkey so I asked you to provide links to where they advocated "getting their way and then freezing the system". You then proceeded to do your usual deflection. It's okay, I understand that I called you on something you can't back up so you react with vehemence. It's textbook something I'm sure.

Even in this quote, you changed the standard, which is exactly my point. First you didn't know what I meant, then I said they wanted to freeze it now. Now you found the actual quote and seem to finally grasp it. But it took you a while to get there. I'm not going to work at posts with you when you can't follow a simple conversation or accurately read a post.

As for how I know that, they are advocating gay government marriage and they support government marriage tax breaks privileges and benefits, they argue with me they do not want government marriage to go away and they do want gays to get it. That is directly adding gay marriage and freezing the system. As I said, you can't read or follow simple discussions.

I got it fine...which is why I asked you to provide proof of your claim...which you still have not done. You're deflecting and projecting since I don't think any of them said they'd "freeze the system" once the gays got in. You certainly want to freeze it now that you're in, married guy.

LOL, you aren't even aware I answered your question, are you? Your lack of reading comprehension is actually pretty comical. Tell me how you have an equivalent to a college degree again, that was funny.

Repeating what you said in the first place is not providing proof of your claim. Links to their statements that they want to let gays in and then "freeze the system" is what I requested and you keep deflecting from. Probably because you can't find links to them saying anything of the sort.

Nobody has said that you can't advocate for your flat tax fantasy. Go for it. Nobody said you can't sue to marry a sibling or multiple partners or whatever you're dancing around. Best of luck. Nobody said you can't try your little heart out to get rid of the benefits you enjoy. Go get 'em tiger.

Let us know how it all goes.