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

[kaz]

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.

Actually, retard, I keep telling you I want to give everyone who doesn't have those to get them. You only want to add people who have sex with their own gender. You are clearly the discriminator.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

So, you want to bet on the outcome or not? Chicken?

I say I will be civilly married in all 50 states after the SCOTUS rules on the cases before them. You say?

 

[Seawytch]

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

Oh, but they do. They want to marry the non familial consenting adult of their choice...just like straight couples do (and just like interracial couples did).

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Actually, retard, I keep telling you I want to give everyone who doesn't have those to get them. You only want to add people who have sex with their own gender. You are clearly the discriminator.

YOU say that's what he says. What has he actually said (with links, remember).

 

[kaz]

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

I didn't repeat what I said, I explained the obvious to you.

You don't grasp that when they argue:

1) They are in favor of having government marriage

2) They are opposed to extending those tax breaks, privileges to straights

3) They want to add gay couples to government marriage

That means they want to extend marriage to gays and then freeze it.

Then again, when you saying everyone everyone who disagrees with you does it out of animus, you wanted me to show where you keep saying calling people hostile.

Keep going about how you're a college equivalent. Maybe to Dexter Manley, but not a real graduate from a real college, they can read.

 

[kaz]

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

Oh, but they do. They want to marry the non familial consenting adult of their choice...just like straight couples do (and just like interracial couples did).

You truly are functionally illiterate. I'm curious, can you read a box of Kraft and make macaroni?

 

[kaz]

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.

Actually, retard, I keep telling you I want to give everyone who doesn't have those to get them. You only want to add people who have sex with their own gender. You are clearly the discriminator.

YOU say that's what he says. What has he actually said (with links, remember).

Yes, that's what he keeps arguing. You would know that if you were literate.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I feel sorry for you, you are broken and will never ,now, and you will never ever ,now the pain within your children, I can see from your advocacy that you have created an environment in which your, "kids", can not express themselves without hurting you.

Thanks for sharing your opinion but our children are fine. We communicate very well with our children and they have no problem expressing themselves.

Our 13 year old daughter, after talking to one of her classmates on the phone, came out and thanked us for still loving each other and being married to each other. See, all but one of her best friends come from divorced homes. All of my son's friends have divorced parents and they tell my son all the time that they love coming to our house and love HIS parents. Truly, save your pity for those kids. They're already fucked up from the divorce and their still in their teens.

Are you the biological mother or is there no real mother in your, "family". No real mother would be a worst case scenario.

You're against all adoption? You want kids forever in orphanages? Jesus ******* Christ are you living in Dicken's London?

I gave birth to our children but we are both their parents...legally and emotionally.

Of course I am humoring you, there is no way you have, "kids", I think you are simply a troll, maybe a Eunuch, which reminds me, "In the World of the Seawytch the Eunuch raises the children".

I've given birth to five babies. Two are mine and my wife's and three were for a gay male couple. They used a donor egg and their sperm. I actually believe the twins had two different fathers. Whether you believe in their existence or not, they do exist and they are costing me a fortune. I've got to make a Costco and commissary trip just to feed them for the next week.

I forgot all about that, now I will simply laugh at you, that was a bit ago, right, "Gender-less Parenting".

In the land of the Seawytch, the Eunuch raises the child.

I'm still attributing your misunderstanding to the fact that English is not your native language. I never said gender-less parenting, I said the gender of parents has no bearing on child raising. Children need a nurturer and a structurer for the best outcomes. Which parent provides those does not matter but it is why two parent homes are the ideal.

A 13 year old in a house without a father will have much in common with 13 year olds who's parents get divorced, no difference there. I am not sure if you had a point in there, but the irony is you claim your daughter has something they do not when your daughter lives in a home without a father, you need not divorce to put your "daughter" in the same situation. It already exists for her.

Actually, there is a great deal of difference in a household of married parents who still love each other and divorced parents. Its one of the reasons we always seem to have kids over here and why our kids don't want to go to their friends houses...the chaos and disruption of two households.

My daughter has met her donor. She likes him okay, but thinks he talks too much. He's not her parent though, she has as much said so. My partner and I are her parents.

Great mother you are, of 5 babies you only kept 2, you got a long way baby before you can claim success as a parent. Like the rest of your life.

I was a gestational surrogate. That means that they were not my babies. They used a donor egg and the father's sperm. I was the oven that baked the cake, I had no involvement or ingredients in the batter. They weren't MY children.

But now I do pity the story you tell, the ignorance you display.

Good. I hope it takes up a lot of your time, this pitying of me.

You may or may not have children but it is clear you are not a mother. No mother I would wish for any child. You honestly are willing to deny not one, but three babies their mother and on top of that force them into the life to homosexual lovers?

I am sorry, but you have made a whole slew of mistakes, but of all your mistakes, the biggest mistake of your life will be to deny three babies their mother. They won't have a perfect life with you, but I see it as being less than perfect being torn from the "family" they are born into.

You will regret it if you give them away, that is guaranteed.

Broken families happen, its not the best situation but we are only human, its just a bit worst when people purposely create broken families.

A mother and father is best for any child. Anything less...................

Nope, two parents are best for a child...at least that's what ALL the studies show. Oh, and our kids are proof positive of that as well. They're fine.

Have you found someone to take your kids if you die or are they going to an orphanage?

I feel sorry for you, you are broken and will never ,now, and you will never ever ,now the pain within your children, I can see from your advocacy that you have created an environment in which your, "kids", can not express themselves without hurting you.

Thanks for sharing your opinion but our children are fine. We communicate very well with our children and they have no problem expressing themselves.

Our 13 year old daughter, after talking to one of her classmates on the phone, came out and thanked us for still loving each other and being married to each other. See, all but one of her best friends come from divorced homes. All of my son's friends have divorced parents and they tell my son all the time that they love coming to our house and love HIS parents. Truly, save your pity for those kids. They're already fucked up from the divorce and their still in their teens.

Are you the biological mother or is there no real mother in your, "family". No real mother would be a worst case scenario.

You're against all adoption? You want kids forever in orphanages? Jesus ******* Christ are you living in Dicken's London?

I gave birth to our children but we are both their parents...legally and emotionally.

Of course I am humoring you, there is no way you have, "kids", I think you are simply a troll, maybe a Eunuch, which reminds me, "In the World of the Seawytch the Eunuch raises the children".

I've given birth to five babies. Two are mine and my wife's and three were for a gay male couple. They used a donor egg and their sperm. I actually believe the twins had two different fathers. Whether you believe in their existence or not, they do exist and they are costing me a fortune. I've got to make a Costco and commissary trip just to feed them for the next week.

I forgot all about that, now I will simply laugh at you, that was a bit ago, right, "Gender-less Parenting".

In the land of the Seawytch, the Eunuch raises the child.

I'm still attributing your misunderstanding to the fact that English is not your native language. I never said gender-less parenting, I said the gender of parents has no bearing on child raising. Children need a nurturer and a structurer for the best outcomes. Which parent provides those does not matter but it is why two parent homes are the ideal.

A 13 year old in a house without a father will have much in common with 13 year olds who's parents get divorced, no difference there. I am not sure if you had a point in there, but the irony is you claim your daughter has something they do not when your daughter lives in a home without a father, you need not divorce to put your "daughter" in the same situation. It already exists for her.

Actually, there is a great deal of difference in a household of married parents who still love each other and divorced parents. Its one of the reasons we always seem to have kids over here and why our kids don't want to go to their friends houses...the chaos and disruption of two households.

My daughter has met her donor. She likes him okay, but thinks he talks too much. He's not her parent though, she has as much said so. My partner and I are her parents.

Great mother you are, of 5 babies you only kept 2, you got a long way baby before you can claim success as a parent. Like the rest of your life.

I was a gestational surrogate. That means that they were not my babies. They used a donor egg and the father's sperm. I was the oven that baked the cake, I had no involvement or ingredients in the batter. They weren't MY children.

But now I do pity the story you tell, the ignorance you display.

Good. I hope it takes up a lot of your time, this pitying of me.

You may or may not have children but it is clear you are not a mother. No mother I would wish for any child. You honestly are willing to deny not one, but three babies their mother and on top of that force them into the life to homosexual lovers?

I am sorry, but you have made a whole slew of mistakes, but of all your mistakes, the biggest mistake of your life will be to deny three babies their mother. They won't have a perfect life with you, but I see it as being less than perfect being torn from the "family" they are born into.

You will regret it if you give them away, that is guaranteed.

Broken families happen, its not the best situation but we are only human, its just a bit worst when people purposely create broken families.

A mother and father is best for any child. Anything less...................

Nope, two parents are best for a child...at least that's what ALL the studies show. Oh, and our kids are proof positive of that as well. They're fine.

Have you found someone to take your kids if you die or are they going to an orphanage?

You do not have to justify and explain your decision to me, I can see you are in denial. A lot of rationalizing going on there, you might convince 1 or 2 out of your five children that you made the right choices, but you will never convince all 5.

Further, it is not you who gets to decide if you succeed or fail as a parent, it is the child, grown into an adult, and with luck you won't out live your children.

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.

Raising children is tough in the best of situations, yours may not be the worst but its got to be close.

This is a lie.

It's unfounded demagoguery, a shameful tactic used by those hostile to gay Americans who know they've lost the argument.

 

[Seawytch]

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

I didn't repeat what I said, I explained the obvious to you.

You don't grasp that when they argue:

1) They are in favor of having government marriage

2) They are opposed to extending those tax breaks, privileges to straights

3) They want to add gay couples to government marriage

That means they want to extend marriage to gays and then freeze it.

Then again, when you saying everyone everyone who disagrees with you does it out of animus, you wanted me to show where you keep saying calling people hostile.

Keep going about how you're a college equivalent. Maybe to Dexter Manley, but not a real graduate from a real college, they can read.

Provide links to where they said they did not want to let anyone else have access to civil marriage. Links would be proof.

Me...I say go for it. If polygamists or people who want to marry their sister can prove that their civil marriage causes no societal harm...they can sue, right?

 

[kaz]

Provide links to where they said they did not want to let anyone else have access to civil marriage. Links would be proof

You'd have to be able to read them, so no, they wouldn't be proof.

 

[Seawytch]

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

Oh, but they do. They want to marry the non familial consenting adult of their choice...just like straight couples do (and just like interracial couples did).

You truly are functionally illiterate. I'm curious, can you read a box of Kraft and make macaroni?

I'm sure insulting my intelligence makes your dick feel bigger than it was before, but if you got out the ruler, you'd be mistaken (again). Keep deflecting.

 

[Seawytch]

Provide links to where they said they did not want to let anyone else have access to civil marriage. Links would be proof

You'd have to be able to read them, so no, they wouldn't be proof.

Translation: Kaz can't provide proof so he'll just call a poster stoooooopid. Yuck, yuck. (you're transparent as glass m'dear)

 

[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.

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.

You "fail" when you spout gibberish.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

You "fail" when you spout gibberish.

It is gibberish to You, simply because You don't have a clue or a Cause. There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law. It really is that simple.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

You "fail" when you spout gibberish.

It is gibberish to You, simply because You don't have a clue or a Cause. There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law. It really is that simple.

It is gibberish because it is gibberish. You post word salads of important sounding terms as if you actually understood them.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

You "fail" when you spout gibberish.

It is gibberish to You, simply because You don't have a clue or a Cause. There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law. It really is that simple.

It is gibberish because it is gibberish. You post word salads of important sounding terms as if you actually understood them.

Like I said, your lack of competence is not my concern, as long as you resort to fallacy for your Cause, first.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

GEAUX4IT SAID:

“Gay marrae today is still viewed as immoral.”

A perception which is personal, subjective, and devoid of legal, Constitutional merit.

GEAUX4IT SAID:

“Me and many Americans still disagree with all you just propped up. The moral decay of our society is past repair.”

Ridiculous, unfounded, hyperbolic nonsense.

 

[kaz]

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

Oh, but they do. They want to marry the non familial consenting adult of their choice...just like straight couples do (and just like interracial couples did).

You truly are functionally illiterate. I'm curious, can you read a box of Kraft and make macaroni?

I'm sure insulting my intelligence makes your dick feel bigger than it was before, but if you got out the ruler, you'd be mistaken (again). Keep deflecting.

Your dick is bigger than mine?

I keep saying you are illiterate because you constantly don't grasp posts or follow discussions.

 

[kaz]

Provide links to where they said they did not want to let anyone else have access to civil marriage. Links would be proof

You'd have to be able to read them, so no, they wouldn't be proof.

Translation: Kaz can't provide proof so he'll just call a poster stoooooopid. Yuck, yuck. (you're transparent as glass m'dear)

Why don't any of them speak up and say I'm wrong exactly?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

You "fail" when you spout gibberish.

It is gibberish to You, simply because You don't have a clue or a Cause. There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law. It really is that simple.

It is gibberish because it is gibberish. You post word salads of important sounding terms as if you actually understood them.

Like I said, your lack of competence is not my concern, as long as you resort to fallacy for your Cause, first.

Your gibberish is cause for Haldol with fraternity and egalitarianism.