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

[WorldWatcher]

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.

I can speak only form myself of course:

1) They are in favor of having government marriage

I'm in favor of equal treatment of citizens by the government barring a compelling government interest which warrants otherwise. If government is going to have Civil Marriage contracts, there is no reason to bar same-sex couples. I'm fine with the government dissolving all laws pertaining to Civil Marriage, but the reality is that there are purposes and functions that exist as part of Civil Marriage and they would just be replaced with more expensive alternatives.​

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

Straights can already get married and therefore obtain those "tax breaks" and privileges and - as long as Civil Marriage contracts exist - have no desire to deny them to myself and other straights.​

3) They want to add gay couples to government marriage

False. Allowing same-sex couples to enter into Civil Marriage contracts makes them part of the "government". What is true is that I think same-sex couples should be treated equally by the government as different sex couples.​

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

You were wrong on #1. You were wrong on #2. Your literal words on #3 were wrong, but if I assume what you meant is what I corrected - then #3 is correct.

I have no opposition, from a legal stand point, for Civil Marriage not to be "frozen" after same-sex couples achieve Marriage Equality. I recognize though that it will up to those proponents to make their case for further changes, if needed, and for opponents to present their case in opposition. That while there is no compelling government reason for discriminating against same-sex couples there may be different reasons applicable to other situations.​

Instead of incorrectly stating my position in the future, please ask instead.


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

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.

That would be two states. Texas being one of them. And that they are virtually guaranteed to lose.

 

[Skylar]

Red herring. Obama speaking about Obamacare is not the 'law'. This was the claim: the law explicitly said the mandate was not a tax.

That's three strikes. You're clearly have no interest in discussing the topic.

I'm waiting for you to show me the legislation W had passed that said FEMA was responsible for Katrina. You finding that yet?

Red herring.

Its your logic, applied consistently. Obama is not accountable for what he says his legislation is unless it's in the legislation.

You treat your own claims like the garbage they are. You'll understand when "I" treat your claims the same way, hypocrite.

And yes, you speak for hordes of people, hundreds, thousands. They hang on your every word saying yes, Skylar speaks for me. I guess you're not woody, you're limpy. "I" is a far more powerful word than "we" because I'm man enough to believe I am man enough to have a view, you need the validation of others to even think what you think.

Red herring. This is the claim: the law explicitly said the mandate was not a tax.

Either you'll address the claim or you won't.

Gotcha, I didn't say what you told me to, so I didn't address it. I directly addressed it.

You find that W legislation that FEMA is responsible for Katrina yet? How's that search going?

More accurately, you refuse to address the topic: This claim: the law explicitly said the mandate was not a tax.

Keep running.

 

[Skylar]

Windsor is irrelevant to the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States, and Electorate of the United States.

It relevant in as much as it recognizes that State marriage laws are subject to certain constitutional guarantees.

 

[Skylar]

Alabama needs to stand firm against federal tyranny.

And by 'federal tyranny', you mean upholding the rights of citizens of Alabama?

 

[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.

Your dick is bigger than mine?

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

Wow...that's ironic. You accusing me of comprehension issues when I clearly asked if it made you feel as though YOUR dick was bigger than it was before.

I thought you were ignoring me? Moth...

 

[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)

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

Oh, smack...one of them did.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Your diversion is duly noted.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Your diversion is duly noted.

Your inability to articulate has already been noted.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

Sil,

Just under 8 hours left for the SCOTUS to issue a stay in the Alabama case.

If your reasoning is correct, what is taking them so long? A simple one sentence order issuing the stay is all it takes.

If they deny the stay or take no action at all, they will be allowing SSCM to start in Alabama at midnight.



>>>>

 

[kaz]

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.

I can speak only form myself of course:

1) They are in favor of having government marriage

I'm in favor of equal treatment of citizens by the government barring a compelling government interest which warrants otherwise. If government is going to have Civil Marriage contracts, there is no reason to bar same-sex couples. I'm fine with the government dissolving all laws pertaining to Civil Marriage, but the reality is that there are purposes and functions that exist as part of Civil Marriage and they would just be replaced with more expensive alternatives.​

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

Straights can already get married and therefore obtain those "tax breaks" and privileges and - as long as Civil Marriage contracts exist - have no desire to deny them to myself and other straights.​

3) They want to add gay couples to government marriage

False. Allowing same-sex couples to enter into Civil Marriage contracts makes them part of the "government". What is true is that I think same-sex couples should be treated equally by the government as different sex couples.​

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

You were wrong on #1. You were wrong on #2. Your literal words on #3 were wrong, but if I assume what you meant is what I corrected - then #3 is correct.

I have no opposition, from a legal stand point, for Civil Marriage not to be "frozen" after same-sex couples achieve Marriage Equality. I recognize though that it will up to those proponents to make their case for further changes, if needed, and for opponents to present their case in opposition. That while there is no compelling government reason for discriminating against same-sex couples there may be different reasons applicable to other situations.​

Instead of incorrectly stating my position in the future, please ask instead.


>>>>

All the word parsing and you didn't contradict anything I said.

 

[mdk]

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.

Your diversion is duly noted.

Your inability to articulate has already been noted.

Not just by you either I might add. lol

 

[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.

Wow...that's ironic. You accusing me of comprehension issues when I clearly asked if it made you feel as though YOUR dick was bigger than it was before.

I thought you were ignoring me? Moth...

I said I'm not ignoring you because you're funny. I said if I had to be serious to your drivel then I would rather ignore you than waste my time with that. Again, your reading comprehension is awful.

 

[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?

Oh, smack...one of them did.

Yeah, and he parsed words to make it sound like he disagreed with me, but never actually found anything I said that was wrong.

My favorite was I said he supported gay marriage, he said no, he supports marriage equality. Then there was singles should not have the rights of married people, he said no, they can get married.

It was a childish attempt to make distinctions without differences sound like disagreement. You would know that ... if you could read .... LOL, college equivalent. LMAO

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

I can speak only form myself of course:

1) They are in favor of having government marriage

I'm in favor of equal treatment of citizens by the government barring a compelling government interest which warrants otherwise. If government is going to have Civil Marriage contracts, there is no reason to bar same-sex couples. I'm fine with the government dissolving all laws pertaining to Civil Marriage, but the reality is that there are purposes and functions that exist as part of Civil Marriage and they would just be replaced with more expensive alternatives.​

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

Straights can already get married and therefore obtain those "tax breaks" and privileges and - as long as Civil Marriage contracts exist - have no desire to deny them to myself and other straights.​

3) They want to add gay couples to government marriage

False. Allowing same-sex couples to enter into Civil Marriage contracts makes them part of the "government". What is true is that I think same-sex couples should be treated equally by the government as different sex couples.​

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

You were wrong on #1. You were wrong on #2. Your literal words on #3 were wrong, but if I assume what you meant is what I corrected - then #3 is correct.

I have no opposition, from a legal stand point, for Civil Marriage not to be "frozen" after same-sex couples achieve Marriage Equality. I recognize though that it will up to those proponents to make their case for further changes, if needed, and for opponents to present their case in opposition. That while there is no compelling government reason for discriminating against same-sex couples there may be different reasons applicable to other situations.​

Instead of incorrectly stating my position in the future, please ask instead.


>>>>

All the word parsing and you didn't contradict anything I said.

Actually I contradicted just everything you said about my position on the matter.


>>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

My favorite was I said he supported gay marriage, he said no, he supports marriage equality. Then there was singles should not have the rights of married people, he said no, they can get married.

You didn't say "singles", you said "straights". I replied to what you said, which it is my belief that different-sex couples and same-sex couples should be treated equally under the law.

Now that you've changed it, I believe in the general principle that single people should be treated the same under the law as married people. There shouldn't be a marriage penalty resulting in my wife and I paying more in taxes because we both work. I very much support the idea of a Flat Tax, which of course removes that problem.

See we both work, our incomes are added together and then we get two deductions (one per person). A single person claims their income and gets to claim one deduction (one per person). Yet we pay higher taxes because our combined income is taxed at a higher rate.


On other matters, I think that a person should have an unlimited gift tax exemption when they give themselves a present. If a single person wants to leave everything in their will themselves, they should be able to do that. Of course now that you've left yourself everything and you are still DEAD, then it passes to your next-of-kin anyway, but knock yourself out. You are already not required to testify against yourself in court, so you are covered there. Oh ya, you do get to make medical decisions for yourself, you are covered there also.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

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.

By enjoying those benefits and arguing that homosexuals should not have the same rights as you and your wife enjoy.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

By enjoying those benefits and arguing that homosexuals should not have the same rights as you and your wife enjoy.

They do have the same rights. Marriage laws have never discriminated against them. Ever.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

By enjoying those benefits and arguing that homosexuals should not have the same rights as you and your wife enjoy.

They do have the same rights. Marriage laws have never discriminated against them. Ever.

In the same way that marriage laws never discriminated against mixed race couples.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

By enjoying those benefits and arguing that homosexuals should not have the same rights as you and your wife enjoy.

They do have the same rights. Marriage laws have never discriminated against them. Ever.

In the same way that marriage laws never discriminated against mixed race couples.

Argument 1
You guys are so predictable.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

By enjoying those benefits and arguing that homosexuals should not have the same rights as you and your wife enjoy.

They do have the same rights. Marriage laws have never discriminated against them. Ever.

In the same way that marriage laws never discriminated against mixed race couples.

Argument 1
You guys are so predictable.

They argue in tiny little ignorant circles.