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

[Seawytch]

No, the pro traditional marriage case is much stronger intellectually.

Golly, that must be why all these judges, conservative and "liberal" are laughing at the "intellect" of the arguments...and ruling against you.

You mean gay liberal judges? Yeah an explicit sentence in the Constitution doesnt persuade them while a concocted theory based on nothing does. That pretty well shows the extent of their intellect. Yours too, for that matter.

Is that the last straw you're holding on to, that it was all "gay liberal" judges that have been ruling on marriage equality? You are so silly.

 

[Seawytch]

And fighting for slavery, segregation and pointless bigotry.

Sigh, eventually there's gonna be a conservative conception of 'freedom' that doesn't involve treating someone else like a piece of shit.

States Rights. Not a damn thing wrong with segregation...you tyrant lovers favorite dictator Lincoln wasn't to fond of the negro either....but yall can just ignore that now can't ya. Oh and I am no conservative.Don't mistake my hatred for queers as an endorsement of republican policies or thought.

States don't have rights. People do. States have powers. And since the 14th amendment, the States Powers can't trump the people's rights save under very specific conditions: it has to serve a valid state interest, it has to serve a legitimate legislative end, and it has to have a very good reason.

And gay marriage bans can do any of the three.

And thanks for once again demonstrating that hatred of homosexuals is the at the root of much of the opposition to gay marriage.

You mean the 14th amendment passed without allowing southern members of congress to vote on it? Yea that would be illegal therefore null and void. Same with 13th amendment.

So slavery is still legal? The Supreme Court says otherwise. As does sequence. The ex-Confederate States hadn't been readmitted to the union at the time of the vote for the 13th amendment was taken. Same for the 14th. Making even the possibility of their participation in the amendment process moot.

If you stupid ***** had wanted a say, you shouldn't have seceded from the union and waged war on the nation. Then your participation would have been requisite on any vote for the amendments.

Facts remain my friend...You need 3/4ths of the states to agree to a new amendment...that didn't happen therefore they aren't legal. Oh and Your pal Lincoln is the one that called up the military and attacked the CSA....

Um...they weren't states at the time. Are you trying to say that the amendments that occurred before a state entered the union are "invalid"?

Guess California CAN ban all guns.

 

[Preacher]

States Rights. Not a damn thing wrong with segregation...you tyrant lovers favorite dictator Lincoln wasn't to fond of the negro either....but yall can just ignore that now can't ya. Oh and I am no conservative.Don't mistake my hatred for queers as an endorsement of republican policies or thought.

States don't have rights. People do. States have powers. And since the 14th amendment, the States Powers can't trump the people's rights save under very specific conditions: it has to serve a valid state interest, it has to serve a legitimate legislative end, and it has to have a very good reason.

And gay marriage bans can do any of the three.

And thanks for once again demonstrating that hatred of homosexuals is the at the root of much of the opposition to gay marriage.

You mean the 14th amendment passed without allowing southern members of congress to vote on it? Yea that would be illegal therefore null and void. Same with 13th amendment.

So slavery is still legal? The Supreme Court says otherwise. As does sequence. The ex-Confederate States hadn't been readmitted to the union at the time of the vote for the 13th amendment was taken. Same for the 14th. Making even the possibility of their participation in the amendment process moot.

If you stupid ***** had wanted a say, you shouldn't have seceded from the union and waged war on the nation. Then your participation would have been requisite on any vote for the amendments.

Facts remain my friend...You need 3/4ths of the states to agree to a new amendment...that didn't happen therefore they aren't legal. Oh and Your pal Lincoln is the one that called up the military and attacked the CSA....

Um...they weren't states at the time. Are you trying to say that the amendments that occurred before a state entered the union are "invalid"?

Guess California CAN ban all guns.

The CSA had no longer existed so technically they were...they had no representation either so. I stand by the facts.California can do whatever the hell it wants....I don't live there...

 

[Seawytch]

Uh oh Rabbi...folks don't want to go down like Roy...

On Monday, county courthouses in Alabama began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, defying Moore, who said late Sunday that probate courts shouldn't issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

 

[bodecea]

States don't have rights. People do. States have powers. And since the 14th amendment, the States Powers can't trump the people's rights save under very specific conditions: it has to serve a valid state interest, it has to serve a legitimate legislative end, and it has to have a very good reason.

And gay marriage bans can do any of the three.

And thanks for once again demonstrating that hatred of homosexuals is the at the root of much of the opposition to gay marriage.

You mean the 14th amendment passed without allowing southern members of congress to vote on it? Yea that would be illegal therefore null and void. Same with 13th amendment.

So slavery is still legal? The Supreme Court says otherwise. As does sequence. The ex-Confederate States hadn't been readmitted to the union at the time of the vote for the 13th amendment was taken. Same for the 14th. Making even the possibility of their participation in the amendment process moot.

If you stupid ***** had wanted a say, you shouldn't have seceded from the union and waged war on the nation. Then your participation would have been requisite on any vote for the amendments.

Facts remain my friend...You need 3/4ths of the states to agree to a new amendment...that didn't happen therefore they aren't legal. Oh and Your pal Lincoln is the one that called up the military and attacked the CSA....

Um...they weren't states at the time. Are you trying to say that the amendments that occurred before a state entered the union are "invalid"?

Guess California CAN ban all guns.

The CSA had no longer existed so technically they were...they had no representation either so. I stand by the facts.California can do whatever the hell it wants....I don't live there...

Thank you.

 

[kaz]

A distinction without a difference.

You said what I did, you would give government marriage to gays, you would not change anything else. Take the agenda of trying to disagree with me and tell me where that is wrong, because you sure didn't the first time.

A distinction with a major difference: no one is arguing that the marriages of straights shouldn't be recognized. Negating your floundering 'freezing' argument.

Made no sense...

No one has argued for 'freezing' marriage. Frankly I've stated that so clearly to you I have a hard time believing you didn't realize that.

Straights, singles, gays, can all join.

The only one babbling about marriage being 'frozen'....is you citing yourself. And you're clueless.

So word games aside, do you think gay couples should be able to get a government marriage and single people should not be able to get the tax breaks, perks and benefits that married couples get?

Answer the question and stop dancing. For all the feathers flying, you have yet to actually contradict anything I said.

Word games? You're being intentionally obtuse because you know that no one has ever argued that marriage should be 'frozen'. You made all that up.

My position is explicit and consistent: straight, single or gay, they should all be allowed to be married.

Feel free to ever quote me saying otherwise.....outside your imagination, of course.

I didn't say you said otherwise, I said you said that and you kicked up a bunch of feathers.

Seawytch, turns out you're zero for two...

 

[danielpalos]

Argument 1
You guys are so predictable.

They argue in tiny little ignorant circles.

Kinda like how you discriminate in ignorant little circles. BTW...guess which argument is winning?

Mine. You Leftists can't cause your agenda to pass through the Democratic process, that is, prevailing upon your fellow citizens to agree with you, so you instead push it through the courts, finding black robed tyrants to decide in your favor. You mistakingly believe that's the same as actually persuading people. It isn't.

You've lost in the court of public opinion. As the majority supports gay marriage.....with support outpacing opposition by 12 to 19 points.

You've lost in the court of law, with virtually every federal court ruling to adjudicate the topic overturning gay marriage bans. And the USSC preserving every ruling that overturned such bans. So much so that gay marriage is now legal in 37 of 50 States.

If that's your side 'winning', then I guess we both hope to see much more of it!

Funny how your polls didn't translate into winning legislation. You can pretend that people support *** marriage, but when given the chance to pass a law on it, they soundly rejected perversion and defined marriage as one man and one woman. So no, you don't actually have the support of the American people where it counts.

Only the right prefers to Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws in favor of the subjective value of the morals of Religion. Some on the left know, our Ten Amendments are much more comprehensive than any commandments of Religion. And, Only the right doesn't seem to know that our supreme law of the land is more supreme that Any commandments of Any religion, simply Because, our Founding Fathers spake it so, in Article the Sixth.

 

[Syriusly]

Argument 1
You guys are so predictable.

They argue in tiny little ignorant circles.

Kinda like how you discriminate in ignorant little circles. BTW...guess which argument is winning?

Mine. You Leftists can't cause your agenda to pass through the Democratic process, that is, prevailing upon your fellow citizens to agree with you, so you instead push it through the courts, finding black robed tyrants to decide in your favor. You mistakingly believe that's the same as actually persuading people. It isn't.

You've lost in the court of public opinion. As the majority supports gay marriage.....with support outpacing opposition by 12 to 19 points.

You've lost in the court of law, with virtually every federal court ruling to adjudicate the topic overturning gay marriage bans. And the USSC preserving every ruling that overturned such bans. So much so that gay marriage is now legal in 37 of 50 States.

If that's your side 'winning', then I guess we both hope to see much more of it!

Funny how your polls didn't translate into winning legislation. You can pretend that people support *** marriage, but when given the chance to pass a law on it, they soundly rejected perversion and defined marriage as one man and one woman. So no, you don't actually have the support of the American people where it counts.

The last three times marriage equality was on the ballot, it passed.

Meanwhile- just as I support the rights of gun owners to go to court to argue that a law is unconstitutional, I support the right of all Americans to go to the court to argue for gun rights- even those you would label f*gs or n*ggers, or c*nts, or k*kes.

 

[Syriusly]

Should be happening any minute now...

Meet 21 Gay Couples Getting Married in Alabama on Monday (That's right, Alabama)

Not so fast
Alabama chief justice tells probate judges not to issue gay marriage licenses Fox News
80% of AL voters want one man one woman as the marriage standard. If overturning that is not tyranny I dont know what is.

You invoke polls of voters when it is convenient- but ignore them when it isn't.

The Supreme Court overturned mixed race marriage laws at a time when 80% of American voters were against mixed race marriage. Was that tyranny too?

Lets not forget- Alabama only actually overturned Alabama's mixed race marriage law in the year 2000- 23 years after the Supreme Court ruling which said that the will of AL voters don't trump Constitutional rights.

Oh and please do your usual- and ignore these facts again- it just shows the shallowness of your position.

 

[danielpalos]

They argue in tiny little ignorant circles.

Kinda like how you discriminate in ignorant little circles. BTW...guess which argument is winning?

Mine. You Leftists can't cause your agenda to pass through the Democratic process, that is, prevailing upon your fellow citizens to agree with you, so you instead push it through the courts, finding black robed tyrants to decide in your favor. You mistakingly believe that's the same as actually persuading people. It isn't.

You've lost in the court of public opinion. As the majority supports gay marriage.....with support outpacing opposition by 12 to 19 points.

You've lost in the court of law, with virtually every federal court ruling to adjudicate the topic overturning gay marriage bans. And the USSC preserving every ruling that overturned such bans. So much so that gay marriage is now legal in 37 of 50 States.

If that's your side 'winning', then I guess we both hope to see much more of it!

Funny how your polls didn't translate into winning legislation. You can pretend that people support *** marriage, but when given the chance to pass a law on it, they soundly rejected perversion and defined marriage as one man and one woman. So no, you don't actually have the support of the American people where it counts.

The last three times marriage equality was on the ballot, it passed.

Meanwhile- just as I support the rights of gun owners to go to court to argue that a law is unconstitutional, I support the right of all Americans to go to the court to argue for gun rights- even those you would label f*gs or n*ggers, or c*nts, or k*kes.

State Constitutions secure natural rights, not bills of attainder, regardless of any legal machination.

 

[Silhouette]

State Constitutions secure natural rights, not bills of attainder, regardless of any legal machination.

Speaking of nature...children have a natural right to a mother and a father. States have a right to incentivize that natural right.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The last three times marriage equality was on the ballot, it passed.

Actually it was 4.

Minnesota had a ballot measure to put discrimination in their State Constitution - it failed. That was a win for Marriage Equality. As a matter of fact it resulted in the State Legislature quickly turning around and passing Statutory law enabling SSCM.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Prop 8 setting the standards for mother/father for children in that state passed. It was the second of "mother/father" legislation to have passed in the most liberally-permissive state in the Union..

And the LGBT cult is afraid of putting it on the ballot there again...and many many other states. Want to know why? Because they know the statement they've been duping the public with "a majority of Americans now support gay marraige" is a patent lie. Completely manufactured out of thin air. The proof is in the pudding. Their fear of putting gay marriage on state ballots, a thing that would've been much easier than all this federal court of appeals BS, says it all. In fact, in Ohio, the cult pulled gay marraige off the ballot (in a state they were telling everyone was in their favor). They did so because they feared the numbers in reality wouldn't match the chant of the lie-mantra..

For cult values selling the public on their "popularity", they're sure avid about shutting out the voices of the majority at the polls..

 

[danielpalos]

State Constitutions secure natural rights, not bills of attainder, regardless of any legal machination.

Speakig of nature...children have a natural right to a mother and a father. States have a right to incentivize that natural right.

Nope; they have a natural right to "parents" and adults who are willing to take care of them, even if at the social cost and expense of the State.

 

[danielpalos]

Prop 8 setting the standards for mother/father for children in that state passed. It was the second of "mother/father" legislation to have passed in the most liberally-permissive state in the Union..

And the LGBT cult is afraid of putting it on the ballot there again...and many many other states. Want to know why? Because they know the statement they've been duping the public with "a majority of Americans now support gay marraige" is a patent lie. Completely manufactured out of thin air. The proof is in the pudding. Their fear of putting gay marriage on state ballots, a thing that would've been much easier than all this federal court of appeals BS, says it all. In fact, in Ohio, the cult pulled gay marraige off the ballot (in a state they were telling everyone was in their favor). They did so because they feared the numbers in reality wouldn't match the chant of the lie-mantra..

For cult values selling the public on their "popularity", they're sure avid about shutting out the voices of the majority at the polls..

There is no appeal to ignorance of the supreme law of the land of any State in our Union.

A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens

 

[The Rabbi]

State Constitutions secure natural rights, not bills of attainder, regardless of any legal machination.

Speakig of nature...children have a natural right to a mother and a father. States have a right to incentivize that natural right.

Nope; they have a natural right to "parents" and adults who are willing to take care of them, even if at the social cost and expense of the State.

That isnt true because of Gresham's Law and Rousseau's theory of the natural man.

 

[The Rabbi]

Prop 8 setting the standards for mother/father for children in that state passed. It was the second of "mother/father" legislation to have passed in the most liberally-permissive state in the Union..

And the LGBT cult is afraid of putting it on the ballot there again...and many many other states. Want to know why? Because they know the statement they've been duping the public with "a majority of Americans now support gay marraige" is a patent lie. Completely manufactured out of thin air. The proof is in the pudding. Their fear of putting gay marriage on state ballots, a thing that would've been much easier than all this federal court of appeals BS, says it all. In fact, in Ohio, the cult pulled gay marraige off the ballot (in a state they were telling everyone was in their favor). They did so because they feared the numbers in reality wouldn't match the chant of the lie-mantra..

For cult values selling the public on their "popularity", they're sure avid about shutting out the voices of the majority at the polls..

There is no appeal to ignorance of the supreme law of the land of any State in our Union.

A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens

There is no violation of that in laws that specify marriage is between one man and one woman. Any man is entitled to marry any woman, and vice versa.

 

[Silhouette]

Speaking of nature...children have a natural right to a mother and a father. States have a right to incentivize that natural right.

Nope; they have a natural right to "parents" and adults who are willing to take care of them, even if at the social cost and expense of the State.

That's not what the Prince's Trust survey found. The largest survey of its kind, it interviewed over 2,000 young adults who self-reported being ruined and feeling lost in the world from the lack of a role model of their same gender as they were growing up. In a "gay marriage" 50% of the children would be in this category. In a mother/father marriage, 0% would be in that category. That's why the states must be free to incentivize mother/father marriages.

 

[Syriusly]

State Constitutions secure natural rights, not bills of attainder, regardless of any legal machination.

Speaking of nature...children have a natural right to a mother and a father.

If children have that natural right, then why does the State allow their parents to divorce, and leave the children without one or the other?

States do not have to allow divorce- there is no 'right' to divorce'.

The reality is that children have many rights- but they don't have a right to a mother and father.

 

[Syriusly]

Speaking of nature...children have a natural right to a mother and a father. States have a right to incentivize that natural right.

Nope; they have a natural right to "parents" and adults who are willing to take care of them, even if at the social cost and expense of the State.

In a "gay marriage" 50% of the children would be in this category. .

No- in most 'gay marriages' there would be no children at all.

And in the remainder of 'gay marriages' there would be twice as many parents- twice the financial and emotional support- as a single parent would provide.

Preventing 'gay marriage' only ensures that the children of gay parents don't get married parents.