State Nullification on Gay Marriage!

[Kosh]

Loving vs Virginia settled the matter of states having the right to define marriage.

Yup. Demonstrating elegantly that any set of State restrictions on marriage that violate individual rights without a good reason are invalid and within the authority of the Federal government to overrule.

And thus once again showing that "Marriage" is not a "right" and that being gay is NOT a "race".

 

[NYcarbineer]

Many states passed referenda and constitutional amendments declaring marriage as between one man and one woman. In some cases those votes passed with over 80% approval.
It's time states, which are sovereign, nullified meddling by Federal courts against the will of the people and simply declared that any official granting a license to anything other than two non-consanguineous single adults of the opposite sex will lose their salaries and benefits in perpetuity.

We're a constitutional republic, remember?

Those powers not explicitly grandted to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people respectively.
Seems states have the power to say who can marry and who can't, not the federal government.

The power of assuring equal protection under the law is granted to the federal government in the 14th amendment.

Gay people have equal rights to marry the opposite sex just like normal people do. It's inconceivable the Legislature had homosexual marriage in mind when writing the 14th Amendment.

They had equal protection under the law in mind.

 

[Kosh]

And marriage is a right.

"Marriage" is not a "right".

Sure it is. The USSC settled that generations ago.

A "right" is something that can not be taken away and someone can take away your "right" to be "Married" to them.

You're confusing a right with an obligation. The right to get married is the freedom to be married. Not the obligation to do so. And that freedom to be married can't be taken away without a very, very good reason.

Which opponents of gay marriage don't have.[/QUOTE]

If someone wants to leave they only need to tell you the reason whether you think it is a good one or not.

So you are saying that gays do not have the "right" to leave one another?

And "Marriage"" is not a "right"..

 

[NYcarbineer]

Many states passed referenda and constitutional amendments declaring marriage as between one man and one woman. In some cases those votes passed with over 80% approval.
It's time states, which are sovereign, nullified meddling by Federal courts against the will of the people and simply declared that any official granting a license to anything other than two non-consanguineous single adults of the opposite sex will lose their salaries and benefits in perpetuity.

The states have no authority to deny citizens their civil rights.

No one is being denied anything, bozo. States have the power to set rules for marriage. The government cannot deny the will of the citizens.

So a state ban of privately owned firearms can't be overturned by the Supreme Court?

lol

where does it specifically say gays can marry same sex? The 2nd is specific.

So what? What if a state didn't agree with you? What if a state takes the position that wants to nullify an individual's right to own a specific sort of firearm because the state thinks the 2nd amendment only applies to arming militias?

 

[Skylar]

And I see the a typical far left list that does not really apply anymore, I predicted they would post a bunk list and they did.

Note you can't actually refute anything that's been said, nor deny any legal protection listed actually exists. Because the rights and privileges protected by the State for those who are legally married is pretty compelling. So you ignore it all.

Keep running.

And of course I print out many contract for people to sign and they are legal and everything..

Yet any marriage license you offer is legally meaningless. As you lack the authority to issue them. The State, on the other hand, does have the authority to issue them. And to protect the rights and privileges of those who enter such an arrangement. Which is why gays and lesbians are seeking State recognition of their marriages.

And none are coming to you for what you can produce in your laser printer.

es you can get "Married" and yes it will be "legal", just that it will not be recognized by the government so you can plunder your partners Social Security and you will have that nice certificate you wanted with the word "Marriage" on it. Other than that that is all you get nowa days.

Social security is one of those things protected by marriage. So are work benefits, inheritance, child custody, medical decisions, issues of testifying in court, joint property, etc. And the state has every business to help regulate and protect these rights and privileges

 

[Skylar]

If someone wants to leave they only need to tell you the reason whether you think it is a good one or not.

Sure they can leave. And then they can get married again. The right to marry is a fundamental one and can't be stripped from the individual without a good reason.

And "Marriage"" is not a "right"..

The Supreme Court says otherwise. They're legally authoritative. You're nobody.

 

[Kosh]

Many states passed referenda and constitutional amendments declaring marriage as between one man and one woman. In some cases those votes passed with over 80% approval.
It's time states, which are sovereign, nullified meddling by Federal courts against the will of the people and simply declared that any official granting a license to anything other than two non-consanguineous single adults of the opposite sex will lose their salaries and benefits in perpetuity.

The states have no authority to deny citizens their civil rights.

No one is being denied anything, bozo. States have the power to set rules for marriage. The government cannot deny the will of the citizens.

So a state ban of privately owned firearms can't be overturned by the Supreme Court?

lol

where does it specifically say gays can marry same sex? The 2nd is specific.

So what? What if a state didn't agree with you? What if a state takes the position that wants to nullify an individual's right to own a specific sort of firearm because the state thinks the 2nd amendment only applies to arming militias?

Another horrid example being used by the far left.

As a gay person you CAN get "Married", they can even get a certificate, does not mean it will be valid everywhere in the world.

 

[Skylar]

Another horrid example being used by the far left.

As a gay person you CAN get "Married", they can even get a certificate, does not mean it will be valid everywhere in the world.

The 14th amendment doesn't apply everywhere in the world. It applies in the United States. Of which every State is a part.

 

[Kosh]

And I see the a typical far left list that does not really apply anymore, I predicted they would post a bunk list and they did.

Note you can't actually refute anything that's been said, nor deny any legal protection listed actually exists. Because the rights and privileges protected by the State for those who are legally married is pretty compelling. So you ignore it all.

Keep running.

And of course I print out many contract for people to sign and they are legal and everything..

Yet any marriage license you offer is legally meaningless. As you lack the authority to issue them. The State, on the other hand, does have the authority to issue them. And to protect the rights and privileges of those who enter such an arrangement. Which is why gays and lesbians are seeking State recognition of their marriages.

And none are coming to you for what you can produce in your laser printer.

es you can get "Married" and yes it will be "legal", just that it will not be recognized by the government so you can plunder your partners Social Security and you will have that nice certificate you wanted with the word "Marriage" on it. Other than that that is all you get nowa days.

Social security is one of those things protected by marriage. So are work benefits, inheritance, child custody, medical decisions, issues of testifying in court, joint property, etc. And the state has every business to help regulate and protect these rights and privileges

Once again you list things that no longer "legally" exist, except for Social Security.

You do not have to be "Married" in order to do most of what you listed.

 

[Kosh]

Another horrid example being used by the far left.

As a gay person you CAN get "Married", they can even get a certificate, does not mean it will be valid everywhere in the world.

The 14th amendment doesn't apply everywhere in the world. It applies in the United States. Of which every State is a part.

Once again proving that the whole gays can not be "Married" to be a myth and a falsehood.

And also proves the far left has no clue what "rights" are..

 

[Skylar]

Once again you list things that no longer "legally" exist, except for Social Security.

Obviously it does. Work benefits are real. Interference issues are real. Child custody issues are real. The power to make medical decisions are real. And save self incrimination, the marriage exception is one of the only valid reasons not to testify when called on in court. Joint property is real.

And the state has every business to help regulate and protect these rights and privileges. That you say 'uh-uh' really don't change this. As marriage contracts are still enforced and these rights and privileges are still protected regardless of whether or not you agree with them.

In short, you're irrelevant to the protections offered by the State for married couples, just like you are irrelevant in the determination of marriage as a right.

 

[bodecea]

Loving vs Virginia settled the matter of states having the right to define marriage.

Yup. Demonstrating elegantly that any set of State restrictions on marriage that violate individual rights without a good reason are invalid and within the authority of the Federal government to overrule.

And thus once again showing that "Marriage" is not a "right" and that being gay is NOT a "race".

Are equal civil rights only based on race?

 

[bodecea]

The states have no authority to deny citizens their civil rights.

No one is being denied anything, bozo. States have the power to set rules for marriage. The government cannot deny the will of the citizens.

So a state ban of privately owned firearms can't be overturned by the Supreme Court?

lol

where does it specifically say gays can marry same sex? The 2nd is specific.

So what? What if a state didn't agree with you? What if a state takes the position that wants to nullify an individual's right to own a specific sort of firearm because the state thinks the 2nd amendment only applies to arming militias?

Another horrid example being used by the far left.

As a gay person you CAN get "Married", they can even get a certificate, does not mean it will be valid everywhere in the world.

 

[Skylar]

Once again proving that the whole gays can not be "Married" to be a myth and a falsehood.

I don't think 'proving' means what you think it means. As your arbitrary dismissal of generations of case law doesn't actually change any law, any legal definition, or any jurisdiction. You remain just as irrelevant to the process before typing the claim as you do after.

 

[Kosh]

Once again proving that the whole gays can not be "Married" to be a myth and a falsehood.

I don't think 'proving' means what you think it means. As your arbitrary dismissal of generations of case law doesn't actually change any law, any legal definition, or any jurisdiction. You remain just as irrelevant to the process before typing the claim as you do after.

Yes so you have ZERO proof that two gay people being "Married" is "illegal" and that the calls for "rights" and "Civil rights" is nothing more than propaganda based on a fear that you will not get a certificate that has the word "Marriage" on it and gain access to your partners Social Security.

I knew that, I also knew all the keywords and phrase you would use.

Like I said get the government out of the Business of "Marriage" then you can decide who gets it..

 

[Skylar]

es so you have ZERO proof that two gay people being "Married" is "illegal" and that the calls for "rights" and "Civil rights" is nothing more than propaganda based on a fear that you will not get a certificate that has the word "Marriage" on it and gain access to your partners Social Security.

Why would I need 'proof' for a claim I've never made?

What I have claimed (and the courts have affirmed about 2 dozen times) is that if you deny gays and lesbians the right to marry without a compelling reason, you abrogate their right to equal protection under the law. And so far no State has produced a valid or compelling reason to deny such rights.

Probably because no such reason exists.

I knew that, I also knew all the keywords and phrase you would use.

Are you still refuting arguments that no one is making? There's strawman stuffing everywhere. But you still have no valid reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.

Which is likely why the record of opponents of gay marriage is essentially one of perfect failure.

Like I said get the government out of the Business of "Marriage" then you can decide who gets it..

Instead of invalidating all marriage contracts everywhere and disowning every marriage certificate in existence just to keep gays and lesbians out of the union.......its far simpler and far more just to simply recognize that gay and lesbian marriages are just as legally valid as straight ones.

Which the courts have done more than 2 dozen times. Keep it simple.

 

[Kosh]

es so you have ZERO proof that two gay people being "Married" is "illegal" and that the calls for "rights" and "Civil rights" is nothing more than propaganda based on a fear that you will not get a certificate that has the word "Marriage" on it and gain access to your partners Social Security.

Why would I need 'proof' for a claim I've never made?

What I have claimed (and the courts have affirmed about 2 dozen times) is that if you deny gays and lesbians the right to marry without a compelling reason, you abrogate their right to equal protection under the law. And so far no State has produced a valid or compelling reason to deny such rights.

Probably because no such reason exists.

I knew that, I also knew all the keywords and phrase you would use.

Are you still refuting arguments that no one is making? There's strawman stuffing everywhere. But you still have no valid reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.

Which is likely why the record of opponents of gay marriage is essentially one of perfect failure.

Like I said get the government out of the Business of "Marriage" then you can decide who gets it..

Instead of invalidating all marriage contracts everywhere and disowning every marriage certificate in existence just to keep gays and lesbians out of the union.......its far simpler and far more just to simply recognize that gay and lesbian marriages are just as legally valid as straight ones.

Which the courts have done more than 2 dozen times. Keep it simple.

More propaganda being handed over by the far left drones. They think that being gay is a race.

How would a "Marriage" certificate be invalidated? Post some real world examples how it would be invalidated. Or is that just another keyword to use as a scare tactic..

"Marriage" is not a "right" and they gays can get "Married" now. Once again proving that the far left will push a myth even though it has been shown to be bunk.

 

[Skylar]

More propaganda being handed over by the far left drones. They think that being gay is a race.

And when have I said that 'being gay is a race.' Surely you can quote me. Unless you've invented yet another imaginary 'quote', pulled sideways out of your ass. In which case you'll give us the same hapless excuses you did when you failed to quote me saying 'illegal' means rights were violated'.

Gee, I wonder which is coming.

Back in reality, I've said (and the courts have affirmed about 2 dozen times) that if you deny gays and lesbians the right to marry without a compelling reason, you abrogate their right to equal protection under the law. And so far no State has produced a valid or compelling reason to deny such rights.

Feel free to quote me.

How would a "Marriage" certificate be invalidated? Post some real world examples how it would be invalidated. Or is that just another keyword to use as a scare tactic..

Who said a 'marriage certificate was invalidated'? You're just tossing up strawmen at random, at this point.

"Marriage" is not a "right" and they gays can get "Married" now. Once again proving that the far left will push a myth even though it has been shown to be bunk.

So you say. Yet the Supreme Court has recognized marriage as a right. And the courts are bound to the binding precedent created by the SCOTUS. Not whatever you imagine.

And in 30 states, gay marriage is now legal. Most conservatives are resigned to the fact that this trend will continue until its nation wide. And since states are required to recognize and honor the contracts and marriages of other states, gay marriage is de facto legal everywhere in the US.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Once again proving that the whole gays can not be "Married" to be a myth and a falsehood.

I don't think 'proving' means what you think it means. As your arbitrary dismissal of generations of case law doesn't actually change any law, any legal definition, or any jurisdiction. You remain just as irrelevant to the process before typing the claim as you do after.

Yes so you have ZERO proof that two gay people being "Married" is "illegal" and that the calls for "rights" and "Civil rights" is nothing more than propaganda based on a fear that you will not get a certificate that has the word "Marriage" on it and gain access to your partners Social Security.

I knew that, I also knew all the keywords and phrase you would use.

Like I said get the government out of the Business of "Marriage" then you can decide who gets it..

This is unsurprisingly ignorant and ridiculous.

The states write the marriage (contract) law, which is administered by state courts – government and marriage are one in the same, government can't be 'gotten' out of marriage.

 

[Skylar]

This is unsurprisingly ignorant and ridiculous.

The states write the marriage (contract) law, which is administered by state courts – government and marriage are one in the same, government can't be 'gotten' out of marriage.

At this point Kosh's claims are almost wholy disconnected from what is being posted in the thread. He's refuting 'quotes' that have never been made, arguments that have never been offered. Its Strawman'Poluzza.

I'm pretty sure we don't need to be here for Kosh to keep posting indefinitely.