State Nullification on Gay Marriage!

[NYcarbineer]

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.

AGAIN, why were anti-miscegenation laws overturned? Judicial overreach?

Because races are equal, SSM and OSM are not.

Only in your opinion and it's not your authority to decide. The Supreme Court has the authority to decide whether equal protection applies.

No the ultimate authority are the citizens of the states. All power derives from the consent of the governed.

That's just absurd. The people put a Supremacy Clause in the Constitution for a reason.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

AGAIN, why were anti-miscegenation laws overturned? Judicial overreach?

Because races are equal, SSM and OSM are not.

Only in your opinion and it's not your authority to decide. The Supreme Court has the authority to decide whether equal protection applies.

No the ultimate authority are the citizens of the states. All power derives from the consent of the governed.

So if a group of the 'governed' want to ban guns in their locality, the Courts shouldn't be able to stop them?

Yes or no

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

AGAIN, why were anti-miscegenation laws overturned? Judicial overreach?

Because races are equal, SSM and OSM are not.

Only in your opinion and it's not your authority to decide. The Supreme Court has the authority to decide whether equal protection applies.

No the ultimate authority are the citizens of the states. All power derives from the consent of the governed.

That's just absurd. The people put a Supremacy Clause in the Constitution for a reason.

Then why arent the feds enforcing marijuana laws in Colorado?
See, you can't get away with this. Either you support nullification and both Colorado's pot laws and Tennessee's marriage laws, or you're against it and you're opposed to both.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

AGAIN, why were anti-miscegenation laws overturned? Judicial overreach?

Because races are equal, SSM and OSM are not.

Only in your opinion and it's not your authority to decide. The Supreme Court has the authority to decide whether equal protection applies.

No the ultimate authority are the citizens of the states. All power derives from the consent of the governed.

So if a group of the 'governed' want to ban guns in their locality, the Courts shouldn't be able to stop them?

Yes or no

I've already answered this a dozen times.

 

[Kosh]

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.

AGAIN, why were anti-miscegenation laws overturned? Judicial overreach?

Because races are equal, SSM and OSM are not.

Only in your opinion and it's not your authority to decide. The Supreme Court has the authority to decide whether equal protection applies.

No the ultimate authority are the citizens of the states. All power derives from the consent of the governed.

That's just absurd. The people put a Supremacy Clause in the Constitution for a reason.

Marriage is not part of the Constitution, yet you seem to think it is..

 

[NYcarbineer]

Huh?
That wasnt even a good deflection.

Why don't you answer the question?

Guess. lol

Becayse the answer is way too obvious and has been answered over and over? Just a guess.

No because you don't have an answer. Why can a state nullify a marriage right protection but not a gun right protection?

They can and do. I already gave an example.

You gave us an example of a state nullifying a Court ruling overturning a gun control law?

Where?

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Referenda? lol, those are examples of that direct democracy mob rule that you conservatives claim to hate when it's convenient for you.

I guess this time it's not that convenient...

Remind me how you disapprove of Colorado's legalization of marijuana. Oh yeah, that's different somehwo because well it just is.

Don't change the subject. The feds have every right to enforce federal marijuana laws.

So why arent they? WHy arent you outraged at this blatant example of state nullification of federal law. That's federal law, btw, not some judge's opinion.

In a nutshell: (1) State officials need not enforce federal laws that the state has determined to be unconstitutional; nor may Congress mandate that states enact specific laws. But (2), states may not block federal authorities who attempt to enforce a federal law unless a court has held that the law is unconstitutional. And (3), individuals are not exempt from prosecution by the federal government just because the state where they reside has legalized an activity or pronounced that a federal law is unconstitutional;

Yes States Can Nullify Some Federal Laws Not All Cato Institute

 

[NYcarbineer]

AGAIN, why were anti-miscegenation laws overturned? Judicial overreach?

Because races are equal, SSM and OSM are not.

Only in your opinion and it's not your authority to decide. The Supreme Court has the authority to decide whether equal protection applies.

No the ultimate authority are the citizens of the states. All power derives from the consent of the governed.

So if a group of the 'governed' want to ban guns in their locality, the Courts shouldn't be able to stop them?

Yes or no

I've already answered this a dozen times.

Yes. or. No.

Can someone show me where he answered this question yes or no?

 

[NYcarbineer]

AGAIN, why were anti-miscegenation laws overturned? Judicial overreach?

Because races are equal, SSM and OSM are not.

Only in your opinion and it's not your authority to decide. The Supreme Court has the authority to decide whether equal protection applies.

No the ultimate authority are the citizens of the states. All power derives from the consent of the governed.

That's just absurd. The people put a Supremacy Clause in the Constitution for a reason.

Marriage is not part of the Constitution, yet you seem to think it is..

Equal protection is, and once a state makes laws regarding marriage, those laws have to comply with the equal protection protected by the Constitution.

That's why banning interracial marriage was ruled unconstitutional.

 

[Silhouette]

In a nutshell: (1) State officials need not enforce federal laws that the state has determined to be unconstitutional; nor may Congress mandate that states enact specific laws. But (2), states may not block federal authorities who attempt to enforce a federal law unless a court has held that the law is unconstitutional. And (3), individuals are not exempt from prosecution by the federal government just because the state where they reside has legalized an activity or pronounced that a federal law is unconstitutional;

Yes States Can Nullify Some Federal Laws Not All Cato Institute

Why just "marriage equality" for gays NYCarbineer? You a bigot against siblings or polygamists expressing their consenting love for each other in marriage? Why exactly? Because they are repugnant to the majority for this or that reason?

I'd like to see the fed try to crack down on states that deny gay marriage licenses or polygamy licenses or whatever other licenses this "limbo lawless attrition" state the SCOTUS has left this country in with respect to marriage definitions. A dead definition is a dead definition. Who gets to decide how to "wing it" in the interim? Just gays? Hardly "marriage equality".

Meanwhile...

The county clerk in San Diego County, CA was talking about just such a thing when he questioned how a federal entity could nullify a majority statute voted in as referendum without actually finding that statute unconstitutional at the highest level. He was suing, hoping to get the Supreme Court to clarify what it meant in Windsor when it said [like almost 100 times in many differenT ways] that states have the "unquestioned authority" on marriage. That Clerk was worried about having to choose between his Oath to uphold laws enacted by the people of his state vs the threats from CA AG' Kamila Harris' and Gov Jerry Brown's office that he would be fired if he didn't defy his Oath.

Anyone who doesn't think this is orchestrated sedition had better rip off their rose colored glasses before they are required to do other things that the majority finds repugnant. Both sides of the aisle are up to it. The GOP's version of sedition using SCOTUS most glaringly [besides it's telling silence on the gay steamroller] is of course granting US citizenship to non-naturalized citizens who still hold and swear allegiance to foreign countries...even those that support Al Qaida. aka "Citizen's United". Your core values and your democracy itself dear citizens, are up for sale to the highest bidder from the FREAKS and TRAITORS at either end of the spectrum.

The Court in Windsor 2013 United States v. Windsor brought up Loving v Virginia but declined to apply it evidently because they ended the Windsor Decision saying that "gay marriage is only allowed in 11 states"...and they didn't include the State of California, being the 12th one gay lawyers were claiming "had legal gay marriage".

County Clerk Ernie Dronenburg's pleas were shut down. His appeals denied without comment. And this is the conservative bastion of the People protecting state's rights to sovereign rule!?

The interim-default AT ROCK BOTTOM LEAST should favor democracy over a newcoming weird social behavior challenge that the majority finds repugnant. SCOTUS even called gay marriage in Windsor "a new, weird concept defying thousands of years of tradition and repugnant to the majority" [paraphrased from page 13]:

"For marriage between a man and a woman no doubt had been thought of by most people as essential to the very definition of that term and to its role and function throughout the history of civilization. That belief, for many who long have held it, became even more urgent, more cherished when challenged. For others, however, came the beginnings of anew perspective..

So the Court itself admits it is repugnant to the majority and the new idea is just that. New and not supported by the majority. Equal rights of race are not new however. They have been grappled over by various cultures for millenia. So the Court defaults to the "new untested idea" of completely rearranging the core institution of society in favor of a vocal and impatient deviant sex-behavior minority? Untested gay marriage has more rights than states' self-rule while appeals are pending!!???? And subjecting children to this fool's-errand legally as guinea pigs?

Clearly as you say overwhelming majorities time and again have voted it down. And there's good reason for voting down "anything goes marriage". Countries in Europe now are facing a tidal wave of new marriage lawsuits...incest couples who want to marry...and polygamists...and due to their laws on equality and precedent...very similar or the same as ours in many cases....their courts, in disgust but with their hands tied are having to grant legal rights to marry to these "coattail-rider" repugnant "marriages"...and the children of course that will be caught up in these psychological and physical nightmares.

Yes, states should do THIS to Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Roberts right now. Because they had the power of just their four votes to take up this case and give the tens of millions who have already voiced their opinions at the ballot box on these BEHAVIORS marrying. When your conservative party abandons a state's right to self-rule on repugnant human behaviors, that's when voter apathy kicks in. Why even bother waking up, warming up the car, driving in foul weather or traffic or what have you...to cast your vote...only to have it not matter one iota because the party you thought would protect children... the most essential conservative resource this country's future, has FAILED...why bother?

I wonder if it has occured to anyone that the GOP's passive involvement in its own murder will result in its near-future extinction? After all, as they assist normalizing the most far left values in human history into the center, where does that move the bar on conservative values and their pet projects like oil, greed, etc? Off the cliff...

It's hard to rally a base around values their gay left parents and likewise supporter/sympathizer parents taught them "are only things those old crazy conservatives used to embrace back in the 20th Century"...

 

[bendog]

Guess. lol

Becayse the answer is way too obvious and has been answered over and over? Just a guess.

No because you don't have an answer. Why can a state nullify a marriage right protection but not a gun right protection?

They can and do. I already gave an example.

But your op was not about nullification. It posited that a state should fire and deny benefits to any state official who issued a marriage certificate or did something else to further gay marriage that was banned under state law. That's not nullification.

That is nullification.
Next

No it is not. Nullification requires the state declare the federal action a nullity. Frankly the OP is stupid. Now if you'd have said "State A should pass a law, or amend the state constitution, to say the federal courts lack the power to speak on any state law regarding marriage, and further any action by a state official to enable any gay marriage is without legal effect ..... then that would be nullification.

And rather than just being some gay assed lame attempt at attacking an elected official doing his JOB, that actual nullification law would require the federal DOJ to enjoin state officials from complying, up to the point of putting federal officials in state positions. Which would have occurred in Ala if the state hadn't caved in school segregation. That actually could be entertaining.

 

[The Rabbi]

Because races are equal, SSM and OSM are not.

Only in your opinion and it's not your authority to decide. The Supreme Court has the authority to decide whether equal protection applies.

No the ultimate authority are the citizens of the states. All power derives from the consent of the governed.

That's just absurd. The people put a Supremacy Clause in the Constitution for a reason.

Marriage is not part of the Constitution, yet you seem to think it is..

Equal protection is, and once a state makes laws regarding marriage, those laws have to comply with the equal protection protected by the Constitution.

That's why banning interracial marriage was ruled unconstitutional.

Youre reduced to gibberish, once again.

 

[bendog]

Because races are equal, SSM and OSM are not.

Only in your opinion and it's not your authority to decide. The Supreme Court has the authority to decide whether equal protection applies.

No the ultimate authority are the citizens of the states. All power derives from the consent of the governed.

That's just absurd. The people put a Supremacy Clause in the Constitution for a reason.

Marriage is not part of the Constitution, yet you seem to think it is..

Equal protection is, and once a state makes laws regarding marriage, those laws have to comply with the equal protection protected by the Constitution.

That's why banning interracial marriage was ruled unconstitutional.

True, and Rabbi is spinning his wheels. But what he's attempting to argue is what would happen if the state passed a law saying it refused to offer equal protection to gays wishing to marry, and state officials complied with state law?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Only in your opinion and it's not your authority to decide. The Supreme Court has the authority to decide whether equal protection applies.

No the ultimate authority are the citizens of the states. All power derives from the consent of the governed.

That's just absurd. The people put a Supremacy Clause in the Constitution for a reason.

Marriage is not part of the Constitution, yet you seem to think it is..

Equal protection is, and once a state makes laws regarding marriage, those laws have to comply with the equal protection protected by the Constitution.

That's why banning interracial marriage was ruled unconstitutional.

Youre reduced to gibberish, once again.

That you don't understand the principle of equal protection under the law is your problem not mine.

 

[The Rabbi]

Becayse the answer is way too obvious and has been answered over and over? Just a guess.

No because you don't have an answer. Why can a state nullify a marriage right protection but not a gun right protection?

They can and do. I already gave an example.

But your op was not about nullification. It posited that a state should fire and deny benefits to any state official who issued a marriage certificate or did something else to further gay marriage that was banned under state law. That's not nullification.

That is nullification.
Next

No it is not. Nullification requires the state declare the federal action a nullity. Frankly the OP is stupid. Now if you'd have said "State A should pass a law, or amend the state constitution, to say the federal courts lack the power to speak on any state law regarding marriage, and further any action by a state official to enable any gay marriage is without legal effect ..... then that would be nullification.

And rather than just being some gay assed lame attempt at attacking an elected official doing his JOB, that actual nullification law would require the federal DOJ to enjoin state officials from complying, up to the point of putting federal officials in state positions. Which would have occurred in Ala if the state hadn't caved in school segregation. That actually could be entertaining.

If a state refuses to abide by a federal law or ruling that is nullification. How they do it is irrelevant.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Becayse the answer is way too obvious and has been answered over and over? Just a guess.

No because you don't have an answer. Why can a state nullify a marriage right protection but not a gun right protection?

They can and do. I already gave an example.

But your op was not about nullification. It posited that a state should fire and deny benefits to any state official who issued a marriage certificate or did something else to further gay marriage that was banned under state law. That's not nullification.

That is nullification.
Next

No it is not. Nullification requires the state declare the federal action a nullity. Frankly the OP is stupid. Now if you'd have said "State A should pass a law, or amend the state constitution, to say the federal courts lack the power to speak on any state law regarding marriage, and further any action by a state official to enable any gay marriage is without legal effect ..... then that would be nullification.

And rather than just being some gay assed lame attempt at attacking an elected official doing his JOB, that actual nullification law would require the federal DOJ to enjoin state officials from complying, up to the point of putting federal officials in state positions. Which would have occurred in Ala if the state hadn't caved in school segregation. That actually could be entertaining.

And the Court would rule it unconstitutional.

 

[The Rabbi]

No the ultimate authority are the citizens of the states. All power derives from the consent of the governed.

That's just absurd. The people put a Supremacy Clause in the Constitution for a reason.

Marriage is not part of the Constitution, yet you seem to think it is..

Equal protection is, and once a state makes laws regarding marriage, those laws have to comply with the equal protection protected by the Constitution.

That's why banning interracial marriage was ruled unconstitutional.

Youre reduced to gibberish, once again.

That you don't understand the principle of equal protection under the law is your problem not mine.

Its actually you who doesnt have a clue here. That much is clear.
I'm done with you. You can only repeat the same strawmen fallacies over and over and mouth crap you dont undertand.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No because you don't have an answer. Why can a state nullify a marriage right protection but not a gun right protection?

They can and do. I already gave an example.

But your op was not about nullification. It posited that a state should fire and deny benefits to any state official who issued a marriage certificate or did something else to further gay marriage that was banned under state law. That's not nullification.

That is nullification.
Next

No it is not. Nullification requires the state declare the federal action a nullity. Frankly the OP is stupid. Now if you'd have said "State A should pass a law, or amend the state constitution, to say the federal courts lack the power to speak on any state law regarding marriage, and further any action by a state official to enable any gay marriage is without legal effect ..... then that would be nullification.

And rather than just being some gay assed lame attempt at attacking an elected official doing his JOB, that actual nullification law would require the federal DOJ to enjoin state officials from complying, up to the point of putting federal officials in state positions. Which would have occurred in Ala if the state hadn't caved in school segregation. That actually could be entertaining.

If a state refuses to abide by a federal law or ruling that is nullification. How they do it is irrelevant.

Irrelevant and unconstitutional:

Cooper v. Aaron - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's just absurd. The people put a Supremacy Clause in the Constitution for a reason.

Marriage is not part of the Constitution, yet you seem to think it is..

Equal protection is, and once a state makes laws regarding marriage, those laws have to comply with the equal protection protected by the Constitution.

That's why banning interracial marriage was ruled unconstitutional.

Youre reduced to gibberish, once again.

That you don't understand the principle of equal protection under the law is your problem not mine.

Its actually you who doesnt have a clue here. That much is clear.
I'm done with you. You can only repeat the same strawmen fallacies over and over and mouth crap you dont undertand.

Bluster is not debate. Try providing some facts to support your arguments.

 

[martybegan]

Things have to be equal first.

This is about people being equal, not things.

People are equal, what isn't equal is the marriages some are seeking.