The Alabama Abomination

DGS49

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
10,410
Reaction score
5,122
Points
400
Location
Pittsburgh
Is anyone besides me "distressed" about the recent machinations in re "gay marriage" in Alabama?

Briefly, the USSC has declined (thus far) to declare that there is a "Constitutional" right to marry someone of the same gender, but the Court has agreed to rule on a case-in-point later this year. All the USSC has done until now is to re-affirm the "full faith & credit" clause of Article IV, declaring that neither any state nor the United States can refuse to recognize marriages which are legal in the state in which they are formed. (Which voids a part of DOMA).

So as of this moment there is no "Constitutional" right to marry someone of the same gender.

But a Federal District Court judge in Alabama, one Callie Granade, took it upon herself several months ago to declare that THERE IS SUCH A "CONSTITUTIONAL" RIGHT, demanding in her ruling that Alabama begin accepting and processing marriage license applications from gay couples! The ruling was stayed temporarily pending a ruling by the USSC, but the stay ended on Monday.

WHERE [THE FUCK] DOES SHE GET THE RIGHT TO MAKE THIS RULING? WHERE DID THIS RIGHT COME FROM? WHY DIDN'T ANYONE ELSE NOTICE IT IN THE PAST 200+ YEARS? DOES A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE HAVE THE RIGHT TO RE-WRITE THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION?

In the face of this outrageous flouting of the rights of the State of Alabama to decide what marriage is or isn't within its jurisdiction, the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court issued a memorandum telling county officials in Alabama that they were FORBIDDEN from issuing marriage licenses in violation of state law.

Now this CJ is being compared with Gov. George Wallace refusing to allow so-called Negroes to enroll in white state colleges a couple generations ago. BULLPUCKEY!

And the U.S. Supreme Court, faced with this unprecedented and outrageous crisis brought on by a Federal District Court Judge REFUSES TO ACT!

It seems that Justices Thomas and Scalia are the only ones who GIVE A FLYING FUCK about the rule of law or the Constitution or precedent or any of that. Certainly, the MSM doesn't give a fuck and they are predictably presenting this outrage in fluffy terms favored by our indigenous commies.

I personally don't care about "gay marriage" one way or another, but this frontal assault on Constitutional law and the processes and procedures that have been in place for hundreds of years is bullshit. And I'm conceding for the moment the existence of the preposterous "right of privacy" which exists nowhere but in the minds of Progressives - certainly not in the United States Constitution. This judge's actions are an outrage that have to be confronted head-on. We cannot allow ourselves to be subject to the whims of anyone who happens to be appointed to the federal court system.

I truly think we as a country ought to look into "Violation of Oath of Office" as a reason for impeachment, and these fukkers who swear to protect and defend the Constitution, then flout it at every turn ought to be removed. For cause. Without further compensation from the taxpayers.

This is the worst constitutional crisis in a generation, and EVERYONE seems to be ignoring it. This is not about "gay marriage," it's about the powers of the federal judiciary to make up new "constitutional" provisions at will.
 

Luddly Neddite

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
63,820
Reaction score
9,874
Points
2,040
Please point out where the Constitution says "equal rights except gays".

Thanks.
 
OP
DGS49

DGS49

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
10,410
Reaction score
5,122
Points
400
Location
Pittsburgh
Gays have the same rights as everyone else. They can get married or decline to get married, or live with someone without the benefit of marriage, and no one can legally or constitutionally interfere. You cannot marry a blood relative, even if you are both consenting adults, even though the medical justifications for anti-incest laws are easily overcome. You cannot marry someone who is already legally married to someone else, even if all three (or more) parties are legally competent and willing. The right to marry is not without legal constraints, and it has ALWAYS been defined by the States, and not the federal government.

And although I really do not want to get off on this tangent, Rick Santorum was right. If there is a right to marry anyone you like under the fictitious "right of privacy," then anti-incest and monogamy laws are as good as dead.

The issue in this thread is not "gay marriage." I personally have no objection to any state deciding, through constitutional and legal means whether or not to have gay marriage within its jurisdiction. Like it or not, there are legally married gay couples in all 50 states and the District of Columbia right now, because of the Full Faith & Credit clause.

The issue I raise is a constitutional one. A federal district court judge has NO POWER to re-write the U.S. Constitution, and any ruling to the contrary is void. Clearly, there is no current right in the Constitution to marry someone of the same gender, yet this judge purported to create such a right, in violation not only of the US Constitution, but of the valid laws of the State of Alabama.

And the Supreme Court failing to reign her in is outrageous, particularly when they are preparing to rule on the issue in the foreseeable future.
 

TheOldSchool

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
62,631
Reaction score
10,069
Points
2,070
Location
last stop for sanity before reaching the south
Gays have the same rights as everyone else. They can get married or decline to get married, or live with someone without the benefit of marriage, and no one can legally or constitutionally interfere. You cannot marry a blood relative, even if you are both consenting adults, even though the medical justifications for anti-incest laws are easily overcome. You cannot marry someone who is already legally married to someone else, even if all three (or more) parties are legally competent and willing. The right to marry is not without legal constraints, and it has ALWAYS been defined by the States, and not the federal government.

And although I really do not want to get off on this tangent, Rick Santorum was right. If there is a right to marry anyone you like under the fictitious "right of privacy," then anti-incest and monogamy laws are as good as dead.

The issue in this thread is not "gay marriage." I personally have no objection to any state deciding, through constitutional and legal means whether or not to have gay marriage within its jurisdiction. Like it or not, there are legally married gay couples in all 50 states and the District of Columbia right now, because of the Full Faith & Credit clause.

The issue I raise is a constitutional one. A federal district court judge has NO POWER to re-write the U.S. Constitution, and any ruling to the contrary is void. Clearly, there is no current right in the Constitution to marry someone of the same gender, yet this judge purported to create such a right, in violation not only of the US Constitution, but of the valid laws of the State of Alabama.

And the Supreme Court failing to reign her in is outrageous, particularly when they are preparing to rule on the issue in the foreseeable future.
"Gays have the same rights as everyone else." That's the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard and you assholes repeat it over and over like a broken record. Before interracial marriage was legal whites and blacks had "the same rights as everyone else" too. They could each marry their own color. But oops that was ruled unconstitutional. You fuckers lost then and you're going to lose now too.
 

Luddly Neddite

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
63,820
Reaction score
9,874
Points
2,040
Gays have the same rights as everyone else. They can get married or decline to get married, or live with someone without the benefit of marriage, and no one can legally or constitutionally interfere. You cannot marry a blood relative, even if you are both consenting adults, even though the medical justifications for anti-incest laws are easily overcome. You cannot marry someone who is already legally married to someone else, even if all three (or more) parties are legally competent and willing. The right to marry is not without legal constraints, and it has ALWAYS been defined by the States, and not the federal government.

And although I really do not want to get off on this tangent, Rick Santorum was right. If there is a right to marry anyone you like under the fictitious "right of privacy," then anti-incest and monogamy laws are as good as dead.

The issue in this thread is not "gay marriage." I personally have no objection to any state deciding, through constitutional and legal means whether or not to have gay marriage within its jurisdiction. Like it or not, there are legally married gay couples in all 50 states and the District of Columbia right now, because of the Full Faith & Credit clause.

The issue I raise is a constitutional one. A federal district court judge has NO POWER to re-write the U.S. Constitution, and any ruling to the contrary is void. Clearly, there is no current right in the Constitution to marry someone of the same gender, yet this judge purported to create such a right, in violation not only of the US Constitution, but of the valid laws of the State of Alabama.

And the Supreme Court failing to reign her in is outrageous, particularly when they are preparing to rule on the issue in the foreseeable future.
"Gays have the same rights as everyone else." That's the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard and you assholes repeat it over and over like a broken record. Before interracial marriage was legal whites and blacks had "the same rights as everyone else" too. They could each marry their own color. But oops that was ruled unconstitutional. You fuckers lost then and you're going to lose now too.

And this red herring:

If there is a right to marry anyone you like under the fictitious "right of privacy," then anti-incest and monogamy laws are as good as dead.


There is no such thing as "traditional marriage". The definition of marriage has been changed many times in our history and will be changed again.

No one re-wrote the Constitution. Indeed, what we're seeing is the Constitution being upheld.

 

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,033
Points
280
Location
Earth
Never been to Alabama. Wasn't plannning to visit anytime soon. So can't say what they do concerns me in the slightest. If you're gay/lesbian and live in Alabama, and wanna marry go to one of ther other 37 states to do it. Problem solved.

Universal gay marriage in the USA will be reality eventually.

Resistance is futile. :)
 

bodecea

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
142,683
Reaction score
18,543
Points
2,180
Location
#HasNoClothes
Gays have the same rights as everyone else. They can get married or decline to get married, or live with someone without the benefit of marriage, and no one can legally or constitutionally interfere. You cannot marry a blood relative, even if you are both consenting adults, even though the medical justifications for anti-incest laws are easily overcome. You cannot marry someone who is already legally married to someone else, even if all three (or more) parties are legally competent and willing. The right to marry is not without legal constraints, and it has ALWAYS been defined by the States, and not the federal government.

And although I really do not want to get off on this tangent, Rick Santorum was right. If there is a right to marry anyone you like under the fictitious "right of privacy," then anti-incest and monogamy laws are as good as dead.

The issue in this thread is not "gay marriage." I personally have no objection to any state deciding, through constitutional and legal means whether or not to have gay marriage within its jurisdiction. Like it or not, there are legally married gay couples in all 50 states and the District of Columbia right now, because of the Full Faith & Credit clause.

The issue I raise is a constitutional one. A federal district court judge has NO POWER to re-write the U.S. Constitution, and any ruling to the contrary is void. Clearly, there is no current right in the Constitution to marry someone of the same gender, yet this judge purported to create such a right, in violation not only of the US Constitution, but of the valid laws of the State of Alabama.

And the Supreme Court failing to reign her in is outrageous, particularly when they are preparing to rule on the issue in the foreseeable future.
What federal district court judge has tried to re-write the U.S Constitution? And in what way and in what part have they tried a re-write?
 

TheOldSchool

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
62,631
Reaction score
10,069
Points
2,070
Location
last stop for sanity before reaching the south
Never been to Alabama. Wasn't plannning to visit anytime soon. So can't say what they do concerns me in the slightest. If you're gay/lesbian and live in Alabama, and wanna marry go to one of ther other 37 states to do it. Problem solved.

Universal gay marriage in the USA will be reality eventually.

Resistance is futile. :)
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
59,346
Reaction score
17,243
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
Is anyone besides me "distressed" about the recent machinations in re "gay marriage" in Alabama?

Briefly, the USSC has declined (thus far) to declare that there is a "Constitutional" right to marry someone of the same gender, but the Court has agreed to rule on a case-in-point later this year. All the USSC has done until now is to re-affirm the "full faith & credit" clause of Article IV, declaring that neither any state nor the United States can refuse to recognize marriages which are legal in the state in which they are formed. (Which voids a part of DOMA).

So as of this moment there is no "Constitutional" right to marry someone of the same gender.

But a Federal District Court judge in Alabama, one Callie Granade, took it upon herself several months ago to declare that THERE IS SUCH A "CONSTITUTIONAL" RIGHT, demanding in her ruling that Alabama begin accepting and processing marriage license applications from gay couples! The ruling was stayed temporarily pending a ruling by the USSC, but the stay ended on Monday.

WHERE [THE FUCK] DOES SHE GET THE RIGHT TO MAKE THIS RULING? WHERE DID THIS RIGHT COME FROM? WHY DIDN'T ANYONE ELSE NOTICE IT IN THE PAST 200+ YEARS? DOES A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE HAVE THE RIGHT TO RE-WRITE THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION?

In the face of this outrageous flouting of the rights of the State of Alabama to decide what marriage is or isn't within its jurisdiction, the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court issued a memorandum telling county officials in Alabama that they were FORBIDDEN from issuing marriage licenses in violation of state law.

Now this CJ is being compared with Gov. George Wallace refusing to allow so-called Negroes to enroll in white state colleges a couple generations ago. BULLPUCKEY!

And the U.S. Supreme Court, faced with this unprecedented and outrageous crisis brought on by a Federal District Court Judge REFUSES TO ACT!

It seems that Justices Thomas and Scalia are the only ones who GIVE A FLYING FUCK about the rule of law or the Constitution or precedent or any of that. Certainly, the MSM doesn't give a fuck and they are predictably presenting this outrage in fluffy terms favored by our indigenous commies.

I personally don't care about "gay marriage" one way or another, but this frontal assault on Constitutional law and the processes and procedures that have been in place for hundreds of years is bullshit. And I'm conceding for the moment the existence of the preposterous "right of privacy" which exists nowhere but in the minds of Progressives - certainly not in the United States Constitution. This judge's actions are an outrage that have to be confronted head-on. We cannot allow ourselves to be subject to the whims of anyone who happens to be appointed to the federal court system.

I truly think we as a country ought to look into "Violation of Oath of Office" as a reason for impeachment, and these fukkers who swear to protect and defend the Constitution, then flout it at every turn ought to be removed. For cause. Without further compensation from the taxpayers.

This is the worst constitutional crisis in a generation, and EVERYONE seems to be ignoring it. This is not about "gay marriage," it's about the powers of the federal judiciary to make up new "constitutional" provisions at will.
Incorrect.

Articles III and VI of the Constitution authorize Federal courts to make such rulings consistent with established precedents, in this case equal protection of the law.
 

Syriusly

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2014
Messages
54,851
Reaction score
7,126
Points
1,840
Is anyone besides me "distressed" about the recent machinations in re "gay marriage" in Alabama?

Briefly, the USSC has declined (thus far) to declare that there is a "Constitutional" right to marry someone of the same gender, but the Court has agreed to rule on a case-in-point later this year. All the USSC has done until now is to re-affirm the "full faith & credit" clause of Article IV, declaring that neither any state nor the United States can refuse to recognize marriages which are legal in the state in which they are formed. (Which voids a part of DOMA).

So as of this moment there is no "Constitutional" right to marry someone of the same gender.

But a Federal District Court judge in Alabama, one Callie Granade, took it upon herself several months ago to declare that THERE IS SUCH A "CONSTITUTIONAL" RIGHT, demanding in her ruling that Alabama begin accepting and processing marriage license applications from gay couples! The ruling was stayed temporarily pending a ruling by the USSC, but the stay ended on Monday..
You are coming rather late to this rodeo with your outrage.

Judge Granade was the latest in a series of Federal Judges to declare that bans on same gender marriages are unconstitutional. Several of those cases have been appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court has left those rulings stand.

Since the Supreme Court has not ruled otherwise, it is absolutely proper for Judge Granade to make a decision in this issue- like a dozen or so other Federal judges.

And she stayed her ruling so the the USSC could have a say in the matter- but the Supreme Court declined to issue a stay- if the Supreme Court had wanted to- it could have issued a stay and no same gender marriages would be happening in Alabama right now. Which doesn't bode well for the opponents of same sex marriage.

So to recap:
  • This is the latest in a series of court decisions
  • The judge did nothing legally incorrect, even if you disagree with her decision.
  • The USSC could have blocked this ruling but didn't.
  • The USSC will take up the issue this spring.
 

Syriusly

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2014
Messages
54,851
Reaction score
7,126
Points
1,840
. A federal district court judge has NO POWER to re-write the U.S. Constitution, and any ruling to the contrary is void.
That judge was doing her job- she didn't 're-write the Constitution'- she ruled on the issue, like about a dozen judges before her.

That is how cases get to the Supreme Court.
 

WinterBorn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
39,450
Reaction score
9,593
Points
1,340
Location
Atlanta
Never been to Alabama. Wasn't plannning to visit anytime soon. So can't say what they do concerns me in the slightest. If you're gay/lesbian and live in Alabama, and wanna marry go to one of ther other 37 states to do it. Problem solved.

Universal gay marriage in the USA will be reality eventually.

Resistance is futile. :)
Delta4, if you are ever in the southeast, let me know. I'd be happy to provide you with a guided tour of Alabama. While there are plenty of idiots (as there are in most places), it is a delightful place in many ways. You'd enjoy it.
 

PratchettFan

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
7,238
Reaction score
746
Points
190
Is anyone besides me "distressed" about the recent machinations in re "gay marriage" in Alabama?

Briefly, the USSC has declined (thus far) to declare that there is a "Constitutional" right to marry someone of the same gender, but the Court has agreed to rule on a case-in-point later this year. All the USSC has done until now is to re-affirm the "full faith & credit" clause of Article IV, declaring that neither any state nor the United States can refuse to recognize marriages which are legal in the state in which they are formed. (Which voids a part of DOMA).

So as of this moment there is no "Constitutional" right to marry someone of the same gender.

But a Federal District Court judge in Alabama, one Callie Granade, took it upon herself several months ago to declare that THERE IS SUCH A "CONSTITUTIONAL" RIGHT, demanding in her ruling that Alabama begin accepting and processing marriage license applications from gay couples! The ruling was stayed temporarily pending a ruling by the USSC, but the stay ended on Monday.

WHERE [THE FUCK] DOES SHE GET THE RIGHT TO MAKE THIS RULING? WHERE DID THIS RIGHT COME FROM? WHY DIDN'T ANYONE ELSE NOTICE IT IN THE PAST 200+ YEARS? DOES A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE HAVE THE RIGHT TO RE-WRITE THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION?

In the face of this outrageous flouting of the rights of the State of Alabama to decide what marriage is or isn't within its jurisdiction, the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court issued a memorandum telling county officials in Alabama that they were FORBIDDEN from issuing marriage licenses in violation of state law.

Now this CJ is being compared with Gov. George Wallace refusing to allow so-called Negroes to enroll in white state colleges a couple generations ago. BULLPUCKEY!

And the U.S. Supreme Court, faced with this unprecedented and outrageous crisis brought on by a Federal District Court Judge REFUSES TO ACT!

It seems that Justices Thomas and Scalia are the only ones who GIVE A FLYING FUCK about the rule of law or the Constitution or precedent or any of that. Certainly, the MSM doesn't give a fuck and they are predictably presenting this outrage in fluffy terms favored by our indigenous commies.

I personally don't care about "gay marriage" one way or another, but this frontal assault on Constitutional law and the processes and procedures that have been in place for hundreds of years is bullshit. And I'm conceding for the moment the existence of the preposterous "right of privacy" which exists nowhere but in the minds of Progressives - certainly not in the United States Constitution. This judge's actions are an outrage that have to be confronted head-on. We cannot allow ourselves to be subject to the whims of anyone who happens to be appointed to the federal court system.

I truly think we as a country ought to look into "Violation of Oath of Office" as a reason for impeachment, and these fukkers who swear to protect and defend the Constitution, then flout it at every turn ought to be removed. For cause. Without further compensation from the taxpayers.

This is the worst constitutional crisis in a generation, and EVERYONE seems to be ignoring it. This is not about "gay marriage," it's about the powers of the federal judiciary to make up new "constitutional" provisions at will.
The role of the courts is to interpret and rule on the law. And this particular ruling was not unprecedented no matter how you stretch that word.
 
OP
DGS49

DGS49

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
10,410
Reaction score
5,122
Points
400
Location
Pittsburgh
Jesus, what a load of unmitigated crap!

"TheOldSchool," what you have posted is not a rebuttal, it is simply a denial. The correspondence between "homosexuality" and race is nonsense. From a legal standpoint, homosexuality is ENTIRELY determined by behavior; race is an innate trait. Thank you for demonstrating, in these posts, the typical idiocy of a Liberal voter.

"LuddlyIdiot," same thing. The statement that "there is no such thing as traditional marriage," is an assertion that is to easily dis-provable that is not worth the keystrokes to deny it. Your poster is so illogical and vacuous it defies any rational discussion. Voting rights and property rights have nothing to do with traditional marriage.

Also, if you can find a "right of privacy" in the Constitution, please point it out. IT DOES NOT EXIST! IT IS MADE-UP LAW!

"bodacea," when a Federal District judge recognizes a "Constitutional" right that has never existed before, she is rewriting the constitution. Are you really too stupid to see this?

Clayton Jones, I agree with you 100%, but your conclusion is counter-reality. THERE IS NO ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT giving people a right to marry someone of the same gender, in violation of state law. THAT'S WHY THE FUCKING SUPREME COURT AGREED TO HEAR A CASE ON THAT POINT! BECAUSE THEY HAVE NEVER DIRECTLY RULED ON IT! You fucking moron.
 

Luddly Neddite

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
63,820
Reaction score
9,874
Points
2,040

hortysir

In Memorial of 47
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
20,518
Reaction score
4,258
Points
270
Location
Port Charlotte, FL
Is anyone besides me "distressed" about the recent machinations in re "gay marriage" in Alabama?

Briefly, the USSC has declined (thus far) to declare that there is a "Constitutional" right to marry someone of the same gender, but the Court has agreed to rule on a case-in-point later this year. All the USSC has done until now is to re-affirm the "full faith & credit" clause of Article IV, declaring that neither any state nor the United States can refuse to recognize marriages which are legal in the state in which they are formed. (Which voids a part of DOMA).

So as of this moment there is no "Constitutional" right to marry someone of the same gender.

But a Federal District Court judge in Alabama, one Callie Granade, took it upon herself several months ago to declare that THERE IS SUCH A "CONSTITUTIONAL" RIGHT, demanding in her ruling that Alabama begin accepting and processing marriage license applications from gay couples! The ruling was stayed temporarily pending a ruling by the USSC, but the stay ended on Monday.

WHERE [THE FUCK] DOES SHE GET THE RIGHT TO MAKE THIS RULING? WHERE DID THIS RIGHT COME FROM? WHY DIDN'T ANYONE ELSE NOTICE IT IN THE PAST 200+ YEARS? DOES A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE HAVE THE RIGHT TO RE-WRITE THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION?

In the face of this outrageous flouting of the rights of the State of Alabama to decide what marriage is or isn't within its jurisdiction, the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court issued a memorandum telling county officials in Alabama that they were FORBIDDEN from issuing marriage licenses in violation of state law.

Now this CJ is being compared with Gov. George Wallace refusing to allow so-called Negroes to enroll in white state colleges a couple generations ago. BULLPUCKEY!

And the U.S. Supreme Court, faced with this unprecedented and outrageous crisis brought on by a Federal District Court Judge REFUSES TO ACT!

It seems that Justices Thomas and Scalia are the only ones who GIVE A FLYING FUCK about the rule of law or the Constitution or precedent or any of that. Certainly, the MSM doesn't give a fuck and they are predictably presenting this outrage in fluffy terms favored by our indigenous commies.

I personally don't care about "gay marriage" one way or another, but this frontal assault on Constitutional law and the processes and procedures that have been in place for hundreds of years is bullshit. And I'm conceding for the moment the existence of the preposterous "right of privacy" which exists nowhere but in the minds of Progressives - certainly not in the United States Constitution. This judge's actions are an outrage that have to be confronted head-on. We cannot allow ourselves to be subject to the whims of anyone who happens to be appointed to the federal court system.

I truly think we as a country ought to look into "Violation of Oath of Office" as a reason for impeachment, and these fukkers who swear to protect and defend the Constitution, then flout it at every turn ought to be removed. For cause. Without further compensation from the taxpayers.

This is the worst constitutional crisis in a generation, and EVERYONE seems to be ignoring it. This is not about "gay marriage," it's about the powers of the federal judiciary to make up new "constitutional" provisions at will.
Incorrect.

Articles III and VI of the Constitution authorize Federal courts to make such rulings consistent with established precedents, in this case equal protection of the law.
Since you can consistently answer without the dramatics of others, I'll ask you this question:

If a state puts its own constitutional amendment on the ballot and it passes with an overwhelming majority and is put into law, does the SCOTUS have the power to overrule it?
Why?
Under what authority?
 

PratchettFan

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
7,238
Reaction score
746
Points
190
Is anyone besides me "distressed" about the recent machinations in re "gay marriage" in Alabama?

Briefly, the USSC has declined (thus far) to declare that there is a "Constitutional" right to marry someone of the same gender, but the Court has agreed to rule on a case-in-point later this year. All the USSC has done until now is to re-affirm the "full faith & credit" clause of Article IV, declaring that neither any state nor the United States can refuse to recognize marriages which are legal in the state in which they are formed. (Which voids a part of DOMA).

So as of this moment there is no "Constitutional" right to marry someone of the same gender.

But a Federal District Court judge in Alabama, one Callie Granade, took it upon herself several months ago to declare that THERE IS SUCH A "CONSTITUTIONAL" RIGHT, demanding in her ruling that Alabama begin accepting and processing marriage license applications from gay couples! The ruling was stayed temporarily pending a ruling by the USSC, but the stay ended on Monday.

WHERE [THE FUCK] DOES SHE GET THE RIGHT TO MAKE THIS RULING? WHERE DID THIS RIGHT COME FROM? WHY DIDN'T ANYONE ELSE NOTICE IT IN THE PAST 200+ YEARS? DOES A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE HAVE THE RIGHT TO RE-WRITE THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION?

In the face of this outrageous flouting of the rights of the State of Alabama to decide what marriage is or isn't within its jurisdiction, the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court issued a memorandum telling county officials in Alabama that they were FORBIDDEN from issuing marriage licenses in violation of state law.

Now this CJ is being compared with Gov. George Wallace refusing to allow so-called Negroes to enroll in white state colleges a couple generations ago. BULLPUCKEY!

And the U.S. Supreme Court, faced with this unprecedented and outrageous crisis brought on by a Federal District Court Judge REFUSES TO ACT!

It seems that Justices Thomas and Scalia are the only ones who GIVE A FLYING FUCK about the rule of law or the Constitution or precedent or any of that. Certainly, the MSM doesn't give a fuck and they are predictably presenting this outrage in fluffy terms favored by our indigenous commies.

I personally don't care about "gay marriage" one way or another, but this frontal assault on Constitutional law and the processes and procedures that have been in place for hundreds of years is bullshit. And I'm conceding for the moment the existence of the preposterous "right of privacy" which exists nowhere but in the minds of Progressives - certainly not in the United States Constitution. This judge's actions are an outrage that have to be confronted head-on. We cannot allow ourselves to be subject to the whims of anyone who happens to be appointed to the federal court system.

I truly think we as a country ought to look into "Violation of Oath of Office" as a reason for impeachment, and these fukkers who swear to protect and defend the Constitution, then flout it at every turn ought to be removed. For cause. Without further compensation from the taxpayers.

This is the worst constitutional crisis in a generation, and EVERYONE seems to be ignoring it. This is not about "gay marriage," it's about the powers of the federal judiciary to make up new "constitutional" provisions at will.
Incorrect.

Articles III and VI of the Constitution authorize Federal courts to make such rulings consistent with established precedents, in this case equal protection of the law.
Since you can consistently answer without the dramatics of others, I'll ask you this question:

If a state puts its own constitutional amendment on the ballot and it passes with an overwhelming majority and is put into law, does the SCOTUS have the power to overrule it?
Why?
Under what authority?
Yes. Under the authority of the Constitution. All states are subject to the Constitution and the SC is the entity under the Constitution which rules on disputes arising under the Constitution.
 

PratchettFan

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
7,238
Reaction score
746
Points
190
Jesus, what a load of unmitigated crap!

"TheOldSchool," what you have posted is not a rebuttal, it is simply a denial. The correspondence between "homosexuality" and race is nonsense. From a legal standpoint, homosexuality is ENTIRELY determined by behavior; race is an innate trait. Thank you for demonstrating, in these posts, the typical idiocy of a Liberal voter.

"LuddlyIdiot," same thing. The statement that "there is no such thing as traditional marriage," is an assertion that is to easily dis-provable that is not worth the keystrokes to deny it. Your poster is so illogical and vacuous it defies any rational discussion. Voting rights and property rights have nothing to do with traditional marriage.

Also, if you can find a "right of privacy" in the Constitution, please point it out. IT DOES NOT EXIST! IT IS MADE-UP LAW!

"bodacea," when a Federal District judge recognizes a "Constitutional" right that has never existed before, she is rewriting the constitution. Are you really too stupid to see this?

Clayton Jones, I agree with you 100%, but your conclusion is counter-reality. THERE IS NO ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT giving people a right to marry someone of the same gender, in violation of state law. THAT'S WHY THE FUCKING SUPREME COURT AGREED TO HEAR A CASE ON THAT POINT! BECAUSE THEY HAVE NEVER DIRECTLY RULED ON IT! You fucking moron.
The Supreme Court can't just decide an issue. It has to be brought before it in the form of a case, and cases do not go directly to the Supreme Court. They have to go through the appeals process first.

There are many rights you enjoy which are based upon the Constitution but are not specifically mentioned in it. You will find nothing in the Constitution which says you have the right to an attorney.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top