The South's Last, Desperate Stand

[Valerie]

A state does not have a right to violate the 14th amendment....the courts have already determined that
Federal law supersedes state law...Supremacy clause of the Constitution
Infants do not have a right to enter into a contract

When it comes to race, gender, country of origin or religion. Which one of those do LGBT behaviors fall under? Not gender, because marriage covered both genders already. It was the ACT of marrying the same gender which was given a new class protection under the 14th...by the Judicial...which is forbidden according to checks and balances. That new decree was and is the responsibility of CONGRESS to add, or not, to the Constitutional protections.

Just your favorite minority deviant sex behaviors wishes to marry the same gender ("marry" is a verb, not a noun) and pretend that others cannot. This is paradoxical to the 14th which covers ALL of any class (minority fetish behaviors marrying).

Care to defend against what I just said, using specifics and not your usual generalities?

it's already been explained, you just don't understand...

No that would have been 1967 with the Loving decision. Blacks could marry. Whites could marry. It was the behavior of interracial marriage (a "repugnant minority sexual behavior" at the time) that was found constitutionally valid.



>>>>

 

[Valerie]

Incest and polygamy marriage by your own misuse of the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and sexual fetishes "getting equal rights" to marriage means incest and polygamy marriage are ALREADY LEGAL. Freedom of association. Who are you or even any federal or state law to deny the same marriage rights to any other consenting adults?

are you saying that you live in an alternate universe..??

 

[Valerie]

3. Gays can't hijack the marriage license for one pure, irrefutable and rock-solid reason in law: that violates a necessity to children who also share the marriage contract's enjoyments implicitly...indeed for who it was created over a thousand years ago. "Gay marriage" CANNOT EVER provide the necessary father and mother to children. There is no substitute for a father. There is no substitute for a mother. If a contract violates a necessity to an infant (all minors under age), it isn't merely voidable upon challenge, it is ALREADY VOID AT ITS INCEPTION. Void upon its face without challenge. That's how rock-solid "necessities to infants in contracts" law is. Look it up.

"The Court has also protected the right to marry, the opinion notes, because of its importance for children and families. Laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying, the opinion concludes, “harm and humiliate the children” of those couples by depriving them of both financial benefits and – even more importantly – “the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers.” The Court takes pains, however, to make clear that a right to marry is fundamental even for couples who cannot or do not want to have children. And more broadly, the Court continues, marriage is “a building block of our national community” in so many ways, from the moral support given to married couples to the legal benefits and rights that they enjoy. “There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle,” the Court emphasizes."

In historic decision, Court strikes down state bans on same-sex marriage: In Plain English

 

[J.E.D]

But you have my permission to live your lifestyle while we go swimming, snorkeling, jet skiing, fishing, hunting, eating fresh vegetables, fresh seafood,

I've been doing a lot of that for years. I could swear that I'm living in the northeast, but I guess I'm living in Florida. Damn

 

[the_human_being]

But you have my permission to live your lifestyle while we go swimming, snorkeling, jet skiing, fishing, hunting, eating fresh vegetables, fresh seafood,

I've been doing a lot of that for years. I could swear that I'm living in the northeast, but I guess I'm living in Florida. Damn

Look down at the beach sand. If the sand is brown and ugly, you're in the northeast. If the sand is so white it hurts your eyes to look at it without sunshades, you're on the Emerald Coast in Florida on the Gulf of Mexico.

 

[AceRothstein]

Florida has replaced New York as the most populous state.

WAT

But you have my permission to live your lifestyle while we go swimming, snorkeling, jet skiing, fishing, hunting, eating fresh vegetables, fresh seafood

We have that in the north in addition to skiing, snowmobiling and world class museums. Your pizza sucks as well.

 

[rightwinger]

A state does not have a right to violate the 14th amendment....the courts have already determined that
Federal law supersedes state law...Supremacy clause of the Constitution
Infants do not have a right to enter into a contract

When it comes to race, gender, country of origin or religion. Which one of those do LGBT behaviors fall under? Not gender, because marriage covered both genders already. It was the ACT of marrying the same gender which was given a new class protection under the 14th...by the Judicial...which is forbidden according to checks and balances. That new decree was and is the responsibility of CONGRESS to add, or not, to the Constitutional protections.

Just your favorite minority deviant sex behaviors wishes to marry the same gender ("marry" is a verb, not a noun) and pretend that others cannot. This is paradoxical to the 14th which covers ALL of any class (minority fetish behaviors marrying).

Care to defend against what I just said, using specifics and not your usual generalities?

It has nothing to do with behaviors within a marriage
The courts do not regulate the sexual behaviors within a same sex marriage any more than the sexual behaviors within your own

 

[boilermaker55]

While you teabaggers rally round a dodge drafting pile of shit like "the donald."
Figure yourself out first numb nutz

Yawn. You libs demonize "The South" for being against gay marriage.

Meanwhile....you cheer as Obama imports tens of thousands of Muslims who throw fags off the tops of tall buildings.

Lib logic. Go figure.

 

[the_human_being]

Florida has replaced New York as the most populous state.

WAT

But you have my permission to live your lifestyle while we go swimming, snorkeling, jet skiing, fishing, hunting, eating fresh vegetables, fresh seafood

We have that in the north in addition to skiing, snowmobiling and world class museums. Your pizza sucks as well.

Yes, you also have the sport of snow shoveling up there.

 

[mdk]

Florida has replaced New York as the most populous state.

WAT

But you have my permission to live your lifestyle while we go swimming, snorkeling, jet skiing, fishing, hunting, eating fresh vegetables, fresh seafood

We have that in the north in addition to skiing, snowmobiling and world class museums. Your pizza sucks as well.

Yes, you also have the sport of snow shoveling up there.

I incorporate that shit into my workout. lol.

 

[OldLady]

Politics and legalese aside, why does it matter to anyone what two people do in the privacy of their homes? Why is it so horrible for two people to love each other and want to make a permanent, legal commitment to each other? Why? If homosexuality is against your religion, don't date someone of the same sex. It doesn't give you the right to control other's lives when it's solely a matter of who they sleep with. NONE of us is in control of who we are sexually attracted to. For too long, homosexuals had to live lonely, miserable lives because of intolerance. I'm glad it's no longer necessary in MOST of the country.
You know where I stand. I'd really like to know why you feel it's your right to stop gay marriage, if you can keep all the left/right poop out of it.

 

[Silhouette]

Politics and legalese aside, 1. why does it matter to anyone what two people do in the privacy of their homes? Why is it so horrible for two people to love each other and want to make a permanent, legal commitment to each other? Why?
.

1. "Gay marriage" is no longer in the privacy of someone's home. It is a public declaration of a family union. Children share implicitly in the marriage contract, so pay attention to my next point:

2. What is horrible by gays hijacking marriage is that so doing, they strip children of a vital necessity (a mother and father in marriage) for which the marriage contract was invented for over a thousand years ago. Adults CANNOT create contracts that strip children of a vital necessity. They are not merely voidable contracts, they are IMMEDIATELY VOID while their ink is still wet. Without challenge. That's bedrock law on contracts dear. The only hope children had was the marriage contract to bring both a mother and father into their daily lives. With "gay marriage" there is never any hope of that happening for them.

That's "Why?"...Ancient immutable, longstanding law and contract statutes..

 

[Skylar]

Alabama Chief Justice Effectively Bans Same-Sex Marriage In The State

The chief justice of Alabama’s Supreme Court issued an administrative order on Wednesday barring state judges from issuing same-sex marriage licenses, in contravention of the broadly accepted meaning of a June 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

Chief Justice Roy Moore forbade probate judges in the state from issuing marriage licenses that violate the state’s laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, “until further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court.”

Moore argued that the U.S. Supreme Court had only explicitly struck down same-sex marriage bans in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee in its landmark decision Obergefell v. Hodges, though the ruling may be interpreted to apply to other states’ bans based on precedent.

Yeah, Moore is really awful at law. Its the unfortunate product of having an election determine the Supreme Court justices. You don't necessarily get someone who actually understands the law.

What's actually happening is far more interesting. His son was just indicated in felony charges. And a day later, Daddy Moore drops a very public, very attention getting judicial deuce. One that will almost certainly get slapped down. But should distract long enough to keep his son's troubles off the front page.

 

[Skylar]

Politics and legalese aside, 1. why does it matter to anyone what two people do in the privacy of their homes? Why is it so horrible for two people to love each other and want to make a permanent, legal commitment to each other? Why?
.

1. "Gay marriage" is no longer in the privacy of someone's home. It is a public declaration of a family union. Children share implicitly in the marriage contract, so pay attention to my next point:

2. What is horrible by gays hijacking marriage is that so doing, they strip children of a vital necessity (a mother and father in marriage) for which the marriage contract was invented for over a thousand years ago. Adults CANNOT create contracts that strip children of a vital necessity. They are not merely voidable contracts, they are IMMEDIATELY VOID while their ink is still wet. Without challenge. That's bedrock law on contracts dear. The only hope children had was the marriage contract to bring both a mother and father into their daily lives. With "gay marriage" there is never any hope of that happening for them.

That's "Why?"...Ancient immutable, longstanding law and contract statutes..

Pay attention to this next point:

No child is married to their parents. And nothing you just typed about contract law or marriage is recognized by any law, nor any court. You're citing yourself. Which has no relevance to anyone's marriage.

See how that works?

Back in reality, Obergefell and Windsor found the exact opposite of your claims: that denying same sex marriage hurt children. While the marriage of same sex parents benefits their children. Destroying your argument.

Worse, your 'remedy' of denying same sex marriage doesn't actually fix anything you're complaining about. As same sex parents don't magically become opposite sex parents if they are denied marriage. You merely guarantee that their children never have *married* parents. Which hurts these children.

And doesn't help a single child. Which you already know. But really hope we don't.

 

[Skylar]

Alabama Chief Justice Effectively Bans Same-Sex Marriage In The State

The chief justice of Alabama’s Supreme Court issued an administrative order on Wednesday barring state judges from issuing same-sex marriage licenses, in contravention of the broadly accepted meaning of a June 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
Moore argued that the U.S. Supreme Court had only explicitly struck down same-sex marriage bans in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee in its landmark decision Obergefell v. Hodges, though the ruling may be interpreted to apply to other states’ bans based on precedent.

Next step, bringing up that children of Alabama did not have representation at the Obergefell Hearing on whether or not the brand spanking new terms of the contract they shared implicit rights to (marriage) deprives them of the necessary father and mother they previously enjoyed. If a contract deprives an infant of a necessity, the contract is void upon its face. Certainly Alabama could declare any marriage contract depriving Alabama children of either a mother or father is to their detriment, and, therefore, legally void.

Oh boy. Skylar would you mind coming in here and taking care of this fake lawyer?

Alabama didn't need nor was even allowed representation in the USSC hearing in Obergefell. USSC hearings or for those who are immediate parties to the specific case being resolved.

Of which Alabama wasn't a party. Though Alabama, like every state in the Union, is required to abide any binding legal precedent created by any ruling. Which Obergefell most certainly did.

Moore knows he has no legal leg to stand on. This entire issue isn't about Alabama law. Its about Moore's oldest son. Who was indicated days ago on felony charges. Moore's trying to take attention off the indictment by drawing it on himself. Its a forgone conclusion that he's going to lose. As *every* USSC ruling on constitutional rights applies to every State.

And has for generations.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and as an aside, a little blast from the past:

Thus, if citizens allow this usurping of democracy in contempt of Windsor, they would have to put another initiative on the ballot to restore the traditional marriage description as it legally stands today. But guess what? Lawmakers have to approve of every iniative put on the ballot. So they'll block it and will have successfully forced gay marriage upon the citizens of California without their approval.

Now who is this poster who insisted that California was in 'contempt' of the Windsor decision despite California having no representation in the Windsor hearing.....that now insists that the Obergefell ruling doesn't apply to Alabama because it didn't have representation at the Obergefell hearing?

Anyone want to take a guess? I'll give you a hint: they put the 'pseudo' in 'pseudo-legal gibbersh'.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, it gets better!

So...as you said so succinctly above..defance of SCOTUS even at the trickle-down level of law, even a subserviant family code law in CA, is still contempt of the US Supreme Court's constitutional Finding in Windsor June 2013. That is the default Law at all levels until appeals are heard.

Fascists Leaders in California Sense The Future: Attempt Another Coup on Democracy | Page 22 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

But now......Obergefell doesn't apply to Alabama because Alabama didn't have representation at the Obergefell hearing?

Huh. California didn't have representation at the Windsor ruling. How then, per our resident guru in pseudo-legal gibberish, could California be in contempt of a ruling that didn't apply to it.....because they had no representation in that ruling's hearing?

Seems we have exactly opposite pseudo-legal gibberish.......depending on which lets the poster strip rights from gay people.

Imagine that!

 

[cnm]

did you post that in the wrong thread? because it doesn't have anything to do with this one

No.

It is not my problem if you can't infer background to posters' assertions.

 

[Skylar]

that's not the 'argument' or issue...

Yes, it is. For the first time in US History in 2015 a USSC case confirmed that just some repugnant minority sexual behaviors who decided to identify themselves by their behaviors, have the same status and protections as race re: the 14th Amendment. Just the Court's favorite repugnant behaviors though...not others....which paradoxically violates the 14th at the same time..

people are who they are, it's a free country...

as citizens, we all have the same legal status and protections from state laws... that's what the 14th actually says...SCOTUS rules on issues as they naturally arise within our legal system, so you're thinking on this is backward....fact is, no one is asking for state approval of their sexual behavior...gay couples are asking their state(s) for equal access to all that state marriage laws legally convey...

1. I'm not a religious conservative. I'm also a democrat and voted for Clinton twice and...regrettably because of no better alternative...Obama twice.

2. Behaviors cannot seek protection from state regulations. All civil and penal codes in any state are regarding the regulation of behaviors by their respective majorities. Race and behavior are NOT legal equals. Because if they were, any repugnant behavior could escape local regulation by the majority...not JUST your and the 5 Justices' pet favorite minority repugnant behaviors. Toss the false premise.

Save that behaviors can seek protection from state regulation. Speech is a behavior. Religion is a behavior. Seeking redress of grievances is a behavior. Both keep and bearing arms is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior.

All of them are protected. Debunking the entire premise of your pseudo-legal nonsense.

3. Gays can't hijack the marriage license for one pure, irrefutable and rock-solid reason in law: that violates a necessity to children who also share the marriage contract's enjoyments implicitly...indeed for who it was created over a thousand years ago. "Gay marriage" CANNOT EVER provide the necessary father and mother to children. There is no substitute for a father. There is no substitute for a mother. If a contract violates a necessity to an infant (all minors under age), it isn't merely voidable upon challenge, it is ALREADY VOID AT ITS INCEPTION. Void upon its face without challenge. That's how rock-solid "necessities to infants in contracts" law is. Look it up.

Save that there is no 'right to opposite sex parents'. Nor does the law recognize opposite sex parenting as a 'necessity to children'. Nor does any law recognize that children are married to their parents, as you insist.

Making your 'irrefutable', 'rock solid' reason.....just more pseudo-legal nonsense, signifying nothing.

Back in reality, the courts have found the exact opposite of your claim, instead confirming that denying same sex parents marriage hurts their children. And that the marriage of same sex parents benefits their children.

With Windsor describing how children are hurt when marriage is denied when their same sex parents are denied marriage:

And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law
in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....

....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for familiesby taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

Which by your own reasoning would thus mandate that any law that PREVENTED same sex parents from being able to marry would be void. And it gets worse for your claims. As in Obergefell they talk of all the benefits to children of marriage of their same sex parents.

The Court has recognized these connections by describing the varied rights as a unified whole: “[T]he right to ‘marry, establish a home and bring up children’ is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause." . Under the laws of the several States, some of marriage’s protections for children and families are material. But marriage also confers more profound benefits. By giving recognition and legal structure to their parents’ relationship, marriage allows children “to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives." Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests

Just obliterating your argument again. And yet it still gets worse for you: The Supreme Court explicitly detatched the right to marry from having kids with this passage:

The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.

And 'boom'. Even the very concept of your gibberish is rendered into a little puff of pseudo-legal smoke. There's a reason why your every legal prediction has been utterly wrong. Its because you ignore the actual law in favor of what you imagine the law is. And the courts aren't bound to your imagination.

Or in all likelihood, even aware of it.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

Personally, I don't care if someone wants to marry someone of the same sex. It isn't my thing and it isn't going to affect me.
For all I care, if someone wants to marry a goat or a chair, I don't give a sh!t; again, it doesn't affect how I live my life.
That said, those supporting same-sex marriage and those opposed need to get something through their heads.
Because of the current situation we are faced with in this nation, same-sex marriage is.....temporary. It may go on for some generations, but over time it will end.
Why?
The current administration is frequently funneling in tens of thousands of Muslims on a regular basis.
Eighty percent of the mosques in this nation preach hatred against non-Muslims; eighty-five percent teach the same ideology in Canada. Most of those mosques being built are funded by the Saudis (which follows an ultra-strict version of Islam referred to as Wahabi). Oh yes, the funding is provided via the money we give them through our gas consumption.
Muslim immigrants and so-called refugees consistently have larger families than westerners.
President Obama has pulled out the sympathy card for those coming in, saying that there are politicians that want to deny women/widows and orphans a home here. If one checks, one will find that the large number of those coming in are fighting age males.
Currently the United States has only "two" Muslim politicians in Congress and as more and more Muslims vote and enter into politics, that number will, of course, increase.
The change of the overall makeup of congress and the senate will change to one that is more pro-Islamic. Once Muslims have enough power in the halls of congress and the senate, the laws of the land will naturally change.
Eventually, they will just eliminate the U.S. Constitution and replace it with Sharia and the Hadith.
This will take several generations but it WILL happen. To deny it or ignore it won't change the outcome.
Once it does happen, same-sex marriage will no longer be an issue as gays and lesbians will be rounded up and dealt with in the manner that Islam deals with such individuals. It'll be...."off with their heads."
For those bleeding-heart liberals and religious types who think that "they believe in a God as do we," you just have to look around strict Islamic nations for bibles...you won't find them...they are considered anti-Islamic and the teaching is that the "people of the book (Christians and Jews) are the enemy who must be converted, subjugated, or killed. They also preach against anyone who doesn't obey the Quran (this of course included anyone that is non-Muslim).