Why the 14th Amendment Can’t Possibly Require Same-Sex Marriage

[James Everett]

1) No, I am stating fact. The SCOTUS is being asked to grant a right to same sex couples to marry based on the 14th amendment. Correct?

2) If they render an opinion that same sex couples have a right to enter into a marriage contract, then they are allowing via their opinion the re- defining of a marriage contract to be that of same sex couples... Correct?

1) Partly, yes: not a bad primer: Five key arguments loom in gay marriage case

"To claim that marriage, by definition, excludes certain couples is simply to insist that those couples may not marry because they have historically been denied the right to do so," the 10th Circuit majority wrote in the Utah case. "One might just as easily have argued that interracial couples are by definition excluded from the institution of marriage."

Posner, in the unanimous 7th Circuit case, said tradition cannot be grounds for discrimination no matter how long a practice has been in effect.
​

2) No. You're a bit confused here. No problem, people on both sides are. They won't be re-defining a marriage contract to include same sex couples. They will be saying same sex couples have the same right to a marriage contract -- to marry as opposite sex couples do and bi-racial couples do.

A marriage contract as a legal document (not a tradition in society or religion) has always been color and gender neutral

I beg to differ. Every legal definition that I have sourced states the opposite, of your assertion of gender neutrality. Every legal dictionary wherein I have sought the legal definition of a marriage contract defines such as being between a man and woman, husband and wife. Please cite your source that states otherwise.

Dictionaries? I was talking about laws. Sources were cited numerous occasions. You've just chosen to ignore them

Oh, now that's rich!
So legal dictionary's are irrelevant to law? That's a good one.
No surprise that you would suggest I leave, can't have facts and truth posted,now can we?

You've purposefully ignored everything people have posted that contradicts your insanity

whatever your issues are they are not about entering into a rational and reasonable debate or argument.

you're a troll and a poor one at that

No,
You are simply attempting to sidestep, because you have lost.
The legal definition of a marriage via every legal dictionary is a contract between a man and a woman, and the only way for same sex couples to enter into a marriage contract would be to change the definition.
You deny this, claiming that marriage has nothing to do with the sex of the couple according to the courts, yet legal definitions are what the courts refer to in any case concerning such.
You are crying and calling me a troll, because you have no case to defeat the facts that I have presented. I never addressed you first, you addressed me, and continue to do so, hence you would be the troll here. Stop whining and face the truth.

 

[James Everett]

Oh, but I sourced your own CONstitutions Article I section 10, as evidence that I am correct and that your SCOTUS disregards that Article and section without cause.

Do you even realize you're asking me to accept your opinion of that clause over the opinion of every justice who said it does not protect a marriage contract? Even worse for you, you are asking that of me without providing a shred of evidence corroborating your opinion. Sorry, I just can't bring myself to do that.

Now if you think you can establish a rational argument for why you're right and they're all wrong, I'll be more than happy to consider it; but so far, you've offered nothing.

Start with explaining how protecting the obligation of contracts extends to the contracts themselves. From there, work your way on over to explaining how protecting contractual obligations extends to contracts not yet entered in to.

G'head ... give it your best shot ... !

Explain how an obligation extends to a contract?
Really?
A contract is a written obligation.
It is impossible to impair a contractual obligation before that contract is made, however a State cannot diminish the obligations of that contract once it is entered into.
My rational argument is the simple text in Article I section 10, a marriage is a contract, your SCOTUS admits this, and then states that it's obligations are not protected under that very article and section from diminishment by the State.
Now, were the arguments reversed, you would be stating that I am a fool and your SCOTUS correct.
Such is akin to blind following.

Seems to me your rational argument applies to existing contracts, not contracts not entered into. So of course I'm confused why you think the Constitution's Contract Clause applies to future marriage contracts between two men or two women?

You simply seem to be unable to comprehend simple logic.
By legal definition, a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, such does not deny a same sex couple to contract the equivalent obligations between themselves, yet such is not by legal, historical, and traditional definition a marriage contract which requires the party's entering into it to be of the opposite sex to fulfill the definition of such.
You seem to be of the misunderstanding that unless the same sex contract is labeled by definition a marriage contract that the obligations therein are somehow being impaired.

Not at all. You said, "it is impossible to impair a contractual obligation before that contract is made, however a State cannot diminish the obligations of that contract once it is entered into."

Meaning you admit the Constitution's contract clause offers no protection to marriage contracts for same-sex couples who have not yet entered into marriage. At least you finally admit that clause is irrelevant in terms of people who haven't gotten married yet. That's a start anyway. That also means it's irrelevant for gay couples to join in marriage.

Your CONstitution cannot protect a contract yet to be established, and same sex couples cannot enter into a marriage contract because they do not fit the qualifications based on the fact that they are if the same sex. They may however contract a same sex partnership that mirrors a marriage contract in wording other that certain references to the sex of the individuals must be changed, as a man is not a woman, a husband is not a woman, and a wife is not a man. Once those terms are changed to fit same de couples, it is no longer a marriage contract, but rather a civil union partnership, and that contract holds the same protections under Article I section 10. The obligations of any contract not yet established can possibly be impaired, because it does not yet exist.
Now, I have typed this very s l o w l y so please read very slowly so that this time you may grasp the facts presented.

 

[PratchettFan]

Do you even realize you're asking me to accept your opinion of that clause over the opinion of every justice who said it does not protect a marriage contract? Even worse for you, you are asking that of me without providing a shred of evidence corroborating your opinion. Sorry, I just can't bring myself to do that.

Now if you think you can establish a rational argument for why you're right and they're all wrong, I'll be more than happy to consider it; but so far, you've offered nothing.

Start with explaining how protecting the obligation of contracts extends to the contracts themselves. From there, work your way on over to explaining how protecting contractual obligations extends to contracts not yet entered in to.

G'head ... give it your best shot ... !

Explain how an obligation extends to a contract?
Really?
A contract is a written obligation.
It is impossible to impair a contractual obligation before that contract is made, however a State cannot diminish the obligations of that contract once it is entered into.
My rational argument is the simple text in Article I section 10, a marriage is a contract, your SCOTUS admits this, and then states that it's obligations are not protected under that very article and section from diminishment by the State.
Now, were the arguments reversed, you would be stating that I am a fool and your SCOTUS correct.
Such is akin to blind following.

Seems to me your rational argument applies to existing contracts, not contracts not entered into. So of course I'm confused why you think the Constitution's Contract Clause applies to future marriage contracts between two men or two women?

You simply seem to be unable to comprehend simple logic.
By legal definition, a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, such does not deny a same sex couple to contract the equivalent obligations between themselves, yet such is not by legal, historical, and traditional definition a marriage contract which requires the party's entering into it to be of the opposite sex to fulfill the definition of such.
You seem to be of the misunderstanding that unless the same sex contract is labeled by definition a marriage contract that the obligations therein are somehow being impaired.

Not at all. You said, "it is impossible to impair a contractual obligation before that contract is made, however a State cannot diminish the obligations of that contract once it is entered into."

Meaning you admit the Constitution's contract clause offers no protection to marriage contracts for same-sex couples who have not yet entered into marriage. At least you finally admit that clause is irrelevant in terms of people who haven't gotten married yet. That's a start anyway. That also means it's irrelevant for gay couples to join in marriage.

Your CONstitution cannot protect a contract yet to be established, and same sex couples cannot enter into a marriage contract because they do not fit the qualifications based on the fact that they are if the same sex. They may however contract a same sex partnership that mirrors a marriage contract in wording other that certain references to the sex of the individuals must be changed, as a man is not a woman, a husband is not a woman, and a wife is not a man. Once those terms are changed to fit same de couples, it is no longer a marriage contract, but rather a civil union partnership, and that contract holds the same protections under Article I section 10. The obligations of any contract not yet established can possibly be impaired, because it does not yet exist.
Now, I have typed this very s l o w l y so please read very slowly so that this time you may grasp the facts presented.

Out of curiosity, you keep using the word "your". "Your Constitution", "your SCOTUS", etc. I take it you are not a US citizen?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Explain how an obligation extends to a contract?
Really?
A contract is a written obligation.
It is impossible to impair a contractual obligation before that contract is made, however a State cannot diminish the obligations of that contract once it is entered into.
My rational argument is the simple text in Article I section 10, a marriage is a contract, your SCOTUS admits this, and then states that it's obligations are not protected under that very article and section from diminishment by the State.
Now, were the arguments reversed, you would be stating that I am a fool and your SCOTUS correct.
Such is akin to blind following.

Seems to me your rational argument applies to existing contracts, not contracts not entered into. So of course I'm confused why you think the Constitution's Contract Clause applies to future marriage contracts between two men or two women?

You simply seem to be unable to comprehend simple logic.
By legal definition, a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, such does not deny a same sex couple to contract the equivalent obligations between themselves, yet such is not by legal, historical, and traditional definition a marriage contract which requires the party's entering into it to be of the opposite sex to fulfill the definition of such.
You seem to be of the misunderstanding that unless the same sex contract is labeled by definition a marriage contract that the obligations therein are somehow being impaired.

Not at all. You said, "it is impossible to impair a contractual obligation before that contract is made, however a State cannot diminish the obligations of that contract once it is entered into."

Meaning you admit the Constitution's contract clause offers no protection to marriage contracts for same-sex couples who have not yet entered into marriage. At least you finally admit that clause is irrelevant in terms of people who haven't gotten married yet. That's a start anyway. That also means it's irrelevant for gay couples to join in marriage.

Your CONstitution cannot protect a contract yet to be established, and same sex couples cannot enter into a marriage contract because they do not fit the qualifications based on the fact that they are if the same sex. They may however contract a same sex partnership that mirrors a marriage contract in wording other that certain references to the sex of the individuals must be changed, as a man is not a woman, a husband is not a woman, and a wife is not a man. Once those terms are changed to fit same de couples, it is no longer a marriage contract, but rather a civil union partnership, and that contract holds the same protections under Article I section 10. The obligations of any contract not yet established can possibly be impaired, because it does not yet exist.
Now, I have typed this very s l o w l y so please read very slowly so that this time you may grasp the facts presented.

Out of curiosity, you keep using the word "your". "Your Constitution", "your SCOTUS", etc. I take it you are not a US citizen?

HE's a mentally retarded Confederate Ghost

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The reasoning behind DOMA?

It was an acknowledgement the idea behind the concept that marriage contracts can only be between a man and a woman was not a sound legal argument. DOMA was A long time before the same sex marriage case in Massachusetts

 

[James Everett]

Explain how an obligation extends to a contract?
Really?
A contract is a written obligation.
It is impossible to impair a contractual obligation before that contract is made, however a State cannot diminish the obligations of that contract once it is entered into.
My rational argument is the simple text in Article I section 10, a marriage is a contract, your SCOTUS admits this, and then states that it's obligations are not protected under that very article and section from diminishment by the State.
Now, were the arguments reversed, you would be stating that I am a fool and your SCOTUS correct.
Such is akin to blind following.

Seems to me your rational argument applies to existing contracts, not contracts not entered into. So of course I'm confused why you think the Constitution's Contract Clause applies to future marriage contracts between two men or two women?

You simply seem to be unable to comprehend simple logic.
By legal definition, a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, such does not deny a same sex couple to contract the equivalent obligations between themselves, yet such is not by legal, historical, and traditional definition a marriage contract which requires the party's entering into it to be of the opposite sex to fulfill the definition of such.
You seem to be of the misunderstanding that unless the same sex contract is labeled by definition a marriage contract that the obligations therein are somehow being impaired.

Not at all. You said, "it is impossible to impair a contractual obligation before that contract is made, however a State cannot diminish the obligations of that contract once it is entered into."

Meaning you admit the Constitution's contract clause offers no protection to marriage contracts for same-sex couples who have not yet entered into marriage. At least you finally admit that clause is irrelevant in terms of people who haven't gotten married yet. That's a start anyway. That also means it's irrelevant for gay couples to join in marriage.

Your CONstitution cannot protect a contract yet to be established, and same sex couples cannot enter into a marriage contract because they do not fit the qualifications based on the fact that they are if the same sex. They may however contract a same sex partnership that mirrors a marriage contract in wording other that certain references to the sex of the individuals must be changed, as a man is not a woman, a husband is not a woman, and a wife is not a man. Once those terms are changed to fit same de couples, it is no longer a marriage contract, but rather a civil union partnership, and that contract holds the same protections under Article I section 10. The obligations of any contract not yet established can possibly be impaired, because it does not yet exist.
Now, I have typed this very s l o w l y so please read very slowly so that this time you may grasp the facts presented.

Out of curiosity, you keep using the word "your". "Your Constitution", "your SCOTUS", etc. I take it you are not a US citizen?

I shall explain.....
It is a self evident truth that governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
I was born, and reside in Tennessee, I am a Tennessean, hence an American citizen. Your U.S. Government claims me as a corporate U.S. Citizen by birth via your 14th amendment. I do not willfully grant my consent to your U.S. Government, nor do I willfully participate in any way in Your governments political process. Hence it does not have my voluntary consent to govern, thus is not my government, I am simply coerced to live under it via duress. See Blacks law dictionary for the definitions of coercion and duress.
The system of government that exists today is not that of the founders' nor that of the framers' of your CONstitution, it is a perversion thereof.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

talk about krazy talk


Whooeee

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Seems to me your rational argument applies to existing contracts, not contracts not entered into. So of course I'm confused why you think the Constitution's Contract Clause applies to future marriage contracts between two men or two women?

You simply seem to be unable to comprehend simple logic.
By legal definition, a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, such does not deny a same sex couple to contract the equivalent obligations between themselves, yet such is not by legal, historical, and traditional definition a marriage contract which requires the party's entering into it to be of the opposite sex to fulfill the definition of such.
You seem to be of the misunderstanding that unless the same sex contract is labeled by definition a marriage contract that the obligations therein are somehow being impaired.

Not at all. You said, "it is impossible to impair a contractual obligation before that contract is made, however a State cannot diminish the obligations of that contract once it is entered into."

Meaning you admit the Constitution's contract clause offers no protection to marriage contracts for same-sex couples who have not yet entered into marriage. At least you finally admit that clause is irrelevant in terms of people who haven't gotten married yet. That's a start anyway. That also means it's irrelevant for gay couples to join in marriage.

Your CONstitution cannot protect a contract yet to be established, and same sex couples cannot enter into a marriage contract because they do not fit the qualifications based on the fact that they are if the same sex. They may however contract a same sex partnership that mirrors a marriage contract in wording other that certain references to the sex of the individuals must be changed, as a man is not a woman, a husband is not a woman, and a wife is not a man. Once those terms are changed to fit same de couples, it is no longer a marriage contract, but rather a civil union partnership, and that contract holds the same protections under Article I section 10. The obligations of any contract not yet established can possibly be impaired, because it does not yet exist.
Now, I have typed this very s l o w l y so please read very slowly so that this time you may grasp the facts presented.

Out of curiosity, you keep using the word "your". "Your Constitution", "your SCOTUS", etc. I take it you are not a US citizen?

I shall explain.....
It is a self evident truth that governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
I was born, and reside in Tennessee, I am a Tennessean, hence an American citizen. Your U.S. Government claims me as a corporate U.S. Citizen by birth via your 14th amendment. I do not willfully grant my consent to your U.S. Government, nor do I willfully participate in any way in Your governments political process. Hence it does not have my voluntary consent to govern, thus is not my government, I am simply coerced to live under it via duress. See Blacks law dictionary for the definitions of coercion and duress.
The system of government that exists today is not that of the founders' nor that of the framers' of your CONstitution, it is a perversion thereof.

can we save this for posterity?

 

[James Everett]

Seems to me your rational argument applies to existing contracts, not contracts not entered into. So of course I'm confused why you think the Constitution's Contract Clause applies to future marriage contracts between two men or two women?

You simply seem to be unable to comprehend simple logic.
By legal definition, a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, such does not deny a same sex couple to contract the equivalent obligations between themselves, yet such is not by legal, historical, and traditional definition a marriage contract which requires the party's entering into it to be of the opposite sex to fulfill the definition of such.
You seem to be of the misunderstanding that unless the same sex contract is labeled by definition a marriage contract that the obligations therein are somehow being impaired.

Not at all. You said, "it is impossible to impair a contractual obligation before that contract is made, however a State cannot diminish the obligations of that contract once it is entered into."

Meaning you admit the Constitution's contract clause offers no protection to marriage contracts for same-sex couples who have not yet entered into marriage. At least you finally admit that clause is irrelevant in terms of people who haven't gotten married yet. That's a start anyway. That also means it's irrelevant for gay couples to join in marriage.

Your CONstitution cannot protect a contract yet to be established, and same sex couples cannot enter into a marriage contract because they do not fit the qualifications based on the fact that they are if the same sex. They may however contract a same sex partnership that mirrors a marriage contract in wording other that certain references to the sex of the individuals must be changed, as a man is not a woman, a husband is not a woman, and a wife is not a man. Once those terms are changed to fit same de couples, it is no longer a marriage contract, but rather a civil union partnership, and that contract holds the same protections under Article I section 10. The obligations of any contract not yet established can possibly be impaired, because it does not yet exist.
Now, I have typed this very s l o w l y so please read very slowly so that this time you may grasp the facts presented.

Out of curiosity, you keep using the word "your". "Your Constitution", "your SCOTUS", etc. I take it you are not a US citizen?

HE's a mentally retarded Confederate Ghost

So sad DANTE,
That you feel so desperate that you need resort to insults.
Your pseudo intellectual jargon has been proven incorrect with my simple citing of the facts and truth, hence you have resorted to this pathetic attempt at insulting me. It's similar to those who post the childish faces to accompany their verbiage thinking that such childishness validates their point.
I point to the contradiction, and fiction established by your SCOTUS, I apologize for offending you with truth and facts. You attempted to state that the case had nothing to do with the definition of a marriage contract, and I proved you to be incorrect. All that you need do is man up and admit that you were wrong, I am man enough to admit when I am wrong and have always done so in the past when shewn to be incorrect. I unlike you do not feel the need to resort to insults when I have been proven wrong.
Yes it is true that I am a Confederate, and yes it is true that I believe the Articles of Confederation and that wholly federal system are the better system for a union of States. Anyone who believes in a union of States, which is a. Confederacy of States is a Confederate supporter. Your current government is a wholly national system wherein the States have been consolidated into a single national government. You simply accept fiction as fact. For example....
Your Presidents assume the power to make law under the fictional executive order, that exists no where in Your CONstitution, and you cannot explain the limits on that fictional power, yet you will argue that such exists lawfully. Don't hate the messenger of TRUTH.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So sad DANTE,
That you feel so desperate that you need resort to insults.

get over yourself

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So sad DANTE,
That you feel so desperate that you need resort to insults.

Your pseudo intellectual jargon has been proven incorrect with my simple citing of the facts and truth, hence you have resorted to this pathetic attempt at insulting me. It's similar to those who post the childish faces to accompany their verbiage thinking that such childishness validates their point.

I point to the contradiction, and fiction established by your SCOTUS, I apologize for offending you with truth and facts. You attempted to state that the case had nothing to do with the definition of a marriage contract, and I proved you to be incorrect. All that you need do is man up and admit that you were wrong, I am man enough to admit when I am wrong and have always done so in the past when shewn to be incorrect. I unlike you do not feel the need to resort to insults when I have been proven wrong.

Yes it is true that I am a Confederate, and yes it is true that I believe the Articles of Confederation and that wholly federal system are the better system for a union of States. Anyone who believes in a union of States, which is a. Confederacy of States is a Confederate supporter. Your current government is a wholly national system wherein the States have been consolidated into a single national government.

You simply accept fiction as fact. For example....
Your Presidents assume the power to make law under the fictional executive order, that exists no where in Your CONstitution, and you cannot explain the limits on that fictional power, yet you will argue that such exists lawfully. Don't hate the messenger of TRUTH.

wow!

a true case of something on display

 

[James Everett]

So sad DANTE,
That you feel so desperate that you need resort to insults.

Your pseudo intellectual jargon has been proven incorrect with my simple citing of the facts and truth, hence you have resorted to this pathetic attempt at insulting me. It's similar to those who post the childish faces to accompany their verbiage thinking that such childishness validates their point.

I point to the contradiction, and fiction established by your SCOTUS, I apologize for offending you with truth and facts. You attempted to state that the case had nothing to do with the definition of a marriage contract, and I proved you to be incorrect. All that you need do is man up and admit that you were wrong, I am man enough to admit when I am wrong and have always done so in the past when shewn to be incorrect. I unlike you do not feel the need to resort to insults when I have been proven wrong.

Yes it is true that I am a Confederate, and yes it is true that I believe the Articles of Confederation and that wholly federal system are the better system for a union of States. Anyone who believes in a union of States, which is a. Confederacy of States is a Confederate supporter. Your current government is a wholly national system wherein the States have been consolidated into a single national government.

You simply accept fiction as fact. For example....
Your Presidents assume the power to make law under the fictional executive order, that exists no where in Your CONstitution, and you cannot explain the limits on that fictional power, yet you will argue that such exists lawfully. Don't hate the messenger of TRUTH.

wow!

a true case of something on display

It's called TRUTH, that is what is on display.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So sad DANTE,
That you feel so desperate that you need resort to insults.

Your pseudo intellectual jargon has been proven incorrect with my simple citing of the facts and truth, hence you have resorted to this pathetic attempt at insulting me. It's similar to those who post the childish faces to accompany their verbiage thinking that such childishness validates their point.

I point to the contradiction, and fiction established by your SCOTUS, I apologize for offending you with truth and facts. You attempted to state that the case had nothing to do with the definition of a marriage contract, and I proved you to be incorrect. All that you need do is man up and admit that you were wrong, I am man enough to admit when I am wrong and have always done so in the past when shewn to be incorrect. I unlike you do not feel the need to resort to insults when I have been proven wrong.

Yes it is true that I am a Confederate, and yes it is true that I believe the Articles of Confederation and that wholly federal system are the better system for a union of States. Anyone who believes in a union of States, which is a. Confederacy of States is a Confederate supporter. Your current government is a wholly national system wherein the States have been consolidated into a single national government.

You simply accept fiction as fact. For example....
Your Presidents assume the power to make law under the fictional executive order, that exists no where in Your CONstitution, and you cannot explain the limits on that fictional power, yet you will argue that such exists lawfully. Don't hate the messenger of TRUTH.

wow!

a true case of something on display

It's called TRUTH, that is what is on display.

what is amazing is how much a caricature of a caricature you are.

simply amazing

 

[James Everett]

So sad DANTE,
That you feel so desperate that you need resort to insults.

get over yourself

Well, at least your past the pathetic insult stage.

 

[James Everett]

So sad DANTE,
That you feel so desperate that you need resort to insults.

Your pseudo intellectual jargon has been proven incorrect with my simple citing of the facts and truth, hence you have resorted to this pathetic attempt at insulting me. It's similar to those who post the childish faces to accompany their verbiage thinking that such childishness validates their point.

I point to the contradiction, and fiction established by your SCOTUS, I apologize for offending you with truth and facts. You attempted to state that the case had nothing to do with the definition of a marriage contract, and I proved you to be incorrect. All that you need do is man up and admit that you were wrong, I am man enough to admit when I am wrong and have always done so in the past when shewn to be incorrect. I unlike you do not feel the need to resort to insults when I have been proven wrong.

Yes it is true that I am a Confederate, and yes it is true that I believe the Articles of Confederation and that wholly federal system are the better system for a union of States. Anyone who believes in a union of States, which is a. Confederacy of States is a Confederate supporter. Your current government is a wholly national system wherein the States have been consolidated into a single national government.

You simply accept fiction as fact. For example....
Your Presidents assume the power to make law under the fictional executive order, that exists no where in Your CONstitution, and you cannot explain the limits on that fictional power, yet you will argue that such exists lawfully. Don't hate the messenger of TRUTH.

wow!

a true case of something on display

It's called TRUTH, that is what is on display.

what is amazing is how much a caricature of a caricature you are.

simply amazing

Oh, bounce back to pathetic insults huh?
Look, why not post something of relevance to the discussion, or have you exhausted your ability to continue spreading fiction as fact?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So sad DANTE,
That you feel so desperate that you need resort to insults.

get over yourself

Well, at least your past the pathetic insult stage.

why are you so crazy? are there others nearby you? do you get together and do things?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So sad DANTE,
That you feel so desperate that you need resort to insults.

Your pseudo intellectual jargon has been proven incorrect with my simple citing of the facts and truth, hence you have resorted to this pathetic attempt at insulting me. It's similar to those who post the childish faces to accompany their verbiage thinking that such childishness validates their point.

I point to the contradiction, and fiction established by your SCOTUS, I apologize for offending you with truth and facts. You attempted to state that the case had nothing to do with the definition of a marriage contract, and I proved you to be incorrect. All that you need do is man up and admit that you were wrong, I am man enough to admit when I am wrong and have always done so in the past when shewn to be incorrect. I unlike you do not feel the need to resort to insults when I have been proven wrong.

Yes it is true that I am a Confederate, and yes it is true that I believe the Articles of Confederation and that wholly federal system are the better system for a union of States. Anyone who believes in a union of States, which is a. Confederacy of States is a Confederate supporter. Your current government is a wholly national system wherein the States have been consolidated into a single national government.

You simply accept fiction as fact. For example....
Your Presidents assume the power to make law under the fictional executive order, that exists no where in Your CONstitution, and you cannot explain the limits on that fictional power, yet you will argue that such exists lawfully. Don't hate the messenger of TRUTH.

wow!

a true case of something on display

It's called TRUTH, that is what is on display.

what is amazing is how much a caricature of a caricature you are.

simply amazing

Oh, bounce back to pathetic insults huh?
Look, why not post something of relevance to the discussion, or have you exhausted your ability to continue spreading fiction as fact?

your persona is much more interesting and entertaining than any silly thread subject

 

[James Everett]

So sad DANTE,
That you feel so desperate that you need resort to insults.

Your pseudo intellectual jargon has been proven incorrect with my simple citing of the facts and truth, hence you have resorted to this pathetic attempt at insulting me. It's similar to those who post the childish faces to accompany their verbiage thinking that such childishness validates their point.

I point to the contradiction, and fiction established by your SCOTUS, I apologize for offending you with truth and facts. You attempted to state that the case had nothing to do with the definition of a marriage contract, and I proved you to be incorrect. All that you need do is man up and admit that you were wrong, I am man enough to admit when I am wrong and have always done so in the past when shewn to be incorrect. I unlike you do not feel the need to resort to insults when I have been proven wrong.

Yes it is true that I am a Confederate, and yes it is true that I believe the Articles of Confederation and that wholly federal system are the better system for a union of States. Anyone who believes in a union of States, which is a. Confederacy of States is a Confederate supporter. Your current government is a wholly national system wherein the States have been consolidated into a single national government.

You simply accept fiction as fact. For example....
Your Presidents assume the power to make law under the fictional executive order, that exists no where in Your CONstitution, and you cannot explain the limits on that fictional power, yet you will argue that such exists lawfully. Don't hate the messenger of TRUTH.

wow!

a true case of something on display

It's called TRUTH, that is what is on display.

what is amazing is how much a caricature of a caricature you are.

simply amazing

Oh, bounce back to pathetic insults huh?
Look, why not post something of relevance to the discussion, or have you exhausted your ability to continue spreading fiction as fact?

your persona is much more interesting and entertaining than any silly thread subject

Well, that's sweet that you find me so interesting. But then you know as little about me as you do about the subject of this thread, therefore the conversation would be all one sided.
You can find all that you need to know through my articles at CSAgov.org

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

wow!

a true case of something on display

It's called TRUTH, that is what is on display.

what is amazing is how much a caricature of a caricature you are.

simply amazing

Oh, bounce back to pathetic insults huh?
Look, why not post something of relevance to the discussion, or have you exhausted your ability to continue spreading fiction as fact?

your persona is much more interesting and entertaining than any silly thread subject

Well, that's sweet that you find me so interesting. But then you know as little about me as you do about the subject of this thread, therefore the conversation would be all one sided.
You can find all that you need to know through my articles at CSAgov.org

think I've been there

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

been to: csagov.org csagovernment.org csa.systekproof.com

but not to FB page