A Disturbing Union of Powers...Two Court Decisions Must Be Overturned

[Skylar]

Buddy, the real reason why you don't see liberals going out for the heretic Mormon creeps is there aren't that many of them, and a lot of them are fucking creepy as hell. It's like they take the normal Mormon Creepy and crank it up to 11.

Thankfully, there aren't enough of these pedophile creeps to make political waves.

Nice backpeddling there Joe. Because previously you accused that mormons were 60 year old men trying to marry 14 year old girls. You were acting judgmental towards their sex lives. Your buddy Harvey Milk, for example, was sodomizing a 16 year old minor regularly, and dragging him across state lines while doing it. That only meets with your defense and approval; making excuses for Milk right and left. The oldest boy he ever sodomized was 22, as he aged into his 40s. Yet his cause of "gay rights!" is A-OK in your book.

I guess it just depends on which cult you belong to, that determines how the US Supreme Court sees your attitudes about sexualizing children. After all, the Court created a brand new class JUST for your sexual behavior. It seems to really like your cult the best of all the organized deviant sex behaviors out there! It must feel good to feel special, set above the others. No wonder you look down on them..

The USSC didn't didn't even mention Harvey Milk in either the Windsor or the Obergefell decision.

So...what the fuck are you talking about?

 

[Votto]

Today abortion doctors like Gosnell do as they please killing both viable babies and mothers alike for decades before being stopped, that is, if we are lucky.

Yes, medical care generally sucks when you are poor, but then again, what doesn't.

not that your sort is ever for giving poor people access to the same medical care you get.

Unfortunately, vultures like Gosnell preyed on the poor folk, which usually meant black women, to mistreat them when they sought abortions because he knew they more than likely would never try to sue him.

Somewhere in the deepest darkest places of hell Margaret Sanger has a smile on her face knowing all the black folk are aborting their babies by monsters like Gosnell.

 

[JoeB131]

Unfortunately, vultures like Gosnell preyed on the poor folk, which usually meant black women, to mistreat them when they sought abortions because he knew they more than likely would never try to sue him.

Somewhere in the deepest darkest places of hell Margaret Sanger has a smile on her face knowing all the black folk are aborting their babies by monsters like Gosnell.

But you Republicans keep saying the solution to medical costs is to eliminate the ability of people to sue incompetent doctors.

Why is it you never hear about a Gosnell in a country like Canada or the UK which have universal health care?

 

[imawhosure]

You don't understand my position. The state should not be endorsing any sexual relationship of any kind. Marriage should be done on a private basis with no state involvement....This should cause only religious folk to get married, although, secular people are free to get married by their pagan priest or priestess, but why bother?...If not, what is a compelling argument for a secular state to be involved with sexual unions?

To entice the provision of both a mother and father for girls and boys that the state anticipates will statistically arrive in marriages. That provision was revoked without infants agreeing to disaffirm that implied contract. Even if they wished to disaffirm it, they couldn't. Because providing a mother and father in marriage was why the marriage contract was conceived of (pun intended) in the first place; and providing a mother and father to girls and boys is a necessity society can't strip from them out of a convenient and contemporary favor to gays.

Bottom line is..........what is a republic and free country..........one where the voters choose across states to ban behavior, or one where they vote to ban behavior then have their government tell them their vote means nothing?

This is how the left constantly does it's shtick! If they win at the ballot box, they insist they have a mandate. If they lose, they use the courts to overturn the will of the people. This is why we consider it tyranny!

Consider-------> if they had the support for all the ideas they have they claim to, a constitutional amendment, or putting the idea to a vote would basically solve their problem. What could we actually say, just like them electing Obama the 2nd time. We can scream the policy stinks, or America made a mistake, but the will of the people were executed, period.

Instead, they circumvent the peoples will, and enforce their policies no matter what we say at the ballot box on any issue, by using the courts if they can. Consistently on this issue the people spoke en mass, and after usurping the will of the people of multiple states, they come on here and tell everyone there is something wrong with us!

And now, and now............they tell the people who support candidates who want to do things constitutionally, we are all crazy, wingnuts, etc. Why? If they have the majority of the people behind them, they can just vote in people who will give them what they want.

I will tell you why........because they do NOT have the majority of the people behind them, and the candidates who point out what Washington DC has done against the will of the vast majority of people, are poison to those who want to keep us under the yoke of a one man band with a pen and phone. These candidates are stirring up a tremendous backlash against their ability to just cram garbage down our throats, and the only way to get the conversation back into the realm of their narrative is to SHUT THEM UP, and make them go away so as the hornets nest they have stirred does not show at the ballot box and sweep the lot of them out of power.

 

[Seawytch]

Today abortion doctors like Gosnell do as they please killing both viable babies and mothers alike for decades before being stopped, that is, if we are lucky.

Yes, medical care generally sucks when you are poor, but then again, what doesn't.

not that your sort is ever for giving poor people access to the same medical care you get.

Unfortunately, vultures like Gosnell preyed on the poor folk, which usually meant black women, to mistreat them when they sought abortions because he knew they more than likely would never try to sue him.

Somewhere in the deepest darkest places of hell Margaret Sanger has a smile on her face knowing all the black folk are aborting their babies by monsters like Gosnell.

Close Planned Parenthood clinics and pass more restrictive abortion laws and all you do is create more Gosnells.

 

[Seawytch]

You don't understand my position. The state should not be endorsing any sexual relationship of any kind. Marriage should be done on a private basis with no state involvement....This should cause only religious folk to get married, although, secular people are free to get married by their pagan priest or priestess, but why bother?...If not, what is a compelling argument for a secular state to be involved with sexual unions?

To entice the provision of both a mother and father for girls and boys that the state anticipates will statistically arrive in marriages. That provision was revoked without infants agreeing to disaffirm that implied contract. Even if they wished to disaffirm it, they couldn't. Because providing a mother and father in marriage was why the marriage contract was conceived of (pun intended) in the first place; and providing a mother and father to girls and boys is a necessity society can't strip from them out of a convenient and contemporary favor to gays.

Bottom line is..........what is a republic and free country..........one where the voters choose across states to ban behavior, or one where they vote to ban behavior then have their government tell them their vote means nothing?

This is how the left constantly does it's shtick! If they win at the ballot box, they insist they have a mandate. If they lose, they use the courts to overturn the will of the people. This is why we consider it tyranny!

Consider-------> if they had the support for all the ideas they have they claim to, a constitutional amendment, or putting the idea to a vote would basically solve their problem. What could we actually say, just like them electing Obama the 2nd time. We can scream the policy stinks, or America made a mistake, but the will of the people were executed, period.

Instead, they circumvent the peoples will, and enforce their policies no matter what we say at the ballot box on any issue, by using the courts if they can. Consistently on this issue the people spoke en mass, and after usurping the will of the people of multiple states, they come on here and tell everyone there is something wrong with us!

And now, and now............they tell the people who support candidates who want to do things constitutionally, we are all crazy, wingnuts, etc. Why? If they have the majority of the people behind them, they can just vote in people who will give them what they want.

I will tell you why........because they do NOT have the majority of the people behind them, and the candidates who point out what Washington DC has done against the will of the vast majority of people, are poison to those who want to keep us under the yoke of a one man band with a pen and phone. These candidates are stirring up a tremendous backlash against their ability to just cram garbage down our throats, and the only way to get the conversation back into the realm of their narrative is to SHUT THEM UP, and make them go away so as the hornets nest they have stirred does not show at the ballot box and sweep the lot of them out of power.

If you pass an unconstitutional law, it gets overturned by the courts. That's how our system works.

If you have the majority as you claim, pass a Constitutional amendment.

 

[Silhouette]

If you pass an unconstitutional law, it gets overturned by the courts. That's how our system works.

If you have the majority as you claim, pass a Constitutional amendment.

No need. Ancient infants and contracts law says that the Obergefell Hearing's results "legal" gay marriage is VOID upon its face, no matter who determines it is not, if it deprives a child or children of both vital mother and father (their original guarantee) in marriage. Obergefell strips them of that right for life. Which can't be.

 

[Silhouette]

If you pass an unconstitutional law, it gets overturned by the courts. That's how our system works.

Looks like Justice Moore of Alabama agrees with you... Here's his administrative order stopping gay marriage in his state until some issues can be cleared up around it. Not the least of which is why a Christian was jailed for refusing to play along..

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2675333/160106-Alabama-Admin-Order.pdf

 

[mdk]

If you pass an unconstitutional law, it gets overturned by the courts. That's how our system works.

Looks like Justice Moore of Alabama agrees with you... Here's his administrative order stopping gay marriage in his state until some issues can be cleared up around it. Not the least of which is why a Christian was jailed for refusing to play along..

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2675333/160106-Alabama-Admin-Order.pdf

And yet gay marriage is still legal in Alabama despite Moore's foot-stomping hissy fit.

 

[Silhouette]

And yet gay marriage is still legal in Alabama despite Moore's foot-stomping hissy fit.

My crystal ball shows me that 2016 is going to be a long rough year for your cult. It's either the sound of a hissy fit, or the sound of a first domino falling..

You went too far 1. Jailing Ms. Davis and 2. Teaching anal sex as cool to kids in school and 3. Forcing people to allow men in girls bathrooms.

You blew it. But that's to be expected. Where you cult is strong in intimidation, perversion and fortitude pushing your agenda on people, it is weak in self-reflection. Your crucial error was to believe that because you shoved down your childhood wounds and turned them into a perverted manifestation, that nobody else would see those wounds and perverted manifestation. We saw. Welcome to 2016.

 

[mdk]

And yet gay marriage is still legal in Alabama despite Moore's foot-stomping hissy fit.

My crystal ball shows me that 2016 is going to be a long rough year for your cult. It's either the sound of a hissy fit, or the sound of a first domino falling..

You went too far 1. Jailing Ms. Davis and 2. Teaching anal sex as cool to kids in school and 3. Forcing people to allow men in girls bathrooms.

You blew it. But that's to be expected. Where you cult is strong in intimidation, perversion and fortitude pushing your agenda on people, it is weak in self-reflection. Your crucial error was to believe that because you shoved down your childhood wounds and turned them into a perverted manifestation, that nobody else would see those wounds and perverted manifestation. We saw. Welcome to 2016.

You should acquire a new crystal ball b/c it's prognosticating abilities have been total shit thus far.

 

[Silhouette]

You should acquire a new crystal ball b/c it's prognosticating abilities have been total shit thus far.

Except for the Pope showing up just prior to election 2016. Which I predicted. It's never happened before so you'll have to admit, I nailed it. 2016 is very much going to be about exposure for the cult of LGBT. And not the kind they're used to controlling..

 

[mdk]

You should acquire a new crystal ball b/c it's prognosticating abilities have been total shit thus far.

Except for the Pope showing up just prior to election 2016. Which I predicted. It's never happened before so you'll have to admit, I nailed it. 2016 is very much going to be about exposure for the cult of LGBT. And not the kind they're used to controlling..

I wouldn't call a year and change to the 2016 Presidential election 'just prior' but whatever. Pope John Paul II visited 'just prior' to the election in 1979 and 1999. Pope Benedict XVI visited 'just prior' to the election in 2008.

You can add 'never happened before' to the ever growing list of things you're clueless about. You might want to check the warranty on that crystal ball of yours, it seems broken. Perhaps you can still get your money back?

 

[Syriusly]

You don't understand my position. The state should not be endorsing any sexual relationship of any kind. Marriage should be done on a private basis with no state involvement....This should cause only religious folk to get married, although, secular people are free to get married by their pagan priest or priestess, but why bother?...If not, what is a compelling argument for a secular state to be involved with sexual unions?

To entice the provision of both a mother and father for girls and boys that the state anticipates will statistically arrive in marriages. That provision was revoked without infants agreeing to disaffirm that implied contract. Even if they wished to disaffirm it, they couldn't. Because providing a mother and father in marriage was why the marriage contract was conceived of (pun intended) in the first place; and providing a mother and father to girls and boys is a necessity society can't strip from them out of a convenient and contemporary favor to gays.

This is how the left constantly does it's shtick! If they win at the ballot box, they insist they have a mandate. If they lose, they use the courts to overturn the will of the people. This is why we consider it tyranny!

LOL- yeah I hear that a lot from Conservatives- until we talk about guns.

If voters happen to pass a gun control bill- Conservatives rush to the court to 'overturn the will of the people'- also known as using the courts to overturn unconstitutional laws.

Unlike faux Conservatives like yourself- I actually believe in the U.S. Constitution- so when voters pass a law- and the courts find the law unconstitutional- I accept that the law was unconstitutional- regardless of whether the law was about gun restrictions- or marriage bans.

 

[Syriusly]

If you pass an unconstitutional law, it gets overturned by the courts. That's how our system works.

If you have the majority as you claim, pass a Constitutional amendment.

No need. Ancient infants and contracts law says that the Obergefell Hearing's results "legal" gay marriage is VOID upon its face, no matter who determines it is not, if it deprives a child or children of both vital mother and father (their original guarantee) in marriage. Obergefell strips them of that right for life. Which can't be.

Meanwhile- in the real world- Americans are getting married in all 50 states, regardless of their gender.

 

[Syriusly]

And yet gay marriage is still legal in Alabama despite Moore's foot-stomping hissy fit.

My crystal ball shows me that 2016 is going to be a long rough year for your cult. It's either the sound of a hissy fit, or the sound of a first domino falling..

You went too far 1. Jailing Ms. Davis and 2. Teaching anal sex as cool to kids in school and 3. Forcing people to allow men in girls bathrooms.

You blew it. But that's to be expected. Where you cult is strong in intimidation, perversion and fortitude pushing your agenda on people, it is weak in self-reflection. Your crucial error was to believe that because you shoved down your childhood wounds and turned them into a perverted manifestation, that nobody else would see those wounds and perverted manifestation. We saw. Welcome to 2016.

You have had a perfect record of failed predictions.

So much so that I actually become more convinced of an outcome- when you predict it will not happen.

 

[Silhouette]

So much so that I actually become more convinced of an outcome- when you predict it will not happen.

Well, change is the only constant in the universe really...

 

[JoeB131]

No need. Ancient infants and contracts law says that the Obergefell Hearing's results "legal" gay marriage is VOID upon its face, no matter who determines it is not, if it deprives a child or children of both vital mother and father (their original guarantee) in marriage. Obergefell strips them of that right for life. Which can't be.

again, millions of gay people are already parents. Get over yourself.

Adoption, in-vitro, surrogacy- All sorts of way to have kids without oppossite sex marriage.

 

[JoeB131]

Except for the Pope showing up just prior to election 2016. Which I predicted. It's never happened before so you'll have to admit, I nailed it. 2016 is very much going to be about exposure for the cult of LGBT. And not the kind they're used to controlling..

Catholics treat the Pope like a senile uncle who doesn't get why you like "Cards Against Humanity".
Francis is saavy enough to know this kind of finger-wagging doesn't fly with people anymore.

 

[Silhouette]

No need. Ancient infants and contracts law says that the Obergefell Hearing's results "legal" gay marriage is VOID upon its face, no matter who determines it is not, if it deprives a child or children of both vital mother and father (their original guarantee) in marriage. Obergefell strips them of that right for life. Which can't be.

again, millions of gay people are already parents. Get over yourself.

Adoption, in-vitro, surrogacy- All sorts of way to have kids without oppossite sex marriage.

Yes, and those methods are still being litigated as "fair to the child". You might have visited my thread about how selling children from surrogacy into gay arrangements is selling kids into a motherless/fatherless life without the possibility of parole...a mental prison...for money...and that's equivalent to child trafficking. You say all those neo-ways of having kids like they're cemented in concrete across all 50 states. I suppose that's your next crusade eh?

CA's "Babies For Sale!" Are Private Surrogacy Contracts The Same As Child-Trafficking? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And NONE of those alternatives are about marriage. Marriage is about bringing together a man and woman in anticipation of providing children with a mother and father. It has been so for thousands of years, that contract. Can't break the terms children enjoy just because you want to. They need both parents. Your whims are legally secondary to their needs. So says infant-necessities and contract law; which is possibly as old and well-established as marriage itself..