Alabama & Now Texas Line Up Defending Sovereignty On Husband/Wife, Father/Mother Marriage

[Coyote]

If they want a Biblical marriage than then need to look at polygamy

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

""Alabama & Now Texas Line Up Defending Sovereignty On Husband/Wife, Father/Mother Marriage"""

This is yet another example of how Republicans want to run people's lives. And yet you righties scream about how liberals want big government.

Does anyone realize how big a government has to be if it's inside your fucking bedroom?

The Chinese government makes family decisions for its people. Is that your model for this bullshit?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Well of the poll choices I'd have to say Mississippi would be next because that's the least educated, most ignorant state in the Union. Well besides Alabama but that's not an option.

So there you go Silh Mississippi, final answer!

Of course that's all moot come June when gay marriage is legalized across all 50 states.

And 13 year old marraige? Will age limits be abolished too? How about polygamy?

Or is it that you believe states CAN set CERTAIN qualifications on the (by definition) privelege of marriage? Just not on making sure children of marriage have a mother AND a father?

Age limits are going up......despite religious nuts.

And boy, the creepy Duck Dynasty Robertson's are really ticked about that.

 

[Silhouette]

If they want a Biblical marriage than then need to look at polygamy

Exactly, it's the wrong message. The secular mother/father childrens' rights message is the correct fight.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If they want a Biblical marriage than then need to look at polygamy

Exactly, it's the wrong message. The secular mother/father childrens' rights message is the correct fight.

Silhouette

Who makes that decision?

Are you really saying that I should have the authority and right to decide who YOU can marry?

 

[Silhouette]

Who makes that decision?

Are you really saying that I should have the authority and right to decide who YOU can marry?

Not just you. A majority of "yous" in the state where I live. That's how democracy works.

Since you ostensibly don't agree with anyone of any age or any blood relation or any number can marry, you agree its a privelege extended to only certain people. There is no provision in the US Constitution for marriage. So the states get to determine who may marry. They certainly get to have deliberations among their discreet community (Windsor 2013) as to whether or not marriage should include as an institution, fatherless sons and motherless daughters..

 

[candycorn]

Dear OP:

If ignorance goes to $50 a barrel, can I have drilling rights on your head?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy S. Moore headlined an Austin rally on Monday calling for “Biblical marriage.”
Marriage equality opponents staged the rally to show support for passage of the Preservation of Sovereignty and Marriage Act, a Republican bill which seeks to prohibit county clerks from issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples and would require Texas courts to dismiss challenges to the state's ban on gay marriage. The bill is scheduled for a hearing Wednesday.....“I'm teaching that federal courts have no authority in this area,” he said. Roy Moore Federal Courts Have No Authority To Rule On Gay Marriage Bans - On Top Magazine Gay news entertainment

****************

Well, "Biblical marriage" is nice, but it isn't going to cut it all the way. What is needed is an EXPLANATION in secular terms why the brand new type of redaction to the word "marriage" would hurt other people.

In this case, it hurts children specifically by depriving sons of fathers and daughters of mothers as a proposed institution:

A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

In any event, the states one by one are reclaiming their sovereignty on this important matter. All they have to do is cite Windsor 2013. That is the law until further notice. They also need to insist that such a radical social experiment where kids are used as lab rats...undergoing a thing even the cult of LGBT members themselves statistically didn't have to undergo (fatherless or motherless marriages), to affect the core of all society into time unforeseen, cannot be left up to just 5 people in DC.....

...especially when two of the 5 need to recuse themselves....( Breaking Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing Page 51 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum )...on the question; and ALL of the Justices need to quit refusing to uphold stays that preserve THEIR OWN DECISION in Windsor 2013 until/unless further notice BY THEMSELVES AND THEMSELVES ONLY. After all, it says no less than 56 times in 26 pages of the Windsor Opinion that the question of the radical redaction of the word "marriage" is up to the discreet communities within the separate states:

Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Did you know that no lower federal court below SCOTUS may overturn Windsor on the specific question of law: "whether or not the fed will bless the new radical redaction to the word "marriage" from underneath? Now you do! NONE of the lower court orders are binding to any state that has opted to defend the physical structure of the word "marriage" to incentivize fathers for sons and mothers for daughters in marriage.

Those lower circuit decisions are not worth the paper they're written on. They are procedurally-impossible. They violate federal procedural rules. The last and final word on attempting to institutionalize fatherless sons and motherless daughters "as married" was Windsor 2013. SCOTUS is the only authority that can overturn that. Even the stays they themselves denied to uphold (that they cited no merit on to the detriment of state sovereignty) are worthless. The states may do as they please. SCOTUS itself must decide if this radical new social experiment must be forced upon the states by just 5 people in DC, forever, or if the discreet communities get to weigh in on the complete upheaval of their own society.

All good stuff... and it ties in directly with the design the integrity of Human Physiological design. Wherein the Human species was designed with two distinct but complimenting genders; each with their own genetic, personality traits. All of which serves the biological imperative which sustains the species.

That Christianity recognizes the valid, viable natural processes doesn't alter the inalterable relevance.

You're doing great work here... keep it up.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Dear OP:

If ignorance goes to $50 a barrel, can I have drilling rights on your head?

You're basing this on what? And please, be as specific as your intellectual means, allows.

 

[JakeStarkey]

These promoters are going to take your money, give you a good show, and then go spend the rest on themselves.

They, and you folks, make no more difference than did the Dixie Chicks.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dear OP:

If ignorance goes to $50 a barrel, can I have drilling rights on your head?

You're basing this on what? And please, be as specific as your intellectual means, allows.

She is basing this on the fact that you are a imbecilic narcissist, Keys, who cites himself as if he is an authority on this issue.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well of the poll choices I'd have to say Mississippi would be next because that's the least educated, most ignorant state in the Union. Well besides Alabama but that's not an option.

So there you go Silh Mississippi, final answer!

Of course that's all moot come June when gay marriage is legalized across all 50 states.

What you dont' seem to understand is that Texas and Alabama are telling your SCOTUS that they can do whatever they want... that neither of those states will be stripping Marriage of the natural standards that define Marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

It's entirely possible that IF the SCOTUS makes such a foolish, culturally crippling decision, that I may well move this family back to Texas.

Unless Florida joins Texas and Alabama.

Again, what all these states should do is to simply provide for the Civil Union and set law which provides the pretense of a civil union as marriage... which comes with a first offense of 30 years to life at hard labor. 2nd offense summary execution by the arresting officer.

That would solve the problem on a number of different fronts.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Well of the poll choices I'd have to say Mississippi would be next because that's the least educated, most ignorant state in the Union. Well besides Alabama but that's not an option.

So there you go Silh Mississippi, final answer!

Of course that's all moot come June when gay marriage is legalized across all 50 states.

What you dont' seem to understand is that Texas and Alabama are telling your SCOTUS that they can do whatever they want... that neither of those states will be stripping Marriage of the natural standards that define Marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

It's entirely possible that IF the SCOTUS makes such a foolish, culturally crippling decision, that I may well move this family back to Texas.

Unless Florida joins Texas and Alabama.

Again, what all these states should do is to simply provide for the Civil Union and set law which provides the pretense of a civil union as marriage... which comes with a first offense of 30 years to life at hard labor. 2nd offense summary execution by the arresting officer.

That would solve the problem on a number of different fronts.

Good luck with that

 

[Syriusly]

What about the children raised by wolves and chickens?

What about their rights Silhouette?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Or by donkeys or rabbits?

If the authorities in AL, FL, or TX interfere with the SCOTUS decision, Sil is right that people will be going to federal prison for years.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy S. Moore headlined an Austin rally on Monday calling for “Biblical marriage.”
Marriage equality opponents staged the rally to show support for passage of the Preservation of Sovereignty and Marriage Act, a Republican bill which seeks to prohibit county clerks from issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples and would require Texas courts to dismiss challenges to the state's ban on gay marriage. The bill is scheduled for a hearing Wednesday.....“I'm teaching that federal courts have no authority in this area,” he said. Roy Moore Federal Courts Have No Authority To Rule On Gay Marriage Bans - On Top Magazine Gay news entertainment

****************

Well, "Biblical marriage" is nice, but it isn't going to cut it all the way. What is needed is an EXPLANATION in secular terms why the brand new type of redaction to the word "marriage" would hurt other people.

In this case, it hurts children specifically by depriving sons of fathers and daughters of mothers as a proposed institution:

A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

In any event, the states one by one are reclaiming their sovereignty on this important matter. All they have to do is cite Windsor 2013. That is the law until further notice. They also need to insist that such a radical social experiment where kids are used as lab rats...undergoing a thing even the cult of LGBT members themselves statistically didn't have to undergo (fatherless or motherless marriages), to affect the core of all society into time unforeseen, cannot be left up to just 5 people in DC.....

...especially when two of the 5 need to recuse themselves....( Breaking Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing Page 51 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum )...on the question; and ALL of the Justices need to quit refusing to uphold stays that preserve THEIR OWN DECISION in Windsor 2013 until/unless further notice BY THEMSELVES AND THEMSELVES ONLY. After all, it says no less than 56 times in 26 pages of the Windsor Opinion that the question of the radical redaction of the word "marriage" is up to the discreet communities within the separate states:

Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Did you know that no lower federal court below SCOTUS may overturn Windsor on the specific question of law: "whether or not the fed will bless the new radical redaction to the word "marriage" from underneath? Now you do! NONE of the lower court orders are binding to any state that has opted to defend the physical structure of the word "marriage" to incentivize fathers for sons and mothers for daughters in marriage.

Those lower circuit decisions are not worth the paper they're written on. They are procedurally-impossible. They violate federal procedural rules. The last and final word on attempting to institutionalize fatherless sons and motherless daughters "as married" was Windsor 2013. SCOTUS is the only authority that can overturn that. Even the stays they themselves denied to uphold (that they cited no merit on to the detriment of state sovereignty) are worthless. The states may do as they please. SCOTUS itself must decide if this radical new social experiment must be forced upon the states by just 5 people in DC, forever, or if the discreet communities get to weigh in on the complete upheaval of their own society.

All good stuff... and it ties in directly with the design the integrity of Human Physiological design. Wherein the Human species was designed with two distinct but complimenting genders; each with their own genetic, personality traits. All of which serves the biological imperative which sustains the species.

That Christianity recognizes the valid, viable natural processes doesn't alter the inalterable relevance.

You're doing great work here... keep it up.

And another ignorant rightwing nitwit chimes in.

 

[Silhouette]

If the authorities in AL, FL, or TX interfere with the SCOTUS decision, Sil is right that people will be going to federal prison for years.

Wow, I never said that.

States sticking up for their sovereignty on the question of should fatherless sons and motherless daughters be an institution we incentivize or not, is not going to land anyone in federal prison. Much less so when that threat gets passed around and more people vote conservative in 2016. The only people at that time worried about federal prison are those who put themselves between a state's right to self govern and inserted tyranny instead.

At the very least they will be looking for new jobs..

 

[bodecea]

Well of the poll choices I'd have to say Mississippi would be next because that's the least educated, most ignorant state in the Union. Well besides Alabama but that's not an option.

So there you go Silh Mississippi, final answer!

Of course that's all moot come June when gay marriage is legalized across all 50 states.

What you dont' seem to understand is that Texas and Alabama are telling your SCOTUS that they can do whatever they want... that neither of those states will be stripping Marriage of the natural standards that define Marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

It's entirely possible that IF the SCOTUS makes such a foolish, culturally crippling decision, that I may well move this family back to Texas.

Unless Florida joins Texas and Alabama.

Again, what all these states should do is to simply provide for the Civil Union and set law which provides the pretense of a civil union as marriage... which comes with a first offense of 30 years to life at hard labor. 2nd offense summary execution by the arresting officer.

That would solve the problem on a number of different fronts.

Thank you.

 

[Skylar]

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy S. Moore headlined an Austin rally on Monday calling for “Biblical marriage.”
Marriage equality opponents staged the rally to show support for passage of the Preservation of Sovereignty and Marriage Act, a Republican bill which seeks to prohibit county clerks from issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples and would require Texas courts to dismiss challenges to the state's ban on gay marriage. The bill is scheduled for a hearing Wednesday.....“I'm teaching that federal courts have no authority in this area,” he said. Roy Moore Federal Courts Have No Authority To Rule On Gay Marriage Bans - On Top Magazine Gay news entertainment

****************

Well, "Biblical marriage" is nice, but it isn't going to cut it all the way. What is needed is an EXPLANATION in secular terms why the brand new type of redaction to the word "marriage" would hurt other people.

In this case, it hurts children specifically by depriving sons of fathers and daughters of mothers as a proposed institution:

A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

In any event, the states one by one are reclaiming their sovereignty on this important matter. All they have to do is cite Windsor 2013. That is the law until further notice. They also need to insist that such a radical social experiment where kids are used as lab rats...undergoing a thing even the cult of LGBT members themselves statistically didn't have to undergo (fatherless or motherless marriages), to affect the core of all society into time unforeseen, cannot be left up to just 5 people in DC.....

...especially when two of the 5 need to recuse themselves....( Breaking Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing Page 51 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum )...on the question; and ALL of the Justices need to quit refusing to uphold stays that preserve THEIR OWN DECISION in Windsor 2013 until/unless further notice BY THEMSELVES AND THEMSELVES ONLY. After all, it says no less than 56 times in 26 pages of the Windsor Opinion that the question of the radical redaction of the word "marriage" is up to the discreet communities within the separate states:

Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Did you know that no lower federal court below SCOTUS may overturn Windsor on the specific question of law: "whether or not the fed will bless the new radical redaction to the word "marriage" from underneath? Now you do! NONE of the lower court orders are binding to any state that has opted to defend the physical structure of the word "marriage" to incentivize fathers for sons and mothers for daughters in marriage.

Those lower circuit decisions are not worth the paper they're written on. They are procedurally-impossible. They violate federal procedural rules. The last and final word on attempting to institutionalize fatherless sons and motherless daughters "as married" was Windsor 2013. SCOTUS is the only authority that can overturn that. Even the stays they themselves denied to uphold (that they cited no merit on to the detriment of state sovereignty) are worthless. The states may do as they please. SCOTUS itself must decide if this radical new social experiment must be forced upon the states by just 5 people in DC, forever, or if the discreet communities get to weigh in on the complete upheaval of their own society.

Dear God, Sil......you've got 12 active threads on this topic. Can you just pick your favorite 3? As you've long since crossed over into obsessive spamming.

 

[Skylar]

If the authorities in AL, FL, or TX interfere with the SCOTUS decision, Sil is right that people will be going to federal prison for years.

Wow, I never said that.

States sticking up for their sovereignty on the question of should fatherless sons and motherless daughters be an institution we incentivize or not, is not going to land anyone in federal prison. Much less so when that threat gets passed around and more people vote conservative in 2016. The only people at that time worried about federal prison are those who put themselves between a state's right to self govern and inserted tyranny instead.

At the very least they will be looking for new jobs..

States' lack the authority to violate the rights of US citizens. The 14th amendment makes this clear in principle. And the Windsor decision makes this clear related to marriage.

If a State ignores a federal order, they'll lose. Just like Wallace defending segregation did.