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

[JakeStarkey]

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..

Your system incentivizes hetrofascist grooming of children. Nice that it is coming to an end, Sil.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Notify the mods.

 

[hipeter924]

Plenty of states to choose from.

But I pick: Supreme Court challenge and eventual knock out, for anti-same sex marriage/anti-gay legislation.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SILHOUETTE SAID:

“States sticking up for their sovereignty...”

Nonsense.

States have no 'sovereignty' concerning the civil rights of the American citizens residing in the states, where those rights are paramount and immune from attack by the states. Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, their rights protected by the Federal Constitution, in this case the right to due process and equal protection of the law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Children have no legal right to two parents of the opposite sex. No such right has ever been upheld in the courts.

Therefore no such imaginary right can be invoked as an argument against right of same sex couples to marry.

 

[Ravi]

Texas wants fathers to marry their mothers?

It's biblical. And any sex must only be the missionary position.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sovereignty should begin with the individual, not the state. The sovereign individual would have the right to marry anyone he chose, who consented,

so long as such a union was not sufficiently dangerous to society that the state could justify intervening and denying that right.

 

[Silhouette]

Plenty of states to choose from.

But I pick: Supreme Court challenge and eventual knock out, for anti-same sex marriage/anti-gay legislation.

There's no such thing as "anti-gay" legislation in this question.

The states are preserving sovereignty on the privelege of marriage.

Yes, I said PRIVELEGE.

If it wasn't a privelege, anyone of any age, blood relation or number of people could "marry". I assume you object to 13 year olds marrying? Yet they are allowed to in New Hampshire. Would you want your state's ability to regulate marriage to not include 13 year olds forcibly removed by the fed? No, of course not.

Billy Bob and Irma Jean are brother and sister in the backwoods of Kentucky. They have three kids together. Would you define not allowing them to marry as abusive? No, of course not!

Over in Utah, there's a man who wants to marry 8 wives. Would you want the fed to tell your state to not make "anti-polygamy" laws?

So, we all agree that marriage is subject to regulation. And we all agree that homosexuality is one of those weird things like 13 year olds marrying or brother sister marriage. Or a man taking 8 wives. Only in the case of homosexuals, it's the only weird one where an institution would be created where sons are fatherless and daughters are motherless.

So laws that exclude homosexuals also exclude certain ages, certain blood relations and other deviant sex practitioners (polygamists). Even monosexuals who prefer to be alone. Should their kids also be denied the benefits of marriage? Why? Do you "hate" them?

Etc... No such thing as "anti-gay" laws. They are just laws. Just regulations that are not meant to single out any one of the many types of people who cannot be married in each respective sovereign state.

If you think gay marriage is such a great idea, then sell it to the People. Don't force it down their throats with your Biased-Supreme-Court piping bag. You tend to make political enemies that way. Doing so while grafting your cult onto the hip of the democratic party means that you are also alienating vital middle voters who don't believe in gay marriage. And even if they are ambivalent about gay marriage, certainly do not like to be told they don't have a say in the debate should it come to their state. Fatherless sons and motherless daughters is BIG DEAL to a LOT of people when they really start to think about it..

 

[g5000]

In this case, it hurts children specifically by depriving sons of fathers and daughters of mothers.

Yes, divorce does indeed deprive sons of their fathers and daughters of their mothers. We should ban divorce.

Under "biblical marriage", divorce is not allowed except for adultery. And God only allowed that kind of divorce begrudgingly.

So when are you hypocrites going to be living by your own rules?

 

[g5000]

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy S. Moore headlined an Austin rally on Monday calling for “Biblical marriage.”

"Biblical marriage". A wife and three hundred concubines.

No divorce.

 

[Silhouette]

A whoever said that divorce deprives kids of a mom and dad.

What divorce does is provide them with a new chance at a new set of mom and dad that get along and don't cause them psychological harm. States grant divorce only reluctantly and they still seek to preserve the quasi- mom and dad atmosphere in custody arrangments until a new marriage happens with either or both of the old estranged parents.

For continuity...

Plenty of states to choose from.

But I pick: Supreme Court challenge and eventual knock out, for anti-same sex marriage/anti-gay legislation.

There's no such thing as "anti-gay" legislation in this question.

The states are preserving sovereignty on the privelege of marriage.

Yes, I said PRIVELEGE.

If it wasn't a privelege, anyone of any age, blood relation or number of people could "marry". I assume you object to 13 year olds marrying? Yet they are allowed to in New Hampshire. Would you want your state's ability to regulate marriage to not include 13 year olds forcibly removed by the fed? No, of course not.

Billy Bob and Irma Jean are brother and sister in the backwoods of Kentucky. They have three kids together. Would you define not allowing them to marry as abusive? No, of course not!

Over in Utah, there's a man who wants to marry 8 wives. Would you want the fed to tell your state to not make "anti-polygamy" laws?

So, we all agree that marriage is subject to regulation. And we all agree that homosexuality is one of those weird things like 13 year olds marrying or brother sister marriage. Or a man taking 8 wives. Only in the case of homosexuals, it's the only weird one where an institution would be created where sons are fatherless and daughters are motherless.

So laws that exclude homosexuals also exclude certain ages, certain blood relations and other deviant sex practitioners (polygamists). Even monosexuals who prefer to be alone. Should their kids also be denied the benefits of marriage? Why? Do you "hate" them?

Etc... No such thing as "anti-gay" laws. They are just laws. Just regulations that are not meant to single out any one of the many types of people who cannot be married in each respective sovereign state.

If you think gay marriage is such a great idea, then sell it to the People. Don't force it down their throats with your Biased-Supreme-Court piping bag. You tend to make political enemies that way. Doing so while grafting your cult onto the hip of the democratic party means that you are also alienating vital middle voters who don't believe in gay marriage. And even if they are ambivalent about gay marriage, certainly do not like to be told they don't have a say in the debate should it come to their state. Fatherless sons and motherless daughters is BIG DEAL to a LOT of people when they really start to think about it..

 

[g5000]

"Biblical marriage":

Abraham was married to Sarah. After Sarah died, Abraham had TWO wives. Plus some concubines.



Genesis 25 1-6:

Abraham had taken another wife, whose name was Keturah. She bore him Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah. Jokshan was the father of Sheba and Dedan; the descendants of Dedan were the Ashurites, the Letushites and the Leummites. The sons of Midian were Ephah, Epher, Hanok, Abida and Eldaah. All these were descendants of Keturah.

Abraham left everything he owned to Isaac. But while he was still living, he gave gifts to the sons of his concubines and sent them away from his son Isaac to the land of the east.

 

[g5000]

Jesus Christ: "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

 

[g5000]

"What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

 

[g5000]

So there's your "Biblical marriage", hypocrites.

 

[g5000]

Gays aren't the ones who have been busy destroying the institution of marriage.

People like Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton are. People like Mark Sanford are. People in the Deep South who have been married four, five, six times are.

Thirty-five year old men sleeping with 15 year old girls in the Deep South are the ones. I never met a woman in the Deep South who had not had a kid before she was 18.

In the Deep South, kids are being moved around between relatives houses so often, the poor little brats have no idea who to call mommy or daddy.

That's Alabama for you, Judge. Look in your own house.



You hypocritical fucks are so busy pointing out the splinter in your neighbor's eye, you have completely missed the beam in your own.

 

[hipeter924]

Plenty of states to choose from.

But I pick: Supreme Court challenge and eventual knock out, for anti-same sex marriage/anti-gay legislation.

There's no such thing as "anti-gay" legislation in this question.

The states are preserving sovereignty on the privelege of marriage.

Yes, I said PRIVELEGE.

If it wasn't a privelege, anyone of any age, blood relation or number of people could "marry". I assume you object to 13 year olds marrying? Yet they are allowed to in New Hampshire. Would you want your state's ability to regulate marriage to not include 13 year olds forcibly removed by the fed? No, of course not.

Billy Bob and Irma Jean are brother and sister in the backwoods of Kentucky. They have three kids together. Would you define not allowing them to marry as abusive? No, of course not!

Over in Utah, there's a man who wants to marry 8 wives. Would you want the fed to tell your state to not make "anti-polygamy" laws?

So, we all agree that marriage is subject to regulation. And we all agree that homosexuality is one of those weird things like 13 year olds marrying or brother sister marriage. Or a man taking 8 wives. Only in the case of homosexuals, it's the only weird one where an institution would be created where sons are fatherless and daughters are motherless.

So laws that exclude homosexuals also exclude certain ages, certain blood relations and other deviant sex practitioners (polygamists). Even monosexuals who prefer to be alone. Should their kids also be denied the benefits of marriage? Why? Do you "hate" them?

Etc... No such thing as "anti-gay" laws. They are just laws. Just regulations that are not meant to single out any one of the many types of people who cannot be married in each respective sovereign state.

If you think gay marriage is such a great idea, then sell it to the People. Don't force it down their throats with your Biased-Supreme-Court piping bag. You tend to make political enemies that way.

It was voted in through a majority referendum here, so you can keep your slippery slopes and your interpretation of the bible to yourself. If you want to ban same-sex marriage or create laws that ban serving gays, then go right ahead - and have them eventually snuffed out by Supreme Court challenges.

You hate the Supreme Court and call them 'activists' when they don't go your own way, but when they support things you like like the patriot act, torture, and indefinite detention, you don't make a sound about their conduct. Find that ironic, when you mud sling the Supreme Court, as they are pro war powers and Mass Survelliance.

They are anti-gay laws when they single out gay people, which is what those states have tried to pass several times. Go ahead, and stop serving gays. If you want another civil rights battle, it will be just like last time. If vicious dogs and water-cannons didn't work, what makes you think anti-gay laws will work?

 

[Silhouette]

Of all the strange types of marriages subject to regulation (defining marriage as a privelege thereby), from minors, to incest, to homosexuals to polygamists, only one stands to structurally deny sons of fathers and daughters of mothers: "gay marriage". All the rest at least fit the basic structure of marriage. The most defiant of all of them of vital structure is so-called "gay marraige".

Alabama and Texas have sovereignty and may define the privelege as they see fit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A whoever said that divorce deprives kids of a mom and dad.

What divorce does is provide them with a new chance at a new set of mom and dad that get along and don't cause them psychological harm. States grant divorce only reluctantly and they still seek to preserve the quasi- mom and dad atmosphere in custody arrangments until a new marriage happens with either or both of the old estranged parents.

For continuity...

Plenty of states to choose from.

But I pick: Supreme Court challenge and eventual knock out, for anti-same sex marriage/anti-gay legislation.

There's no such thing as "anti-gay" legislation in this question.

The states are preserving sovereignty on the privelege of marriage.

Yes, I said PRIVELEGE.

If it wasn't a privelege, anyone of any age, blood relation or number of people could "marry". I assume you object to 13 year olds marrying? Yet they are allowed to in New Hampshire. Would you want your state's ability to regulate marriage to not include 13 year olds forcibly removed by the fed? No, of course not.

Billy Bob and Irma Jean are brother and sister in the backwoods of Kentucky. They have three kids together. Would you define not allowing them to marry as abusive? No, of course not!

Over in Utah, there's a man who wants to marry 8 wives. Would you want the fed to tell your state to not make "anti-polygamy" laws?

So, we all agree that marriage is subject to regulation. And we all agree that homosexuality is one of those weird things like 13 year olds marrying or brother sister marriage. Or a man taking 8 wives. Only in the case of homosexuals, it's the only weird one where an institution would be created where sons are fatherless and daughters are motherless.

So laws that exclude homosexuals also exclude certain ages, certain blood relations and other deviant sex practitioners (polygamists). Even monosexuals who prefer to be alone. Should their kids also be denied the benefits of marriage? Why? Do you "hate" them?

Etc... No such thing as "anti-gay" laws. They are just laws. Just regulations that are not meant to single out any one of the many types of people who cannot be married in each respective sovereign state.

If you think gay marriage is such a great idea, then sell it to the People. Don't force it down their throats with your Biased-Supreme-Court piping bag. You tend to make political enemies that way. Doing so while grafting your cult onto the hip of the democratic party means that you are also alienating vital middle voters who don't believe in gay marriage. And even if they are ambivalent about gay marriage, certainly do not like to be told they don't have a say in the debate should it come to their state. Fatherless sons and motherless daughters is BIG DEAL to a LOT of people when they really start to think about it..

If your crackpot idea had a grain of validity, then divorce should be more illegal than same sex marriage.

If your crackpot idea had a grain of validity, why would you deny same sex marriage to a couple that had no children? You can't punish people for wrongs they haven't committed.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

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.

Hmmm, so the federal government ignoring Cali's, Colorado's and several other states legalization of marijuana by declaring sovereignty in the matter and crafting state laws contradictory to Federal Law and supported by "local citizens" .

It's funny the way you morons see things, always to your advantage no matter what the majority say .....................

I would think you faggots would be getting the message by now most of society doesn't approve of you or want to tolerate your actions and forcing them on others via laws is not going to work.