Alabama SC orders judges to stop issuing homosexuals "marriage" licenses.

[Syriusly]

Federal judges who decide cases where they have no jurisdiction are black robed tyrants. That would be at either side of the argument.
Look guy! If Californians vote to change the definition of marriage, I don't believe SCOTUS has authority to step in there either. Are we clear?

And SCOTUS wouldn't have had to step in had it not been for these untethered federal judges exercising power they don't have.

'untethered federal judges exercising power they don't have'

Loving v. Virginia established that Federal judges absolutely do have the power to rule that a State marriage law is unconstitutional.

And far from 'untethered'- each judges ruling is subject to appeal to a higher court, leading ultimately to the Supreme Court- which is exactly how our system works.

And don't give me the usual crap about Loving being different- the power the judges are exercising is the exact same power exercised in Loving.

 

[James Everett]

Federal judges who decide cases where they have no jurisdiction are black robed tyrants. That would be at either side of the argument.
Look guy! If Californians vote to change the definition of marriage, I don't believe SCOTUS has authority to step in there either. Are we clear?

And SCOTUS wouldn't have had to step in had it not been for these untethered federal judges exercising power they don't have.

That is the real issue here...JURISDICTION.
Lets review a couple of past SCOTUS opinions here.....
United States v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 336 (1818), which involved a federal prosecution for a murder committed on board the Warship, Independence, anchored in the harbor of Boston, Massachusetts.
The defense complained that only the state had jurisdiction to prosecute and argued that the federal Circuit Courts had no jurisdiction of this crime supposedly committed within the federal government's admiralty jurisdiction. In argument before the Supreme Court, counsel for the United States admitted as follows:
"The exclusive jurisdiction which the United States have in forts and dock-yards ceded to them, is derived from the express assent of the states by whom the cessions are made. It could be derived in no other manner; because without it, the authority of the state would be supreme and exclusive therein," 3 Wheat., at 350, 351.
In holding that the State of Massachusetts had jurisdiction over the crime, the Court held:
"What, then, is the extent of jurisdiction which a state possesses?
"We answer, without hesitation, the jurisdiction of a state is co-extensive with its territory; co-extensive with its legislative power," 3 Wheat., at 386, 387.
So we see here that the U.S. held no jurisdiction in a murder even on a U.S. war ship as it was anchored within the jurisdictional waters of the State of Massachusetts.

In New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 102 (1837), the question before the Court involved the attempt by the City of New York to assess penalties against the master of a ship for his failure to make a report as to the persons his ship brought to New York. As against the master's contention that the act was unconstitutional and that New York had no jurisdiction in the matter, the Court held:

"If we look at the place of its operation, we find it to be within the territory, and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of New York. If we look at the person on whom it operates, he is found within the same territory and jurisdiction," 36 U.S., at 133.

"They are these: that a State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a State, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of legislation which it may deem to be conducive to these ends; where the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered or restrained, in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may, perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a State is complete, unqualified and exclusive," 36 U.S., at 139.
Alabama, as does any State hold Jurisdiction over matters of true legal terminology within its defined borders such as what is the real and true legal definition of a marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

Definitions change all of the time.

Look at the definition of 'Truck'

A truck is a truck. It isn't a car, it isn't a bicycle, it is a truck. It can have 18 wheels or four.

And what did 'truck' mean before there were motorized vehicles?

Does the term 'hand truck' ring any bells?

You know the 'definitions never change' schtick is an idiot's gambit. You're being contrary out of petulance now.

You have modified the definition of truck with the word "hand" which makes it a different tool. A hand truck is a different tool than a pickup truck, or a tractor. "Truck" as a stand alone word means to "traffic for exchange". The definition remains the same, simply because the word "Truck" is used to describe various tools, does not mean the proper definition changed, it simply means that people are ignorant, and thus not using the proper modified verbiage to mean what they are actually speaking of in their verbiage. The definition remains set. Now in terms of "Gay marriage" you are modifying the word to mean something other than simple marriage, which is " a contract between a man and a woman". Even with your modifier of "Gay" you are using incorrect verbiage. The proper modifier is "Sodomite" marriage, which separates it from the proper definition of marriage, just as "hand truck" modifies "truck". Again, the proper terminology would be a civil union between sodomites. Please explain why it is necessary to create a fiction rather than simply use proper terminology such as a "civil union?

Child.

If we approached law in your terms; "Sodomite Marriage" would you agree with the Freedom or would you want to control Butt Sex with forceful Law? You should note that many Man/Woman marriages have butt sex. Even some girlfriend/boyfriend.

You seem to be spewing law about "sodomy" and you are correct, decades ago there were laws written to CONTROL the gay population. I'm sure you aren't one of those CONTROL freaks, (R)ight?

Little boy, you are correct in that SODOMY can and is practiced between men and women, however what you are attempting is to change the definition of "marriage" to mean that which it does not. Two sodomites contracting between themselves does not meet the proper definition of a marriage.

How exactly do you plan to determine whether a man and a woman who want to get married are sodomites or not? How exactly do you plan how to determine whether two men who want to get married are sodomites or not?

And if you think civil unions are only for sodomites- does that mean you are okay with lesbians marrying- or do you want to invent a new fictional term for lesbian unions?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Federal judges who decide cases where they have no jurisdiction are black robed tyrants. That would be at either side of the argument.
Look guy! If Californians vote to change the definition of marriage, I don't believe SCOTUS has authority to step in there either. Are we clear?

And SCOTUS wouldn't have had to step in had it not been for these untethered federal judges exercising power they don't have.

'untethered federal judges exercising power they don't have'

Loving v. Virginia established that Federal judges absolutely do have the power to rule that a State marriage law is unconstitutional.

And far from 'untethered'- each judges ruling is subject to appeal to a higher court, leading ultimately to the Supreme Court- which is exactly how our system works.

And don't give me the usual crap about Loving being different- the power the judges are exercising is the exact same power exercised in Loving.

So federal judges exercising power they don't have is proof that they have the right to exercise power they don't have?

Do you even read your posts before submitting them?

 

[hipeter924]

So you are saying that because a child is growing up with homosexual parents that they are living a homosexual lifestyle? What twisted world do you live in? I suppose you have sex with your children in a heterosexual lifestyle? Living with gay people is not forcing the children to live as gays! Children don't care all they know is they have loving parents period! You also said that the neighbor kids would tell them and they would feel different? Umm so you support bullying of children because they may have gay parents? You blame the parents but not the bullies! Wow


I see more hate from heterosexuals then homosexuals. And most kids live in with heterosexual parents! So your kids learn to bully and hate! What a great parent you are! Loser

Yes, I am stating that homosexuals live a homosexual lifestyle.

Hard to wrap your twisted mind around that, huh. moron. You see more hate? Right, you make things up. Idiot.

Describe that for us if you can. I'm gay and this is my "lifestyle":

Get up, make coffee, surf internet.
Take shower, dress, wake kids, make lunches for kids
Take kids to school, go to work
Pick up son after practice (wife picked up daughter), go home
Eat dinner, help with homework, play video games or watch TV
Kiss wife, go to bed
Wash, rinse, repeat

If they can deny something as well grounded and scientifically proven as evolution, they can easily come to deny the existence of human genetic research into sexual orientation.

What is obvious though is that people have a genetic disposition to be attracted to heterosexuals, to the same gender, or both the same gender and the opposite gender. Some even are genetically disposed to have no sexual attraction (asexuality).

At birth we have events or situations that trigger our sexual orientation, as well as cultural imprinting from the country we live in, such as the USA.

But as usual superstition and ignorance drive part of society, resulting in opposition to a normal sexual behavior that has existed in humanity since we evolved into Homo-Sapiens and shared genes from Neanderthals.

Society changes however, and people are always going to angry and fearful of change. Just as they were when divisions came into Christianity, and redefined Europe through enlightenment.

By the end of the century, this debate will be over, and people will look back on it the way people look back on civil rights, and in fact it is alreadt

 

[hipeter924]

Edit: already happening.

 

[James Everett]

A truck is a truck. It isn't a car, it isn't a bicycle, it is a truck. It can have 18 wheels or four.

And what did 'truck' mean before there were motorized vehicles?

Does the term 'hand truck' ring any bells?

You know the 'definitions never change' schtick is an idiot's gambit. You're being contrary out of petulance now.

You have modified the definition of truck with the word "hand" which makes it a different tool. A hand truck is a different tool than a pickup truck, or a tractor. "Truck" as a stand alone word means to "traffic for exchange". The definition remains the same, simply because the word "Truck" is used to describe various tools, does not mean the proper definition changed, it simply means that people are ignorant, and thus not using the proper modified verbiage to mean what they are actually speaking of in their verbiage. The definition remains set. Now in terms of "Gay marriage" you are modifying the word to mean something other than simple marriage, which is " a contract between a man and a woman". Even with your modifier of "Gay" you are using incorrect verbiage. The proper modifier is "Sodomite" marriage, which separates it from the proper definition of marriage, just as "hand truck" modifies "truck". Again, the proper terminology would be a civil union between sodomites. Please explain why it is necessary to create a fiction rather than simply use proper terminology such as a "civil union?

Child.

If we approached law in your terms; "Sodomite Marriage" would you agree with the Freedom or would you want to control Butt Sex with forceful Law? You should note that many Man/Woman marriages have butt sex. Even some girlfriend/boyfriend.

You seem to be spewing law about "sodomy" and you are correct, decades ago there were laws written to CONTROL the gay population. I'm sure you aren't one of those CONTROL freaks, (R)ight?

Decades ago? The Sodomy laws were still in effect until just a few years ago.

When the sodomy laws were found to be an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of Americans.

Why do you want police in Americans bedroom determining what kind of sex we can have?

I have no desire to police what goes on in the bedroom, I simply state the proper definition of marriage and that a State has jurisdiction in maintaining the proper standard of the legal definition of a "marriage", not however that is has the retained jurisdiction to prevent sodomites or anyone else from contracting between themselves a civil union that is the equivalent of a marriage. That is a CONstitutional right that belongs to the Sodomite or anyone else as long as the contract does not infringe on the life, liberty or property of another.

 

[James Everett]

Definitions change all of the time.

Look at the definition of 'Truck'

A truck is a truck. It isn't a car, it isn't a bicycle, it is a truck. It can have 18 wheels or four.

Further in legal terminology, an attorney would be sure to distinguish in a court case the deference between a "Truck" and a "Tractor- trailer as in an 18 wheeler. Did a truck hit you? Or was it a tractor? Did the tractor hit you? or was it the trailer?

How can that be- 'definitions do not change'......lol......

In England- where they speak English.....a truck is a lorry.....not a truck.

A lorry is still a lorry, the definition of a lorry has not changed. The definition of a lorry has not been changed to refer to a lorry as a cow. You are attempting to establish fiction to justify fiction, such is the equivalent of establishing a lie to cover another lie. And yet we see that you still have avoided all of the challenging questions that I have posed for you to respond.

Wait- when did you post a challenging question?

I thought I had read all of your posts and I can't remember a challenging question yet from you.

The questions that I posted are...
If there really was a legal power granted to the POTUS to legislate by decree, then please cite it and post the limitations on that power, such as for example does the EO grant the power to the a POTUS to dismiss the congress and declare himself POTUS indefinitely?
Another was...
In a Sodomite "Marriage" which is the wife, and which is the husband, as such has always been determined by sex. Must we now redefine the words "Husband" and "Wife" ?
What of the polygamist, does polygamy now become a legal marriage, since marriage is being re-defined?

 

[Syriusly]

Federal judges who decide cases where they have no jurisdiction are black robed tyrants. That would be at either side of the argument.
Look guy! If Californians vote to change the definition of marriage, I don't believe SCOTUS has authority to step in there either. Are we clear?

And SCOTUS wouldn't have had to step in had it not been for these untethered federal judges exercising power they don't have.

That is the real issue here...JURISDICTION.
Alabama, as does any State hold Jurisdiction over matters of true legal terminology within its defined borders such as what is the real and true legal definition of a marriage.

Alabama, as does any State, can regulate marriage but is subject to constitutional guarantees.

The Supreme Court has confirmed federal judges decisions overturning State marriage laws as being unconstitutional at least three times:


Loving v Virginia- State law banning mixed race marriages found unconstitutional

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail- State law banning marriage for parents who owe child support found unconstitutional

Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Turner v. Safley- State prison regulations which allowed prison official to prohibit inmates from marrying found unconstitutional

Federal judges have jurisdiction over constitutional claims- and that has been demonstrated repeatedly.

 

[Syriusly]

And what did 'truck' mean before there were motorized vehicles?

Does the term 'hand truck' ring any bells?

You know the 'definitions never change' schtick is an idiot's gambit. You're being contrary out of petulance now.

You have modified the definition of truck with the word "hand" which makes it a different tool. A hand truck is a different tool than a pickup truck, or a tractor. "Truck" as a stand alone word means to "traffic for exchange". The definition remains the same, simply because the word "Truck" is used to describe various tools, does not mean the proper definition changed, it simply means that people are ignorant, and thus not using the proper modified verbiage to mean what they are actually speaking of in their verbiage. The definition remains set. Now in terms of "Gay marriage" you are modifying the word to mean something other than simple marriage, which is " a contract between a man and a woman". Even with your modifier of "Gay" you are using incorrect verbiage. The proper modifier is "Sodomite" marriage, which separates it from the proper definition of marriage, just as "hand truck" modifies "truck". Again, the proper terminology would be a civil union between sodomites. Please explain why it is necessary to create a fiction rather than simply use proper terminology such as a "civil union?

Child.

If we approached law in your terms; "Sodomite Marriage" would you agree with the Freedom or would you want to control Butt Sex with forceful Law? You should note that many Man/Woman marriages have butt sex. Even some girlfriend/boyfriend.

You seem to be spewing law about "sodomy" and you are correct, decades ago there were laws written to CONTROL the gay population. I'm sure you aren't one of those CONTROL freaks, (R)ight?

Decades ago? The Sodomy laws were still in effect until just a few years ago.

When the sodomy laws were found to be an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of Americans.

Why do you want police in Americans bedroom determining what kind of sex we can have?

I have no desire to police what goes on in the bedroom, I simply state the proper definition of marriage and that a State has jurisdiction in maintaining the proper standard of the legal definition of a "marriage", not however that is has the retained jurisdiction to prevent sodomites or anyone else from contracting between themselves a civil union that is the equivalent of a marriage. That is a CONstitutional right that belongs to the Sodomite or anyone else as long as the contract does not infringe on the life, liberty or property of another.

Well thank you for your unsubstantiated and personal opinion.

You are wrong- but you are entitled to be wrong.

 

[Syriusly]

A truck is a truck. It isn't a car, it isn't a bicycle, it is a truck. It can have 18 wheels or four.

Further in legal terminology, an attorney would be sure to distinguish in a court case the deference between a "Truck" and a "Tractor- trailer as in an 18 wheeler. Did a truck hit you? Or was it a tractor? Did the tractor hit you? or was it the trailer?

How can that be- 'definitions do not change'......lol......

In England- where they speak English.....a truck is a lorry.....not a truck.

A lorry is still a lorry, the definition of a lorry has not changed. The definition of a lorry has not been changed to refer to a lorry as a cow. You are attempting to establish fiction to justify fiction, such is the equivalent of establishing a lie to cover another lie. And yet we see that you still have avoided all of the challenging questions that I have posed for you to respond.

Wait- when did you post a challenging question?

I thought I had read all of your posts and I can't remember a challenging question yet from you.

The questions that I posted are...
If there really was a legal power granted to the POTUS to legislate by decree, then please cite

What the hell does the President have to do with this thread?

Not only not a challenging question, it is one totally off topic.

 

[Syriusly]

A truck is a truck. It isn't a car, it isn't a bicycle, it is a truck. It can have 18 wheels or four.

Further in legal terminology, an attorney would be sure to distinguish in a court case the deference between a "Truck" and a "Tractor- trailer as in an 18 wheeler. Did a truck hit you? Or was it a tractor? Did the tractor hit you? or was it the trailer?

How can that be- 'definitions do not change'......lol......

In England- where they speak English.....a truck is a lorry.....not a truck.

A lorry is still a lorry, the definition of a lorry has not changed. The definition of a lorry has not been changed to refer to a lorry as a cow. You are attempting to establish fiction to justify fiction, such is the equivalent of establishing a lie to cover another lie. And yet we see that you still have avoided all of the challenging questions that I have posed for you to respond.

Wait- when did you post a challenging question?

I thought I had read all of your posts and I can't remember a challenging question yet from you.

In a Sodomite "Marriage" which is the wife, and which is the husband, as such has always been determined by sex. Must we now redefine the words "Husband" and "Wife" ?

There is no 'sodomite marriage'- there is only marriage. In a marriage the female spouse is referred to as the wife and the male as the husband.

 

[Syriusly]

A truck is a truck. It isn't a car, it isn't a bicycle, it is a truck. It can have 18 wheels or four.

Further in legal terminology, an attorney would be sure to distinguish in a court case the deference between a "Truck" and a "Tractor- trailer as in an 18 wheeler. Did a truck hit you? Or was it a tractor? Did the tractor hit you? or was it the trailer?

How can that be- 'definitions do not change'......lol......

In England- where they speak English.....a truck is a lorry.....not a truck.

A lorry is still a lorry, the definition of a lorry has not changed. The definition of a lorry has not been changed to refer to a lorry as a cow. You are attempting to establish fiction to justify fiction, such is the equivalent of establishing a lie to cover another lie. And yet we see that you still have avoided all of the challenging questions that I have posed for you to respond.

Wait- when did you post a challenging question?

I thought I had read all of your posts and I can't remember a challenging question yet from you.

What of the polygamist, does polygamy now become a legal marriage, since marriage is being re-defined?

No.

 

[James Everett]

Federal judges who decide cases where they have no jurisdiction are black robed tyrants. That would be at either side of the argument.
Look guy! If Californians vote to change the definition of marriage, I don't believe SCOTUS has authority to step in there either. Are we clear?

And SCOTUS wouldn't have had to step in had it not been for these untethered federal judges exercising power they don't have.

'untethered federal judges exercising power they don't have'

Loving v. Virginia established that Federal judges absolutely do have the power to rule that a State marriage law is unconstitutional.

And far from 'untethered'- each judges ruling is subject to appeal to a higher court, leading ultimately to the Supreme Court- which is exactly how our system works.

And don't give me the usual crap about Loving being different- the power the judges are exercising is the exact same power exercised in Loving.

The SCOTUS has rendered many contradictory opinions, as the SCOTUS has become a Kangaroo court of political appointees, I.E. left and right, which means Republican and Democrat. The SCOTUS jurisdiction is well defined and limited under the power granted it under the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution., which is limited to.....
All cases in law arising under the U.S. CONstitution, there is no constitutional right granted to the U.S. or the judiciary to redefine a set legal standard of a definition within an individual States law.
Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 4-12.
Sodomy is not a race, and there is no equal protection that extends to the redefining of marriage.
Sodomites hold the same legal protection to enter into a contract between one another constituting a civil union equivalent to that of a marriage without redefining the definition of a marriage. This may be found under...
Art. I, Sect. 10, which recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else.
Therein is where the fourteenth amendment may be extended, but that is not the right to force a State to redefine an accepted legal definition of a word.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Further in legal terminology, an attorney would be sure to distinguish in a court case the deference between a "Truck" and a "Tractor- trailer as in an 18 wheeler. Did a truck hit you? Or was it a tractor? Did the tractor hit you? or was it the trailer?

How can that be- 'definitions do not change'......lol......

In England- where they speak English.....a truck is a lorry.....not a truck.

A lorry is still a lorry, the definition of a lorry has not changed. The definition of a lorry has not been changed to refer to a lorry as a cow. You are attempting to establish fiction to justify fiction, such is the equivalent of establishing a lie to cover another lie. And yet we see that you still have avoided all of the challenging questions that I have posed for you to respond.

Wait- when did you post a challenging question?

I thought I had read all of your posts and I can't remember a challenging question yet from you.

In a Sodomite "Marriage" which is the wife, and which is the husband, as such has always been determined by sex. Must we now redefine the words "Husband" and "Wife" ?

There is no 'sodomite marriage'- there is only marriage. In a marriage the female spouse is referred to as the wife and the male as the husband.

You mean to tell me you've understood this all along?

 

[James Everett]

Further in legal terminology, an attorney would be sure to distinguish in a court case the deference between a "Truck" and a "Tractor- trailer as in an 18 wheeler. Did a truck hit you? Or was it a tractor? Did the tractor hit you? or was it the trailer?

How can that be- 'definitions do not change'......lol......

In England- where they speak English.....a truck is a lorry.....not a truck.

A lorry is still a lorry, the definition of a lorry has not changed. The definition of a lorry has not been changed to refer to a lorry as a cow. You are attempting to establish fiction to justify fiction, such is the equivalent of establishing a lie to cover another lie. And yet we see that you still have avoided all of the challenging questions that I have posed for you to respond.

Wait- when did you post a challenging question?

I thought I had read all of your posts and I can't remember a challenging question yet from you.

In a Sodomite "Marriage" which is the wife, and which is the husband, as such has always been determined by sex. Must we now redefine the words "Husband" and "Wife" ?

There is no 'sodomite marriage'- there is only marriage. In a marriage the female spouse is referred to as the wife and the male as the husband.

So then in a fictional "marriage" between two men, who is the wife and who is the husband when or two women. I have heard same sex couple refer to their "significant other" as their husband or wife.
If as you say there is "only marriage" then one man may marry five women, or one woman may marry five men?
Are you now discriminating against polygamists?
What gives you the right to define "Marriage as that between a n]man and a woman, or a man and aman, or a woman and a woman, yet discriminate against polygamists?
Do you now see your illogical conclusion?

 

[Syriusly]

Federal judges who decide cases where they have no jurisdiction are black robed tyrants. That would be at either side of the argument.
Look guy! If Californians vote to change the definition of marriage, I don't believe SCOTUS has authority to step in there either. Are we clear?

And SCOTUS wouldn't have had to step in had it not been for these untethered federal judges exercising power they don't have.

'untethered federal judges exercising power they don't have'

Loving v. Virginia established that Federal judges absolutely do have the power to rule that a State marriage law is unconstitutional.

And far from 'untethered'- each judges ruling is subject to appeal to a higher court, leading ultimately to the Supreme Court- which is exactly how our system works.

And don't give me the usual crap about Loving being different- the power the judges are exercising is the exact same power exercised in Loving.

The SCOTUS has rendered many contradictory opinions, as the SCOTUS has become a Kangaroo court of political appointees,.

Not when it comes to jurisdiction over State laws regarding Constitutional protections.

There may be contradictory opinions as to specific laws- but jurisdiction regarding Constitutional questions of State marriage law- there are no contradictions.

Whether or not you believe that the Supreme Court is a 'kangaroo court' is irrelevant- the decision the Court renders- whatever the decision is- will be the final decision on the issue.

 

[James Everett]

Further in legal terminology, an attorney would be sure to distinguish in a court case the deference between a "Truck" and a "Tractor- trailer as in an 18 wheeler. Did a truck hit you? Or was it a tractor? Did the tractor hit you? or was it the trailer?

How can that be- 'definitions do not change'......lol......

In England- where they speak English.....a truck is a lorry.....not a truck.

A lorry is still a lorry, the definition of a lorry has not changed. The definition of a lorry has not been changed to refer to a lorry as a cow. You are attempting to establish fiction to justify fiction, such is the equivalent of establishing a lie to cover another lie. And yet we see that you still have avoided all of the challenging questions that I have posed for you to respond.

Wait- when did you post a challenging question?

I thought I had read all of your posts and I can't remember a challenging question yet from you.

What of the polygamist, does polygamy now become a legal marriage, since marriage is being re-defined?

No.

Well you answered my question concerning polygamists....
In your illogical reasoning, it is OK to discriminate against those whom you choose in that a marriage is defined in your reasoning as between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and a man, yet not between one man and five women, or one woman and five men.
Does this make you a bigot, or a hypocrite who chooses to bring police into the bedroom of polygamists?

 

[Syriusly]

How can that be- 'definitions do not change'......lol......

In England- where they speak English.....a truck is a lorry.....not a truck.

A lorry is still a lorry, the definition of a lorry has not changed. The definition of a lorry has not been changed to refer to a lorry as a cow. You are attempting to establish fiction to justify fiction, such is the equivalent of establishing a lie to cover another lie. And yet we see that you still have avoided all of the challenging questions that I have posed for you to respond.

Wait- when did you post a challenging question?

I thought I had read all of your posts and I can't remember a challenging question yet from you.

In a Sodomite "Marriage" which is the wife, and which is the husband, as such has always been determined by sex. Must we now redefine the words "Husband" and "Wife" ?

There is no 'sodomite marriage'- there is only marriage. In a marriage the female spouse is referred to as the wife and the male as the husband.

So then in a fictional "marriage" between two men, who is the wife and who is the husband when or two women. I have heard same sex couple refer to their "significant other" as their husband or wife.

There is no 'sodomite marriage', nor any fictional marriage- there is only marriage. In a marriage the female spouse is referred to as the wife and the male as the husband

 

[Syriusly]

How can that be- 'definitions do not change'......lol......

In England- where they speak English.....a truck is a lorry.....not a truck.

A lorry is still a lorry, the definition of a lorry has not changed. The definition of a lorry has not been changed to refer to a lorry as a cow. You are attempting to establish fiction to justify fiction, such is the equivalent of establishing a lie to cover another lie. And yet we see that you still have avoided all of the challenging questions that I have posed for you to respond.

Wait- when did you post a challenging question?

I thought I had read all of your posts and I can't remember a challenging question yet from you.

In a Sodomite "Marriage" which is the wife, and which is the husband, as such has always been determined by sex. Must we now redefine the words "Husband" and "Wife" ?

There is no 'sodomite marriage'- there is only marriage. In a marriage the female spouse is referred to as the wife and the male as the husband.

If as you say there is "only marriage" then one man may marry five women, or one woman may marry five men?
Are you now discriminating against polygamists?
What gives you the right to define "Marriage as that between a n]man and a woman, or a man and aman, or a woman and a woman, yet discriminate against polygamists?
Do you now see your illogical conclusion?

I am not even discussing polygamists- nor are the courts.

You asked whether polygamy suddenly becomes legal marriage- and I answered correctly- no.

That question is not under consideration from the courts, when the courts rule on the issue of marriage between same gender couples the court will not refer to polygamy, nor is it germane to this thread.