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

[James Everett]

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?

No- it just means you have a reading comprehension problem- since I never said any of what you say I said.

You posted in response to my question concerning the right of polygamist to marry, that "NO" they do not have that right.
You need to re-read your answer to my question.

You either have a reading comprehension problem- or an integrity problem

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

What I answered:
No

My answer- as I spelled out before- is absolutely correct- the current court cases have nothing to do with polygamy, and regardless of the decision, it will have no legal impact on whether polygamy is legal marriage or not.

So what you are stating is that the very bases of the argument being the fourteenth amendment only applies to certain groups of citizens of the U.S. while denying that of others. If the SCOTUS opinion is based on that amendment. then it must apply to polygamist as well.

 

[Conservative65]

First, the SCOTUS does not rule, as in making rulings. The SCOTUS renders opinions, a ruling must contain enforcement power to which the SCOTUS was never granted.

Says you. And the authority you insist was never granted is laid out in the 14th amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

You simply refuse to acknowledge the 14th amendment exists.

Um, so what?

That it's laid out in the 14th amendment is YOUR opinion. That's your problem. You say it is and demand everyone accept what you say.

 

[Skylar]

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?

No- it just means you have a reading comprehension problem- since I never said any of what you say I said.

You posted in response to my question concerning the right of polygamist to marry, that "NO" they do not have that right.
You need to re-read your answer to my question.

You either have a reading comprehension problem- or an integrity problem

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

What I answered:
No

My answer- as I spelled out before- is absolutely correct- the current court cases have nothing to do with polygamy, and regardless of the decision, it will have no legal impact on whether polygamy is legal marriage or not.

So what you are stating is that the very bases of the argument being the fourteenth amendment only applies to certain groups of citizens of the U.S. while denying that of others. If the SCOTUS opinion is based on that amendment. then it must apply to polygamist as well.

The let polygamists bring their case before the court. Currently, there is no such case.

There IS a case on gay marriage. With the applicability of the 14th amendment's equal protection clause, and State same sex marriage bans violating such constitutional guarantees.

Oh, and just out of curiosity, since you insist that the Federal government can't rule on any issue of marriage, are you also claiming that the Loving v. Virginia ruling overturning interracial marriage bans was invalid?

 

[Syriusly]

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?

No- it just means you have a reading comprehension problem- since I never said any of what you say I said.

You posted in response to my question concerning the right of polygamist to marry, that "NO" they do not have that right.
You need to re-read your answer to my question.

You either have a reading comprehension problem- or an integrity problem

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

What I answered:
No

My answer- as I spelled out before- is absolutely correct- the current court cases have nothing to do with polygamy, and regardless of the decision, it will have no legal impact on whether polygamy is legal marriage or not.

So what you are stating is that the very bases of the argument being the fourteenth amendment only applies to certain groups of citizens of the U.S. while denying that of others. If the SCOTUS opinion is based on that amendment. then it must apply to polygamist as well.

Okay now I am unsure whether you are stupid- or dishonest.

This is what you asked:
What of the polygamist, does polygamy now become a legal marriage, since marriage is being re-defined?

What I answered:
No

My answer- as I spelled out before- is absolutely correct- the current court cases have nothing to do with polygamy, and regardless of the decision, it will have no legal impact on whether polygamy is legal marriage or not.

Your version of my response has nothing to do with my response- it is entirely your own fictional account.

The question of polygamous marriage is not before the court- so the court will not be addressing polygamous marriage.

I look forward to your new fictional account of what I have posted.

 

[Skylar]

First, the SCOTUS does not rule, as in making rulings. The SCOTUS renders opinions, a ruling must contain enforcement power to which the SCOTUS was never granted.

Says you. And the authority you insist was never granted is laid out in the 14th amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

You simply refuse to acknowledge the 14th amendment exists.

Um, so what?

That it's laid out in the 14th amendment is YOUR opinion. That's your problem. You say it is and demand everyone accept what you say.

I'm not quoting me. I'm quoting the federal judiciary. And they recognize violations of the 14th amendment as the basis of the overturning of state gay marriage bans.

With the USSC having preserved every ruling that overturned state gay marriage bans.

Without exception.

 

[Skylar]

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?

No- it just means you have a reading comprehension problem- since I never said any of what you say I said.

You posted in response to my question concerning the right of polygamist to marry, that "NO" they do not have that right.
You need to re-read your answer to my question.

You either have a reading comprehension problem- or an integrity problem

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

What I answered:
No

My answer- as I spelled out before- is absolutely correct- the current court cases have nothing to do with polygamy, and regardless of the decision, it will have no legal impact on whether polygamy is legal marriage or not.

So what you are stating is that the very bases of the argument being the fourteenth amendment only applies to certain groups of citizens of the U.S. while denying that of others. If the SCOTUS opinion is based on that amendment. then it must apply to polygamist as well.

Okay now I am unsure whether you are stupid- or dishonest.

This is what you asked:
What of the polygamist, does polygamy now become a legal marriage, since marriage is being re-defined?

What I answered:
No

My answer- as I spelled out before- is absolutely correct- the current court cases have nothing to do with polygamy, and regardless of the decision, it will have no legal impact on whether polygamy is legal marriage or not.

Your version of my response has nothing to do with my response- it is entirely your own fictional account.

The question of polygamous marriage is not before the court- so the court will not be addressing polygamous marriage.

I look forward to your new fictional account of what I have posted.

Its just run of the mill sovereign citizen nonsense. Where the poster insists that they USSC is bound to whatever the Poster imagines the constitution to mean.

 

[James Everett]

First, the SCOTUS does not rule, as in making rulings. The SCOTUS renders opinions, a ruling must contain enforcement power to which the SCOTUS was never granted.

Says you. And the authority you insist was never granted is laid out in the 14th amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

You simply refuse to acknowledge the 14th amendment exists.

Um, so what?

The issue of the definition of marriage does not apply to the fourteenth amendment, only the right to contract does apply. The argument is flawed based on the definition of marriage rather than the retained right to contract.
Do you deny that the fourteenth amendment under your misunderstanding applies to the right of polygamists to marry? or a mother and son, or a father and daughter, or a brother and sister?
If you apply the law equally as you think a marriage is under this fictional definition, then you must open the door to this fiction all the way.
The flaw is in your misdirected application thereof.
Stick with the legal right to contract as in a civil union, and ;leave the definition of marriage out of it, then you would have a proper legal case, and the SCOTUS would not be acting as a Kangaroo court assuming authority and jurisdiction that it does NOT hold.
Its only power is to rely on the ignorance of the ignorant, and to that end it has thrived.

 

[Conservative65]

First, the SCOTUS does not rule, as in making rulings. The SCOTUS renders opinions, a ruling must contain enforcement power to which the SCOTUS was never granted.

Says you. And the authority you insist was never granted is laid out in the 14th amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

You simply refuse to acknowledge the 14th amendment exists.

Um, so what?

That it's laid out in the 14th amendment is YOUR opinion. That's your problem. You say it is and demand everyone accept what you say.

I'm not quoting me. I'm quoting the federal judiciary. And they recognize violations of the 14th amendment as the basis of the overturning of state gay marriage bans.

With the USSC having preserved every ruling that overturned state gay marriage bans.

Without exception.

What those judges did was help push an agenda they support. It was a decision based on their backing of a faggot agenda.

 

[Syriusly]

First, the SCOTUS does not rule, as in making rulings. The SCOTUS renders opinions, a ruling must contain enforcement power to which the SCOTUS was never granted.

Says you. And the authority you insist was never granted is laid out in the 14th amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

You simply refuse to acknowledge the 14th amendment exists.

Um, so what?

That it's laid out in the 14th amendment is YOUR opinion. That's your problem. You say it is and demand everyone accept what you say.

Skylar is reflecting what the courts are saying. You don't have to accept what the courts say, but if the Supreme Court agrees with the Federal Court in Alabama, gay couples will be marrying each other.

 

[James Everett]

First, the SCOTUS does not rule, as in making rulings. The SCOTUS renders opinions, a ruling must contain enforcement power to which the SCOTUS was never granted.

Says you. And the authority you insist was never granted is laid out in the 14th amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

You simply refuse to acknowledge the 14th amendment exists.

Um, so what?

That it's laid out in the 14th amendment is YOUR opinion. That's your problem. You say it is and demand everyone accept what you say.

I'm not quoting me. I'm quoting the federal judiciary. And they recognize violations of the 14th amendment as the basis of the overturning of state gay marriage bans.

With the USSC having preserved every ruling that overturned state gay marriage bans.

Without exception.

I must end here, but at least use the proper abbreviation of the United States Supreme court. It is NOT the USSC, it is the SCOTUS. I cannot spend all my time in educating the ignorant.

 

[Syriusly]

First, the SCOTUS does not rule, as in making rulings. The SCOTUS renders opinions, a ruling must contain enforcement power to which the SCOTUS was never granted.

Says you. And the authority you insist was never granted is laid out in the 14th amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

You simply refuse to acknowledge the 14th amendment exists.

Um, so what?

The issue of the definition of marriage does not apply to the fourteenth amendment, only the right to contract does apply.

Again- says you.

The courts have almost unanimously disagreed with you.

Ultimately this case will go to the Supreme Court- and then the Supreme Court will decide.

Not you.

 

[Skylar]

First, the SCOTUS does not rule, as in making rulings. The SCOTUS renders opinions, a ruling must contain enforcement power to which the SCOTUS was never granted.

Says you. And the authority you insist was never granted is laid out in the 14th amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

You simply refuse to acknowledge the 14th amendment exists.

Um, so what?

That it's laid out in the 14th amendment is YOUR opinion. That's your problem. You say it is and demand everyone accept what you say.

I'm not quoting me. I'm quoting the federal judiciary. And they recognize violations of the 14th amendment as the basis of the overturning of state gay marriage bans.

With the USSC having preserved every ruling that overturned state gay marriage bans.

Without exception.

What those judges did was help push an agenda they support. It was a decision based on their backing of a faggot agenda.

What those judges did was recognize that the 14th amendment was violated by state marriage laws. And the federal judiciary is granted the authority to make such a decision.

 

[James Everett]

First, the SCOTUS does not rule, as in making rulings. The SCOTUS renders opinions, a ruling must contain enforcement power to which the SCOTUS was never granted.

Says you. And the authority you insist was never granted is laid out in the 14th amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

You simply refuse to acknowledge the 14th amendment exists.

Um, so what?

That it's laid out in the 14th amendment is YOUR opinion. That's your problem. You say it is and demand everyone accept what you say.

Skylar is reflecting what the courts are saying. You don't have to accept what the courts say, but if the Supreme Court agrees with the Federal Court in Alabama, gay couples will be marrying each other.

SKYLAR, is simply another sheep accepting fiction and following and being led by ignorance, this is how tyranny succeeds.

 

[Syriusly]

First, the SCOTUS does not rule, as in making rulings. The SCOTUS renders opinions, a ruling must contain enforcement power to which the SCOTUS was never granted.

Says you. And the authority you insist was never granted is laid out in the 14th amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

You simply refuse to acknowledge the 14th amendment exists.

Um, so what?

That it's laid out in the 14th amendment is YOUR opinion. That's your problem. You say it is and demand everyone accept what you say.

I'm not quoting me. I'm quoting the federal judiciary. And they recognize violations of the 14th amendment as the basis of the overturning of state gay marriage bans.

With the USSC having preserved every ruling that overturned state gay marriage bans.

Without exception.

What those judges did was help push an agenda they support. It was a decision based on their backing of a faggot agenda.

So all of the judges appointed by Bush and Reagan- they all just happen to be ardent supporters of the 'f*ggot agenda'?

What an amazing coincidence.

 

[Conservative65]

First, the SCOTUS does not rule, as in making rulings. The SCOTUS renders opinions, a ruling must contain enforcement power to which the SCOTUS was never granted.

Says you. And the authority you insist was never granted is laid out in the 14th amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

You simply refuse to acknowledge the 14th amendment exists.

Um, so what?

That it's laid out in the 14th amendment is YOUR opinion. That's your problem. You say it is and demand everyone accept what you say.

Skylar is reflecting what the courts are saying. You don't have to accept what the courts say, but if the Supreme Court agrees with the Federal Court in Alabama, gay couples will be marrying each other.

I'm saying those decisions are based on an interpretation behind the agenda they support.

 

[Syriusly]

First, the SCOTUS does not rule, as in making rulings. The SCOTUS renders opinions, a ruling must contain enforcement power to which the SCOTUS was never granted.

Says you. And the authority you insist was never granted is laid out in the 14th amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

You simply refuse to acknowledge the 14th amendment exists.

Um, so what?

That it's laid out in the 14th amendment is YOUR opinion. That's your problem. You say it is and demand everyone accept what you say.

I'm not quoting me. I'm quoting the federal judiciary. And they recognize violations of the 14th amendment as the basis of the overturning of state gay marriage bans.

With the USSC having preserved every ruling that overturned state gay marriage bans.

Without exception.

I must end here, but at least use the proper abbreviation of the United States Supreme court. It is NOT the USSC, it is the SCOTUS. I cannot spend all my time in educating the ignorant.

Both are valid abbreviations.

 

[Conservative65]

First, the SCOTUS does not rule, as in making rulings. The SCOTUS renders opinions, a ruling must contain enforcement power to which the SCOTUS was never granted.

Says you. And the authority you insist was never granted is laid out in the 14th amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

You simply refuse to acknowledge the 14th amendment exists.

Um, so what?

That it's laid out in the 14th amendment is YOUR opinion. That's your problem. You say it is and demand everyone accept what you say.

I'm not quoting me. I'm quoting the federal judiciary. And they recognize violations of the 14th amendment as the basis of the overturning of state gay marriage bans.

With the USSC having preserved every ruling that overturned state gay marriage bans.

Without exception.

What those judges did was help push an agenda they support. It was a decision based on their backing of a faggot agenda.

So all of the judges appointed by Bush and Reagan- they all just happen to be ardent supporters of the 'f*ggot agenda'?

What an amazing coincidence.

Since I don't believe in coincidences, try again son.

 

[Syriusly]

First, the SCOTUS does not rule, as in making rulings. The SCOTUS renders opinions, a ruling must contain enforcement power to which the SCOTUS was never granted.

Says you. And the authority you insist was never granted is laid out in the 14th amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

You simply refuse to acknowledge the 14th amendment exists.

Um, so what?

That it's laid out in the 14th amendment is YOUR opinion. That's your problem. You say it is and demand everyone accept what you say.

Skylar is reflecting what the courts are saying. You don't have to accept what the courts say, but if the Supreme Court agrees with the Federal Court in Alabama, gay couples will be marrying each other.

SKYLAR, is simply another sheep accepting fiction and following and being led by ignorance, this is how tyranny succeeds.

James is just another loon who pretends he can ignore legal reality.

Its a wonder he hasn't been to prison for refusing to pay 'illegal' income taxes.

 

[Syriusly]

Says you. And the authority you insist was never granted is laid out in the 14th amendment:

You simply refuse to acknowledge the 14th amendment exists.

Um, so what?

That it's laid out in the 14th amendment is YOUR opinion. That's your problem. You say it is and demand everyone accept what you say.

I'm not quoting me. I'm quoting the federal judiciary. And they recognize violations of the 14th amendment as the basis of the overturning of state gay marriage bans.

With the USSC having preserved every ruling that overturned state gay marriage bans.

Without exception.

What those judges did was help push an agenda they support. It was a decision based on their backing of a faggot agenda.

So all of the judges appointed by Bush and Reagan- they all just happen to be ardent supporters of the 'f*ggot agenda'?

What an amazing coincidence.

Since I don't believe in coincidences, try again son.

Boy, apparently you do believe in fairy tales- since you belief that all of those judges are driven by a political agenda.

 

[Skylar]

First, the SCOTUS does not rule, as in making rulings. The SCOTUS renders opinions, a ruling must contain enforcement power to which the SCOTUS was never granted.

Says you. And the authority you insist was never granted is laid out in the 14th amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

You simply refuse to acknowledge the 14th amendment exists.

Um, so what?

That it's laid out in the 14th amendment is YOUR opinion. That's your problem. You say it is and demand everyone accept what you say.

I'm not quoting me. I'm quoting the federal judiciary. And they recognize violations of the 14th amendment as the basis of the overturning of state gay marriage bans.

With the USSC having preserved every ruling that overturned state gay marriage bans.

Without exception.

I must end here, but at least use the proper abbreviation of the United States Supreme court. It is NOT the USSC, it is the SCOTUS. I cannot spend all my time in educating the ignorant.

So you ignored the 14th amendment, ignored the constitution, ignored decades of precedent, ignored 3 USSC cases explicitly contradicting you, and ignored virtually every federal court to hear challenges to same sex marriage bans overturning them....

......but you refuse to discuss the topic with me because you don't like the acronym I use for the Supreme Court?

Laughing....whatever gets you through the day, buddy.