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

[Silhouette]

5 spammed posts from Syriusly or her sock puppet Conservative...as if your identical posting styles would slip by unnoticed.

The discussion was about why posters like Syriusly and her sock puppets/co-workers here would deny polygamists' or incest children's "legal rights"...or how they even could if homosexual kink (just) gets a federal mandate forced upon the states?

Lots of spam, no substance.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Politics is driven by agenda. Judges are appointed base don politics and the agenda of the one appointing them. Don't understand that, not surprised.

 

[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.

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.

I simply know way more about this topic than you do. Which is why you've abandoned the topic....and started babbling about me.

 

[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.

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.

At least what gets me through the day doesn't involve thinking being attracted to someone of the same sex is normal.

 

[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.

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

I simply know way more about this topic than you do. Which is why you've abandoned the topic....and started babbling about me.

Typical arrogant Liberal. Having a different opinion doesn't mean you know more about something.

 

[Silhouette]

Who here thinks polygamists won't have legal marriage using the precedent of gay marriage as federally-mandated? Specifics in your answer please.

 

[Conservative65]

Who here thinks polygamists won't have legal marriage using the precedent of gay marriage as federally-mandated? Specifics in your answer please.

They won't. Just ask most of those who support same sex marriage about their support for polygamous marriages. They argue in support of same sex marriage based on equality and the freedom people should have to marry those they love. They'll argue that people who love each other should be able to marry whomever they want. They'll claim that reasons given by those who oppose same sex marriage are invalid which means nothing more than they disagree with the reasons. However, ask them about their support of polygamous marriages and see how quickly they deny the same equality they demand for same sex couples and how quickly they consider their reasons for opposition as valid.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Politics is driven by agenda. Judges are appointed base don politics and the agenda of the one appointing them. Don't understand that, not surprised.

Politics drives YOUR agenda. You're assuming that any decision you don't like must be similarly motivated.

Me, I have no horse in the 'gay marriage' debate. It doesn't really effect me personally. But I do have a horse in the race of rights and equal protection. Which is why I support gay marriage.

A judge motivated by the protection of constitutional guarantees isn't 'politically motivated'. They're doing their job.

 

[Skylar]

Who here thinks polygamists won't have legal marriage using the precedent of gay marriage as federally-mandated? Specifics in your answer please.

Ah, the Slippery Slope fallacy. A classic.

As June draws closer the reliance on fallacies of logic for opponents of gay marriage will get thicker and more pervasive.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Politics is driven by agenda. Judges are appointed base don politics and the agenda of the one appointing them. Don't understand that, not surprised.

Politics drives YOUR agenda. You're assuming that any decision you don't like must be similarly motivated.

Me, I have no horse in the 'gay marriage' debate. It doesn't really effect me personally. But I do have a horse in the race of rights and equal protection. Which is why I support gay marriage.

A judge motivated by the protection of constitutional guarantees isn't 'politically motivated'. They're doing their job.

They're interpreting the Constitution in a manner that fits their agenda.

Do you support polygamous marriages or marriages of a brother/sister?

 

[Skylar]

5 spammed posts from Syriusly or her sock puppet Conservative...as if your identical posting styles would slip by unnoticed.

The discussion was about why posters like Syriusly and her sock puppets/co-workers here would deny polygamists' or incest children's "legal rights"...or how they even could if homosexual kink (just) gets a federal mandate forced upon the states?

Lots of spam, no substance.

Silo, you do realize that you're not 'revealing' any conspiracy. You're only revealing how much of this shit you're making up as you go along.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Politics is driven by agenda. Judges are appointed base don politics and the agenda of the one appointing them. Don't understand that, not surprised.

Politics drives YOUR agenda. You're assuming that any decision you don't like must be similarly motivated.

Me, I have no horse in the 'gay marriage' debate. It doesn't really effect me personally. But I do have a horse in the race of rights and equal protection. Which is why I support gay marriage.

A judge motivated by the protection of constitutional guarantees isn't 'politically motivated'. They're doing their job.

They're interpreting the Constitution in a manner that fits their agenda.

And of course you fantasize that they have an agenda.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Politics is driven by agenda. Judges are appointed base don politics and the agenda of the one appointing them. Don't understand that, not surprised.

Politics drives YOUR agenda. You're assuming that any decision you don't like must be similarly motivated.

Me, I have no horse in the 'gay marriage' debate. It doesn't really effect me personally. But I do have a horse in the race of rights and equal protection. Which is why I support gay marriage.

A judge motivated by the protection of constitutional guarantees isn't 'politically motivated'. They're doing their job.

They're interpreting the Constitution in a manner that fits their agenda.

And of course you fantasize that they have an agenda.

And you are so stupid you can't realize that it exists. All politics is based on an agenda even the side you agree with. Learn or live a miserable, retarded life.

 

[Syriusly]

Who here thinks polygamists won't have legal marriage using the precedent of gay marriage as federally-mandated? Specifics in your answer please.

Who here can discuss the actual court cases before the judges without bringing up Strawmen?

 

[Skylar]

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.

Politics is driven by agenda. Judges are appointed base don politics and the agenda of the one appointing them. Don't understand that, not surprised.

Politics drives YOUR agenda. You're assuming that any decision you don't like must be similarly motivated.

Me, I have no horse in the 'gay marriage' debate. It doesn't really effect me personally. But I do have a horse in the race of rights and equal protection. Which is why I support gay marriage.

A judge motivated by the protection of constitutional guarantees isn't 'politically motivated'. They're doing their job.

They're interpreting the Constitution in a manner that fits their agenda.

You interpret the constitution in a manner that fits your agenda. There's no mandate that anyone else follow your pattern. Especially when the following of precedent and a desire to protect constitutional guarantees are both legitimate motivations, and the expressed motivation of the justices in question.

I'll take their word on their own motivation over you trying to project your motivations upon them. As they actually know what they're talking about. And you don't.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Politics is driven by agenda. Judges are appointed base don politics and the agenda of the one appointing them. Don't understand that, not surprised.

Politics drives YOUR agenda. You're assuming that any decision you don't like must be similarly motivated.

Me, I have no horse in the 'gay marriage' debate. It doesn't really effect me personally. But I do have a horse in the race of rights and equal protection. Which is why I support gay marriage.

A judge motivated by the protection of constitutional guarantees isn't 'politically motivated'. They're doing their job.

They're interpreting the Constitution in a manner that fits their agenda.

And of course you fantasize that they have an agenda.

And you are so stupid you can't realize that it exists. All politics is based on an agenda even the side you agree with. Learn or live a miserable, retarded life.

Like I said- you fantasize that they have an agenda- because you can't imagine that anyone doesn't live their life and make their decisions like you do.

 

[bodecea]

Who here thinks polygamists won't have legal marriage using the precedent of gay marriage as federally-mandated? Specifics in your answer please.

Who here can discuss the actual court cases before the judges without bringing up Strawmen?

They can't.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Politics is driven by agenda. Judges are appointed base don politics and the agenda of the one appointing them. Don't understand that, not surprised.

Politics drives YOUR agenda. You're assuming that any decision you don't like must be similarly motivated.

Me, I have no horse in the 'gay marriage' debate. It doesn't really effect me personally. But I do have a horse in the race of rights and equal protection. Which is why I support gay marriage.

A judge motivated by the protection of constitutional guarantees isn't 'politically motivated'. They're doing their job.

They're interpreting the Constitution in a manner that fits their agenda.

You interpret the constitution in a manner that fits your agenda. There's no mandate that anyone else follow your pattern. Especially when the following of precedent and a desire to protect constitutional guarantees are both legitimate motivations, and the expressed motivation of the justices in question.

I'll take their word on their own motivation over you trying to project your motivations upon them. As they actually know what they're talking about. And you don't.

I didn't say you had to follow what I believe. However, you demand others agree with what you believe. Statements such as I know a lot more about this than you do proves that.

You take their word because you agree with them.

 

[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.

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.

I simply know way more about this topic than you do. Which is why you've abandoned the topic....and started babbling about me.

Typical arrogant Liberal. Having a different opinion doesn't mean you know more about something.

Oh just because we have a different opinion doesn't mean I know more about this issue than you.

Its because I actually know more about the issue than you do.

 

[Silhouette]

with the amount of LGBT spamming going on, I'd say there's quite a hum in their cult about this thread..