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

[Conservative65]

You claim you know more. When you can prove it by something other than simply saying it, go ahead. Claims have to be supported and support doesn't come from a statement of saying you know more. Back it up son.

Apparently your opinion revolves around any judge agreeing with your opinion as not following an agenda.

Boy

I prove it with every post.

All you prove is that you can make a claim without providing evidence to support it. All you've done is SAY you know more about it. Saying it and proving it aren't the same things. You really are yet another Liberal dumbass.

Do you have anything- anything at all to contribute to this thread?

I mean other than the stuff you pull out of your ass?

Do you have anything to prove your claim that you know more about this than other people? Saying it isn't proof. Making unfounded claims isn't proof. Anything?

I know I know more about this issue than you do- that is my opinion.

And every post of yours reinforces my opinion.

An opinion that can't be supported is called running your damn mouth. Since you can't support your opinion other than by making statements, you're running your mouth.

 

[Silhouette]

Again..Again...thanks to spam...& fake flame wars..Syriusly, you and your sock puppet/rival have been reported for starting a fake flame war..

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?

You're saying that 'same or simliar' to homosexual marriages also gaining a federal mandate is a strawman? Are you completely unaware of how precedents work?

What makes man/woman not special and the word "a" before them suddenly sacred? When you're dismantling the structural meaning of a word, anything goes when you replace it, else you are being arbitrary (prejudiced/bigoted).

*notices "Conservative" and Syriusly are attempting to turn the thread into a flame war...also notices the identical style in which the two posts*

 

[James Everett]

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, Please explain how a man and a man, or a woman and a woman entering into a civil union with the same agreement of that of a true marriage which is a contract between a man and a woman by proper definition without it being defined as a marriage, but rather a civil union, is somehow denying the sodomite equal protection under the law?
What you wish is to hijack a definition rather than seek equal protection under the law. Such equal protection may be found in the retained right to contract, without hijacking the definition of marriage.
What it appears is that the sodomite wishes a deviant behaviour (which FYI means ....
"To wander from the right or common way".) to be accepted as proper behaviour.
Not simply equal protection to contract, which is what a marriage is a simple contract between a man and a woman. The right to contract a civil union already exists and is enforceable.

 

[Silhouette]

I'll answer for them: it means they cannot access children in states preventing non-married couples from adopting.

Now, read my signature and shudder...

 

[Skylar]

What makes man/woman not special and the word "a" before them suddenly sacred? When you're dismantling the structural meaning of a word, anything goes when you replace it, else you are being arbitrary (prejudiced/bigoted).

Nonsense. The definition of marriage is being expanded to include same sex couples. The expansion of a definition doesn't mean that there is no definition. Your entire argument is a meaningless fallacy.

*notices "Conservative" and Syriusly are attempting to turn the thread into a flame war...also notices the identical style in which the two posts*

Notice you're making up yet another batshit conspiracy.

 

[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.

SKYLAR, Please explain how a man and a man, or a woman and a woman entering into a civil union with the same agreement of that of a true marriage which is a contract between a man and a woman by proper definition without it being defined as a marriage, but rather a civil union, is somehow denying the sodomite equal protection under the law?

Simple: Because your claim of a 'true marriage' is fallacious. Marriage is whatever we say it is. And in 37 of 50 States, marriage includes same sex couples. In June, its quite likely that the number will jump to 50 of 50 States.

That you personally don't agree that its 'true marriage' is gloriously irrelevant to the entire process.

 

[James Everett]

I'll answer for them: it means they cannot access children in states preventing non-married couples from adopting.

Now, read my signature and shudder...

That is a completely different case. Hijacking the definition of marriage is in no way necessary to change adoption law.
Under many Northern States Jim Crow laws, race was once taken into consideration in denying adoption, yet that had nothing to do with marriage: Changing the definition of marriage was not necessary in gaining equal consideration in adoption with regard to race. Adoption laws may be changed without redefining marriage, therefore once again, the argument falls flat, and returns us to the question of the real agenda here.

 

[Skylar]

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.

And where have I demanded that anyone agree with what I believe? Quote me.

You can believe whatever you'd like. And no one gives a shit.

Now what the *law* says is a different matter. And its legal recognition of marriage that gays and lesbians are fighting for in court.

 

[James Everett]

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.

And where have I demanded that anyone agree with what I believe? Quote me.

You can believe whatever you'd like. And no one gives a shit.

Now what the *law* says is a different matter. And its legal recognition of marriage that gays and lesbians are fighting for in court.

"Gays" and "Lesbians"? What you mean are practicing Sodomites. The SCOTUS does not make law, and the only law to which you rely is the 14th amendment, which is not violated with a States refusal to redefine the legal definition of a marriage. Now if a State is denying the right of practicing Sodomites to contract a civil union, then you would possibly have a violation of the *LAW*.
Again your assertion falls on its face, so to speak.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.

I ain't your buddy....I have been discussing the topic with you all morning, I just have other things more important than educating you. This does not mean that I will not check in and respond from time to time.
I do not ignore y the fourteenth amendment to YOUR CONstitution, I simply point to your misuse thereof.
I have cited precedence that is contrary to this fictional jurisdiction in the redefining of the set legal definition of a marriage.

Of course you ignored the 14th amendment. Every supreme court case you cited about the jurisdiction of the State and the Federal government was from BEFORE the passage of the 14th amendment, when the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. And you tried to portray that as the situation today, despite the situation radically changing with the passage of the 14th amendment.

This wasn't accidental. You know quite well that the 14th granted the federal government new authority and jurisdiction, applying the bill of rights to the States. Yet you always omit the 14th in your arguments.

Despite the basis of every federal ruling that overturned gay marriage bans being violations of the 14th amendment. Your willful ignorance doesn't make the 14th disappear.

The fact that Alabama or any other State refuses to redefine the word marriage has nothing to do with denying equal protection of the law.

Says you, citing your personal opinion. The federal judiciary has almost universally found that gay marriage bans do violate the 14th amendment. They're authoritative. You're nobody.

 

[Silhouette]

I'll answer for them: it means they cannot access children in states preventing non-married couples from adopting.

Now, read my signature and shudder...

That is a completely different case. Hijacking the definition of marriage is in no way necessary to change adoption law.
Under many Northern States Jim Crow laws, race was once taken into consideration in denying adoption, yet that had nothing to do with marriage: Changing the definition of marriage was not necessary in gaining equal consideration in adoption with regard to race. Adoption laws may be changed without redefining marriage, therefore once again, the argument falls flat, and returns us to the question of the real agenda here.

I agree, I'm just assigning the most probable explanation..

...and I'm sure you agree that race has nothing to do with a sexual lifestyle...there is no provision in the US Constitution for protection of lifestyles found repugnant to a state's majority to access legal rights "as couples" pretending to be "mom and dad" to psychologically-vulnerable children..

 

[Syriusly]

Boy

I prove it with every post.

All you prove is that you can make a claim without providing evidence to support it. All you've done is SAY you know more about it. Saying it and proving it aren't the same things. You really are yet another Liberal dumbass.

Do you have anything- anything at all to contribute to this thread?

I mean other than the stuff you pull out of your ass?

Do you have anything to prove your claim that you know more about this than other people? Saying it isn't proof. Making unfounded claims isn't proof. Anything?

I know I know more about this issue than you do- that is my opinion.

And every post of yours reinforces my opinion.

An opinion that can't be supported is called running your damn mouth. Since you can't support your opinion other than by making statements, you're running your mouth.

LOL.....

 

[bodecea]

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, Please explain how a man and a man, or a woman and a woman entering into a civil union with the same agreement of that of a true marriage which is a contract between a man and a woman by proper definition without it being defined as a marriage, but rather a civil union, is somehow denying the sodomite equal protection under the law?
What you wish is to hijack a definition rather than seek equal protection under the law. Such equal protection may be found in the retained right to contract, without hijacking the definition of marriage.
What it appears is that the sodomite wishes a deviant behaviour (which FYI means ....
"To wander from the right or common way".) to be accepted as proper behaviour.
Not simply equal protection to contract, which is what a marriage is a simple contract between a man and a woman. The right to contract a civil union already exists and is enforceable.

Civil Unions. Interesting that you bring them up. That was the goal for gays a decade ago.....but it was the religious right wing that said no to civil unions or anything that even sounded a bit like marriage.

Now it's too late. It's gonna be marriage. Period.

 

[Syriusly]

Again..Again...thanks to spam...& fake flame wars..Syriusly, you and your sock puppet/rival have been reported for starting a fake flame war..

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?

You're saying that 'same or simliar' to homosexual marriages also gaining a federal mandate is a strawman? Are you completely unaware of how precedents work?
*

No- what I am saying is that you trying to bring in polygamy and incest are strawmen intended to divert the discussion from the actual legal question before Alabama.

The court case in this thread is about same gender marriage in Alabama.

Not whatever strawman you drag out of your closet

 

[Conservative65]

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.

And where have I demanded that anyone agree with what I believe? Quote me.

You can believe whatever you'd like. And no one gives a shit.

Now what the *law* says is a different matter. And its legal recognition of marriage that gays and lesbians are fighting for in court.

No one gives a shit about what the faggots want except other faggots and faggot lovers.

You aren't fighting for recognition. You simply can't stand that people don't agree with you or like what you are.

I know what the law says. I also know what your interpretation is. Don't equate the two.

 

[Skylar]

"Gays" and "Lesbians"? What you mean are practicing Sodomites.

What I mean is exactly what I said. You can pretend you speak for me just like you pretend you speak for the federal judiciary.

But neither I nor the federal judiciary are obligated to pretend with you.

The SCOTUS does not make law, and the only law to which you rely is the 14th amendment, which is not violated with a States refusal to redefine the legal definition of a marriage.

The USSC does interpret the constitution however, and determine if a given law violates constitutional guarantees. As does the entire federal judiciary. And the federal judiciary has almost universally found that gay marriage bans violate the constitutional guarantees of US citizens laid out in the 14th amendment.

You disagree. And? The legitimacy and authority of federal rulings has nothing to do with your personal opinion or personal interpretations of the constitution.

So we have the rulings of the federal judiciary vs. you citing yourself. The federal judiciary wins.

Now if a State is denying the right of practicing Sodomites to contract a civil union, then you would possibly have a violation of the *LAW*.
Again your assertion falls on its face, so to speak.[/QUOTE]

 

[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.

SKYLAR, Please explain how a man and a man, or a woman and a woman entering into a civil union with the same agreement of that of a true marriage which is a contract between a man and a woman by proper definition without it being defined as a marriage, but rather a civil union, is somehow denying the sodomite equal protection under the law?
What you wish is to hijack a definition rather than seek equal protection under the law. Such equal protection may be found in the retained right to contract, without hijacking the definition of marriage.
What it appears is that the sodomite wishes a deviant behaviour (which FYI means ....
"To wander from the right or common way".) to be accepted as proper behaviour.
Not simply equal protection to contract, which is what a marriage is a simple contract between a man and a woman. The right to contract a civil union already exists and is enforceable.

Civil Unions. Interesting that you bring them up. That was the goal for gays a decade ago.....but it was the religious right wing that said no to civil unions or anything that even sounded a bit like marriage.

Now it's too late. It's gonna be marriage. Period.

Under my State's laws, I have a civil union since the marriage license I have comes from the State. It's a marriage because it's between a male and a female.

 

[Skylar]

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.

And where have I demanded that anyone agree with what I believe? Quote me.

You can believe whatever you'd like. And no one gives a shit.

Now what the *law* says is a different matter. And its legal recognition of marriage that gays and lesbians are fighting for in court.

No one gives a shit about what the faggots want except other faggots and faggot lovers.

Or those interested in constitutional guarantees and the protection of them. And I'll gladly admit to being part of that group.

 

[Conservative65]

All you prove is that you can make a claim without providing evidence to support it. All you've done is SAY you know more about it. Saying it and proving it aren't the same things. You really are yet another Liberal dumbass.

Do you have anything- anything at all to contribute to this thread?

I mean other than the stuff you pull out of your ass?

Do you have anything to prove your claim that you know more about this than other people? Saying it isn't proof. Making unfounded claims isn't proof. Anything?

I know I know more about this issue than you do- that is my opinion.

And every post of yours reinforces my opinion.

An opinion that can't be supported is called running your damn mouth. Since you can't support your opinion other than by making statements, you're running your mouth.

LOL.....

Still waiting on proof of YOUR claim that you know more about this issue than me. All I keep getting is a claim but no proof.

 

[Syriusly]

I'll answer for them: it means they cannot access children in states preventing non-married couples from adopting.

Now, read my signature and shudder...

As usual- Silhouette just pulls stuff out of her ass.

Example- Alabama.

A homosexual man- who is part of a couple- can adopt children regardless of marriage law in Alabama.

But the child would have only one legal parent- because the other member of the couple would not be able to jointly adopt the child.

So instead of having two legal parents- the child would end up with only one.