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

[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.

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.

And if your state's marriage laws violate the constitution, they're invalid. Just as state interracial marriage bans were invalid. The restrictions themselves must pass constitutional muster. They must have a very good reason, serve a legitimate state interest and a valid legislative end.

Gay marriage bans fail on all three points.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Until it involves types of marriages with which your kind disagrees. At that point, all sorts of reasons to oppose them are considered valid.

 

[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.

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.

And if your state's marriage laws violate the constitution, they're invalid. Just as state interracial marriage bans were invalid. The restrictions themselves must pass constitutional muster. They must have a very good reason, serve a legitimate state interest and a valid legislative end.

Gay marriage bans fail on all three points.

That's your opinion and that of agenda minded judges.

 

[Skylar]

...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..

And yet between the Romer v. Evans USSC ruling and the Windsor v. US USSC ruling, the court cited race based discrimination cases 4 times when describing why the rights of gays and lesbians couldn't be violated.

You insist that race based cases can't be cited. The USSC cited them 4 times.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Syriusly]

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..

A sodomite is someone who has anal sex.

It would include any male and female couple who engage in anal sex, as well as any male and male couples that engage in anal sex.

It would not include any male and male couple that does not engage in anal sex, and probably no lesbians.

When you use the term 'Sodomite' are you trying to exclude gay men who do not have anal sex with each other?

Or are you misusing the term?

 

[Skylar]

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.

Until it involves types of marriages with which your kind disagrees. At that point, all sorts of reasons to oppose them are considered valid.

Says who? Can you quote me saying this? Or Like your imaginary 'demand that anyone agree with what I believe', is this just more mythical nonsense you've made up?

 

[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...

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..
.

You are just pulling crap out of your ass.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Until it involves types of marriages with which your kind disagrees. At that point, all sorts of reasons to oppose them are considered valid.

Says who? Can you quote me saying this? Or Like your imaginary 'demand that anyone agree with what I believe', is this just more mythical nonsense you've made up?

Do you support a brother/sister marriage? Polygamous marriages?

 

[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.

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.

And if your state's marriage laws violate the constitution, they're invalid. Just as state interracial marriage bans were invalid. The restrictions themselves must pass constitutional muster. They must have a very good reason, serve a legitimate state interest and a valid legislative end.

Gay marriage bans fail on all three points.

That's your opinion and that of agenda minded judges.

Says you, pretending to be any judge who disagrees with you.

YOU interpret the constitution based on your agenda. And then assume that since you do, everyone else must.

Nope. There's no such mandate. Following precedent and protecting rights are both legitimate motivations for judges. And the stated motivation for the rulings in same sex marriage case.

Now why would I ignore a judge on their own motivation, and instead believe you citing yourself?

There is no reason.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Stick by your computer- watch this thread like a hawk.......lol.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

And if your state's marriage laws violate the constitution, they're invalid. Just as state interracial marriage bans were invalid. The restrictions themselves must pass constitutional muster. They must have a very good reason, serve a legitimate state interest and a valid legislative end.

Gay marriage bans fail on all three points.

That's your opinion and that of agenda minded judges.

Since judges have actual authority- those are pretty relevant opinions- unlike your own.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Until it involves types of marriages with which your kind disagrees. At that point, all sorts of reasons to oppose them are considered valid.

Says who? Can you quote me saying this? Or Like your imaginary 'demand that anyone agree with what I believe', is this just more mythical nonsense you've made up?

Do you support a brother/sister marriage? Polygamous marriages?

Why do you go off topic?
Wouldn't a "brother/sister" marriage be more of a hetero thing?

 

[Conservative65]

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.

And if your state's marriage laws violate the constitution, they're invalid. Just as state interracial marriage bans were invalid. The restrictions themselves must pass constitutional muster. They must have a very good reason, serve a legitimate state interest and a valid legislative end.

Gay marriage bans fail on all three points.

That's your opinion and that of agenda minded judges.

Says you, pretending to be any judge who disagrees with you.

YOU interpret the constitution based on your agenda. And then assume that since you do, everyone else must.

Nope. There's no such mandate. Following precedent and protecting rights are both legitimate motivations for judges. And the stated motivation for the rulings in same sex marriage case.

Now why would I ignore a judge on their own motivation, and instead believe you citing yourself?

There is no reason.

Why wouldn't you support a judge ruling on an agenda with which you agree? There is no reason for you to do so. You benefit from it and that's your sole motivation for supporting the decisions.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

And if your state's marriage laws violate the constitution, they're invalid. Just as state interracial marriage bans were invalid. The restrictions themselves must pass constitutional muster. They must have a very good reason, serve a legitimate state interest and a valid legislative end.

Gay marriage bans fail on all three points.

That's your opinion and that of agenda minded judges.

Since judges have actual authority- those are pretty relevant opinions- unlike your own.

Don't confuse your agreement with relevant. Because you agree doesn't make it valid.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Until it involves types of marriages with which your kind disagrees. At that point, all sorts of reasons to oppose them are considered valid.

Says who? Can you quote me saying this? Or Like your imaginary 'demand that anyone agree with what I believe', is this just more mythical nonsense you've made up?

Do you support a brother/sister marriage? Polygamous marriages?

Do you support mixed race marriage?

 

[James Everett]

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.

I do so love your reference to the SCOTUS as the "authoritative". Such exhibits YOUR lack of understanding of YOUR own CONstitution.
Let us review what James Madison stated.... "The father of your CONstitution"... when speaking of YOUR CONstitution he stated that....
“It was formed, not by the governments of the component states, as the federal government for which it was substituted was formed. Nor was it formed by a majority of the people of the United States, as a single community, in the manner of a consolidated government.

It was formed by the states, that is, by the people in each of the states, acting in their highest sovereign capacity; and formed consequently by the same authority which formed the state constitutions.”
So it is the people such as you and I who are the authoritative, NOT the SCOTUS, and the ONLY reason that the SCOTUS exists, and is allowed to legislate from the bench just as YOUR POTUS legislates by decree= Executive Order, because the people who are the authoritative have been rendered ignorant via indoctrination posing as education, thus indoctrinated to accept fictional authority that does NOT exist.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law. Article 4, Section 2 applies upon appeal to the general government and that body of laws.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Until it involves types of marriages with which your kind disagrees. At that point, all sorts of reasons to oppose them are considered valid.

Says who? Can you quote me saying this? Or Like your imaginary 'demand that anyone agree with what I believe', is this just more mythical nonsense you've made up?

Do you support a brother/sister marriage? Polygamous marriages?

Do you support mixed race marriage?

As long as one is male and one is female. I wouldn't do it.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

And if your state's marriage laws violate the constitution, they're invalid. Just as state interracial marriage bans were invalid. The restrictions themselves must pass constitutional muster. They must have a very good reason, serve a legitimate state interest and a valid legislative end.

Gay marriage bans fail on all three points.

That's your opinion and that of agenda minded judges.

Since judges have actual authority- those are pretty relevant opinions- unlike your own.

Don't confuse your agreement with relevant. Because you agree doesn't make it valid.

Let me point out what is relevant: When the judge in Alabama ruled that the ban on same gender marriages was unconstitutional, marriage licenses started being issued to same gender couples in Alabama- that is relevant.

When the Alabama Supreme Court said to stop issuing marriage licenses- that is relevant.

When the Supreme Court decides the issue- that is relevant.

Judges have actual authority- and their decisions are relevant.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Until it involves types of marriages with which your kind disagrees. At that point, all sorts of reasons to oppose them are considered valid.

Says who? Can you quote me saying this? Or Like your imaginary 'demand that anyone agree with what I believe', is this just more mythical nonsense you've made up?

Do you support a brother/sister marriage? Polygamous marriages?

Do you support mixed race marriage?

As long as one is male and one is female. I wouldn't do it.

Then why don't you support brother/sister marriage?