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

[Syriusly]

Was a vote not held in Alabama in which that SUPREME AUTHORITY, being the people rejected the hijacking of the definition of marriage by a minute minority?

The People cannot vote away the rights of a minority, which is precisely why our Founders created a judicial branch.

Nor can the minority dictate the rights of the majority.

You are absolutely correct- the Constitution protects the rights of both the minority and the majority.

And the judiciary is the branch that resolves whether the law is Constitutional or not.

 

[James Everett]

Was a vote not held in Alabama in which that SUPREME AUTHORITY, being the people rejected the hijacking of the definition of marriage by a minute minority?

The People cannot vote away the rights of a minority, which is precisely why our Founders created a judicial branch.

Nor can the minority dictate the rights of the majority.

When slavery was abolished and the slaveowners lost their "property", was that "the minority dictating the rights of the majority"?

You are trying to state that the altering of a set legal definition is a right of the minority, when it is not. Again, the Sodomites have the right to contract a civil union, and that grants them the equal right to contract, and that contract must be recognised and enforce by law. What the Sodomite does not have is the right to re-define a set legal definition.
At that time slavery was legal in many States including those in the North, there was no federal law making Slavery illegal. There was no attempt to redefine the word freedom, there was however a success in granting equal rights to the Black man beginning with the end of Slavery in the United States via the passage of the 13th amendment.
What you view is a consolidation of the union into one State rather than a union of States. You want to grant authority of jurisdiction to the States in union, wherein that power does not belong to the States in union, but rather retained by each State respectively over their State boundaries.. See.....
Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845), the question of federal jurisdiction was once again before the Court. This case involved a contest of the title to real property, with one of the parties claiming a right to the disputed property via a U.S. patent; the lands in question were situated in Mobile, Alabama, adjacent to Mobile Bay. In discussing the subject of federal jurisdiction, the Court held:

"We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory, of which Alabama or any of the new States were formed," 44 U.S., at 221.

"Because, the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted," 44 U.S., at 223.
The States in union collectively do not have the authority to force the redefining of a set legal definition on an individual State.

 

[James Everett]

Was a vote not held in Alabama in which that SUPREME AUTHORITY, being the people rejected the hijacking of the definition of marriage by a minute minority?

The People cannot vote away the rights of a minority, which is precisely why our Founders created a judicial branch.

Nor can the minority dictate the rights of the majority.

You are absolutely correct- the Constitution protects the rights of both the minority and the majority.

And the judiciary is the branch that resolves whether the law is Constitutional or not.

Perhaps this is the point in which we should return to the basics of the contention.
The question is not that of equal rights, as the Sodomite has the same equal right to contract a civil union that is in every way equal to that of a marriage, which is nothing outside of holy matrimony, other than a simple civil contract between a man and a woman constituting a marriage.
The question is whether or not a small minority has the right to force the majority against their will to redefine by law the set legal definition of a marriage, when the minority has the same contractual rights without forcing a redefinition of the word marriage.
A cloak is being used to force the majority to accept a fictional definition using Equal rights as a tool, when they already have the equal right to contract a civil union.
The sodomite, if being honest would simply contract civil unions and then challenge in the courts those who deny their rights to fulfill the obligations that they have set within that contract, and if it is proven not to infringe on the life, liberty or property of another, then their contract in all its obligations must be recognised and enforced.
I dont know if I can post a more simple explanation of why Alabama has the legal authority and jurisdiction to protect the set definition of the institution of marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

I dont know if I can post a more simple explanation of why Alabama has the legal authority and jurisdiction to protect the set definition of the institution of marriage.

Until they are over-ruled by the SCOTUS in a few months.

 

[Syriusly]

Was a vote not held in Alabama in which that SUPREME AUTHORITY, being the people rejected the hijacking of the definition of marriage by a minute minority?

The People cannot vote away the rights of a minority, which is precisely why our Founders created a judicial branch.

Nor can the minority dictate the rights of the majority.

You are absolutely correct- the Constitution protects the rights of both the minority and the majority.

And the judiciary is the branch that resolves whether the law is Constitutional or not.

Perhaps this is the point in which we should return to the basics of the contention.
The question is not that of equal rights, as the Sodomite .

You keep using that word.

'Sodomite' means anyone who has anal sex.

So it would apply to heterosexuals who have anal sex and those homosexuals who have anal sex.

It would not apply to heterosexuals who do not have anal sex and would not apply to homosexuals who do not have anal sex.

Are you saying that heterosexuals who have anal sex cannot get married and lesbian couples can?

 

[Syriusly]

Was a vote not held in Alabama in which that SUPREME AUTHORITY, being the people rejected the hijacking of the definition of marriage by a minute minority?

The People cannot vote away the rights of a minority, which is precisely why our Founders created a judicial branch.

Nor can the minority dictate the rights of the majority.

You are absolutely correct- the Constitution protects the rights of both the minority and the majority.

And the judiciary is the branch that resolves whether the law is Constitutional or not.

has the same equal right to contract a civil union that is in every way equal to that of a marriage, .

The same Alabama law which says that it is not legal for couples of the same gender to legally marry, also makes it illegal for the state to recognize or perform 'civil unions'- a term Alabama does not legally even recognize.

Americans do not have a legal right to a 'civil union' but we do have a legal right to marriage.

There is no constitutional basis to demand a 'civil union' from a state that does not recognize 'civil unions'- but there is a constitutional bases to demand a marriage in a state that does recognize marriage.

 

[James Everett]

I dont know if I can post a more simple explanation of why Alabama has the legal authority and jurisdiction to protect the set definition of the institution of marriage.

Until they are over-ruled by the SCOTUS in a few months.

In that case it would be up to the Alabama legislature to either accept the fictional jurisdiction and the redefining of a word, and then the upcoming further to definitions of marriage to include polygamy and the redefinition of husband and wife, or to stang against tyranny and refuse, in which case I would hope that the majority of the people and State governments would join with Alabama just as they did Georgia in Chisholm v Georgia wherein the State legislature passed a law that anu federal officer attempting to enforce that court ruling would be hung without benefit of clergy, The SCOTUS was put back in its proper place back then.

 

[James Everett]

Was a vote not held in Alabama in which that SUPREME AUTHORITY, being the people rejected the hijacking of the definition of marriage by a minute minority?

The People cannot vote away the rights of a minority, which is precisely why our Founders created a judicial branch.

Nor can the minority dictate the rights of the majority.

You are absolutely correct- the Constitution protects the rights of both the minority and the majority.

And the judiciary is the branch that resolves whether the law is Constitutional or not.

has the same equal right to contract a civil union that is in every way equal to that of a marriage, .

The same Alabama law which says that it is not legal for couples of the same gender to legally marry, also makes it illegal for the state to recognize or perform 'civil unions'- a term Alabama does not legally even recognize.

Americans do not have a legal right to a 'civil union' but we do have a legal right to marriage.

There is no constitutional basis to demand a 'civil union' from a state that does not recognize 'civil unions'- but there is a constitutional bases to demand a marriage in a state that does recognize marriage.

You are incorrect. The U.S. CONstitutions Art. I, Sect. 10, recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. A civil union is a contract, and is enforceable by law, however the redefinition of the set legal definition of a marriage is NOT enforceable outside the acceptance of fiction. If the SCOTUS was not a political kangaroo court, it would recognise this fact and allow the Sodomites to make the proper case of a civil union.

 

[James Everett]

Was a vote not held in Alabama in which that SUPREME AUTHORITY, being the people rejected the hijacking of the definition of marriage by a minute minority?

The People cannot vote away the rights of a minority, which is precisely why our Founders created a judicial branch.

Nor can the minority dictate the rights of the majority.

You are absolutely correct- the Constitution protects the rights of both the minority and the majority.

And the judiciary is the branch that resolves whether the law is Constitutional or not.

Perhaps this is the point in which we should return to the basics of the contention.
The question is not that of equal rights, as the Sodomite .

You keep using that word.
View attachment 37489

'Sodomite' means anyone who has anal sex.

So it would apply to heterosexuals who have anal sex and those homosexuals who have anal sex.

It would not apply to heterosexuals who do not have anal sex and would not apply to homosexuals who do not have anal sex.

Are you saying that heterosexuals who have anal sex cannot get married and lesbian couples can?

Yes a sodomite is anyone who practices sodomy, however a marriage is consummated through sexual relations, and here is where sodomy is exclusive between same sex couples making them sodomites without recourse otherwize. I hate that the proper definition is offensive to you, it is not meant as a slur, it is only meant to use the proper definition as "Gay" does not actually mean sodomite outside of fiction. There is no such word as homosexual as in ....
Ho•mo
(ˈhoʊ moʊ)

n., pl. -mos.
1. (italics) the genus of bipedal primates that includes modern humans and several extinct forms, as H. erectus and H. habilis,distinguished by their large brains and a dependence on tools.
Such is simply placing a more softening usage for the offended when hearing the true definition. Sodomite goes back to Sodom and Gomorrah wherein such was practiced.
I simply choose to use what is the proper term for such. Again, it is not meant as a slur.

 

[SwimExpert]

No kidding. Fed judges aka tyrants in robes really should stop trying to dictate their opinions to the states.

Yeah, yeah! Stand up for the constitution! The constitution says that federal law is supreme to state law. The federal judges should stop telling states how the federal constitution works in order to.....

Wait, no....turns out you're a fucking idiot.

 

[Conservative65]

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?

I've never said either way about brother/sister. .

Okay I will restate it- you said you would support a mixed race marriage as long as one is male and one is female.

Would you support a brother sister marriage where one is male and one is female?

From a personal standpoint, no. However, the argument from you same sex supporters isn't from a personal standpoint. The ones of you that argue marriage should be allowed for two consenting adults based on the concept of equality are the same ones, when asked about a brother/sister marriage, to deny the concept of equality you claim exists. It's easy to tell you aren't about equality but about a faggot agenda. If you're not willing to apply the concept of equality you says exists to other types of marriages involving consenting adults, it makes you a hypocrite.

 

[Conservative65]

No kidding. Fed judges aka tyrants in robes really should stop trying to dictate their opinions to the states.

Yeah, yeah! Stand up for the constitution! The constitution says that federal law is supreme to state law. The federal judges should stop telling states how the federal constitution works in order to.....

Wait, no....turns out you're a fucking idiot.

Do you support Colorado's legalization of marijuana?

 

[Conservative65]

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

Well, at least your asking me this time. Rather than telling me what my opinion is.

I don't really have an opinion on brother and sister marriage. I don't know enough about the topic to discuss it intelligently.

Our laws aren't set up for poly marriage, so we have no way of regulating it. If two people are married and they add a third, are both married to the third person, or only one of them? If one of the three wants a divorce, does that mean that the other two are no longer married once the divorce goes through? Or the other two are still married? If you divorce, does property get split 3 ways? Or does it get split based on the time in the relationship? Does every member of a poly marriage have conjugal rights to every other member? What if one person wanted to add a third, but the other didn't?

We have no precedent for any of this. Nor any laws to cover it. And the issues get more wildly complicated the larger the number of participants grow.

We have answers for every such question in two person marriage. And all the same rules apply for gays as apply for straights. There need be no adjustment to any law save that you stop excluding gays.

Poly marriage would require massive changes to our laws, and all new precedent for hundreds of unresolved legal issues that our law has no tools to resolve.

It's not something you have to study. It's a simple question based on equality. If a brother and sister, both of whom are consenting adults, want to marry, should they have the same equality you demand for same sex couples under the 14th amendment. If you truly support equality, you can answer it.

I notice that you seem to have plenty of excuses for not being willing to support equality. Hypocrite.

Notice that you don't actually disagree with anything I've said regarding polygamy. Or how we don't have the laws to regulate it.

Remember that.

All I need to know is that you tout equality of marriage for same sex couples then find all sorts of excuses to deny it to other types of marriages. Why should their be laws regulating polygamous marriages. You oppose any related to same sex marriages.

Where has he said he opposes any related to same sex marriages?

i mean it just appears that you are lying.

But maybe I missed where Skylar said said he was opposed to any related to same sex marriages.

Skylar says he has no opinion on it and states he doesn't know enough about it to discuss it. Basically, he's the same type hypocrite you are. You don't have to know the details about the specific type of marriage. All he has to know is he claims equality of marriage for two consenting adults. If he supports equality for two consenting same sex adults yet doesn't support equality for two consenting siblings, he's a hypocrite. It centers around the claim of equality not a specific knowledge of the details of the type of marriage. He's either for equality of marriage as he claims for same sex or he's for a faggot agenda. Maybe the two of you could get together and cornhole each other. You seem to think it's normal.

 

[SwimExpert]

I dont know if I can post a more simple explanation of why Alabama has the legal authority and jurisdiction to protect the set definition of the institution of marriage.

Until they are over-ruled by the SCOTUS in a few months.

Roy Moore is achin' for another dose of the National Guard in Alabama.

 

[James Everett]

No kidding. Fed judges aka tyrants in robes really should stop trying to dictate their opinions to the states.

Yeah, yeah! Stand up for the constitution! The constitution says that federal law is supreme to state law. The federal judges should stop telling states how the federal constitution works in order to.....

Wait, no....turns out you're a fucking idiot.

Swim Expert,
There is no reason to use insults. You misunderstand the Supremacy clause. The Supremacy clause is limited to the specifically enumerated powers granted to the States in union, all other powers are retained by each State individually. By the adoption of the Constitution, the States jointly surrendered some 17 specific and well defined powers to the federal Congress, which related strictly to external affairs of the States. There is NO power granting jurisdiction over the set legal definition of marriage within a State.
YOUR SCOTUS rendered the opinion in....
New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 102 (1837), that......
" A State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a State, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of legislation which it may deem to be conducive to these ends; where the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered or restrained, in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may, perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a State is complete, unqualified and exclusive," 36 U.S., at 139.

 

[SwimExpert]

Do you support Colorado's legalization of marijuana?

Yes I do, however that has nothing to do with this.

You heard me correctly, it has nothing to do with this.

No, that marijuana is prohibited by federal statute does not make the issue have anything to do with this. They are entirely different circumstances. They are entirely different legal scenarios. Colorado is a case of state statute has removed a barrier that still exists in federal statute. That is entirely different than a state enforcing a law that has been found unconstitutional by the federal judiciary.

There will be no further discussion on this matter. If you cannot understand all this, then you a fucking idiot unworthy of my time.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

I've never said either way about brother/sister. .

Okay I will restate it- you said you would support a mixed race marriage as long as one is male and one is female.

Would you support a brother sister marriage where one is male and one is female?

From a personal standpoint, no. However, the argument from you same sex supporters isn't from a personal standpoint. The ones of you that argue marriage should be allowed for two consenting adults based on the concept of equality are the same ones, when asked about a brother/sister marriage, to deny the concept of equality you claim exists. It's easy to tell you aren't about equality but about a faggot agenda. If you're not willing to apply the concept of equality you says exists to other types of marriages involving consenting adults, it makes you a hypocrite.

It's easy to tell you're hateful, ignorant, and wrong.

Comparing same-sex couples to siblings fails as both a false comparison fallacy and a slippery slope fallacy – so your 'argument' is dead from the outset.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, they can enter into marriage contracts because the law is written to accommodate two consenting adult partners who are not related.

Siblings are not eligible to enter into marriage contracts because the law isn't written to accommodate such a union; indeed, no law exists to accommodate such a union.

Consequently, there's no 'hypocrisy' on the part of those who advocate for gay Americans being afforded equal protection of the law, as required by the 14th Amendment.

 

[Conservative65]

Do you support Colorado's legalization of marijuana?

Yes I do, however that has nothing to do with this.

You heard me correctly, it has nothing to do with this.

No, that marijuana is prohibited by federal statute does not make the issue have anything to do with this. They are entirely different circumstances. They are entirely different legal scenarios. Colorado is a case of state statute has removed a barrier that still exists in federal statute. That is entirely different than a state enforcing a law that has been found unconstitutional by the federal judiciary.

There will be no further discussion on this matter. If you cannot understand all this, then you a fucking idiot unworthy of my time.

They are not different when your argument is that federal law trumps state law. I'm not surprised you can't understand how you contradict yourself. Are you saying federal law doesn't make marijuana illegal?

 

[Conservative65]

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

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

I've never said either way about brother/sister. .

Okay I will restate it- you said you would support a mixed race marriage as long as one is male and one is female.

Would you support a brother sister marriage where one is male and one is female?

From a personal standpoint, no. However, the argument from you same sex supporters isn't from a personal standpoint. The ones of you that argue marriage should be allowed for two consenting adults based on the concept of equality are the same ones, when asked about a brother/sister marriage, to deny the concept of equality you claim exists. It's easy to tell you aren't about equality but about a faggot agenda. If you're not willing to apply the concept of equality you says exists to other types of marriages involving consenting adults, it makes you a hypocrite.

It's easy to tell you're hateful, ignorant, and wrong.

Comparing same-sex couples to siblings fails as both a false comparison fallacy and a slippery slope fallacy – so your 'argument' is dead from the outset.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, they can enter into marriage contracts because the law is written to accommodate two consenting adult partners who are not related.

Siblings are not eligible to enter into marriage contracts because the law isn't written to accommodate such a union; indeed, no law exists to accommodate such a union.

Consequently, there's no 'hypocrisy' on the part of those who advocate for gay Americans being afforded equal protection of the law, as required by the 14th Amendment.

The hypocrisy comes in when those who support same sex marriage using equal protection of the laws of the 14th Amendment deny that same equality to other types of marriages that meet the same conditions for which they support homos marrying. I know you can't understand something that simple. Anyone that thinks two people of the same sex being attracted is normal is a born loser. Run along and support your faggot loving agenda somewhere else freak.

 

[Conservative65]

Do you support Colorado's legalization of marijuana?

Yes I do, however that has nothing to do with this.

You heard me correctly, it has nothing to do with this.

No, that marijuana is prohibited by federal statute does not make the issue have anything to do with this. They are entirely different circumstances. They are entirely different legal scenarios. Colorado is a case of state statute has removed a barrier that still exists in federal statute. That is entirely different than a state enforcing a law that has been found unconstitutional by the federal judiciary.

There will be no further discussion on this matter. If you cannot understand all this, then you a fucking idiot unworthy of my time.

I see, a coward that runs when confronted with the truth. If you can't understand that, you're not worthy of the time as cowards deserve the same fate as traitors.