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

[Syriusly]

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.

r he's for a faggot agenda. l.

f*ggot....n*gger...k*ke...c*nt......all the same kinds of words used by bigots for the same reason.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Federal law does trump state law.

Marijuana is still illegal according to the federal government- and the Feds could be arresting people in Colorado for pot growing any time they want to.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the judiciary or how Federal judges have the power to determine whether a state law is constitutional or not.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Run along and support your faggot loving agenda somewhere else freak.

Anyone who uses the term 'f*ggot' is no different from the racists who call blacks n*ggers or Jews k*kes or the misanthropes who call women c*nts.

Run along and join up with your bigot pals you pathetic POS.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Yep- Alabama- which didn't legalize mixed race marriages until 2000- 23 years after the Supreme Court said that State laws against mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.

Alabama- always fighting the good fight.

FAIL

No comparison

-Geaux

Who is comparing anything?

I am just stating the facts:

Yep- Alabama- which didn't legalize mixed race marriages until 2000- 23 years after the Supreme Court said that State laws against mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.

Alabama- always fighting the good fight

In this case, indeed they are

-Geaux

I am sure Alabamans always feel like they are fighting the good fight- just like before

Yep- Alabama- which didn't legalize mixed race marriages until 2000- 23 years after the Supreme Court said that State laws against mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.

Alabama- always fighting the good fight

Again, you keep comparing homosexual marriage to the civil rights movement. Again, no comparison

-Geaux

I keep pointing out the facts- the facts which you want to ignore.

I am sure Alabamans always feel like they are fighting the good fight- just like before

Yep- Alabama- which didn't legalize mixed race marriages until 2000- 23 years after the Supreme Court said that State laws against mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.

Alabama- always fighting the good fight

 

[Syriusly]

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.

If a man and woman are of mixed race- both of whom are consenting adults- should they be allowed to marry?
If a man and woman, brother and sister- both of whom are consenting adults- should they be allowed to marry?

If you truly support equality you should be able to answer it.

Your age of consent laws are discriminatory against NAMBLA. Who are you to say they're love is wrong? Why do you oppose equality?

If a man and woman are of mixed race- both of whom are consenting adults- should they be allowed to marry?
If a man and woman, brother and sister- both of whom are consenting adults- should they be allowed to marry?

If you truly support equality you should be able to answer it.

Your "consenting adults" criteria is an arbitrary rule. Ultimately you're going to come face to face with the fact that if gays can redefine marriage, anyone can, because if any group can claim they're being discriminated against, then they can insert themselves into the civil rights movement. You don't get to impose homo marriage on the basis of discrimination laws and then pull up the ladder so nobody else can follow you.

Ultimately your going to come face to face with the fact that if mixed race couples can redefine marriage, anyone can, because if a group can claim they are discriminated against, then they can insert themselves into the civil rights movement.

You don't get to impose mixed race marriage on the basis of discrimination laws and then pull up the ladder so nobody else can follow you.

 

[Syriusly]

By your argument, the 14th Amendment supports the rights of NAMBLA. If you take it to mean, "you shall not make laws that discriminate on ANY basis," then ultimately any group can pursue equal treatment under the law. If you're going to broaden the 14th Amendment beyond those classes of people it specifies, you can't arbitrarily draw the line at gay people and insist it goes no further.

They're not even TRYING to pretend to do so anymore.

A generation ago, they flatly denied it ... but today, not so much.

All over this site, the ANSA Cult is stating that there's no reason polygamists shouldn't be allowed to marry... we have them on record claiming that the incest is no big deal to them, as long as they're consenting adults. "The means to 'legally consent' is the scope of their concern for Adult's pursuing children for sexual gratification.

As has been noted MANY times... what we're dealing with here, is EVIL!

And no mind is more suitable for evil than the DISORDERED MIND and HOW ODD is it, that the Homosexual; deniers of ANY sort of mental deviancy... are the purveyors of precisely the same crap that EVIL is known for FAR AND WIDE!?

Now what CAN we make of THAT?

Depravity, like water, is always seeking lower ground.

Well you are an expert on depravity.

Actually I am. That's a benefit of having read the Bible cover to cover over and over again since I was a wee lad. I'm an "expert" on the discernment of good and evil.

Nobody knows depravity like you do.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And in more than 30 states, Canada and multiple countries in Europe- it is also the joining of one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.

Progress is a lovely thing.

Boy lovers everywhere are thanking you for their soon to come day in court. Their perversion will receive the same protection as yours.

I am sure you believe that 'boy lovers' are thanking the Lovings for being the first to open the door to your slippery slope to 'boy love'.

By your logic, your perversion- a mixed race marriage- was the start of the slippery slope to hell.

Wrong. LVV was about race, which the Constitution addresses. No, you perverts are the first to make lifestyle choice and sexual deviancy a protected status. They will definitely be benefiting from your perversion, not from LVV.

According to the proud citizens of Alabama- and Virginia- what the Lovings had was perverted- to them your marriage would have been as 'perverted' as same gender marriage.

Your slippery slope argument starts with the Lovings daring to love each other.

Even though bigots said their love was perverted.

Wrong. Insisting that sexual perversion is a protected class was novel. There is no precedent. It has NOTHING to do with race.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

By your argument, the 14th Amendment supports the rights of NAMBLA. If you take it to mean, "you shall not make laws that discriminate on ANY basis," then ultimately any group can pursue equal treatment under the law. If you're going to broaden the 14th Amendment beyond those classes of people it specifies, you can't arbitrarily draw the line at gay people and insist it goes no further.

They're not even TRYING to pretend to do so anymore.

A generation ago, they flatly denied it ... but today, not so much.

All over this site, the ANSA Cult is stating that there's no reason polygamists shouldn't be allowed to marry... we have them on record claiming that the incest is no big deal to them, as long as they're consenting adults. "The means to 'legally consent' is the scope of their concern for Adult's pursuing children for sexual gratification.

As has been noted MANY times... what we're dealing with here, is EVIL!

And no mind is more suitable for evil than the DISORDERED MIND and HOW ODD is it, that the Homosexual; deniers of ANY sort of mental deviancy... are the purveyors of precisely the same crap that EVIL is known for FAR AND WIDE!?

Now what CAN we make of THAT?

Depravity, like water, is always seeking lower ground.

Well you are an expert on depravity.

Actually I am. That's a benefit of having read the Bible cover to cover over and over again since I was a wee lad. I'm an "expert" on the discernment of good and evil.

Nobody knows depravity like you do.

You said that already.

 

[Syriusly]

Again, you keep comparing homosexual marriage to civil rights movement. Again, no comparison

-Geaux

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And in more than 30 states, Canada and multiple countries in Europe- it is also the joining of one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.

Progress is a lovely thing.

Boy lovers everywhere are thanking you for their soon to come day in court. Their perversion will receive the same protection as yours.

I am sure you believe that 'boy lovers' are thanking the Lovings for being the first to open the door to your slippery slope to 'boy love'.

By your logic, your perversion- a mixed race marriage- was the start of the slippery slope to hell.

Wrong. LVV was about race, which the Constitution addresses. No, you perverts are the first to make lifestyle choice and sexual deviancy a protected status. They will definitely be benefiting from your perversion, not from LVV.

The Constitution doesn't address race directly at all.

This is the uncomfortable fact that you bigots don't want to admit.

Every slippery slope argument strawman you throw out against homosexual marriage- if it were true- would also apply to Loving v. Virginia.

You and your wife are every much perverts to those bigots who opposed mixed race marriage as you bigots think homosexuals are.

Welcome to the slippery slope- if it is real- then your wife and you are going to be responsible for all of the 'boy lovin' that you predict.

 

[Syriusly]

And in more than 30 states, Canada and multiple countries in Europe- it is also the joining of one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.

Progress is a lovely thing.

Boy lovers everywhere are thanking you for their soon to come day in court. Their perversion will receive the same protection as yours.

I am sure you believe that 'boy lovers' are thanking the Lovings for being the first to open the door to your slippery slope to 'boy love'.

By your logic, your perversion- a mixed race marriage- was the start of the slippery slope to hell.

Wrong. LVV was about race, which the Constitution addresses. No, you perverts are the first to make lifestyle choice and sexual deviancy a protected status. They will definitely be benefiting from your perversion, not from LVV.

According to the proud citizens of Alabama- and Virginia- what the Lovings had was perverted- to them your marriage would have been as 'perverted' as same gender marriage.

Your slippery slope argument starts with the Lovings daring to love each other.

Even though bigots said their love was perverted.

Wrong. Insisting that sexual perversion is a protected class was novel. There is no precedent. It has NOTHING to do with race.

The slippery slope doesn't care about 'race'.

Homosexuality has nothing to do with polygamy or incest or sex with underage minors- yet you keep insisting that that slippery slope exists.

According to the proud citizens of Alabama- and Virginia- what the Lovings had was perverted- to them your marriage would have been as 'perverted' as same gender marriage.

Your slippery slope argument starts with the Lovings daring to love each other.

Even though bigots said their love was perverted.

If the slippery slope is real- then you are as much a part of the problem as Bob and Bill getting married.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The Constitution doesn't address race directly at all.

Wrong, Tweedle-dumbass. Read the 15th Amendment. No wonder you suck at this.

 

[Syriusly]

The Constitution doesn't address race directly at all.

Wrong, Tweedle-dumbass. Read the 15th Amendment. No wonder you suck at this.

LOL- you are right- I was wrong.

Shouldn't have had that second glass of red wine.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

What I should have said is that the Constitution does not prohibit legal discrimination based upon race.

What the Constitution- specifically the 14th Amendment- says- is

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

And that says nothing about race. And the 15th Amendment is only in regards to voting- not really an issue when it comes to marriage law.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The Constitution doesn't address race directly at all.

Wrong, Tweedle-dumbass. Read the 15th Amendment. No wonder you suck at this.

LOL- you are right- I was wrong.

Shouldn't have had that second glass of red wine.

Oh damn. Now I feel like the asshole for being so hard on you over a simple mistake. Good play.

 

[Geaux4it]

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And in more than 30 states, Canada and multiple countries in Europe- it is also the joining of one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.

Progress is a lovely thing.

Boy lovers everywhere are thanking you for their soon to come day in court. Their perversion will receive the same protection as yours.

I am sure you believe that 'boy lovers' are thanking the Lovings for being the first to open the door to your slippery slope to 'boy love'.

By your logic, your perversion- a mixed race marriage- was the start of the slippery slope to hell.

Wrong. LVV was about race, which the Constitution addresses. No, you perverts are the first to make lifestyle choice and sexual deviancy a protected status. They will definitely be benefiting from your perversion, not from LVV.

The Constitution doesn't address race directly at all.

This is the uncomfortable fact that you bigots don't want to admit.

Every slippery slope argument strawman you throw out against homosexual marriage- if it were true- would also apply to Loving v. Virginia.

You and your wife are every much perverts to those bigots who opposed mixed race marriage as you bigots think homosexuals are.

Welcome to the slippery slope- if it is real- then your wife and you are going to be responsible for all of the 'boy lovin' that you predict.

The homosexuals perception has no credibility. Our country

 

[Geaux4it]

The Constitution doesn't address race directly at all.

Wrong, Tweedle-dumbass. Read the 15th Amendment. No wonder you suck at this.

LOL- you are right- I was wrong.

Shouldn't have had that second glass of red wine.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

What I should have said is that the Constitution does not prohibit legal discrimination based upon race.

What the Constitution- specifically the 14th Amendment- says- is

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

And that says nothing about race. And the 15th Amendment is only in regards to voting- not really an issue when it comes to marriage law.

Oh, so illegal alien criminals aka... felon fags, need not apply for marriage?

-Geaux

 

[Seawytch]

The Constitution doesn't address race directly at all.

Wrong, Tweedle-dumbass. Read the 15th Amendment. No wonder you suck at this.

LOL- you are right- I was wrong.

Shouldn't have had that second glass of red wine.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

What I should have said is that the Constitution does not prohibit legal discrimination based upon race.

What the Constitution- specifically the 14th Amendment- says- is

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

And that says nothing about race. And the 15th Amendment is only in regards to voting- not really an issue when it comes to marriage law.

Oh, so illegal alien criminals aka... felon fags, need not apply for marriage?

-Geaux

Funny you should mention felons, bigot. There was actually a Supreme Court case about marriage and the incarcerated. The case was Turner v Safley and it was one of the cases where the SCOTUS declared marriage a fundamental right. A right you cannot deny a convicted murderer on death row.

A right you cannot deny non familial consenting adult gay and lesbian couples.

 

[Seawytch]

Again, you keep comparing homosexual marriage to civil rights movement. Again, no comparison

-Geaux

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And in more than 30 states, Canada and multiple countries in Europe- it is also the joining of one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.

Progress is a lovely thing.

Boy lovers everywhere are thanking you for their soon to come day in court. Their perversion will receive the same protection as yours.

I am sure you believe that 'boy lovers' are thanking the Lovings for being the first to open the door to your slippery slope to 'boy love'.

By your logic, your perversion- a mixed race marriage- was the start of the slippery slope to hell.

Wrong. LVV was about race, which the Constitution addresses. No, you perverts are the first to make lifestyle choice and sexual deviancy a protected status. They will definitely be benefiting from your perversion, not from LVV.

The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment does not specify race. Marriage equality cases will not be decided by the 15th Amendment.

 

[Geaux4it]

The Constitution doesn't address race directly at all.

Wrong, Tweedle-dumbass. Read the 15th Amendment. No wonder you suck at this.

LOL- you are right- I was wrong.

Shouldn't have had that second glass of red wine.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

What I should have said is that the Constitution does not prohibit legal discrimination based upon race.

What the Constitution- specifically the 14th Amendment- says- is

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

And that says nothing about race. And the 15th Amendment is only in regards to voting- not really an issue when it comes to marriage law.

Oh, so illegal alien criminals aka... felon fags, need not apply for marriage?

-Geaux

Funny you should mention felons, bigot. There was actually a Supreme Court case about marriage and the incarcerated. The case was Turner v Safley and it was one of the cases where the SCOTUS declared marriage a fundamental right. A right you cannot deny a convicted murderer on death row.

A right you cannot deny non familial consenting adult gay and lesbian couples.

Sure they can....if they're not US citizens

-Geaux

 

[Seawytch]

The Constitution doesn't address race directly at all.

Wrong, Tweedle-dumbass. Read the 15th Amendment. No wonder you suck at this.

LOL- you are right- I was wrong.

Shouldn't have had that second glass of red wine.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

What I should have said is that the Constitution does not prohibit legal discrimination based upon race.

What the Constitution- specifically the 14th Amendment- says- is

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

And that says nothing about race. And the 15th Amendment is only in regards to voting- not really an issue when it comes to marriage law.

Oh, so illegal alien criminals aka... felon fags, need not apply for marriage?

-Geaux

Funny you should mention felons, bigot. There was actually a Supreme Court case about marriage and the incarcerated. The case was Turner v Safley and it was one of the cases where the SCOTUS declared marriage a fundamental right. A right you cannot deny a convicted murderer on death row.

A right you cannot deny non familial consenting adult gay and lesbian couples.

Sure they can....if they're not US citizens

-Geaux

I doubt even that would hold true. A prison trying to prevent a non citizen that is incarcerated from marrying would find itself afoul of the law I'm sure.

 

[Geaux4it]

Wrong, Tweedle-dumbass. Read the 15th Amendment. No wonder you suck at this.

LOL- you are right- I was wrong.

Shouldn't have had that second glass of red wine.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

What I should have said is that the Constitution does not prohibit legal discrimination based upon race.

What the Constitution- specifically the 14th Amendment- says- is

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

And that says nothing about race. And the 15th Amendment is only in regards to voting- not really an issue when it comes to marriage law.

Oh, so illegal alien criminals aka... felon fags, need not apply for marriage?

-Geaux

Funny you should mention felons, bigot. There was actually a Supreme Court case about marriage and the incarcerated. The case was Turner v Safley and it was one of the cases where the SCOTUS declared marriage a fundamental right. A right you cannot deny a convicted murderer on death row.

A right you cannot deny non familial consenting adult gay and lesbian couples.

Sure they can....if they're not US citizens

-Geaux

I doubt even that would hold true. A prison trying to prevent a non citizen that is incarcerated from marrying would find itself afoul of the law I'm sure.

read the above and you will find this

citizens of the United States;

So the 14th does not apply

-Geaux