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

[Syriusly]

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.

That is interesting considering a convicted felon may be denied the right to vote or posses a firearm even after he is released from prison, yet while in prison may marry.

I have never understood why convicted felons have their right to vote taken away, nor do I understand how States can justify it.

In order to justify denying a person a right, a State must be able to provide a compelling State interest that is accomplished by denying that right. I don't know the court cases regarding ex-felons and voting, or ex-felons and gun ownership but I suspect that the States have made a sufficient argument that there is a rational safety basis for denying ex-felons gun ownership- but voting? I can't think of any state interest that is achieved by denying ex-felons the vote.

What you think really doesn't matter. What a State can do does matter. Since States can deny that right to convicted felons, you have two options. Get over it or fuck off.

What you think doesn't matter either. I was expressing my thoughts

So- fuck off.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, keep comparing sexual perversion to race. I'm sure somebody out there will believe there's a connection.

Add in that "gay marriage" harms 50% of the kids i

How does gay marriage harm 50% of kids?

Specifically.

What children?

Homosexuals are parenting children right now- unmarried.

How does those parents marrying harm any children?

Silhouette was mistaken. He should have said 100%. It's a tragedy when a child is deprived of a father or a mother through death, imprisonmnent or other unfortunate vicissitude, but to deliberately set up a situation that excludes a father or a mother is intentional cruelty. Same sex couples who suck an innocent child into their fantasy are as immoral as mothers who get knocked up by somebody who they will later describe as "out of the picture" and then have to answer painful questions their children ask later. "Why don't I have a daddy?" These amoral assholes think that they were the sun, moon, and stars for their children and are offended when they find out they're not enough. Same sex couples who victimize children at the very least are guilty of the same. Then there's the exposure to a sexually depraved lifestyle......

And yet study after study to look at the health of children of same sex parents show they are fine.

And of course, gays and lesbians are having kids anyway. Denying these parents marriage doesn't mean that their children magically have opposite sex parents. All it means is that they can never have married parents.

How does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

How does teaching a child that they can have two daddies or two mommies help children? It doesn't. It teaches them that something absolutely abnormal is OK.

And of course, gays and lesbians are having kids anyway. Denying these parents marriage doesn't mean that their children magically have opposite sex parents. All it means is that they can never have married parents.

How does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

 

[Syriusly]

That's your definition.

You can send your letter of thanks to the United States Supreme Court. Before they ruled that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the constitution race did indeed have something to do with it.

Because "separate but equal" has always been so equal....

Thank you for admitting that the "right to marry" is based on a Supreme Court opinion, not the Constitution. We could start a movement of awareness across this country, you and I.

Actually the 'right to marry' is based upon the Supreme Court's multiple interpretation of rights that predate the Constitution- and the Constitution


Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

In Meyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

How are you refuting my devastatingly accurate observation that the "right to marry" is based on other Supreme Court opinions, not on the Constitution?

That's right. You aren't.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you- hint: the 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution

In Meyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

Hint: So is the 10th which gives STATES the ability to make laws regarding marriage since the Constitution gives no such specific power to the federal government. Seems you either forgot that one or like most of your lowlife kind ignore it.

I can lead a donkey to water, but I can't make you read.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you- hint: the 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution

In Meyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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

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.

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

Yeah, and Boston Massachusetts thought they were fighting the good fight when long after schools in Alabama were desegregated Boston was still fighting to prevent it there, Beating black children , spitting on them and throwing bricks through the school bus windows screaming GO HOME NI%$#R.....

Well thanks for that information about Boston.

Meanwhile:

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

We need more States like Alabama.

Meanwhile:

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]

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.

Interesting that you complained about that other person for language then your last words were to call him/her a POS. Kind of hypocritical, don't you think?

No.

Didn't think you would admit your hypocrisy. I know people like you don't think you are hypocrites. That would be wrong but you can continue to be a fool if you want. You support a bunch of abnormal faggots marrying and have proven that already.

I support the right of adults who are of the same gender to marry.

You support calling people f*ggots- just like racists call people they don't approve of n*ggers.....and k*kes....and c*nts.....

You are the same.

 

[TimothysAlaska]

For one, these children exist whether their parents are allowed to marry each other or not. For another, every major medical and child welfare organization support gays marrying FOR the children. It is in not allowing the parents of these children to marry that is harmful.

You want to know what my kids "wonder" about? Why none of their friends parents are still married to each other like THEIR parents are.

And what about the children of incest and polygamy? Would you disenfranchise them also? What makes your cult so special that it doesn't include the children of these unfortunate situations also?

And of single parents? Perhaps they choose to be monosexual? Don't their children have rights as well?

This isn't about "the rights of just kids caught up in gay lifestyles". This is about the rights of ALL children and what society (their state and discreet community) deems best for their formative environment. Of course it sucks to be a child of a single parent, a polygamist, a brother and sister or a homosexual. But that doesn't mean we change the definition of marriage to include anything under the sun to the collective detriment to children in untold numbers into the future.

Umm children are minors that are in custody of the parents, the parents make decisions for their children. As long as the child is not abused or hurt, if they are then the state takes control of the child in which the state makes decisions for the child, a child has no rights but those given to them by the parents, until they reach adulthood. What you say is nonsense, so the community makes decisions for the child and the parents have no rights? Or that the children are competent enough to have rights to make their own decisions?

Having gays be married is not saying incest should be legal, that is an idiotic leap.

"This is about the rights of ALL children and what society (their state and discreet community) deems best for their formative environment"

Again this is so wrong parents have rights not the state or community until the child is a ward of the state for protection from abuse or in cases of divorce, once a divorce happens the parental rights are diminished to the authority of the courts on what the courts/state deems best for the child.


Face it you want total control of every body's children to force them to your way of thinking of what is best for them. It does not work that way in the United States bud! Take care of your own kid live your own life and let others do the same!

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Interesting that you complained about that other person for language then your last words were to call him/her a POS. Kind of hypocritical, don't you think?

No.

Didn't think you would admit your hypocrisy. I know people like you don't think you are hypocrites. That would be wrong but you can continue to be a fool if you want. You support a bunch of abnormal faggots marrying and have proven that already.

I support the right of adults who are of the same gender to marry.

You support calling people f*ggots- just like racists call people they don't approve of n*ggers.....and k*kes....and c*nts.....

You are the same.

I'm trying to figure out the racial aspect of calling someone a c*nt. Is there some racist insult I'm unaware of that looks just like the word with a u?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Interesting that you complained about that other person for language then your last words were to call him/her a POS. Kind of hypocritical, don't you think?

No.

Didn't think you would admit your hypocrisy. I know people like you don't think you are hypocrites. That would be wrong but you can continue to be a fool if you want. You support a bunch of abnormal faggots marrying and have proven that already.

I support the right of adults who are of the same gender to marry.

You support calling people f*ggots- just like racists call people they don't approve of n*ggers.....and k*kes....and c*nts.....

You are the same.

I'm trying to figure out the racial aspect of calling someone a c*nt. Is there some racist insult I'm unaware of that looks just like the word with a u?

LOL....how about I revise that?

He supports calling people f*ggots- just like racists and misogynists call people they don't approve of n*ggers.....and k*kes....and c*nts.....

 

[Montrovant]

Interesting that you complained about that other person for language then your last words were to call him/her a POS. Kind of hypocritical, don't you think?

No.

Didn't think you would admit your hypocrisy. I know people like you don't think you are hypocrites. That would be wrong but you can continue to be a fool if you want. You support a bunch of abnormal faggots marrying and have proven that already.

I support the right of adults who are of the same gender to marry.

You support calling people f*ggots- just like racists call people they don't approve of n*ggers.....and k*kes....and c*nts.....

You are the same.

I'm trying to figure out the racial aspect of calling someone a c*nt. Is there some racist insult I'm unaware of that looks just like the word with a u?

LOL....how about I revise that?

He supports calling people f*ggots- just like racists and misogynists call people they don't approve of n*ggers.....and k*kes....and c*nts.....

 

[Silhouette]

"Conservative" is a made up poster to fight with Syriusly in order to kill threads/pages of a topic that the cult of LGBTs are worried about...like this one...

 

[Silhouette]

Alabama rightly asserted the 56 times in Windsor that the Court avered that states have a Constitutional right to define the word "marriage", the base structure of it. For example, New Hampshire allows 13 year olds to marry while no other state does..

 

[Skylar]

"Conservative" is a made up poster to fight with Syriusly in order to kill threads/pages of a topic that the cult of LGBTs are worried about...like this one...

Another fucking conspiracy, Silo?

Ugh.

 

[Skylar]

Alabama rightly asserted the 56 times in Windsor that the Court avered that states have a Constitutional right to define the word "marriage", the base structure of it. For example, New Hampshire allows 13 year olds to marry while no other state does..

Alabama made the same mistake that you did. They never understood the Windsor ruling, which established this hierarchy:

1) Constitutional Guarantees

2) State marriage laws

3) Federal Marriage laws.

Remember that order. Its why you lost.

 

[SwimExpert]

Which you take to mean we can make up any rights we want

False. I take it to mean that those fundamental rights which were understood to exist at the time the constitution was written continued to be held by the people afterward, regardless of the enumeration of rights in the constitution. For example, the constitution enumerates the right to bear arms. It does not enumerate a right to defend one's self with lethal force. It does not enumerate a right to life at all. But the right to life, and subsequently to self defense, was understood to be a fundamental right at the time. Thus, is retained by the people, regardless of the enumeration of other rights.

Similarly, the right to marry is a fundamental right, which existed before the constitution, and subsequently is retained after the constitution was written.

 

[rcfieldz]

Can states with counties in their states still have "dry" counties? Where alcohol is not sold? Then why not SAY NO TO GAY AND LESBIAN MARRIAGES be ok.?

 

[mdk]

"Conservative" is a made up poster to fight with Syriusly in order to kill threads/pages of a topic that the cult of LGBTs are worried about...like this one...

Good lord, your desperation knows no bounds. Everybody is "in on it" but you.

 

[Skylar]

"Conservative" is a made up poster to fight with Syriusly in order to kill threads/pages of a topic that the cult of LGBTs are worried about...like this one...

Good lord, your desperation knows no bounds. Everybody is "in on it" but you.

This is the same guy that insists that the entire federal judiciary is wrong. And he must be right.

So don't expect much restrain on the drama or the desperation.

 

[Silhouette]

Can states with counties in their states still have "dry" counties? Where alcohol is not sold? Then why not SAY NO TO GAY AND LESBIAN MARRIAGES be ok.?

It is OK. Windsor said so. That is the current law, retroactively Found to be so to the starting of the country as Windsor Defined. If the law is overturned and it becomes a federal mandate, then the states cannot decide for themselves. Currently they can. And that is exactly what Alabama is doing.

 

[Skylar]

Can states with counties in their states still have "dry" counties? Where alcohol is not sold? Then why not SAY NO TO GAY AND LESBIAN MARRIAGES be ok.?

Two reasons. One, to the best of my knowledge, there's no constitutional right to alcohol. Second, no one in the county have alcohol. If they said no Jews in that county could have alcohol, or no Mexicans could have alcohol....they'd almost certainly run into equal protection problems.

Alabama isn't saying that no one can get married. They're saying that gays can't.

 

[Skylar]

Can states with counties in their states still have "dry" counties? Where alcohol is not sold? Then why not SAY NO TO GAY AND LESBIAN MARRIAGES be ok.?

It is OK. Windsor said so.

Windsor didn't say a thing about dry counties. And it never even mentioned gay marriage bans. Let alone authorized them as constitutional.

You hallucinated all of that. And the courts aren't bound to the delusions you feed to yourself so that you feel better.

That is the current law, retroactively Found to be so to the starting of the country as Windsor Defined.

That's your current hallucination. Back in reality, Windsor never even mentions same sex marriage bans.

If the law is overturned and it becomes a federal mandate, then the states cannot decide for themselves. Currently they can. And that is exactly what Alabama is doing.

Ah, but you forget/intentionally omit the same part of the Windsor ruling every time. Let me refresh your memory.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

Windsor v. US

Constitutional guarantees. Your nemesis. The part of the Windsor ruling you never cite, and always try and pretend doesn't exist. Despite the fact that every federal ruling that overturned gay marriage bans did so on the basis of the violation of those very constitutional guarantees.

Windsor establishes this hierarchy:

1) Constitutional Guarantees

2) State marriage laws

3) Federal marriage laws

You can pretend that constitutional guarantees don't exist. But the courts aren't obligated to pretend with you.