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

[rcfieldz]

Skylar is reaching into the bag of imaginary tricks. Facts are facts.

 

[SwimExpert]

Sarcasm doesn't help your position. The definition of a marriage is simply defined as "A contract between a man and a woman.

That's your definition.

Race, nor color have anything to do with it

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.

Stick to the fight for equality in the right to contract a civil union.

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.

Yes, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law. Marriage is a purely private Act that is Only commuted public for full faith and credit purposes.

State jurisdiction over marriage should be considered legal fiction, and void from Inception.

Nonsense. The right of states to regulate marriage is implicit in the 10th Amendment. What's fiction is the insanely stupid idea that marriage is "purely private act". It's a social institution that bears on our laws, our courts, inheritance, and other legal rights. So since it is an institution that requires regulation for its legal facets and the Constitution doesn't grant that power to the federal government, by default it belongs to the states.

But by all means, keep flaunting your "ignorance of the law".

Except that marriage doesn't require regulation. Marriage existed for thousands of years without regulation. Marriage has existed for over 4000 years in human society, but government involvement only spans the past 500 years. And even to this day, common law marriage (the simple act of choosing to live together as a married couple, even without going through the formal legal process) continues to be nearly universally recognized.

But please, tell me more about my ignorance. I'm only an ordained wedding officiant. I know nothing about the subject.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

CONSERVATIVE65 SAID:

"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."

The issue before the Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of measures seeking to deny same-sex couples their due process and equal protection rights has nothing to do with the 10th Amendment. Indeed, the issue before the Court has nothing to do with Federal laws, acts of Congress, or 'state's rights.'

The issue concerns the 14th Amendment's requirement that American citizens who happen to reside within the states be afforded equal protection of (equal access to) the laws of each state, including a state's marriage law.

Because same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts in accordance with each state's marriage law, to seek to prohibit same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in is un-Constitutional.

Such measures are devoid of a rational basis, have no objective, documented evidence in support of such prohibitions, and pursue no proper legislative end – in fact, these measures seek only to make gay American different from everyone else. “This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” Romer v. Evans (1996)

 

[rcfieldz]

Just more Devil may care and you don't answers from people who want to argue the point of linguistics and human behavior over votes to gain or keep a job in politics.

 

[Skylar]

Just more Devil may care and you don't answers from people who want to argue the point of linguistics and human behavior over votes to gain or keep a job in politics.

The linguistic argument is that the meaning of words never changes....which is obvious idiocy. Or that legal definitions can't change...which is obvious idiocy.

Both are contradicted by copious amounts of historical examples of changes.

 

[SwimExpert]

Sarcasm doesn't help your position. The definition of a marriage is simply defined as "A contract between a man and a woman.

That's your definition.

Race, nor color have anything to do with it

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.

Stick to the fight for equality in the right to contract a civil union.

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

No, its not my definition, it is the set definition as far back as 1755, which is the oldest printed English dictionary that I have been able to obtain, or know exists.
As for thanking YOUR SCOTUS, I give no thanks or respect to that body, once I became aware of its contradictory rendered opinions, and that some were rendered with based on assumptions, rather than YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, as well as basing opinions on a specific Article within the Articles of Confederation to suit its political desires, while ignoring the other Articles, as if one still holds authority while the rest do not. No I thank that body of politically charged appointees for nothing, but offer condemnation for their rebellion to that which they swear to uphold.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

CONSERVATIVE65 SAID:

“Where does that right come from? Article, section, and clause please. I know I have a right to free speech because I can point to it in the Constitution. I know I have a right to own guns because I can point to it in the Constitution. I'm yet to see such a right to marriage in the Constitution. Please help me find it.”

Where in the Constitution does it state your freedom of speech does not allow you to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, because in fact you may not; where in the Constitution does it state there is an individual right to own a handgun pursuant to the right of self-defense.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law. “But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

 

[Silhouette]

Except that marriage doesn't require regulation. Marriage existed for thousands of years without regulation. Marriage has existed for over 4000 years in human society, but government involvement only spans the past 500 years. And even to this day, common law marriage (the simple act of choosing to live together as a married couple, even without going through the formal legal process) continues to be nearly universally recognized.

But please, tell me more about my ignorance. I'm only an ordained wedding officiant. I know nothing about the subject.

States are invested (losing money to via perks extended as lures) in marriage solely to entice the best formative environment for children so that they don't grow up to be indigent, mentally ill or criminals, which are expensive.

The Prince's Trust survey, the largest of its kind, found that kids who grow up without their own gender represented as a role model fair very poorly and become indigent...something like a 67% indigency rate among this group. They also felt a lack of sense of belonging in society as a result.

Structurally, gay marrige guarantees that oucome in 50% of the kids involved. So states have a right to monitor and ratify or not ratify this brand new radical lab experiment with the raising of children. This is vastly important enough of a social change that the 10s of millions MUST have a voice in it instead of this pivotal change to the struture of society being dictacted by nine people in Washington DC, two of which have already openly declared their bias on the dismantling of the structure of the word "marriage"..

 

[Skylar]

Except that marriage doesn't require regulation. Marriage existed for thousands of years without regulation. Marriage has existed for over 4000 years in human society, but government involvement only spans the past 500 years. And even to this day, common law marriage (the simple act of choosing to live together as a married couple, even without going through the formal legal process) continues to be nearly universally recognized.

But please, tell me more about my ignorance. I'm only an ordained wedding officiant. I know nothing about the subject.

States are invested (losing money to via perks extended as lures) in marriage solely to entice the best formative environment for children so that they don't grow up to be indigent, mentally ill or criminals, which are expensive.

The Prince's Trust survey, the largest of its kind, found that kids who grow up without their own gender represented as a role model fair very poorly and become indigent...something like a 67% indigency rate among this group. They also felt a lack of sense of belonging in society as a result.

The prince trust study said nothing about parenting. It said nothing about gay marriage. It said nothing about same sex parenting. Nor did it say that a good same sex role model can only be a parent.

You hallucinated all of that. And your hallucinations have no relevance to the marriage of any other person.

 

[Montrovant]

Except that marriage doesn't require regulation. Marriage existed for thousands of years without regulation. Marriage has existed for over 4000 years in human society, but government involvement only spans the past 500 years. And even to this day, common law marriage (the simple act of choosing to live together as a married couple, even without going through the formal legal process) continues to be nearly universally recognized.

But please, tell me more about my ignorance. I'm only an ordained wedding officiant. I know nothing about the subject.

States are invested (losing money to via perks extended as lures) in marriage solely to entice the best formative environment for children so that they don't grow up to be indigent, mentally ill or criminals, which are expensive.

The Prince's Trust survey, the largest of its kind, found that kids who grow up without their own gender represented as a role model fair very poorly and become indigent...something like a 67% indigency rate among this group. They also felt a lack of sense of belonging in society as a result.

Structurally, gay marrige guarantees that oucome in 50% of the kids involved. So states have a right to monitor and ratify or not ratify this brand new radical lab experiment with the raising of children. This is vastly important enough of a social change that the 10s of millions MUST have a voice in it instead of this pivotal change to the struture of society being dictacted by nine people in Washington DC, two of which have already openly declared their bias on the dismantling of the structure of the word "marriage"..

See Sil, THIS is spam. You've posted basically this same thing multiple times, in multiple threads, sometimes more than once in the same thread.

I wonder what the ratio is of your total posts in the past month to your posts that reference the Prince's Trust Youth Index......

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.?

Because state or local laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol are applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled out for exclusion. If state or local laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol were applied only to Asian-Americans, for example, such measures would be in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Likewise, measures that seek only to prohibit same-sex couples from entering into marriage contracts are repugnant to the Constitution, as they authorize the unwarranted exclusion of gay Americans absent any rational, factual justification.

And no, alcoholics do not constitute a 'particular class of persons.'

 

[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.?

Because state or local laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol are applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled out for exclusion. If state or local laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol were applied only to Asian-Americans, for example, such measures would be in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Likewise, measures that seek only to prohibit same-sex couples from entering into marriage contracts are repugnant to the Constitution, as they authorize the unwarranted exclusion of gay Americans absent any rational, factual justification.

And no, alcoholics do not constitute a 'particular class of persons.'

So anyone can be married in America no questions asked?

 

[Skylar]

Except that marriage doesn't require regulation. Marriage existed for thousands of years without regulation. Marriage has existed for over 4000 years in human society, but government involvement only spans the past 500 years. And even to this day, common law marriage (the simple act of choosing to live together as a married couple, even without going through the formal legal process) continues to be nearly universally recognized.

But please, tell me more about my ignorance. I'm only an ordained wedding officiant. I know nothing about the subject.

States are invested (losing money to via perks extended as lures) in marriage solely to entice the best formative environment for children so that they don't grow up to be indigent, mentally ill or criminals, which are expensive.

The Prince's Trust survey, the largest of its kind, found that kids who grow up without their own gender represented as a role model fair very poorly and become indigent...something like a 67% indigency rate among this group. They also felt a lack of sense of belonging in society as a result.

Structurally, gay marrige guarantees that oucome in 50% of the kids involved. So states have a right to monitor and ratify or not ratify this brand new radical lab experiment with the raising of children. This is vastly important enough of a social change that the 10s of millions MUST have a voice in it instead of this pivotal change to the struture of society being dictacted by nine people in Washington DC, two of which have already openly declared their bias on the dismantling of the structure of the word "marriage"..

See Sil, THIS is spam. You've posted basically this same thing multiple times, in multiple threads, sometimes more than once in the same thread.

I wonder what the ratio is of your total posts in the past month to your posts that reference the Prince's Trust Youth Index......

He posted the Prince Trust study 117 times over 2 weeks. I actually took about half an hour and counted.

And as he ramped up his spamming, he also ramped up his accusation of how everyone ELSE was spamming. But not him.

You'll notice the exact same pattern with his approach to the courts and this issue. With Sil arguing that its the entire federal judiciary that is wrong. But not him.

 

[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.?

Because state or local laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol are applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled out for exclusion. If state or local laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol were applied only to Asian-Americans, for example, such measures would be in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Likewise, measures that seek only to prohibit same-sex couples from entering into marriage contracts are repugnant to the Constitution, as they authorize the unwarranted exclusion of gay Americans absent any rational, factual justification.

And no, alcoholics do not constitute a 'particular class of persons.'

So anyone can be married in America no questions asked?

Nope.

 

[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.?

Because state or local laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol are applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled out for exclusion. If state or local laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol were applied only to Asian-Americans, for example, such measures would be in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Likewise, measures that seek only to prohibit same-sex couples from entering into marriage contracts are repugnant to the Constitution, as they authorize the unwarranted exclusion of gay Americans absent any rational, factual justification.

And no, alcoholics do not constitute a 'particular class of persons.'

So anyone can be married in America no questions asked?

Nope.

Nope what? Any body with a two sets of I.D. and a birth certificate or green card can get married then? Why can they ask questions if nobody is supposed to care?

 

[SwimExpert]

States are invested (losing money to via perks extended as lures) in marriage solely to entice the best formative environment for children so that they don't grow up to be indigent, mentally ill or criminals, which are expensive.

The Prince's Trust survey, the largest of its kind, found that kids who grow up without their own gender represented as a role model fair very poorly and become indigent...something like a 67% indigency rate among this group. They also felt a lack of sense of belonging in society as a result.

Structurally, gay marrige guarantees that oucome in 50% of the kids involved. So states have a right to monitor and ratify or not ratify this brand new radical lab experiment with the raising of children. This is vastly important enough of a social change that the 10s of millions MUST have a voice in it instead of this pivotal change to the struture of society being dictacted by nine people in Washington DC, two of which have already openly declared their bias on the dismantling of the structure of the word "marriage"..

You have no idea what you are talking about. None, whatsoever. But you talk as if you did. Because what you want is for your personal desires to become truth.

Government involvement in marriage originated with church/state intermingling. The function of government involvement carrying on into the present day is a matter of maintaining vital statistics.

 

[Silhouette]

Then will you describe in your own words why states lose money on perks to lure people to be married, if not on behalf of the kids? (Visit a family court sometime to see if it's kids or adults who get more of the judge's consideration..)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.?

Because state or local laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol are applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled out for exclusion. If state or local laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol were applied only to Asian-Americans, for example, such measures would be in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Likewise, measures that seek only to prohibit same-sex couples from entering into marriage contracts are repugnant to the Constitution, as they authorize the unwarranted exclusion of gay Americans absent any rational, factual justification.

And no, alcoholics do not constitute a 'particular class of persons.'

So anyone can be married in America no questions asked?

Nope.

Nope what? Any body with a two sets of I.D. and a birth certificate or green card can get married then? Why can they ask questions if nobody is supposed to care?

Again, as long as requirements and prohibitions are applied to everyone equally, such requirements and prohibitions should pass Constitutional muster.

The states may, for example, and do, prohibit siblings from marrying. These prohibitions are Constitutional because they're applied to everyone equally. If a state prohibited only Asian-American siblings from marrying, then such a law would be un-Constitutional.

The issue therefore isn't the authority of states to enact and enforce laws, the issue concerns the requirement that the states enforce their laws consistently, and afford access to those laws to all who are eligible – such as same-sex couples being eligible to participate in marriage law.

 

[elektra]

So you are saying that because a child is growing up with homosexual parents that they are living a homosexual lifestyle? What twisted world do you live in? I suppose you have sex with your children in a heterosexual lifestyle? Living with gay people is not forcing the children to live as gays! Children don't care all they know is they have loving parents period! You also said that the neighbor kids would tell them and they would feel different? Umm so you support bullying of children because they may have gay parents? You blame the parents but not the bullies! Wow


I see more hate from heterosexuals then homosexuals. And most kids live in with heterosexual parents! So your kids learn to bully and hate! What a great parent you are! Loser

Yes, I am stating that homosexuals live a homosexual lifestyle.

Hard to wrap your twisted mind around that, huh. moron. You see more hate? Right, you make things up. Idiot.

Describe that for us if you can. I'm gay and this is my "lifestyle":

Get up, make coffee, surf internet.
Take shower, dress, wake kids, make lunches for kids
Take kids to school, go to work
Pick up son after practice (wife picked up daughter), go home
Eat dinner, help with homework, play video games or watch TV
Kiss wife, go to bed
Wash, rinse, repeat

Yes, displaying a sexual attraction to the same sex in front of children. Kissing, and going to bed with the same sex, just the opposite of what normal people do. Denying children a mother and father, another aspect of your homosexual lifestyle. Spending countless hours arguing on message boards while your 5 children suffer no father figure and are denied even your attention.

I bet you get a great tax break, seeings how it is tax time, I bet you even get more back then you pay in?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

States are invested (losing money to via perks extended as lures) in marriage solely to entice the best formative environment for children so that they don't grow up to be indigent, mentally ill or criminals, which are expensive.

The Prince's Trust survey, the largest of its kind, found that kids who grow up without their own gender represented as a role model fair very poorly and become indigent...something like a 67% indigency rate among this group. They also felt a lack of sense of belonging in society as a result.

Structurally, gay marrige guarantees that oucome in 50% of the kids involved. So states have a right to monitor and ratify or not ratify this brand new radical lab experiment with the raising of children. This is vastly important enough of a social change that the 10s of millions MUST have a voice in it instead of this pivotal change to the struture of society being dictacted by nine people in Washington DC, two of which have already openly declared their bias on the dismantling of the structure of the word "marriage"..

You have no idea what you are talking about. None, whatsoever. But you talk as if you did. Because what you want is for your personal desires to become truth.

Government involvement in marriage originated with church/state intermingling. The function of government involvement carrying on into the present day is a matter of maintaining vital statistics.

Correct.

Marriage law is contract law, written by the states and enforced by state courts, where the states are participants in the marriage contract.

Indeed, contracts are almost as ancient as marriage – where the benefit of a contract allows the participants to understand their privileges, opportunities, and obligations, documented in a binding agreement.