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

[James Everett]

James, what do you think about this being a brand new social experiment with children involved? How any gay marriage automatically by virtue of its physical structure deprives 50% of kids involved of their own gender as a role model? Have you read the Prince's Trust survey yet? Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
My personal opinion and that of the clear and overwhelming majority of people in the US is that such a grand upheaval at such a base and vital level of society (marriage, the core of any society) should get AT LEAST a weigh in from the people of the self-governed states, instead of a command from the throne of 9 in DC, 2 of which are heavily and publicly displaying clear bias on the concept of dismantling the word "marriage" from its thousands-years-old meaning to ????...equality dontcha know...

The welfare of children is a different subject, as it involves the rearing of children and their best interest. The best interest of a child is not served in many ways, one being that of single parents whether it be by the passing of a mother or father leaving the child without that role model: What then? Should the child be deprived of his only living biological parent and placed up for adoption of a married couple?...

It's not a question of who can raise a child, but rather who should be enticed by a state to raise a child for the best formative environment. Otherwise a state has no interest in marriage. Visit a family court to see who gets more weight in considerations: adults or children of a marriage..

Again they are two separate issues.
Not every man who wishes to redefine the word marriage or woman who wishes to redefine the word marriage, wants to raise a child. You are assuming that if the word marriage is redefined to include a man and a man, or a woman and a woman that it automatically grants the right to raise a child.
Redefining the word marriage would no more change the criteria for adoption, than would a simple civil union. The best interest of the child is what is considered, and having the SCOTUS render the opinion wherein it hold no jurisdiction outside fiction to somehow force a State to accept a man and a man or a woman and a woman to legally redefine the word marriage through a false claim of discrimination would not make that environment somehow in the best interest of a child.
What appears to me is that we have one side using a red herring with the use of the 14th and 15th amendment to redefine the traditional and set legal definition of the word marriage where neither apply, instead of arguing the right to contract a civil union and use the right to contract under the U.S. CONstitution. While we have the other side using the red herring of child rearing as a defence when that issue has no part in the case, but would only become an issue on an individual basis wherein everything is on the table in determining what is or not in the best interest of the child at issue in that case.

 

[Syriusly]

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..)

Prove that States lose any money on marriage.

State marriage laws have very little to do with children. They are not mentioned on the the marriage license application, no-fault divorces proceed whether the couple has children or not, and child custody happens whether the parents are married or not.

 

[Syriusly]

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..

Oh the horror!

LOL......

 

[Syriusly]

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?

See post #698.

A man, cannot marry a man, and a woman cannot marry a woman, who is being discriminated against as the law is applied equally between all men who wish to marry another man, and all women who wish to marry another woman....

Actually in most states now, a man can marry a man, and a woman can marry a woman.

We have made great progress.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

See post #698.

A man, cannot marry a man, and a woman cannot marry a woman, who is being discriminated against as the law is applied equally between all men who wish to marry another man, and all women who wish to marry another woman. There is no law that allows a white man to marry a white man, but then denies a white man to marry a black man, etc, therefore it would appear that the law is applied equally. Now if it is a question of not being applied equally to a man marrying a woman, and not allowing a man to marry a man, then it would also not be applied equally if polygamy is not also put in the mix, and made legal as well.
The real issue as I see it is that the only way this amounts to discrimination is if a man and a man, or a woman and a woman are not allowed to contract, as in a civil union. Art. I, Sect. 10, of YOUR U.S. CONstitution recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. Therefore the only discrimination would be if a man and a man or a woman and a woman were not allowed to contract a civil union, wherein that civil union would carry all of the advantages and disadvantages of a marriage. The definition of a marriage has been traditionally and legally defined as a contract between a man and a woman, therefore I see no Jurisdiction wherein the central body, or the SCOTUS has the authority to force a State to redefine a set legal and traditionally defined word to include that which it has never defined as such.
If a State after having this fictional definition of a marriage forced upon them were to then begin using the terminology of Holy Matrimony to define a union between a man and a woman, and leaving the fictional definition to a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, would that somehow be discrimination?
You see, the issue is the right to contract, NOT the definition of a marriage, which this minority of same sex couples wish to make it, all the benefits, and disadvantages of a marriage can be obtained through the contract of a civil union between these same sex couples, in their unlimited right to contract as long as in doing so they are not infringing on the life, liberty, or property of another.
All else in this contest is simply B/S..............

I hope doctors believe what you do because I know some don't and do discriminate against persons they believe to be gay. Probably like a person may hesitate to try to save the life of someone after an accident if they knew their sexual preference(even if they were wrong and believed otherwise).

Using the word marriage, will not change peoples opinion one way or the other.

Opinions are already changing. Not using the term marriage will not change people's opinion either.

 

[Syriusly]

A man, cannot marry a man, and a woman cannot marry a woman, who is being discriminated against as the law is applied equally between all men who wish to marry another man, and all women who wish to marry another woman.

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally."
​

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

But interracial was indeed a marriage, .

Not according to the states that banned interracial marriage.

An interracial marriage performed in another state was null and void in Virginia- as if it had never happened. Going to another state to get married was a crime, as was living together as husband and wife, but legally- as far as Virginia was concerned interracial marriage was not marriage at all.

 

[Syriusly]

"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...

Once again you just display how paranoid and delusional you are.

 

[Syriusly]

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.?

Americans have a right to marriage.

We don't have a right to alcohol.

 

[James Everett]

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..)

Prove that States lose any money on marriage.

State marriage laws have very little to do with children. They are not mentioned on the the marriage license application, no-fault divorces proceed whether the couple has children or not, and child custody happens whether the parents are married or not.

Again, the real issue is NOT rights being violated, nor is it children: Each are separate issues. The real issue is that of marriage and the definition historical and set legal definition thereof. Again, a civil union contracted between a man and a man can accomplish any obstacle that a true marriage can accomplish, the difference being that a marriage is a contract between a man and a woman, and a civil union would be a contract between a man and a man, a woman and a woman, and one man and any number of women, or a woman and any number of men. What is best for society is that every individual be allowed to do as one may choose without interference from government as long as in practicing this unencumbered freedom one does not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

That's not a "lifestyle" darling, that's life. Kids with same sex parents aren't "denied" anything. They still have two parents which is what children need for the best outcomes.

I don't have five children, only two teenagers. I was a surrogate for another couple so three of the children I bore were not mine. And I don't spend "countless" hours on a message board, I spend a few hours in the morning while they are asleep and then on my lunch breaks at work. Trust me, if you ask our teenage children, they will tell you they get more than enough quality time with their parents.

Yes, I do get a tax break for being married and for having children. Don't you? No, it's not more than I put in...quite a bit less in fact, but that's the price of living in a developed society.

Children need a mother AND a father for their complete psychological rearing. To deprive them of either is to harm them because a man can't fulfill the role of a mother nor a woman the role of a father.

I think having a mother and father is optimal frankly.

But we have never required parenting to be optimal in this country.

We don't require parents to stay married if they have children. We don't require parents to prove that they are capable of being good parents in order to have children. We don't even require parents to prove that they can feed their children before we allow them to take them home from the hospital. We don't require that parents provide their kids with love OR discripline. We don't require them to read to their kids.

As a dad, I have watched lots and lots of parents with their kids- at school, at events, friends, playgrounds etc. And most parents are trying very hard to be good parents.

But we don't even require that intent. Why would we suddenly start caring about the issue only with same gender parents?

I wish that the persons who pretend to care so deeply about the issue of 'gay parenting' would spend that energy on the vast majority of kids who are being raised without either a mom or a dad- there are single parents out there that could use your help.

 

[MaryL]

Alabama Supreme Court Orders Judges to Stop Gay Marriages - NBC News

YAY! Stand up to judicial tyranny!

Some of us Yanks stand with you, fight the darkness. Yay! Gays need marriage like a fish needs a bicycle. I am fighting against the darkness and mindless conformism.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Q: So anyone can be married in America no questions asked?

A: No.

If it's a "civil right" then who are you to deny anyone to marry? You can't claim it's a civil right for gays but not for everyone else.

And he didn't.

 

[James Everett]

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.?

Americans have a right to marriage.

We don't have a right to alcohol.

Yes, Americans do have a right to marriage which is a contract between a man and a woman; while a man and a man, or a woman and a woman have the right to contract a civil union laid out as an equivalent to a marriage, they just do not have the right to force a State to redefine the traditional and set legal definition of the word and meaning of a marriage to fit what they wish.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Conservative appears on behalf of Syriusly again, hurling sympathy engendering slurs that only an LGBT person would dare utter in grand theater..

How many fellow conservatives have you done this to?

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Q: So anyone can be married in America no questions asked?

A: No.

If it's a "civil right" then who are you to deny anyone to marry? You can't claim it's a civil right for gays but not for everyone else.

They would not be deprived of a civil right under a civil union, they just would not be allowed to label that civil union as a marriage because it does not meet the traditional or set legal definition of a marriage which is a contract between a man and a woman. They would no more be deprived of a civil right than anyone contracting to purchase a car under a purchase contract with payments and then attempting to call that purchase contract a marriage: It simply is NOT a marriage.

There is no right to a Civil union- and Alabama specifically made civil unions between same gender couples exactly as illegal as marriage between same gender couples.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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..)

Prove that States lose any money on marriage.

State marriage laws have very little to do with children.

LOL!

State marriage laws are ENTIRELY ABOUT CHILDREN. Because MARRIAGE IS ENTIRELY ABOUT CHILDREN.

Now in fairness, as a person addled with a mental disorder, there is no way you could know that. Because you lack the means to know the difference between what is true and what is false, thus you 'believe' that abnormality is normal and that sexual gratification is achieved through sexual interplay with people of your same gender.

In truth, you should be allowed to live free, to work to sustain yourself and pursue whatever you feel is necessary to fulfill your pitiful life... up until you begin your intellectual limitations provide that you cannot determine the line between your rights and the rights of another.

At which point you should be removed from the culture and either relieved of the life, the right to which you forfeited, when you failed to bear the responsibility that sustained that right, by infringing upon the rights of others...

And the record of this very forum demonstrates that you long ago crossed that line... . So all we're waiting for at this point is the trigger which due to your addled circumstances, you or one of your fellow cultists will no doubt eagerly pull, beginning the process which will result in the lowly homosexual being largely erased from the human herd... and the survivors and subsequent examples being relegated back into that closet where your kind has spent the vast majority of human existence.

The most pitiful thing about it is, that given your 'special limitations', you've absolutely no means to understand that it was YOU who put yourselves there and WHY.

But hey... such is the nature of evil.

 

[Syriusly]

James, what do you think about this being a brand new social experiment with children involved? How any gay marriage automatically by virtue of its physical structure deprives 50% of kids involved of their own gender as a role model? Have you read the Prince's Trust survey yet? Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

My personal opinion .

Has no relation to reality or anyone else's opinion.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Conservative isn't a real poster. It is Syriusly's sock puppet that hurls slurs only an LGBT stand in would dare to in order to engender sympathy for their cult. Same identical quoting/posting style as Syriusly..

That is entirely dependent on what part of the marriage (or divorce) is being discussed. It also ignores married couples with no children. The state could easily restrict marriage benefits to couples who give birth or adopt children, but does not. What is your explanation for that?

That the state anticipates statistically that in any marriage children by birth, adoption, fostering or grandparenting will arrive. And the statistics bear that out. The state is not being heavy handed demanding children be produced. That's in keeping with freedom and liberty. But children statistically arrive nevertheless.

Marriage is a statistical gamble that states make by extending lures to entice the best formative environment for the most important people they are banking will come as a result of marriage: children. When men and women snuggle at night, the little scamps have a way of showing up on the scene. Or two childless potential parents long for those little arrivals as they age and none have come and are so inspired to adopt or foster as mother and father.

There is no mandate for children in marriage...but there is most definitely a calculated expectation of them. And so, the state incentivizes who it chooses to provide the best environment for them. The brand new social experiment requires the debate and weigh in of the goverened to see whether or not children should be lab rats on behalf of neo-marriage.

vvv You've been reported again Conservative vvv

You tried pulling that crap with me. You're a real fucking troll.

 

[Syriusly]

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.....

I call people what they are. In your case, you're a faggot lover.

I bet you've suck a few in your lifetime.

Bigots- you are all alike

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

 

[Syriusly]

Conservative isn't a real poster. It is Syriusly's sock puppet that hurls slurs only an LGBT stand in would dare to in order to engender sympathy for their cult. Same identical quoting/posting style as Syriusly..

That is entirely dependent on what part of the marriage (or divorce) is being discussed. It also ignores married couples with no children. The state could easily restrict marriage benefits to couples who give birth or adopt children, but does not. What is your explanation for that?

That the state anticipates statistically that in any marriage children by birth, adoption, fostering or grandparenting will arrive. And the statistics bear that out. The state is not being heavy handed demanding children be produced. That's in keeping with freedom and liberty. But children statistically arrive nevertheless.

Marriage is a statistical gamble that states make by extending lures to entice the best formative environment for the most important people they are banking will come as a result of marriage: children. When men and women snuggle at night, the little scamps have a way of showing up on the scene. Or two childless potential parents long for those little arrivals as they age and none have come and are so inspired to adopt or foster as mother and father.

There is no mandate for children in marriage...but there is most definitely a calculated expectation of them. And so, the state incentivizes who it chooses to provide the best environment for them. The brand new social experiment requires the debate and weigh in of the goverened to see whether or not children should be lab rats on behalf of neo-marriage.

vvv You've been reported again Conservative vvv

You tried pulling that crap with me. You're a real fucking troll.

She really believes that crap- she is paranoid and delusional.