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

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

Really? I'm only counting states where the gay marriage was voted in by democratic process. By that measure, you got a LONG way to go.

 

[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 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..

Family court decides on the welfare of children- custody and child support- totally unrelated to marriage.

State's have tried that argument- but since States not only allow marriages by sterile people, they even require that some couples prove that they are incapable of having children before allowing them to marry.

If marriage is all about children- why would the states even allow those couples to marry?

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Two fags or lesbians aren't having kids with each other. It simply isn't possible.

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?

You don't believe me- well it sucks to be you- because the Supreme Court Justices- who will decide this actually know reality

During Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, Justice Anthony Kennedy--who is widely considered the swing vote in the case--suggested that California's gay marriage ban causes "immediate legal injury" to children of same-sex parents.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

 

[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....

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

We have made great progress.

Really? I'm only counting states where the gay marriage was voted in by democratic process. By that measure, you got a LONG way to go.

You can count only States that start with the letter "A" if you want to.

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

We have made great progress

 

[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.

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

Children aren't even mentioned on my marriage license- weren't mentioned on the application.

So do you think that married couples who never have children- are not married?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Well there are bigoted Yanks too.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

I read an article a couple of years back wherein it discussed Alabama's position on Civil Unions. They apparently tried it, and the media and those who joined in civil union went out of their way to claim that their union was MARRIAGE. Demanding that they were MARRIED, which caused Alabama to reverse their position, effectively annulling the civil unions, which I believe is the basis for the legal action brought in Alabama. And ya can't blame them, given that Marriage is defined by the Creator of the Human Species as the joining of one man and one woman.

So once again the homosexuals could not find the legitimacy they crave, and could not find the strength of character to simply accept the compassion of a peace loving, tolerant people, and paid the price for their deviant behavior.

And it is in this that we can rest assured that there is no satisfying the irrational cravings of the disordered mind.

But then, is it reasonable to expect that a person so desperate for sexual gratification that they would rationalize that it's ok to find such with people of their same gender, would be capable of accepting 'just being treated equally with everyone else'?

LOL! Of course not... .

So, it is only a matter of time before they push beyond the means of tolerance and lose ... everything, when humanity once again returns the lowly homosexual to the closet.

 

[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.

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

Children aren't even mentioned on my marriage license- weren't mentioned on the application.

So do you think that married couples who never have children- are not married?

Really?

Well 'transportation' isn't mentioned in the loan contract which is used to purchase a car... yet that doesn't change the fact that the car is purposed for transportation.

And that "transportation' is the purpose of the car, that doesn't preclude that such is used for entertainment... and where some people 'feel' that a car is ENTERTAINMENT, that doesn't change the FACT that the car is transportation.

See how that works?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Well there are bigoted Yanks too.

The first rule of "Bigotry" is that the first person to USE the word, is BY DEFINITION: A BIGOT!

 

[Syriusly]

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.

I read an article a couple of years back wherein it discussed Alabama's position on Civil Unions. They apparently tried it,.

I can find no record of "Civil Unions" ever being legal in Alabama.

Alabama was going on record that they would not accept "Civil Unions" from other states- not because 'they tried it' but because Alabama is deeply against same gender marriage.

Just as Alabama was deeply against mixed race marriage.

Sometimes it takes a court decision to enforce the Constitution- even when the voters disagree.

 

[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.

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

Children aren't even mentioned on my marriage license- weren't mentioned on the application.

So do you think that married couples who never have children- are not married?

Really?

Well 'transportation' isn't mentioned in the loan contract which is used to purchase a car... yet that doesn't change the fact that the car is purposed for transportation.

And that "transportation' is the purpose of the car, that doesn't preclude that such is used for entertainment... and where some people 'feel' that a car is ENTERTAINMENT, that doesn't change the FACT that the car is transportation.

See how that works?

How the workings of your insane mine? Sadly yes.

Children are not even mentioned as part of the marriage license or application. There is no expectation or requirement that a couple get married.

And since you didn't answer the question:

Do you think that a couple that never have children are not really married?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Children are not even mentioned as part of the marriage license or application.

Really?

Well 'transportation' isn't mentioned in the loan contract which is used to purchase a car... yet that doesn't change the fact that the car is purposed for transportation.

And that "transportation' is the purpose of the car, that doesn't preclude that such is used for entertainment... and where some people 'feel' that a car is ENTERTAINMENT, that doesn't change the FACT that the car is transportation.

See how that works?

 

[Syriusly]

Children are not even mentioned as part of the marriage license or application.

Really?

Well 'transportation' isn't mentioned in the loan contract which is used to purchase a car... yet that doesn't change the fact that the car is purposed for transportation.

And that "transportation' is the purpose of the car, that doesn't preclude that such is used for entertainment... and where some people 'feel' that a car is ENTERTAINMENT, that doesn't change the FACT that the car is transportation.

See how that works?

Do you think that a couple that never have children are not really married?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

Really? I'm only counting states where the gay marriage was voted in by democratic process. By that measure, you got a LONG way to go.

You can count only States that start with the letter "A" if you want to.

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

We have made great progress

States laws being overturned by black robed tyrants doesn't count as "progress", fuckstick.

 

[SwimExpert]

That's not how it works. You're the one making the outlandish claim that there's some society somewhere that didn't regulate marriage. I defy you to produce even a single example of marriage not being subject to the codes of society. You're getting desperate because you know you're wrong.

So let me get this straight...you claim that marriage requires regulation, and has always been regulated. I point out that that is factually incorrect. So instead of providing evidence of your claim, you want me to provide evidence of non-regulation?



You really need to learn a thing or two about logic and the burden of proof. Because you're doing it wrong. Very, very, wrong.

 

[Silhouette]

Do you think that a couple that never have children are not really married?

Odd that this seems to be the question of the day. And since I've answered it elsewhere, why not this page too?...

...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

 

[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.

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

No shit.

 

[Syriusly]

Do you think that a couple that never have children are not really married?

Odd that this seems to be the question of the day. And since I've answered it elsewhere, why not this page too?...

...The state anticipates statistically that in any marriage children by birth, adoption, fostering or grandparenting will arrive.

Here is what you said:
Because MARRIAGE IS ENTIRELY ABOUT CHILDREN.

So why is anyone still married if they don't have children?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Really? I'm only counting states where the gay marriage was voted in by democratic process. By that measure, you got a LONG way to go.

You can count only States that start with the letter "A" if you want to.

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

We have made great progress

States laws being overturned by black robed tyrants doesn't count as "progress", fuckstick.

It did when those 'black robed tyrants' overturned Alabama's mixed race marriage laws.

And it is now when those 'black robed tyrants' overturned Alabama's same gender marriage laws.

Fucks to be a bigot like you eh?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

Really? I'm only counting states where the gay marriage was voted in by democratic process. By that measure, you got a LONG way to go.

You can count only States that start with the letter "A" if you want to.

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

We have made great progress

States laws being overturned by black robed tyrants doesn't count as "progress", fuckstick.

It did when those 'black robed tyrants' overturned Alabama's mixed race marriage laws.

And it is now when those 'black robed tyrants' overturned Alabama's same gender marriage laws.

Fucks to be a bigot like you eh?

Pay attention. We're talking about queer marriage, not racism. I know racists Leftists can't think outside of their racism, but give it a try.

Bigot.