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

[James Everett]

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.

That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Virginia was at that time denying the equal rights based on race. The definition of a marriage refers to the sex of the union as in " a contract between a man and a woman, Race is not mentioned in the traditional and set legal definition, however the sex of the individuals are. . If laws were applied and recognised equally between the States, then a man registering a permit/permission to carry a firearm in Tennessee would also be able to carry that same firearm in New York.

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.

Then their fight should be the right to contract a civil union and have it along with its benefits and drawbacks be recognised by the State of Alabama, rather than this false claim of discrimination over the traditional and set legal definition of the word marriage. Again, Art. I, Sect. 10, recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else.

 

[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.

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.

That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Virginia was at that time denying the equal rights based on race. The definition of a marriage refers to the sex of the union as in " a contract between a man and a woman, Race is not mentioned in the traditional and set legal definition, however the sex of the individuals are. . If laws were applied and recognised equally between the States, then a man registering a permit/permission to carry a firearm in Tennessee would also be able to carry that same firearm in New York.

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.

Then their fight should be the right to contract a civil union and have it along with its benefits and drawbacks be recognised by the State of Alabama, rather than this false claim of discrimination over the traditional and set legal definition of the word marriage. Again, Art. I, Sect. 10, recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else.

I'll save you the trouble. She's going to keep equating queer marriage to racism and Loving V. Virginia no matter how absurd and at variance with the facts. This one is stuck on stupid.

 

[James Everett]

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.

Again....Art. I, Sect. 10, recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else.Therefore there is a right to contract a civil union.

 

[James Everett]

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.

That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Virginia was at that time denying the equal rights based on race. The definition of a marriage refers to the sex of the union as in " a contract between a man and a woman, Race is not mentioned in the traditional and set legal definition, however the sex of the individuals are. . If laws were applied and recognised equally between the States, then a man registering a permit/permission to carry a firearm in Tennessee would also be able to carry that same firearm in New York.

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.

Then their fight should be the right to contract a civil union and have it along with its benefits and drawbacks be recognised by the State of Alabama, rather than this false claim of discrimination over the traditional and set legal definition of the word marriage. Again, Art. I, Sect. 10, recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else.

I'll save you the trouble. She's going to keep equating queer marriage to racism and Loving V. Virginia no matter how absurd and at variance with the facts. This one is stuck on stupid.

I do not think it productive for anyone to insult another, it only lessens the value of the discussion which is not and should not be relegated to an attempt to change the opinion of the opponent, but rather to illustrate the facts and truth for any who may choose to follow the discussion, so that they may see the truth and facts as they are rather than have them hidden underneath fictional rhetoric.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Virginia was at that time denying the equal rights based on race. The definition of a marriage refers to the sex of the union as in " a contract between a man and a woman, Race is not mentioned in the traditional and set legal definition, however the sex of the individuals are. . If laws were applied and recognised equally between the States, then a man registering a permit/permission to carry a firearm in Tennessee would also be able to carry that same firearm in New York.

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.

Then their fight should be the right to contract a civil union and have it along with its benefits and drawbacks be recognised by the State of Alabama, rather than this false claim of discrimination over the traditional and set legal definition of the word marriage. Again, Art. I, Sect. 10, recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else.

I'll save you the trouble. She's going to keep equating queer marriage to racism and Loving V. Virginia no matter how absurd and at variance with the facts. This one is stuck on stupid.

I do not think it productive for anyone to insult another, it only lessens the value of the discussion which is not and should not be relegated to an attempt to change the opinion of the opponent, but rather to illustrate the facts and truth for any who may choose to follow the discussion, so that they may see the truth and facts as they are rather than have them hidden underneath fictional rhetoric.

It's your time, and you seem to have a lot more of it than me. After about 30 more pages, you might finally realize I'm right. But as long as you don't sound insulting, because THAT'S the most important thing.

 

[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.

That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Virginia was at that time denying the equal rights based on race.

Virginia claimed that mixed race marriages were not legal marriages.
According to Virginia interracial marriages were not marriages.

 

[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.

That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Virginia was at that time denying the equal rights based on race. The definition of a marriage refers to the sex of the union as in " a contract between a man and a woman, Race is not mentioned in the traditional and set legal definition, however the sex of the individuals are. . If laws were applied and recognised equally between the States, then a man registering a permit/permission to carry a firearm in Tennessee would also be able to carry that same firearm in New York.

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.

Then their fight should be the right to contract a civil union and have it along with its benefits and drawbacks be recognised by the State of Alabama, rather than this false claim of discrimination over the traditional and set legal definition of the word marriage. Again, Art. I, Sect. 10, recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else.

Why? Why should anyone be fighting for something that is not exactly equal to marriage?

Frankly, I agree with them- not with you- and their argument has been a winning argument- while yours is untested, and in my opinion, incorrect.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Virginia was at that time denying the equal rights based on race. The definition of a marriage refers to the sex of the union as in " a contract between a man and a woman, Race is not mentioned in the traditional and set legal definition, however the sex of the individuals are. . If laws were applied and recognised equally between the States, then a man registering a permit/permission to carry a firearm in Tennessee would also be able to carry that same firearm in New York.

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.

Then their fight should be the right to contract a civil union and have it along with its benefits and drawbacks be recognised by the State of Alabama, rather than this false claim of discrimination over the traditional and set legal definition of the word marriage. Again, Art. I, Sect. 10, recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else.

I'll save you the trouble. She's going to keep equating queer marriage to racism and Loving V. Virginia no matter how absurd and at variance with the facts. This one is stuck on stupid.

I do not think it productive for anyone to insult another, it only lessens the value of the discussion which is not and should not be relegated to an attempt to change the opinion of the opponent, but rather to illustrate the facts and truth for any who may choose to follow the discussion, so that they may see the truth and facts as they are rather than have them hidden underneath fictional rhetoric.

It's your time, and you seem to have a lot more of it than me. After about 30 more pages, you might finally realize I'm right. .

No one has ever realized that after far more than 30 pages......

 

[James Everett]

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.

That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Virginia was at that time denying the equal rights based on race. The definition of a marriage refers to the sex of the union as in " a contract between a man and a woman, Race is not mentioned in the traditional and set legal definition, however the sex of the individuals are. . If laws were applied and recognised equally between the States, then a man registering a permit/permission to carry a firearm in Tennessee would also be able to carry that same firearm in New York.

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.

Then their fight should be the right to contract a civil union and have it along with its benefits and drawbacks be recognised by the State of Alabama, rather than this false claim of discrimination over the traditional and set legal definition of the word marriage. Again, Art. I, Sect. 10, recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else.

Why? Why should anyone be fighting for something that is not exactly equal to marriage?

Frankly, I agree with them- not with you- and their argument has been a winning argument- while yours is untested, and in my opinion, incorrect.

A civil union, is a contract, just as is a marriage, and as long as they are contracted equally, they are equal. The issue is akin to taking a purchase contract and calling it a marriage; which it is not. A marriage by traditional, and set legal definition is "A contract between a man and a woman". There is no need to label a purchase contract a marriage, and there is no reason to label a civil union a marriage.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Again....Art. I, Sect. 10, recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else.Therefore there is a right to contract a civil union.

Civil Union is not marriage.

Marriage is legitimate... and it is legitimacy that the deviants crave.

Of course, their behavior is illegitimate, thus they crave that which they cannot secure... thus, in THAT, we can rest assured that there is NO MEANS to satisfy them... and it is THERE where you will find the answer to 'why' homosexuals have spent 99.9999~% of human existence in the closet. Because the moment you let them out, they begin to consume all sense of good will toward them and the viability of the culture... and continue to do so until there is nothing left.

At which time, they are rounded up and destroyed by whatever comes to take the place of the culture they consumed... and the survivors and subsequent examples of such work tirelessly to hide their deviancy, denying to their dying breath that they ever so much as considered sexual gratification through sex with a member of their own gender.

All we're going through today is being reminded of why they were in the closet in the first place.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Virginia was at that time denying the equal rights based on race. The definition of a marriage refers to the sex of the union as in " a contract between a man and a woman, Race is not mentioned in the traditional and set legal definition, however the sex of the individuals are. . If laws were applied and recognised equally between the States, then a man registering a permit/permission to carry a firearm in Tennessee would also be able to carry that same firearm in New York.

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.

Then their fight should be the right to contract a civil union and have it along with its benefits and drawbacks be recognised by the State of Alabama, rather than this false claim of discrimination over the traditional and set legal definition of the word marriage. Again, Art. I, Sect. 10, recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else.

Why? Why should anyone be fighting for something that is not exactly equal to marriage?

Frankly, I agree with them- not with you- and their argument has been a winning argument- while yours is untested, and in my opinion, incorrect.

A civil union, is a contract, just as is a marriage, and as long as they are contracted equally, they are equal. The issue is akin to taking a purchase contract and calling it a marriage; which it is not. A marriage by traditional, and set legal definition is "A contract between a man and a woman". There is no need to label a purchase contract a marriage, and there is no reason to label a civil union a marriage.

Well I will leave you with that- Alabama passed a law which prohibited both.

Homosexuals have chosen to pursue actual marriage- and are succeeding.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Again....Art. I, Sect. 10, recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else.Therefore there is a right to contract a civil union.

All we're going through today is being reminded of why they were in the closet in the first place.

You are being reminded of gays being beaten and arrested?

Why is this thread reminding you of how gays stayed in the closet to avoid being physically assaulted and jailed?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Virginia was at that time denying the equal rights based on race. The definition of a marriage refers to the sex of the union as in " a contract between a man and a woman, Race is not mentioned in the traditional and set legal definition, however the sex of the individuals are. . If laws were applied and recognised equally between the States, then a man registering a permit/permission to carry a firearm in Tennessee would also be able to carry that same firearm in New York.

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.

Then their fight should be the right to contract a civil union and have it along with its benefits and drawbacks be recognised by the State of Alabama, rather than this false claim of discrimination over the traditional and set legal definition of the word marriage. Again, Art. I, Sect. 10, recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else.

Why? Why should anyone be fighting for something that is not exactly equal to marriage?

Frankly, I agree with them- not with you- and their argument has been a winning argument- while yours is untested, and in my opinion, incorrect.

A civil union, is a contract, just as is a marriage, and as long as they are contracted equally, they are equal. The issue is akin to taking a purchase contract and calling it a marriage; which it is not. A marriage by traditional, and set legal definition is "A contract between a man and a woman". There is no need to label a purchase contract a marriage, and there is no reason to label a civil union a marriage.

Well I will leave you with that- Alabama passed a law which prohibited both.

Homosexuals have chosen to pursue actual marriage- and are succeeding.

The homo militia rejected civil unions long ago. Somebody didn't get the memo.

 

[James Everett]

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.

That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Virginia was at that time denying the equal rights based on race. The definition of a marriage refers to the sex of the union as in " a contract between a man and a woman, Race is not mentioned in the traditional and set legal definition, however the sex of the individuals are. . If laws were applied and recognised equally between the States, then a man registering a permit/permission to carry a firearm in Tennessee would also be able to carry that same firearm in New York.

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.

Then their fight should be the right to contract a civil union and have it along with its benefits and drawbacks be recognised by the State of Alabama, rather than this false claim of discrimination over the traditional and set legal definition of the word marriage. Again, Art. I, Sect. 10, recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else.

I'll save you the trouble. She's going to keep equating queer marriage to racism and Loving V. Virginia no matter how absurd and at variance with the facts. This one is stuck on stupid.

I do not think it productive for anyone to insult another, it only lessens the value of the discussion which is not and should not be relegated to an attempt to change the opinion of the opponent, but rather to illustrate the facts and truth for any who may choose to follow the discussion, so that they may see the truth and facts as they are rather than have them hidden underneath fictional rhetoric.

It's your time, and you seem to have a lot more of it than me. After about 30 more pages, you might finally realize I'm right. .

No one has ever realized that after far more than 30 pages......

This issue is nothing more to me than a catalyst to educate anyone who may be interested in learning the truth concerning their system of government, its limitations and the differing jurisdictions, how it has become under the control of a political party duopoly, and much more that I have learned through countless hours of research. My attention is most focused on the con, that is the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, its flaws, and the need to return to the Articles of Confederation. But that is not the subject of this thread. This thread is only a byproduct of the underlying cancer on liberty. Both the "left" and the "Right", "Conservative" and "Liberal" have it wrong, and are nothing more than dupes used as pawns by the duopoly that control our liberty, through the control of YOUR government.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Virginia was at that time denying the equal rights based on race. The definition of a marriage refers to the sex of the union as in " a contract between a man and a woman, Race is not mentioned in the traditional and set legal definition, however the sex of the individuals are. . If laws were applied and recognised equally between the States, then a man registering a permit/permission to carry a firearm in Tennessee would also be able to carry that same firearm in New York.

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.

Then their fight should be the right to contract a civil union and have it along with its benefits and drawbacks be recognised by the State of Alabama, rather than this false claim of discrimination over the traditional and set legal definition of the word marriage. Again, Art. I, Sect. 10, recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else.

Why? Why should anyone be fighting for something that is not exactly equal to marriage?

Frankly, I agree with them- not with you- and their argument has been a winning argument- while yours is untested, and in my opinion, incorrect.

A civil union, is a contract, just as is a marriage, and as long as they are contracted equally, they are equal. The issue is akin to taking a purchase contract and calling it a marriage; which it is not. A marriage by traditional, and set legal definition is "A contract between a man and a woman". There is no need to label a purchase contract a marriage, and there is no reason to label a civil union a marriage.

Well I will leave you with that- Alabama passed a law which prohibited both.

Homosexuals have chosen to pursue actual marriage- and are succeeding.

The homo militia rejected civil unions long ago. Somebody didn't get the memo.

It was an experiment- but as Alabama showed- Conservatives rejected the concept of Civil Unions exactly as they do same gender marriage- since Civil Unions were being rejected- it made sense to pursue true marriage equality.

And its working.

 

[James Everett]

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.

That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Virginia was at that time denying the equal rights based on race. The definition of a marriage refers to the sex of the union as in " a contract between a man and a woman, Race is not mentioned in the traditional and set legal definition, however the sex of the individuals are. . If laws were applied and recognised equally between the States, then a man registering a permit/permission to carry a firearm in Tennessee would also be able to carry that same firearm in New York.

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.

Then their fight should be the right to contract a civil union and have it along with its benefits and drawbacks be recognised by the State of Alabama, rather than this false claim of discrimination over the traditional and set legal definition of the word marriage. Again, Art. I, Sect. 10, recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else.

Why? Why should anyone be fighting for something that is not exactly equal to marriage?

Frankly, I agree with them- not with you- and their argument has been a winning argument- while yours is untested, and in my opinion, incorrect.

A civil union, is a contract, just as is a marriage, and as long as they are contracted equally, they are equal. The issue is akin to taking a purchase contract and calling it a marriage; which it is not. A marriage by traditional, and set legal definition is "A contract between a man and a woman". There is no need to label a purchase contract a marriage, and there is no reason to label a civil union a marriage.

Well I will leave you with that- Alabama passed a law which prohibited both.

Homosexuals have chosen to pursue actual marriage- and are succeeding.

The homo militia rejected civil unions long ago. Somebody didn't get the memo.

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.

That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Virginia was at that time denying the equal rights based on race. The definition of a marriage refers to the sex of the union as in " a contract between a man and a woman, Race is not mentioned in the traditional and set legal definition, however the sex of the individuals are. . If laws were applied and recognised equally between the States, then a man registering a permit/permission to carry a firearm in Tennessee would also be able to carry that same firearm in New York.

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.

Then their fight should be the right to contract a civil union and have it along with its benefits and drawbacks be recognised by the State of Alabama, rather than this false claim of discrimination over the traditional and set legal definition of the word marriage. Again, Art. I, Sect. 10, recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else.

Why? Why should anyone be fighting for something that is not exactly equal to marriage?

Frankly, I agree with them- not with you- and their argument has been a winning argument- while yours is untested, and in my opinion, incorrect.

A civil union, is a contract, just as is a marriage, and as long as they are contracted equally, they are equal. The issue is akin to taking a purchase contract and calling it a marriage; which it is not. A marriage by traditional, and set legal definition is "A contract between a man and a woman". There is no need to label a purchase contract a marriage, and there is no reason to label a civil union a marriage.

Well I will leave you with that- Alabama passed a law which prohibited both.

Homosexuals have chosen to pursue actual marriage- and are succeeding.

The homo militia rejected civil unions long ago. Somebody didn't get the memo.

It is their only legitimate argument. The attempt or likely success at establishing a fictional marriage is only building on top of what is already a fictional existence, and I can see it no more visible than through the truth of the Machiavelli's illusion....
Niccola Machiavelli,.
"...[A]llow them [the conquered] to live under their own laws, taking tribute of them, and creating within the country a government composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you.... A city used to liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any other way....
"...[T]hey must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they are entirely different from the old ones. For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.... [The conqueror should] not wish that the people... should have occasion to regret the loss of any of their old customs...."

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Virginia was at that time denying the equal rights based on race. The definition of a marriage refers to the sex of the union as in " a contract between a man and a woman, Race is not mentioned in the traditional and set legal definition, however the sex of the individuals are. . If laws were applied and recognised equally between the States, then a man registering a permit/permission to carry a firearm in Tennessee would also be able to carry that same firearm in New York.
Then their fight should be the right to contract a civil union and have it along with its benefits and drawbacks be recognised by the State of Alabama, rather than this false claim of discrimination over the traditional and set legal definition of the word marriage. Again, Art. I, Sect. 10, recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else.

Why? Why should anyone be fighting for something that is not exactly equal to marriage?

Frankly, I agree with them- not with you- and their argument has been a winning argument- while yours is untested, and in my opinion, incorrect.

A civil union, is a contract, just as is a marriage, and as long as they are contracted equally, they are equal. The issue is akin to taking a purchase contract and calling it a marriage; which it is not. A marriage by traditional, and set legal definition is "A contract between a man and a woman". There is no need to label a purchase contract a marriage, and there is no reason to label a civil union a marriage.

Well I will leave you with that- Alabama passed a law which prohibited both.

Homosexuals have chosen to pursue actual marriage- and are succeeding.

The homo militia rejected civil unions long ago. Somebody didn't get the memo.

It was an experiment- but as Alabama showed- Conservatives rejected the concept of Civil Unions exactly as they do same gender marriage- since Civil Unions were being rejected- it made sense to pursue true marriage equality.

And its working.

The homo militia was never satisfied with the proposal of civil unions.

 

[James Everett]

That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Virginia was at that time denying the equal rights based on race. The definition of a marriage refers to the sex of the union as in " a contract between a man and a woman, Race is not mentioned in the traditional and set legal definition, however the sex of the individuals are. . If laws were applied and recognised equally between the States, then a man registering a permit/permission to carry a firearm in Tennessee would also be able to carry that same firearm in New York.
Then their fight should be the right to contract a civil union and have it along with its benefits and drawbacks be recognised by the State of Alabama, rather than this false claim of discrimination over the traditional and set legal definition of the word marriage. Again, Art. I, Sect. 10, recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else.

Why? Why should anyone be fighting for something that is not exactly equal to marriage?

Frankly, I agree with them- not with you- and their argument has been a winning argument- while yours is untested, and in my opinion, incorrect.

A civil union, is a contract, just as is a marriage, and as long as they are contracted equally, they are equal. The issue is akin to taking a purchase contract and calling it a marriage; which it is not. A marriage by traditional, and set legal definition is "A contract between a man and a woman". There is no need to label a purchase contract a marriage, and there is no reason to label a civil union a marriage.

Well I will leave you with that- Alabama passed a law which prohibited both.

Homosexuals have chosen to pursue actual marriage- and are succeeding.

The homo militia rejected civil unions long ago. Somebody didn't get the memo.

It was an experiment- but as Alabama showed- Conservatives rejected the concept of Civil Unions exactly as they do same gender marriage- since Civil Unions were being rejected- it made sense to pursue true marriage equality.

And its working.

It is only working in establishing a fiction and allowing YOUR SCOTUS to establish further it's fictional jurisdiction. Was the civil union case ever brought before YOUR SCOTUS? If so, what case was it?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Again....Art. I, Sect. 10, recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else.Therefore there is a right to contract a civil union.

All we're going through today is being reminded of why they were in the closet in the first place.

You are being reminded of gays being beaten and arrested?

Why is this thread reminding you of how gays stayed in the closet to avoid being physically assaulted and jailed?

No... All we're going through today is being reminded of why they were in the closet in the first place.

And we're being reminded through the irrational demand that the US just turn from the laws of nature and redefine the natural standard of marriage to accommodate the inferiority which naturally define those whose disordered mind rationalizes that sexual gratification through interaction with a person of their same gender is 'ok'.

Which is what causes such pitiful creatures to refuse perfectly plausible civil unions to join them legally with their 'bestee'.

And that is because Civil Union is not marriage.

Marriage is legitimate... and it is legitimacy that the deviants crave.

Of course, their behavior is illegitimate, thus they crave that which they cannot secure... and in THAT, we can rest assured that there is NO MEANS to EVER satisfy them...

And it is THERE where you will find the answer to 'why' homosexuals have spent 99.9999~% of human existence in the closet. Because the moment you let them out, they begin to consume all sense of good will toward them and the viability of the culture... and continue to do so until there is nothing left.

At which time, they are rounded up and destroyed by whatever comes to take the place of the culture they consumed... and the survivors and subsequent examples of such work tirelessly to hide their deviancy, denying to their dying breath that they ever so much as considered sexual gratification through sex with a member of their own gender.

Does that help, at all?

 

[Syriusly]

Why? Why should anyone be fighting for something that is not exactly equal to marriage?

Frankly, I agree with them- not with you- and their argument has been a winning argument- while yours is untested, and in my opinion, incorrect.

A civil union, is a contract, just as is a marriage, and as long as they are contracted equally, they are equal. The issue is akin to taking a purchase contract and calling it a marriage; which it is not. A marriage by traditional, and set legal definition is "A contract between a man and a woman". There is no need to label a purchase contract a marriage, and there is no reason to label a civil union a marriage.

Well I will leave you with that- Alabama passed a law which prohibited both.

Homosexuals have chosen to pursue actual marriage- and are succeeding.

The homo militia rejected civil unions long ago. Somebody didn't get the memo.

It was an experiment- but as Alabama showed- Conservatives rejected the concept of Civil Unions exactly as they do same gender marriage- since Civil Unions were being rejected- it made sense to pursue true marriage equality.

And its working.

The homo militia was never satisfied with the proposal of civil unions.

The homophobia stormtroopers were never going to allow Civil Unions- and its all working out better this way anyways.