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

[Skylar]

It is a biologically irrelevant statement, and the response was accurate and appropriate.

Homosexuals are parenting children- some they give birth to, some they use surrogacy for, and some they adopt.

And regardless of how they have their children- they are the parents of those children.

No matter how much you dumb son's of bitches homophobic bigots want to deny it.

Now- how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

Since two males can't biologically have children, my statement is relevant. If you want to argue they can, someone should explain it to you you stupid fucking moron.

If you think two males or two females attracted to each other, you're as much of a freak as they are and always will be.

Having a different opinion doesn't make me a bigot. In this case, it makes me normal and retards like you deviant. Deny it all you want but two men being together isn't normal.

Having your opinions makes you a bigot- you wallow in your homophobia.

Homosexuals are parenting children- some they give birth to, some they use surrogacy for, and some they adopt.

You can keep you head sticked firmly up your posterior and pretend it isn't happening but it is

And regardless of how they have their children- they are the parents of those children.

No matter how much you dumb son's of bitches homophobic bigots want to deny it.


Now- how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

It helps the children by showing them that someone can't have two dads/two moms. That's not how it works.

And that helps the children being raised by their gay parents exactly how?

Other than telling those kids that bigots like yourself don't approve- what is accomplished by preventing their parents from marrying?

What is accomplished is that those kids learn two males/two females being attracted is abnormal. While you may not agree, that isn't a requirement for it to be true.

That helps the children being raised by their gay parents exactly how?

 

[Conservative65]

Aga

Aft

By virtue fo the fact that citizens begin in childhood and how that child forms directly relates to the stability of any future for our Country.

A boy cannot call either of his two lesbian parents Dad. Neither can a girl call either of her two gay male parents Mom. We already have statistics on what happens mentally to a boy who has no father or a girl who has no mother: A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

At what age does the right consider appropriate, for children to sign consent agreements for being brought up with parents, regardless of their parent's, lifestyle choice?

Or, does right really really recant their alleged claim to Individual and several Consent for any Obligation of any Contract.

After reading several if your posts, it is clear that you are so politically charged that you could never move beyond your blind left v right to hold a proper perspective on any issue wherein you may perceive that an issue could be twisted into a left v right argument. You exist in apolitic

Aft
After reading several if your posts, it is clear that you are so politically charged that you could never move beyond your blind left v right to hold a proper perspective on any issue wherein you may perceive that an issue could be twisted into a left v right argument..

Says the guy that ignores the 14th amendment entirely because it is inconvenient to his argument.

Says the guy who has shown that YOUR 14th amendment doesn't apply to the case at hand;

Says you, citing yourself. The federal judiciary tested your theory and with almost universal consensus (44 of 46 cases) found that the 14th amendment did apply. And same sex marriage bans were unconstitutional.

Remember, you simply typing your personal opinion doesn't actually have any legal relevance nor establish any legal principle. As you're nobody.

Again, you show your own simple indoctrination into fiction by your reference to "the Federal judiciary". There must be a federal system for a federal judiciary to exist. You see Sir, you hold a fiction as a legitimate authority, when even the father of Your own CONstitution stated that the people in an individual State are the highest authority. The people of Alabama voted against your wishes. So from your very acceptance of a fictional "Federal Judiciary" wherein it is impossible for one to exist, shows that you are willing to accept any opinion as if it is legitimate from a fictional source. Now please explain this current federal system that you claim exists. This nobody really wants to hear this explanation of yours.

Dude and Esquires,

There is no willful appeal to ignorance of the legal fact that the several and sovereign States ratified Article 4, Section 2; it is no longer a States' right, upon appeal to the general government and that body of laws.

Since those same States ratified the 10th Amendment at a later date, makes sense that certain issues not under federal authority are States' rights issues. Don't like it, repeal the 10th amendment. That you choose to ignore it means nothing.

 

[Syriusly]

The 'interim law' you made up doesn't actually exist. As the Windsor ruling established a firm hierarchy that contradicts your narrative:

1) Constitutional guarantees

2) State marriage law

3) Federal Marriage law.
.

Agreed and the only constitutional guarantee Found on the merits in Windsor was states' rights retroactive to the founding of the country to define marriage.

So your list for interim law looks like this:.

There is no 'interim law'- there is only the law.

Windsor very clearly states that all state marriage laws are subject to constitutional protections- and I believe in a subsection- that you are delusional.

 

[James Everett]

You are a

Aft

By virtue fo the fact that citizens begin in childhood and how that child forms directly relates to the stability of any future for our Country.

A boy cannot call either of his two lesbian parents Dad. Neither can a girl call either of her two gay male parents Mom. We already have statistics on what happens mentally to a boy who has no father or a girl who has no mother: A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

At what age does the right consider appropriate, for children to sign consent agreements for being brought up with parents, regardless of their parent's, lifestyle choice?

Or, does right really really recant their alleged claim to Individual and several Consent for any Obligation of any Contract.

After reading several if your posts, it is clear that you are so politically charged that you could never move beyond your blind left v right to hold a proper perspective on any issue wherein you may perceive that an issue could be twisted into a left v right argument..

So what; you have nothing but fallacy for your Cause. I really am bringing up valid concepts.

Please, please, explain this fictional federal system that you claim currently exists. If you can't then this kangaroo court in which you rely is a fiction as well. Point being, you grant your consent to an illegitimate source, and accept that which is illegitimate as if it is legitimate. If the claimed authority to take the life of every 1st born child, you would accept such as legitimate as coming from a "federal judiciary" . But let us not get side tract; I really really do want to hear this explanation of this federal system you claim still exists.

What are you referring to? Our federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

You are aware that YOUR U.S. CONstitution established a partially federal system carried over from the Articles of Confederation, cobbled together with the addition of a national system to form YOUR CONstitutional system? Without a union of States, there can be no federal system as established by the founders' For that union of States, and federal system to exist, the State governments must be participants in legislation, (the laws that govern the collective of participant States), that participation of State governments no longer exists as a result of Lincoln's war and the resulting 17th amendment. Hence the fiction exists that the CONstitutional system established in 1787 and ratified in 1789 no longer exists, and the system that exists today is a wholly national system controlled with no residual aspect of federalism. This national system is now controlled by its participants which took place of the state governments which are the two party's which govern and control the political process, and the legislators who's elections they fund. The political parties are funded by international corporations.

 

[Silhouette]

There is no 'interim law'- there is only the law.

Windsor very clearly states that all state marriage laws are subject to constitutional protections- and I believe in a subsection- that you are delusional.

No such merits were argued or Found in Windsor. What was argued and Found was states' supremacy on defining marriage. It was Constitutionally Upheld and that Finding was used to award E. Windsor her money and strike down the part of DOMA where it says the fed can dictate to states how marriage is defined.

THAT is the only and highest federal interpretation of the question until/unless further notice.

Refusing stays on gay marriage in states that define marriage as man/woman father/mother is ILLEGAL therefore. No state including Alabama and all the others may permit gay marriage if its sovereign citizens have defined marriage to remain as it always has been man/woman father/mother.

 

[Skylar]

You are a

Aft

At what age does the right consider appropriate, for children to sign consent agreements for being brought up with parents, regardless of their parent's, lifestyle choice?

Or, does right really really recant their alleged claim to Individual and several Consent for any Obligation of any Contract.

After reading several if your posts, it is clear that you are so politically charged that you could never move beyond your blind left v right to hold a proper perspective on any issue wherein you may perceive that an issue could be twisted into a left v right argument..

So what; you have nothing but fallacy for your Cause. I really am bringing up valid concepts.

Please, please, explain this fictional federal system that you claim currently exists. If you can't then this kangaroo court in which you rely is a fiction as well. Point being, you grant your consent to an illegitimate source, and accept that which is illegitimate as if it is legitimate. If the claimed authority to take the life of every 1st born child, you would accept such as legitimate as coming from a "federal judiciary" . But let us not get side tract; I really really do want to hear this explanation of this federal system you claim still exists.

What are you referring to? Our federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

You are aware that YOUR U.S. CONstitution established a partially federal system carried over from the Articles of Confederation, cobbled together with the addition of a national system to form YOUR CONstitutional system? Without a union of States, there can be no federal system as established by the founders' For that union of States, and federal system to exist, the State governments must be participants in legislation, (the laws that govern the collective of participant States), that participation of State governments no longer exists as a result of Lincoln's war and the resulting 17th amendment. Hence the fiction exists that the CONstitutional system established in 1787 and ratified in 1789 no longer exists, and the system that exists today is a wholly national system controlled with no residual aspect of federalism. This national system is now controlled by its participants which took place of the state governments which are the two party's which govern and control the political process, and the legislators who's elections they fund. The political parties are funded by international corporations.

The notice there's not the slightest mention of the 14th amendment anywhere in your post. You pretend it doesn't exist, pretend it never happened.

The courts are not obligated to pretend with you. Nor are we.

 

[Conservative65]

Again, you show your own simple indoctrination into fiction by your reference to "the Federal judiciary".

More accurately, I show that I don't recognize your personal opinion as having any legal relevance to the application of the 14th amendment. As your basis that the 14th doesn't apply...is just you saying the 14th doesn't apply.

The Begging the Question fallacy. And fallacies of logic isn't evidence of anything but your inability to support your claims logically and factually.

There must be a federal system for a federal judiciary to exist. You see Sir, you hold a fiction as a legitimate authority, when even the father of Your own CONstitution stated that the people in an individual State are the highest authority.

A statement that was made BEFORE the 14th amendment was passed. You see Sir, in the age of the founders the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. The States were the supreme authority on the rights of the people of that State. And the Federal government had no jurisdiction if a State were to violate the rights of individual citizens.....as the States sometimes did;

"These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them."

This is the era from which you exclusive pull your citations. But that era ended with the passage of the 14th amendment which explicitly extended federal authority to the States if they violate the privileges and immunities of US Citizens:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

This fundamentally changed the relationship of the States and the Federal government, allowing the federal government to apply the Bill of Rights to the States and to prevent the States from violating of those rights.

You pretend this never happened. You pretend the States are still free to violate the rights of US citizens. You pretend that the federal government has no jurisdiction over the States nor the ability to prevent the violation of rights by the States.

I'm not obligated to pretend with you. And the courts certainly aren't. Just because you ignore the 14th amendment doesn't mean it ceases to exist.

You Sir, simply don't know what you're talking about.

You pretend that the 14th amendment gives the federal government power over something that the Constitution does not give it. However, you ignore the 10th amendment which says those powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the States. Since marriage isn't specifically mentioned nor delegated to the federal government, the States have the authority to regulate it whether you or the Liberal activitst judges think so.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You pretend that the 14th amendment gives the federal government power over something that the Constitution does not give it. However, you ignore the 10th amendment which says those powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the States. Since marriage isn't specifically mentioned nor delegated to the federal government, the States have the authority to regulate it whether you or the Liberal activitst judges think so.

The states do regulate it, they just can't be unconstitutional about it or ignore a legal marriage from another state, something they are doing currently that will soon be fixed.

 

[Conservative65]

Since two males can't biologically have children, my statement is relevant. If you want to argue they can, someone should explain it to you you stupid fucking moron.

If you think two males or two females attracted to each other, you're as much of a freak as they are and always will be.

Having a different opinion doesn't make me a bigot. In this case, it makes me normal and retards like you deviant. Deny it all you want but two men being together isn't normal.

Having your opinions makes you a bigot- you wallow in your homophobia.

Homosexuals are parenting children- some they give birth to, some they use surrogacy for, and some they adopt.

You can keep you head sticked firmly up your posterior and pretend it isn't happening but it is

And regardless of how they have their children- they are the parents of those children.

No matter how much you dumb son's of bitches homophobic bigots want to deny it.


Now- how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

It helps the children by showing them that someone can't have two dads/two moms. That's not how it works.

And that helps the children being raised by their gay parents exactly how?

Other than telling those kids that bigots like yourself don't approve- what is accomplished by preventing their parents from marrying?

What is accomplished is that those kids learn two males/two females being attracted is abnormal. While you may not agree, that isn't a requirement for it to be true.

That helps the children being raised by their gay parents exactly how?

They learn abnormal isn't OK like people like you want them to believe.

 

[Syriusly]

There is no 'interim law'- there is only the law.

Windsor very clearly states that all state marriage laws are subject to constitutional protections- and I believe in a subsection- that you are delusional.

Refusing stays on gay marriage in states that define marriage as man/woman father/mother is ILLEGAL therefore. .

Since it is the Supreme Court who is refusing the stays- on court decisions overturning unconstitutional state laws, it is impossible for that to be illegal.

Once again- this is just a fantasy, created wholesale in your mind.

 

[Conservative65]

You pretend that the 14th amendment gives the federal government power over something that the Constitution does not give it. However, you ignore the 10th amendment which says those powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the States. Since marriage isn't specifically mentioned nor delegated to the federal government, the States have the authority to regulate it whether you or the Liberal activitst judges think so.

The states do regulate it, they just can't be unconstitutional about it or ignore a legal marriage from another state, something they are doing currently that will soon be fixed.

What you support doesn't fix a damn thing. It puts freaks on the same level as normal people.

 

[James Everett]

The 'interim law' you made up doesn't actually exist. As the Windsor ruling established a firm hierarchy that contradicts your narrative:

1) Constitutional guarantees

2) State marriage law

3) Federal Marriage law.
.

Agreed and the only constitutional guarantee Found on the merits in Windsor was states' rights retroactive to the founding of the country to define marriage.

That's what you say. This is what the Windsor ruling says:

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

With the example of constitutional guarantees given being the Loving v. Virginia ruling in 1967. A ruling where the court OVERTURNED state marriage laws that prohibited interracial marriage. Exactly the opposite of what you claim the court meant.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

And while you may ignore constitutional guarantees, the courts won't. Get used to the idea.

Still awaiting your explanation of this fictional federal system that you claim exists. You are having difficulty because you have accepted a fiction, and all that has been built around it. But by all means please try, because I do wish to hear your attempt, as you surely must know what you are talking about since you understand this 14th amendment and it's intent. You are much like the individual who accepted the fiction that the Iraq war was over WMD rather than the more in depth understanding that it was simply another page in hegemony to control the flow of oil for the corporations that control your govt.

 

[Syriusly]

Having your opinions makes you a bigot- you wallow in your homophobia.

Homosexuals are parenting children- some they give birth to, some they use surrogacy for, and some they adopt.

You can keep you head sticked firmly up your posterior and pretend it isn't happening but it is

And regardless of how they have their children- they are the parents of those children.

No matter how much you dumb son's of bitches homophobic bigots want to deny it.


Now- how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

It helps the children by showing them that someone can't have two dads/two moms. That's not how it works.

And that helps the children being raised by their gay parents exactly how?

Other than telling those kids that bigots like yourself don't approve- what is accomplished by preventing their parents from marrying?

What is accomplished is that those kids learn two males/two females being attracted is abnormal. While you may not agree, that isn't a requirement for it to be true.

That helps the children being raised by their gay parents exactly how?

They learn abnormal isn't OK like people like you want them to believe.

Appears to me all that they learn are that bigots like you want to foment hatred towards their parents.

 

[Syriusly]

You pretend that the 14th amendment gives the federal government power over something that the Constitution does not give it. However, you ignore the 10th amendment which says those powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the States. Since marriage isn't specifically mentioned nor delegated to the federal government, the States have the authority to regulate it whether you or the Liberal activitst judges think so.

The states do regulate it, they just can't be unconstitutional about it or ignore a legal marriage from another state, something they are doing currently that will soon be fixed.

What you support doesn't fix a damn thing. It puts freaks on the same level as normal people.

Look- even though I don't agree with you- freaks like you have the same legal rights as normal people.

 

[Conservative65]

There is no 'interim law'- there is only the law.Windsor very clearly states that all state marriage laws are subject to constitutional protections- and I believe in a subsection- that you are delusional.

Refusing stays on gay marriage in states that define marriage as man/woman father/mother is ILLEGAL therefore. .

Since it is the Supreme Court who is refusing the stays- on court decisions overturning unconstitutional state laws, it is impossible for that to be illegal.Once again- this is just a fantasy, created wholesale in your mind.

The fantasy world is what you believe about two of the same gender being attracted as normal.

 

[Skylar]

There is no 'interim law'- there is only the law.

Windsor very clearly states that all state marriage laws are subject to constitutional protections- and I believe in a subsection- that you are delusional.

No such merits were argued or Found in Windsor. What was argued and Found was states' supremacy on defining marriage. It was Constitutionally Upheld and that Finding was used to award E. Windsor her money and strike down the part of DOMA where it says the fed can dictate to states how marriage is defined.

Again, you ignore constitutional guarantees as laid out by the Windsor ruling and the heirarchy affirmed by the ruling:

1) Constitutional guarantees

2) State marriage laws

3) Federal Marriage laws.

No where does the Windsor ruling say that State marriage laws trump constitutional guarantees. And every ruling overturning same sex marriage laws did so on the basis of violation of those constitutional guarantees.

You can pretend no such guarantees exist. But you can't make the courts ignore them. Or us for that matter.

Rights trump powers. You can't get around that.

Refusing stays on gay marriage in states that define marriage as man/woman father/mother is ILLEGAL therefore.

Again, says you. The USSC isn't bound to whatever batshit you make up. And the Windsor ruling doesn't authorize any gay marriage bans, nor even mentions them. I

You hallucinated your entire argument. Even Scalia explicitly contradicts you:

"In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status."

Note the terms 'inevitable' and 'beyond mistaking' on the Windsor court's take of gay marriage bans. But you still you know better huh?

Laughing......so how's that working out for you?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You pretend that the 14th amendment gives the federal government power over something that the Constitution does not give it. However, you ignore the 10th amendment which says those powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the States. Since marriage isn't specifically mentioned nor delegated to the federal government, the States have the authority to regulate it whether you or the Liberal activitst judges think so.

The states do regulate it, they just can't be unconstitutional about it or ignore a legal marriage from another state, something they are doing currently that will soon be fixed.

What you support doesn't fix a damn thing. It puts freaks on the same level as normal people.

Freaks are normal people, in the eyes of the law. And we don't have mob rule here so your mob can't win.

 

[Syriusly]

Again, you show your own simple indoctrination into fiction by your reference to "the Federal judiciary".

More accurately, I show that I don't recognize your personal opinion as having any legal relevance to the application of the 14th amendment. As your basis that the 14th doesn't apply...is just you saying the 14th doesn't apply.

The Begging the Question fallacy. And fallacies of logic isn't evidence of anything but your inability to support your claims logically and factually.

There must be a federal system for a federal judiciary to exist. You see Sir, you hold a fiction as a legitimate authority, when even the father of Your own CONstitution stated that the people in an individual State are the highest authority.

A statement that was made BEFORE the 14th amendment was passed. You see Sir, in the age of the founders the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. The States were the supreme authority on the rights of the people of that State. And the Federal government had no jurisdiction if a State were to violate the rights of individual citizens.....as the States sometimes did;

"These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them."

This is the era from which you exclusive pull your citations. But that era ended with the passage of the 14th amendment which explicitly extended federal authority to the States if they violate the privileges and immunities of US Citizens:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

This fundamentally changed the relationship of the States and the Federal government, allowing the federal government to apply the Bill of Rights to the States and to prevent the States from violating of those rights.

You pretend this never happened. You pretend the States are still free to violate the rights of US citizens. You pretend that the federal government has no jurisdiction over the States nor the ability to prevent the violation of rights by the States.

I'm not obligated to pretend with you. And the courts certainly aren't. Just because you ignore the 14th amendment doesn't mean it ceases to exist.

You Sir, simply don't know what you're talking about.

You pretend that the 14th amendment gives the federal government power over something that the Constitution does not give it. However, you ignore the 10th amendment which says those powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the States. Since marriage isn't specifically mentioned nor delegated to the federal government, the States have the authority to regulate it whether you or the Liberal activitst judges think so.

Federal judges have been telling States that their marriage laws are unconstitutional for years now- and the Supreme Court has confirmed that authority at least 3 times.

Whether you think that the Supreme Court doesn't have that authority is rather immateriality- as shown in Loving v. Virginia- the Supreme Court does have that authority.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The fantasy world is what you believe about two of the same gender being attracted as normal.

It is, and always has been as far as we know, for a small percentage of the population. And another small percentage doesn't seem to much care what sex they bed down with, as long as they get laid. Also "normal".

 

[Conservative65]

It helps the children by showing them that someone can't have two dads/two moms. That's not how it works.

And that helps the children being raised by their gay parents exactly how?

Other than telling those kids that bigots like yourself don't approve- what is accomplished by preventing their parents from marrying?

What is accomplished is that those kids learn two males/two females being attracted is abnormal. While you may not agree, that isn't a requirement for it to be true.

That helps the children being raised by their gay parents exactly how?

They learn abnormal isn't OK like people like you want them to believe.

Appears to me all that they learn are that bigots like you want to foment hatred towards their parents.

Whether or not they learn what they are being taught about two males/two females attracted being abnormal is up to them. The opportunity is there. If they don't learn it, that's their fault.