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

[Skylar]

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.

Ah, but marriage is recognized as a constitutional right. And the courts absolutely have the authority to protect the rights of citizens. Not simply the authority, but the obligation to do so.

And the States can't apply their law unequally to US citizens. If the States do, they courts again have the authority to prevent it and the obligation to do so.

However, you ignore the 10th amendment which says those powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the States.

Read the 9th amendment. Reserve rights still exist even if they aren't enumerated.

Rights trump powers, no matter how much this fact may infuriate conservatives.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Luckily in a few short years, bigots like you will be as rare as the bigots who wanted everyone to know that being attracted to another race is abnormal.

 

[Skylar]

Still awaiting your explanation of this fictional federal system that you claim exists.

I've already given it to you. You ignored it just like you ignored the 14th amendment. And neither the explanation nor the 14th amendment vanish just because you close your eyes.

And just so you can't say I don't coddle you and hold your hand....here's the explanation yet again.

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.

Ignore as you will. No one really gives a shit.

 

[James Everett]

You still have been unable to explain what the federal system is, or how it is in operation today: why? Because you cannot because such doesn't exist. Marriage is not denied to those who meet the criteria of a marriage contract, which is actin tract between a man and a woman, not a man and a man. No man and woman are being denied the equal protection to marry aside from incest. Your 24th argument is a fiction in reality, but then you exist in fiction as I have shown.

 

[Skylar]

You still have been unable to explain what the federal system is, or how it is in operation today: why? Because you cannot because such doesn't exist. Marriage is not denied to those who meet the criteria of a marriage contract, which is actin tract between a man and a woman, not a man and a man. No man and woman are being denied the equal protection to marry aside from incest. Your 24th argument is a fiction in reality, but then you exist in fiction as I have shown.

See post #903.

You can close your eyes and refuse to address it. But you can't make it or the 14th amendment disappear.

 

[Syriusly]

You still have been unable to explain what the federal system is, or how it is in operation today: why? Because you cannot because such doesn't exist. Marriage is not denied to those who meet the criteria of a marriage contract, which is actin tract between a man and a woman, not a man and a man. No man and woman are being denied the equal protection to marry aside from incest. Your 24th argument is a fiction in reality, but then you exist in fiction as I have shown.

The Federal system exists- it is.

Marriage is denied to Americans according to multiple Federal judges.

And the Supreme Court will decide whether they are right.

And no one will care that you don't think any of that exists.

 

[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.

Ah, but marriage is recognized as a constitutional right. And the courts absolutely have the authority to protect the rights of citizens. Not simply the authority, but the obligation to do so.

And the States can't apply their law unequally to US citizens. If the States do, they courts again have the authority to prevent it and the obligation to do so.

However, you ignore the 10th amendment which says those powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the States.

Read the 9th amendment. Reserve rights still exist even if they aren't enumerated.

Rights trump powers, no matter how much this fact may infuriate conservatives.

Free speech, freedom of religion, and owning guns are recognized constitutional rights because they are specifically in the Constitution. Certain interpretations say marriage is one. However, I'm yet to see it listed like I do speech, religion, and gun ownership. Read the 10th Amendment. It trumps what you think you have a right to do faggot whether you like it or not.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Ah, but marriage is recognized as a constitutional right. And the courts absolutely have the authority to protect the rights of citizens. Not simply the authority, but the obligation to do so.

And the States can't apply their law unequally to US citizens. If the States do, they courts again have the authority to prevent it and the obligation to do so.

However, you ignore the 10th amendment which says those powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the States.

Read the 9th amendment. Reserve rights still exist even if they aren't enumerated.

Rights trump powers, no matter how much this fact may infuriate conservatives.

Free speech, freedom of religion, and owning guns are recognized constitutional rights because they are specifically in the Constitution. Certain interpretations say marriage is one. However, I'm yet to see it listed like I do speech, religion, and gun ownership. Read the 10th Amendment. It trumps what you think you have a right to do faggot whether you like it or not.

Since you have lost, and are about to lose nationally, why do you bother?

 

[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.

Ah, but marriage is recognized as a constitutional right. And the courts absolutely have the authority to protect the rights of citizens. Not simply the authority, but the obligation to do so.

And the States can't apply their law unequally to US citizens. If the States do, they courts again have the authority to prevent it and the obligation to do so.

However, you ignore the 10th amendment which says those powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the States.

Read the 9th amendment. Reserve rights still exist even if they aren't enumerated.

Rights trump powers, no matter how much this fact may infuriate conservatives.

Free speech, freedom of religion, and owning guns are recognized constitutional rights because they are specifically in the Constitution. Certain interpretations say marriage is one. However, I'm yet to see it listed like I do speech, religion, and gun ownership. Read the 10th Amendment. It trumps what you think you have a right to do faggot whether you like it or not.

Since you have lost, and are about to lose nationally, why do you bother?

Being married to someone of the opposite gender, that makes me a winner regardless of what a bunch of faggot loving people say. Even if homos marry, they're still losers because they live abnormal lives.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

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;

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:

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.

Ah, but marriage is recognized as a constitutional right. And the courts absolutely have the authority to protect the rights of citizens. Not simply the authority, but the obligation to do so.

And the States can't apply their law unequally to US citizens. If the States do, they courts again have the authority to prevent it and the obligation to do so.

However, you ignore the 10th amendment which says those powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the States.

Read the 9th amendment. Reserve rights still exist even if they aren't enumerated.

Rights trump powers, no matter how much this fact may infuriate conservatives.

Free speech, freedom of religion, and owning guns are recognized constitutional rights because they are specifically in the Constitution. Certain interpretations say marriage is one. However, I'm yet to see it listed like I do speech, religion, and gun ownership. Read the 10th Amendment. It trumps what you think you have a right to do faggot whether you like it or not.

Since you have lost, and are about to lose nationally, why do you bother?

Being married to someone of the opposite gender, that makes me a winner regardless of what a bunch of faggot loving people say. Even if homos marry, they're still losers because they live abnormal lives.

So it's just your childish hatred talking? Got it. As my wife might say, what a dumbass.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Ah, but marriage is recognized as a constitutional right. And the courts absolutely have the authority to protect the rights of citizens. Not simply the authority, but the obligation to do so.

And the States can't apply their law unequally to US citizens. If the States do, they courts again have the authority to prevent it and the obligation to do so.

However, you ignore the 10th amendment which says those powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the States.

Read the 9th amendment. Reserve rights still exist even if they aren't enumerated.

Rights trump powers, no matter how much this fact may infuriate conservatives.

Free speech, freedom of religion, and owning guns are recognized constitutional rights because they are specifically in the Constitution. Certain interpretations say marriage is one.

Read the 9th amendment. Reserve Rights exist. And they don't need to be enumerated.

Your silly interpretation of 'exhaustive rights' is exactly why the 9th amendment exists. Because the founders were certain some chucklehead would assume that if a right wasn't listed in the Bill of Rights, it didn't exist.

And thank goodness they created the 9th amendment to disprove such nonsense!

Rights trump powers, chucklehead. Get used to the idea.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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;

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:

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.

Ah, but marriage is recognized as a constitutional right. And the courts absolutely have the authority to protect the rights of citizens. Not simply the authority, but the obligation to do so.

And the States can't apply their law unequally to US citizens. If the States do, they courts again have the authority to prevent it and the obligation to do so.

However, you ignore the 10th amendment which says those powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the States.

Read the 9th amendment. Reserve rights still exist even if they aren't enumerated.

Rights trump powers, no matter how much this fact may infuriate conservatives.

Free speech, freedom of religion, and owning guns are recognized constitutional rights because they are specifically in the Constitution. Certain interpretations say marriage is one. However, I'm yet to see it listed like I do speech, religion, and gun ownership. Read the 10th Amendment. It trumps what you think you have a right to do faggot whether you like it or not.

Since you have lost, and are about to lose nationally, why do you bother?

Being married to someone of the opposite gender, that makes me a winner regardless of what a bunch of faggot loving people say. Even if homos marry, they're still losers because they live abnormal lives.

Whatever. Gays and lesbians are rightfully having their marriages recognized as being as legally valid and protected as those of straights. With the public support for gay marriage continuing to surge.

I strongly suspect than in 30 years we'll look back on people like you like we look back today on interracial marriage opponents 30 years ago.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Luckily in a few short years, bigots like you will be as rare as the bigots who wanted everyone to know that being attracted to another race is abnormal.

Don't be so quick to think so. My two children already know homosexuality is abnormal. My brother's children do, too.

 

[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.

Ah, but marriage is recognized as a constitutional right. And the courts absolutely have the authority to protect the rights of citizens. Not simply the authority, but the obligation to do so.

And the States can't apply their law unequally to US citizens. If the States do, they courts again have the authority to prevent it and the obligation to do so.

However, you ignore the 10th amendment which says those powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the States.

Read the 9th amendment. Reserve rights still exist even if they aren't enumerated.

Rights trump powers, no matter how much this fact may infuriate conservatives.

Free speech, freedom of religion, and owning guns are recognized constitutional rights because they are specifically in the Constitution. Certain interpretations say marriage is one.

Read the 9th amendment. Reserve Rights exist. And they don't need to be enumerated.

Your silly interpretation of 'exhaustive rights' is exactly why the 9th amendment exists. Because the founders were certain some chucklehead would assume that if a right wasn't listed in the Bill of Rights, it didn't exist.

And thank goodness they created the 9th amendment to disprove such nonsense!

Rights trump powers, chucklehead. Get used to the idea.

Get used to the fact that despite homos marrying, you will still be a freak and an abnormal individual. Those of us that matter will know and those of you than don't get it don't matter.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Those of us that matter will know and those of you than don't get it don't matter.

For a person who matters, you sure lose a lot...

 

[Skylar]

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.

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;

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:

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.

Ah, but marriage is recognized as a constitutional right. And the courts absolutely have the authority to protect the rights of citizens. Not simply the authority, but the obligation to do so.

And the States can't apply their law unequally to US citizens. If the States do, they courts again have the authority to prevent it and the obligation to do so.

However, you ignore the 10th amendment which says those powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the States.

Read the 9th amendment. Reserve rights still exist even if they aren't enumerated.

Rights trump powers, no matter how much this fact may infuriate conservatives.

Free speech, freedom of religion, and owning guns are recognized constitutional rights because they are specifically in the Constitution. Certain interpretations say marriage is one.

Read the 9th amendment. Reserve Rights exist. And they don't need to be enumerated.

Your silly interpretation of 'exhaustive rights' is exactly why the 9th amendment exists. Because the founders were certain some chucklehead would assume that if a right wasn't listed in the Bill of Rights, it didn't exist.

And thank goodness they created the 9th amendment to disprove such nonsense!

Rights trump powers, chucklehead. Get used to the idea.

Get used to the fact that despite homos marrying, you will still be a freak and an abnormal individual.

Says you, citing you. And I genuinely don't care what your personal opinion is. I'm concerned with legal rights.

 

[Montrovant]

You still have been unable to explain what the federal system is, or how it is in operation today: why? Because you cannot because such doesn't exist. Marriage is not denied to those who meet the criteria of a marriage contract, which is actin tract between a man and a woman, not a man and a man. No man and woman are being denied the equal protection to marry aside from incest. Your 24th argument is a fiction in reality, but then you exist in fiction as I have shown.

Even if I agreed with you that the federal government was created illegally, that wouldn't change the observable fact of its existence.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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;

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:

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.

Ah, but marriage is recognized as a constitutional right. And the courts absolutely have the authority to protect the rights of citizens. Not simply the authority, but the obligation to do so.

And the States can't apply their law unequally to US citizens. If the States do, they courts again have the authority to prevent it and the obligation to do so.

However, you ignore the 10th amendment which says those powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the States.

Read the 9th amendment. Reserve rights still exist even if they aren't enumerated.

Rights trump powers, no matter how much this fact may infuriate conservatives.

Free speech, freedom of religion, and owning guns are recognized constitutional rights because they are specifically in the Constitution. Certain interpretations say marriage is one. However, I'm yet to see it listed like I do speech, religion, and gun ownership. Read the 10th Amendment. It trumps what you think you have a right to do faggot whether you like it or not.

Since you have lost, and are about to lose nationally, why do you bother?

Being married to someone of the opposite gender, that makes me a winner regardless of what a bunch of faggot loving people say. Even if homos marry, they're still losers because they live abnormal lives.

The real loser is your poor wife, and the abnormal life you force her to live with.

The winners are people in love getting married.

Love is a beautiful thing.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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;

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:

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.

Ah, but marriage is recognized as a constitutional right. And the courts absolutely have the authority to protect the rights of citizens. Not simply the authority, but the obligation to do so.

And the States can't apply their law unequally to US citizens. If the States do, they courts again have the authority to prevent it and the obligation to do so.

However, you ignore the 10th amendment which says those powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the States.

Read the 9th amendment. Reserve rights still exist even if they aren't enumerated.

Rights trump powers, no matter how much this fact may infuriate conservatives.

Free speech, freedom of religion, and owning guns are recognized constitutional rights because they are specifically in the Constitution. Certain interpretations say marriage is one.

Read the 9th amendment. Reserve Rights exist. And they don't need to be enumerated.

Your silly interpretation of 'exhaustive rights' is exactly why the 9th amendment exists. Because the founders were certain some chucklehead would assume that if a right wasn't listed in the Bill of Rights, it didn't exist.

And thank goodness they created the 9th amendment to disprove such nonsense!

Rights trump powers, chucklehead. Get used to the idea.

Get used to the fact that despite homos marrying, you will still be a freak and an abnormal individual. Those of us that matter will know and those of you than don't get it don't matter.

Those of you who 'matter' don't apparently matter much.

As our national bard says:

And the haters gonna hate, hate, hate
Baby I'm just gonna shake, shake, shake
Shake it off

 

[Conservative65]

Those of us that matter will know and those of you than don't get it don't matter.

For a person who matters, you sure lose a lot...

It's only your kind that think I lose a lot. Since you're one of those that doesn't matter, neither does your opinion.