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

[Syriusly]

I've defined my standards of equal protection: if you're going to say no to gays, you'll need a very good reason, a compelling state interest and a valid legislative ends. And I didn't pull them from the air. These are the standards articulated by Justice Kennedy in Romer v. Evans, and in other USSC cases.

Gay marriage bans have none of these.

That's my basis of equal protection. And I don't know enough sibling marriage to have an opinion on the matter.

Gay marriage bans have none based on your OPINION.

I'm not citing me. I'm citing 44 of 46 federal rulings which have all indicated that gay marriage bans violate equal protection. And with the USSC preserving EVERY lower court ruling that has overturned gay marriage bans, while at the same time refusing EVERY request for stay from States trying to preserve gay marriage bans....

........it seems quite likely that the USSC is on the same page I am.

You don't know shit. That's why you support a bunch of deviant faggots getting married. Maybe you can find a spouse.

I know gay marriage is winning. That its swaying public opinion, with a sound majority supporting it now. I know gay marriage is legal in 37 of 50 States. And I know it seems quite likely that the USSC will make it 50 of 50 in June.

And apparently, so do you.

You cite activist judges with the same faggot agenda you have.

He is citing judges who have authority and education.

Both which you lack.

Doesn't change that an ACTIVIST made a decision against the will of the people of many of those states. Seems you should educate yourself on that FACT.
Don't confuse power and authority. They have the power to do it merely because of their position. They do not have the ability to enforce it only to say it. Also, don't confuse power with making correct decisions. Because someone can decide doesn't mean they make the correct decision. In your case, you assume they mean the same thing because you agree with what other faggot lovers with an agenda do.

I can't remember when you have actually cited a fact. You call the judges 'activist judges' because you don't agree with their rulings. Nothing else.

Judges have the authority to make rulings on the constitutionality of laws- and judges have ruled state marriage laws to be unconstitutional at least 3 times before this marriage issue has come up- and every time judges had the authority to make their decision.

And in every occasion, ultimately the states obeyed the judges rulings- as ultimately will Alabama.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm not citing me. I'm citing 44 of 46 federal rulings which have all indicated that gay marriage bans violate equal protection. And with the USSC preserving EVERY lower court ruling that has overturned gay marriage bans, while at the same time refusing EVERY request for stay from States trying to preserve gay marriage bans....

........it seems quite likely that the USSC is on the same page I am.

I know gay marriage is winning. That its swaying public opinion, with a sound majority supporting it now. I know gay marriage is legal in 37 of 50 States. And I know it seems quite likely that the USSC will make it 50 of 50 in June.

And apparently, so do you.

Gay marriage can't ever win.

Sure it can. Every time a state recognized it, it wins. And so does equal protection. And constitutional rights!

You disagree. And who gives a shit? Gays are getting married anyway. You believe whatever you want. It has no impact on the 10s of thosuands of gays and lesbians that have been married, or the hundreds of thousands that are to follow.

Sounds like a win-win to me!

My State didn't recognize it. An activist judge said what my State did recognize didn't matter.

It just gives me more opportunities to go where the faggots are marrying and make fun of their second class status.

Two people of the same sex getting married are born losers.

I think this is a picture of you doing just that

View attachment 37686

I don't carry signs or wear shirts. I simply laugh at them thinking they are normal.

Wait I think I found a better photo of you

 

[danielpalos]

I'm not citing me. I'm citing 44 of 46 federal rulings which have all indicated that gay marriage bans violate equal protection. And with the USSC preserving EVERY lower court ruling that has overturned gay marriage bans, while at the same time refusing EVERY request for stay from States trying to preserve gay marriage bans....

........it seems quite likely that the USSC is on the same page I am.

I know gay marriage is winning. That its swaying public opinion, with a sound majority supporting it now. I know gay marriage is legal in 37 of 50 States. And I know it seems quite likely that the USSC will make it 50 of 50 in June.

And apparently, so do you.

You cite activist judges with the same faggot agenda you have.

Says you. Again, you applying arbitrary labels to anyone who disagrees with you is meaningless. As agreeing with you is meaningless. It defines nothing, legitimizes nothing, nor establishes any rational standard. Its just your personal opinion.

And no one cares.

Now gay marriage being legal in 37 of 50 States? Folks care about that.

Says the definition of activist you stupid motherfucker.

And why is it that bigots seem to have the vocabularies of 12 year old boys?

Why do faggot lovers like you not understand the definition of the term activist? Seems my vocabulary is far greater than yours. Apparently you don't understand the definition of motherfucker either. Look in the mirror and see both that and a faggot loving freak.

Why can abomination of hypocrisy lovers not bear True Witness to our own laws.

Do they not know that True Gamorrans and True Sodomites, make better citizens than False Christians.

 

[Skylar]

I've defined my standards of equal protection: if you're going to say no to gays, you'll need a very good reason, a compelling state interest and a valid legislative ends. And I didn't pull them from the air. These are the standards articulated by Justice Kennedy in Romer v. Evans, and in other USSC cases.

Gay marriage bans have none of these.

That's my basis of equal protection. And I don't know enough sibling marriage to have an opinion on the matter.

Gay marriage bans have none based on your OPINION.

I'm not citing me. I'm citing 44 of 46 federal rulings which have all indicated that gay marriage bans violate equal protection. And with the USSC preserving EVERY lower court ruling that has overturned gay marriage bans, while at the same time refusing EVERY request for stay from States trying to preserve gay marriage bans....

........it seems quite likely that the USSC is on the same page I am.

You don't know shit. That's why you support a bunch of deviant faggots getting married. Maybe you can find a spouse.

I know gay marriage is winning. That its swaying public opinion, with a sound majority supporting it now. I know gay marriage is legal in 37 of 50 States. And I know it seems quite likely that the USSC will make it 50 of 50 in June.

And apparently, so do you.

You cite activist judges with the same faggot agenda you have.

He is citing judges who have authority and education.

Both which you lack.

Doesn't change that an ACTIVIST made a decision against the will of the people of many of those states. Seems you should educate yourself on that FACT.

No, that's merely a label you apply to anyone who disagrees with you. Defending rights isn't the position of an 'activist'. Its the position of a judge.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe that more legitimate "Judicial activism" should be in the form of establishing a culture of militia service by regulating well, gun lovers that may present themselves for any breaches of the domestic Tranquility or security of our free States, after all, what Republic could be worse off with better aqueducts and better roads.

And, not Only that, but Only our federal Congress is delegated the (social) Power to write words on formerly blank pieces of paper and have them enacted as laws in our republic.

 

[Conservative65]

Gay marriage bans have none based on your OPINION.

I'm not citing me. I'm citing 44 of 46 federal rulings which have all indicated that gay marriage bans violate equal protection. And with the USSC preserving EVERY lower court ruling that has overturned gay marriage bans, while at the same time refusing EVERY request for stay from States trying to preserve gay marriage bans....

........it seems quite likely that the USSC is on the same page I am.

You don't know shit. That's why you support a bunch of deviant faggots getting married. Maybe you can find a spouse.

I know gay marriage is winning. That its swaying public opinion, with a sound majority supporting it now. I know gay marriage is legal in 37 of 50 States. And I know it seems quite likely that the USSC will make it 50 of 50 in June.

And apparently, so do you.

You cite activist judges with the same faggot agenda you have.

He is citing judges who have authority and education.

Both which you lack.

Doesn't change that an ACTIVIST made a decision against the will of the people of many of those states. Seems you should educate yourself on that FACT.

No, that's merely a label you apply to anyone who disagrees with you. Defending rights isn't the position of an 'activist'. Its the position of a judge.

It's a definition I apply to those that fit the definition. You choose not to apply because you disagree.

When a judge overrides a law, in essence passing his/her own, it's activism. You don't have to agree as you can look stupid if you choose.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'm not citing me. I'm citing 44 of 46 federal rulings which have all indicated that gay marriage bans violate equal protection. And with the USSC preserving EVERY lower court ruling that has overturned gay marriage bans, while at the same time refusing EVERY request for stay from States trying to preserve gay marriage bans....

........it seems quite likely that the USSC is on the same page I am.

I know gay marriage is winning. That its swaying public opinion, with a sound majority supporting it now. I know gay marriage is legal in 37 of 50 States. And I know it seems quite likely that the USSC will make it 50 of 50 in June.

And apparently, so do you.

You cite activist judges with the same faggot agenda you have.

He is citing judges who have authority and education.

Both which you lack.

Doesn't change that an ACTIVIST made a decision against the will of the people of many of those states. Seems you should educate yourself on that FACT.

No, that's merely a label you apply to anyone who disagrees with you. Defending rights isn't the position of an 'activist'. Its the position of a judge.

It's a definition I apply to those that fit the definition. You choose not to apply because you disagree.

When a judge overrides a law, in essence passing his/her own, it's activism. You don't have to agree as you can look stupid if you choose.

The activism is passing unconstitutional laws, that then have to be fixed by the courts.

 

[Conservative65]

You cite activist judges with the same faggot agenda you have.

He is citing judges who have authority and education.

Both which you lack.

Doesn't change that an ACTIVIST made a decision against the will of the people of many of those states. Seems you should educate yourself on that FACT.

No, that's merely a label you apply to anyone who disagrees with you. Defending rights isn't the position of an 'activist'. Its the position of a judge.

It's a definition I apply to those that fit the definition. You choose not to apply because you disagree.

When a judge overrides a law, in essence passing his/her own, it's activism. You don't have to agree as you can look stupid if you choose.

The activism is passing unconstitutional laws.

A congressional body, regardless of the level of government, is activist by nature. Their job is to pass laws. The job of a judge isn't to do that yet as long as the faggot loving judges pass what you like, it's OK with you.

 

[Conservative65]

Gay marriage bans have none based on your OPINION.

I'm not citing me. I'm citing 44 of 46 federal rulings which have all indicated that gay marriage bans violate equal protection. And with the USSC preserving EVERY lower court ruling that has overturned gay marriage bans, while at the same time refusing EVERY request for stay from States trying to preserve gay marriage bans....

........it seems quite likely that the USSC is on the same page I am.

You don't know shit. That's why you support a bunch of deviant faggots getting married. Maybe you can find a spouse.

I know gay marriage is winning. That its swaying public opinion, with a sound majority supporting it now. I know gay marriage is legal in 37 of 50 States. And I know it seems quite likely that the USSC will make it 50 of 50 in June.

And apparently, so do you.

You cite activist judges with the same faggot agenda you have.

He is citing judges who have authority and education.

Both which you lack.

Doesn't change that an ACTIVIST made a decision against the will of the people of many of those states. Seems you should educate yourself on that FACT.
Don't confuse power and authority. They have the power to do it merely because of their position. They do not have the ability to enforce it only to say it. Also, don't confuse power with making correct decisions. Because someone can decide doesn't mean they make the correct decision. In your case, you assume they mean the same thing because you agree with what other faggot lovers with an agenda do.

I can't remember when you have actually cited a fact. You call the judges 'activist judges' because you don't agree with their rulings. Nothing else.

Judges have the authority to make rulings on the constitutionality of laws- and judges have ruled state marriage laws to be unconstitutional at least 3 times before this marriage issue has come up- and every time judges had the authority to make their decision.

And in every occasion, ultimately the states obeyed the judges rulings- as ultimately will Alabama.

You refuse to accept that they are activists because you agree with their rulings. Nothing else. Run along and suck a dick. You think that's normal. Practice it if you do. If you don't, just more hypocrisy.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no willful appeal to ignorance of Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to the general government and that body of laws.

 

[Skylar]

I'm not citing me. I'm citing 44 of 46 federal rulings which have all indicated that gay marriage bans violate equal protection. And with the USSC preserving EVERY lower court ruling that has overturned gay marriage bans, while at the same time refusing EVERY request for stay from States trying to preserve gay marriage bans....

........it seems quite likely that the USSC is on the same page I am.

I know gay marriage is winning. That its swaying public opinion, with a sound majority supporting it now. I know gay marriage is legal in 37 of 50 States. And I know it seems quite likely that the USSC will make it 50 of 50 in June.

And apparently, so do you.

You cite activist judges with the same faggot agenda you have.

He is citing judges who have authority and education.

Both which you lack.

Doesn't change that an ACTIVIST made a decision against the will of the people of many of those states. Seems you should educate yourself on that FACT.

No, that's merely a label you apply to anyone who disagrees with you. Defending rights isn't the position of an 'activist'. Its the position of a judge.

It's a definition I apply to those that fit the definition.

Citing yourself. And you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

The legitimacy of a judicial ruling isn't based on its agreement with you. As agreement with you defines nothing, is the standard of nothing, clarifies nothing.

So do you have anything to offer that isn't subjective personal opinion? If no, then who gives a shit?

 

[Skylar]

He is citing judges who have authority and education.

Both which you lack.

Doesn't change that an ACTIVIST made a decision against the will of the people of many of those states. Seems you should educate yourself on that FACT.

No, that's merely a label you apply to anyone who disagrees with you. Defending rights isn't the position of an 'activist'. Its the position of a judge.

It's a definition I apply to those that fit the definition. You choose not to apply because you disagree.

When a judge overrides a law, in essence passing his/her own, it's activism. You don't have to agree as you can look stupid if you choose.

The activism is passing unconstitutional laws.

A congressional body, regardless of the level of government, is activist by nature. Their job is to pass laws. The job of a judge isn't to do that yet as long as the faggot loving judges pass what you like, it's OK with you.

The job a judge is to interpret the constitution and determine if a given law is compatible with the constitution. If a law isn't, the law is invalid. If it is, the law is valid.

In 44 of 46 instances, the judiciary found that gay marriage bans are not compatible with the constitution. So the laws were invalidated.

 

[Silhouette]

The job a judge is to interpret the constitution and determine if a given law is compatible with the constitution. If a law isn't, the law is invalid. If it is, the law is valid.

In 44 of 46 instances, the judiciary found that gay marriage bans are not compatible with the constitution. So the laws were invalidated.

Here's another political science lesson for y'all. Lower circuit judges do not enjoy the power of overturning Windsor's 56 Findings that states have the constitutional power to define marriage for themselves until further notice. Shadowy refusals of stays are not merits that lower judges can cite "in anticipation of the unspoken/unargued inevitable", pre-emptively overturning Windsor.

It doesn't work that way and it's why Alabama's Supreme Court is 100% correct in finding on behalf of their citizen's right to self-govern. It's the law until/unless SCOTUS explains differently.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm not citing me. I'm citing 44 of 46 federal rulings which have all indicated that gay marriage bans violate equal protection. And with the USSC preserving EVERY lower court ruling that has overturned gay marriage bans, while at the same time refusing EVERY request for stay from States trying to preserve gay marriage bans....

........it seems quite likely that the USSC is on the same page I am.

I know gay marriage is winning. That its swaying public opinion, with a sound majority supporting it now. I know gay marriage is legal in 37 of 50 States. And I know it seems quite likely that the USSC will make it 50 of 50 in June.

And apparently, so do you.

You cite activist judges with the same faggot agenda you have.

He is citing judges who have authority and education.

Both which you lack.

Doesn't change that an ACTIVIST made a decision against the will of the people of many of those states. Seems you should educate yourself on that FACT.

No, that's merely a label you apply to anyone who disagrees with you. Defending rights isn't the position of an 'activist'. Its the position of a judge.

It's a definition I apply to those that fit the definition. You choose not to apply because you disagree.

When a judge overrides a law, in essence passing his/her own, it's activism. You don't have to agree as you can look stupid if you choose.

Invariably 'activists judges' are those that people- usually Conservatives' disagree with their ruling.

I have yet to see a Conservative call a judge who overturns a gun law an "activist judge'

I look forward to you explaining how that isn't activism because you agree with that judge.

I also look forward to you telling us how wrong the 'activist' Supreme Court was in 'Citizens United'- when they overturned campaign finance law.

Judges interpret the Constitution- that is part of their job- they don't become 'activist' judges just because you don't like your ruling.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm not citing me. I'm citing 44 of 46 federal rulings which have all indicated that gay marriage bans violate equal protection. And with the USSC preserving EVERY lower court ruling that has overturned gay marriage bans, while at the same time refusing EVERY request for stay from States trying to preserve gay marriage bans....

........it seems quite likely that the USSC is on the same page I am.

I know gay marriage is winning. That its swaying public opinion, with a sound majority supporting it now. I know gay marriage is legal in 37 of 50 States. And I know it seems quite likely that the USSC will make it 50 of 50 in June.

And apparently, so do you.

You cite activist judges with the same faggot agenda you have.

He is citing judges who have authority and education.

Both which you lack.

Doesn't change that an ACTIVIST made a decision against the will of the people of many of those states. Seems you should educate yourself on that FACT.
Don't confuse power and authority. They have the power to do it merely because of their position. They do not have the ability to enforce it only to say it. Also, don't confuse power with making correct decisions. Because someone can decide doesn't mean they make the correct decision. In your case, you assume they mean the same thing because you agree with what other faggot lovers with an agenda do.

I can't remember when you have actually cited a fact. You call the judges 'activist judges' because you don't agree with their rulings. Nothing else.

Judges have the authority to make rulings on the constitutionality of laws- and judges have ruled state marriage laws to be unconstitutional at least 3 times before this marriage issue has come up- and every time judges had the authority to make their decision.

And in every occasion, ultimately the states obeyed the judges rulings- as ultimately will Alabama.

You refuse to accept that they are activists because you agree with their rulings. Nothing else. .

LOL.....its like trying to have a rational discussion with an overwrought 12 year old boy.

 

[Syriusly]

The job a judge is to interpret the constitution and determine if a given law is compatible with the constitution. If a law isn't, the law is invalid. If it is, the law is valid.

In 44 of 46 instances, the judiciary found that gay marriage bans are not compatible with the constitution. So the laws were invalidated.

Here's another political science lesson for y'all. .

Once again you just teach us that you don't have clue regarding the law.

 

[Silhouette]

Stop spamming Syriusly.

 

[Syriusly]

Stop spamming Syriusly.

LOL.....how ironic coming from the Spam Queen.

 

[mdk]

The job a judge is to interpret the constitution and determine if a given law is compatible with the constitution. If a law isn't, the law is invalid. If it is, the law is valid.

In 44 of 46 instances, the judiciary found that gay marriage bans are not compatible with the constitution. So the laws were invalidated.

Here's another political science lesson for y'all. Lower circuit judges do not enjoy the power of overturning Windsor's 56 Findings that states have the constitutional power to define marriage for themselves until further notice. Shadowy refusals of stays are not merits that lower judges can cite "in anticipation of the unspoken/unargued inevitable", pre-emptively overturning Windsor.

It doesn't work that way and it's why Alabama's Supreme Court is 100% correct in finding on behalf of their citizen's right to self-govern. It's the law until/unless SCOTUS explains differently.

After being schooled so thoroughly for months on this ruling you're still claiming that the lower courts have overturned Windsor?!

 

[Skylar]

Here's another political science lesson for y'all. Lower circuit judges do not enjoy the power of overturning Windsor's 56 Findings that states have the constitutional power to define marriage for themselves until further notice.

Ah, but you forget your old nemesis: Constitutional Guarantees. States don't have the power to overturn them. State marriage law is instead subject to constitutional guarantees per the Windsor decision:

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.

Windsor v. US

And every lower court ruling overturning same sex marriage bans has been on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees. Which are perfectly in line with the Windsor decision.

Remember, this is the order of authority laid out in the Windsor decision:

1) Constitutional Guarantees

2) State Marriage laws

3) Federal Marriage laws.

You can ignore constitutional guarantees. But you can't make us or the federal judiciary ignore them.

Shadowy refusals of stays are not merits that lower judges can cite "in anticipation of the unspoken/unargued inevitable", pre-emptively overturning Windsor.

Ah, but the refusals for stay were by the USSC themselves. Unless you're arguing that Supreme Court didn't understand its own ruling, then your argument is meaningless gibberish.

Its not the entire federal judiciary that's wrong and doesn't understand the law, Sil.

Its just you.