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

[JakeStarkey]

Skylar is the Board's equivalent of Conan the Barbarian driving James Everett weeping and crying before him.

 

[James Everett]

James E and Sil have the right to their opinions, but they are only the opinions of nobodies and don't really matter.

Or any of the other states who, like Alabama, are soveriegns and who have the same rights as Alabama in this question of law.. Lucky, because there are 35 or more of those to choose from, including California:

As the 14th amendment makes clear, states don't have the authority to violate the rights of citizens.

The California Constitution as of today:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

With the federal judiciary ruling that the provision is unconstitutional and thus, invalid. A ruling that went all the way to the Supreme Court...and was perfectly preserved.

Remember, Sil...you don't actually have a clue how the judiciary works. Or the relationship between federal government and state govenrment works. You've so laughably misunderstood the 14th amendment that you've adopted a secessionist argument that the States can ignore any federal ruling they don't like. When in reality, any federal ruling is authoritative unless stayed or overturned by a higher federal court.

You insist this can't happen. Gay marriage in 37 of 50 States says it can and does. And Ray Moore's removal from the bench a second time will only underline this point.

The 14th does not cover just some lifestlyes repugnant to the majorities "as experimental substitutes for father and mother to children as married"

Says you. And you're nobody. The Supreme Court on the other hand found that gays are protected by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment:

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

Romer V. Evans

You say otherwise. No one gives a shit.

Worse, your 'experimental substitute' argument is meaningless gibberish. As gays and lesbians are already having kids by the tens of thousands. Denying same sex parents access to marriage doesn't mean their children magically have opposite sex parents. It only guarantees that their children don't have married parents.

Denying same sex parents marriage doesn't benefit these children at all. And it causes severe harm. And you know this. Watch, I'll demonstrate by asking you a simple, 11 word question that will send you running like it were chasing you with a butcher knife:

How does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

(Psst....that's your cue to run).

YOUR SCOTUS opinion mentions nothing about "GAY marriage, it deals only with interracial marriage and being denied the privilege to marry based on race, not sexual preference.
Again, a marriage is a contract, it is specifically a contract between a man and a woman, not between a man and a man. There are all manner of contracts, but a marriage contract is specifically a contract between a man and a woman. A real estate contract is not a contract between a man and a woman specifically, yet a real estate contract is not a marriage contract. What you ignorants are doing is confusing completely different contracts. A civil union contract may be entered into between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, with the proper labels applied to the sex of the couple entering into this civil union contract. In fact a title can be given to such contracts that fit the type contract that each may be, yet they are not a marriage contract because they do not meet the requirement of such. Now, this is not denying anyone the privileges of that of a marriage, which is a contract between a man and a woman, it is simply a contract of a different title, signifying that such is a contract between a man and a man, or a contract between a woman and a woman, rather than a contract between a man and a woman. You all are simply to base and incapable of simple logic and understanding because you are akin to a child stomping his feet and screaming hysterically in the checkout isle because his mommy will not get him the toy he wants: why? Because he doesn't need it to obtain happiness. In short GROW UP !!!!!!

 

[Skylar]

Of course I am rooting against your "nation" duh!
Your Nation is not my nation.

Says you. The State of Tennessee says something distinctly different, recognizing itself as part of the United States and subject to its constitution.

My State seceded from your former union of States in 1861, and was subsequently invaded and has been occupied by YOUR national govt since 1865. Why on earth would I root for YOUR "nation"?

Tennessee rejoined the union in 1866. You may disagree....but your State doesn't. Tennessee ratified the 14th amendment. Making your claims that the 14th doesn't apply to Tennessee more inept fantasy.

You can imagine whatever you'd like. That Tennessee hasn't been electing and sending Senators and Congressmen to the US congress, hasn't been sending electors the electoral college and isn't apart of the union.

But your delusions don't amount to much. As history doesn't change just because its inconvenient to your argument, my little batshit secessionist.

But tell us again about 'capital letters' and 'natural citizens'. I never get tired of that particular conspiracy theory.

 

[JakeStarkey]

James, doesn't matter. Your opinion does not matter.

SCOTUS is almost certainly going to rule in favor of gay marriage, and it is now possible that Alito will join the 6 justices who will favor it.

 

[James Everett]

Skylar is the Board's equivalent of Conan the Barbarian driving James Everett weeping and crying before him.

Jake, do you really want to join this discussion and be shown a fool again?
If you wish you can conjure up the same three that You thought would help you before when I spanked you all in our last encounter.

 

[James Everett]

S

James, doesn't matter. Your opinion does not matter.

SCOTUS is almost certainly going to rule in favor of gay marriage, and it is now possible that Alito will join the 6 justices who will favor it.

Still got that butt hurt do you Jake ????

 

[JakeStarkey]

James, you are the fool complaining about your own ass burn, no one else. You don't know the law, you don't understand the Constitution, and half the time you are not mentally sober. Skylar is beating the unholy crap out of you. You are every bit as silly and ineffective as Where r my Keys and SaintMichael.

 

[Skylar]

YOUR SCOTUS opinion mentions nothing about "GAY marriage, it deals only with interracial marriage and being denied the privilege to marry based on race, not sexual preference.

Our federal judiciary has ruled on gay marriage.......46 times. And in 44 of those cases, it found that state same sex marriage bans were unconstitutional. As any ruling of the federal judiciary is authoritative unless overturned or stayed, gay marriage is recognized in 37 of 50 States.

You can pretend that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to Tennessee. But Tennessee ratified the 14th and recognizes Tennessee is part of the United States. That you disagree is quite irrelevant. As no one is obligated to pretend with you.

Again, a marriage is a contract, it is specifically a contract between a man and a woman, not between a man and a man.

And in 37 of 50 States it also includes a man and a man. Or a woman and a woman. Your bizarre claim that a legal definition can NEVER change is meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish. Legal definitions change all the time, and can through legislation or a ruling from the judiciary.

What you ignorants are doing is confusing completely different contracts.

Nope. We're simply not accepting your silly and provably false assertion that legal definitions can never change. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. For crying out loud, you didn't even know that Tennessee had been readmitted to the Union until I told you.

 

[James Everett]

Skylar is the Board's equivalent of Conan the Barbarian driving James Everett weeping and crying before him.

Skylar is the equivalent of someone with an IQ of 20, at least that's all that it has exhibited.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Legal definitions chance as a result of social logic preparing for the legal logic of new interpretations. To suggest that does not happen is the hall mark of a fool.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Skylar is the Board's equivalent of Conan the Barbarian driving James Everett weeping and crying before him.

Skylar is the equivalent of someone with an IQ of 20, at least that's all that it has exhibited.

See, there is another of your silly opinions.

 

[Skylar]

Skylar is the Board's equivalent of Conan the Barbarian driving James Everett weeping and crying before him.

Skylar is the equivalent of someone with an IQ of 20, at least that's all that it has exhibited.

Sticks and Stones, James. And while you're awkwardly trying to lob silly insults, your own Supreme Court proves you laughably, comically wrong:

By virtue of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and article I, section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution, a criminal statute cannot be enforced when it prohibits conduct “‘in termsso vague that [persons] of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.’”

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JACQUELINE CRANK

That's the Supreme Court of Tennessee explicitly citing the 14th amendment in Tennessee rulings. But you still think you know better, huh?

Sigh.....you can't fix stupid. But you can point and laugh at it.

 

[James Everett]

James, you are the fool complaining about your own ass burn, no one else. You don't know the law, you don't understand the Constitution, and half the time you are not mentally sober. Skylar is beating the unholy crap out of you. You are every bit as silly and ineffective as Where r my Keys and SaintMichael.

Jake, neither you nor this Skylar have been able to label the two differing systems that the founders cobbled together to form YOUR CONstitutionsl system, or even which "Federalist" papers wherein such may be found, yet you claim that I don't understand YOUR CONstitution? Please, do what your lil minion Skylar has been unable to do. I sit and wait.

 

[JakeStarkey]

James, you are the target because you simply can't learn.

 

[Skylar]

James, you are the fool complaining about your own ass burn, no one else. You don't know the law, you don't understand the Constitution, and half the time you are not mentally sober. Skylar is beating the unholy crap out of you. You are every bit as silly and ineffective as Where r my Keys and SaintMichael.

Jake, neither you nor this Skylar have been able to label the two differing systems that the founders cobbled together to form YOUR CONstitutionsl system, or even which "Federalist" papers wherein such may be found, yet you claim that I don't understand YOUR CONstitution? Please, do what your lil minion Skylar has been unable to do. I sit and wait.

If you have an argument to make, make it.

But remember, no one buys your bullshit that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to Tennessee. Not even Tennessee, which ratified the Amendment and cites the Amendment in its own Tennessee Supreme Court ruling.

You're literally arguing your own delusions as facts. And no one, not even Tennessee, is buying your bullshit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where r my Keys will cite himself as an authority on his natural law argument. James does something similar here. Neither carry any weight in logic or fact.

 

[Skylar]

Where r my Keys will cite himself as an authority on his natural law argument. James does something similar here. Neither carry any weight in logic or fact.

Some of James' assertions are just silly. Legal definitions can NEVER change? That's nonsense. Anything that can be established by law can be changed by law. If law doesn't have the authority to change a legal definition, it never had the authority to establish the legal definition to begin with.

And yet James clings to that piece of illogical batshit like it were a life preserver in the middle of the Pacific ocean. And it simply makes no sense.

 

[James Everett]

Skylar is the Board's equivalent of Conan the Barbarian driving James Everett weeping and crying before him.

Skylar is the equivalent of someone with an IQ of 20, at least that's all that it has exhibited.

Sticks and Stones, James. And while you're awkwardly trying to lob silly insults, your own Supreme Court proves you laughably, comically wrong:

By virtue of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and article I, section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution, a criminal statute cannot be enforced when it prohibits conduct “‘in termsso vague that [persons] of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.’”

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JACQUELINE CRANK

That's the Supreme Court of Tennessee explicitly citing the 14th amendment in Tennessee rulings. But you still think you know better, huh?

Sigh.....you can't fix stupid. But you can point and laugh at

Skylar is the Board's equivalent of Conan the Barbarian driving James Everett weeping and crying before him.

Skylar is the equivalent of someone with an IQ of 20, at least that's all that it has exhibited.

Sticks and Stones, James. And while you're awkwardly trying to lob silly insults, your own Supreme Court proves you laughably, comically wrong:

By virtue of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and article I, section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution, a criminal statute cannot be enforced when it prohibits conduct “‘in termsso vague that [persons] of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.’”

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JACQUELINE CRANK

That's the Supreme Court of Tennessee explicitly citing the 14th amendment in Tennessee rulings. But you still think you know better, huh?

Sigh.....you can't fix stupid. But you can point and laugh at it.

How pathetic. You cite a child neglect case that has nothing to do with "GAY marriage" and claim that it is a legal case that makes such legal in Tennessee? You again are making a fool of yourself!!!!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

TN recognizes the 14th. Do not deflect, James.

 

[James Everett]

QUOTE="James Everett, post: 10962527, member: 52214"]

Skylar is the Board's equivalent of Conan the Barbarian driving James Everett weeping and crying before him.

Skylar is the equivalent of someone with an IQ of 20, at least that's all that it has exhibited.

Sticks and Stones, James. And while you're awkwardly trying to lob silly insults, your own Supreme Court proves you laughably, comically wrong:

By virtue of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and article I, section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution, a criminal statute cannot be enforced when it prohibits conduct “‘in termsso vague that [persons] of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.’”

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JACQUELINE CRANK

That's the Supreme Court of Tennessee explicitly citing the 14th amendment in Tennessee rulings. But you still think you know better, huh?

Sigh.....you can't fix stupid. But you can point and laugh at

Skylar is the Board's equivalent of Conan the Barbarian driving James Everett weeping and crying before him.

Skylar is the equivalent of someone with an IQ of 20, at least that's all that it has exhibited.

Sticks and Stones, James. And while you're awkwardly trying to lob silly insults, your own Supreme Court proves you laughably, comically wrong:

By virtue of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and article I, section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution, a criminal statute cannot be enforced when it prohibits conduct “‘in termsso vague that [persons] of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.’”

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JACQUELINE CRANK

That's the Supreme Court of Tennessee explicitly citing the 14th amendment in Tennessee rulings. But you still think you know better, huh?

Sigh.....you can't fix stupid. But you can point and laugh at it.

How pathetic. You cite a child neglect case that has nothing to do with "GAY marriage" and claim that it is a legal case that makes such legal in Tennessee? You again are making a fool of yourself!!!!!![/QUOTE]
Again Skylar, courts do not set in judgement determining word definitions. If you change the definition of a marriage contract, then it is no longer a marriage contract, it is a fiction and gained nothing for the "homosexual" that could not be gained via a civil union contract, all that will be accomplished will be the destruction of a marriage contract. If you are capable of logic, look at it this way....
If you redefine a real estate contract by adding to it a construction contract

TN recognizes the 14th. Do not deflect, James.

deflect? Ha, the 14th has nothing to do with establishing a new legal definition of a marriage which is a contract between a man and a woman. The 14th has to do with applying the law equally. Every man may legally inter into a marriage contract with another woman,, and every woman may inter into a marriage contract with a man, hence no one is being denied the equal privilege of marriage. Your illogic is glaring.