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

[Montrovant]

Anyone who cannot accept the 14th as it has been interpreted for the last 140 plus years needs to move to Alabama and stay there.

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:

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

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

Meanwhile, in the real world, couples in loves are legally marrying by the thousands in California

I don't care about what California allows concerning "Gay Marriage" anymore that I care what Syria allows concerning "Gay Marriage" Neither are Tennessee

Bully for you- I really don't care what odd fantasies you have about the South Rising Again either.
But meanwhile in California- thousands of happy couples in love are getting married- which is wonderful progress.

Yes I agree....
Thousands of men and women in California a contracting a marriage between themselves under the true definition of a marriage which is a contract between a man and a woman, and yes there are many men contracting with other men, and women contraction with other women, under the fiction that they believe they are married, when in fact they have contracted a civil union, however a million people calling a dog a cat, does not make a dog a cat, nor do nine political appointees rendering their opinion that a dog is a cat, make a dog a cat, they have only established a fiction for fools to accept. And yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.

If you aren't a part of the United States, why weigh in on the laws of that nation? Maybe you should focus on the laws governing the Confederacy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

James Everett is simply a silly who believes his theories are facts and thus proofs. We have the same issues with phonies like Where r my Keys and SaintMichael.

 

[James Everett]

More pseudo-legal gibberish. If you include gays in the marriage contract...

No one has excluded the Sexually Abnormal from Marriage. The assertion that someone has is absurd on its face.

Any Sexually Abnormal Male can marry any Sexually Deviant Female that either he or she can talk into it.

Ya see Scamp... Marriage is the joining of one male and one female. And that is because THAT is how nature designed the human species.

What you want to do is to pretend that Nature did NOT design the human species as two distinct, but complimenting genders, with the distinct genders being SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to join with the other.

And because you demand that pretense to be reality, where any reasonably objective individual of sound mind recognizes the abundance of real, tangible, unavoidable, irrepressible, inalterable, incontestable, irrefutable, immutable evidence which establishes the reality being male human beings are designed to be joined with female human beings, it is there where we (reasonable people) KNOW that you are a person who is employing a perversion of the human reasoning which is designed to discern, thus to navigate the body through: REALITY... to which medical science refers as 'an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder'.

And because you are a professed Sexual Deviant, and because this perversion of human reasoning is consistent within the whole of your community of deviants, and because your specific deviancy is homosexuality, it is from THERE that we KNOW that Homosexuality is a MENTAL DISORDER.

See how that works?

A man and a woman may be 'how nature designed the human species'.....but nature didn't design marriage. So that's pretty irrelevant.

No, God designed and created Man and Woman, and also designed marriage.....

James Everett, do you think the majority of Tennesseans (is that the way to say it?) agree with your stance that the state of Tennessee is an occupied territory, James Everett? Did the people of that state feel they were under hostile occupation during the various elections, whether for state representatives in the federal government or for federal office, in which they voted?

I'm fairly confident that the majority of residents of the state of Tennessee consider themselves citizens of the United States of America and not the Confederate States.

And even if you honestly believe you are part of the oppressed people of an occupied Confederacy, I'm pretty sure you realize that the rules which govern the USA apply to you as well, like it or not.

OH, how cute that you think your'e lil laughing face makes your point somehow effective. I bet YOUR SCOTUS even uses such lil cuties when they post their rendered fictional opinions.
So now it is your assertion that the majority is important, but in the States that the majority state that there is no such thing as a man and a man entering into a contract a marriage the majority is irrelevant? How conflicting.
As for the majority realizing that they are under occupation, allow me to quote the illusion for you......
Niccola Machiavelli,.
"...[A]llow them [the conquered] to live under their own laws, taking tribute of them, and creating within the country a government composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you.... A city used to liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any other way....
"...[T]hey must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they are entirely different from the old ones. For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.... [The conqueror should] not wish that the people... should have occasion to regret the loss of any of their old customs...."

 

[James Everett]

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:

The California Constitution as of today:

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

Meanwhile, in the real world, couples in loves are legally marrying by the thousands in California

I don't care about what California allows concerning "Gay Marriage" anymore that I care what Syria allows concerning "Gay Marriage" Neither are Tennessee

Bully for you- I really don't care what odd fantasies you have about the South Rising Again either.
But meanwhile in California- thousands of happy couples in love are getting married- which is wonderful progress.

Yes I agree....
Thousands of men and women in California a contracting a marriage between themselves under the true definition of a marriage which is a contract between a man and a woman, and yes there are many men contracting with other men, and women contraction with other women, under the fiction that they believe they are married, when in fact they have contracted a civil union, however a million people calling a dog a cat, does not make a dog a cat, nor do nine political appointees rendering their opinion that a dog is a cat, make a dog a cat, they have only established a fiction for fools to accept. And yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.

If you aren't a part of the United States, why weigh in on the laws of that nation? Maybe you should focus on the laws governing the Confederacy.

Because under the occupation we are forced to abide by YOUR govt's laws.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

JAMES EVERETT SAID:

“God designed and created Man and Woman, and also designed marriage...”

In your personal, subjective opinion, having no bearing whatsoever on the legal issue.

Marriage is contract law, written by the states, designed to accommodate two consenting adult and equal partners not related to each other in a relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

And as a fact of law to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

But please feel free to go before the justices during oral arguments and explain to them that same-sex couples should be denied their right to equal protection of the law because “God designed and created Man and Woman, and also designed marriage.”

 

[James Everett]

JAMES EVERETT SAID:

“God designed and created Man and Woman, and also designed marriage...”

In your personal, subjective opinion, having no bearing whatsoever on the legal issue.

Marriage is contract law, written by the states, designed to accommodate two consenting adult and equal partners not related to each other in a relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

And as a fact of law to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

But please feel free to go before the justices during oral arguments and explain to them that same-sex couples should be denied their right to equal protection of the law because “God designed and created Man and Woman, and also designed marriage.”

You see, herein is evidence of your lack of ability to employ logic. A marriage contract is a contract between a man and a woman, not a contract between consenting adults. Those same sex couples may, via a civil union contract obtain all the equal benefits of a marriage contract, the difference being that two men contracting does not make a marriage, as a marriage is a contract that requires opposite sexes. Benefit a are a separate issue that you obviously are to dense to comprehend. God created man and woman and established marriage. Nature is a creation of God, hence nature is subject to God.

 

[James Everett]

Pl

JAMES EVERETT SAID:

“God designed and created Man and Woman, and also designed marriage...”

In your personal, subjective opinion, having no bearing whatsoever on the legal issue.

Marriage is contract law, written by the states, designed to accommodate two consenting adult and equal partners not related to each other in a relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

And as a fact of law to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

But please feel free to go before the justices during oral arguments and explain to them that same-sex couples should be denied their right to equal protection of the law because “God designed and created Man and Woman, and also designed marriage.”

Please could the three or four of you get together and contact someone who would actually be able to offer me a challenging debate? You morons are to easy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

James, you are a waste of air, son, you really are.

No one but you lives in your world.

 

[James Everett]

James, you are a waste of air, son, you really are.

No one but you lives in your world.

Oh Jake lil man, others besides me live in the world of reality, yet most at this point are still afflicted with the gullibility of accepting fiction as reality, however, we are freeing the minds of many, and that freedom grows day by day. These tyrannical actions forced on our people only help to facilitate our work.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your world of words is only . . . a world of words, not reality, James. Yes, you accept your fiction as reality. SCOTUS won't, as you are well aware. We will not let the tyranny of the social con far right rule this country any longer. That is reality.

 

[James Everett]

Your world of words is only . . . a world of words, not reality, James. Yes, you accept your fiction as reality. SCOTUS won't, as you are well aware. We will not let the tyranny of the social con far right rule this country any longer. That is reality.

Oh, poor, poor JAKE, have I confused and embarrassed you so that you missed the point? I don't care who controls YOUR Country, right, left is no concern to us, Shari law may be imposed for all I care. Our concern is that an to the occupation of our Confederate States come to an end. Then you can do as you wish.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And here I thought you had a sliver of sanity.

Son, the CSA lost 150 years ago. Did not you get the bulletin? It's over.

 

[Syriusly]

How pathetic is your simplistic mind.

Says the guy who still can't explain why the Tennessee Supreme Court would be citing the 14th amendment in ANY case if the 14th amendment didn't apply to Tennessee. You're stuck. You've painted yourself into a corner and you can't get out.

Oh, and your sudden refusal to discuss the 14th amendment and complete avoidance of the topic in your reply didn't go unnoticed. Can I take it from your rout that you 1) recognize that the 14th amendment does indeed apply to Tennessee 2) that Tennessee is indeed part of the United States?

I'd be happy to continue to disabuse you of both misconceptions if you're not yet willing to acknowledge these two facts.

A Black man was once said to have a smaller brain than a white man: does that make it so? Just because a man and a woman were denied the privilege of exercising that privilege of marriage did not make it not a contract between a man and a woman, which is a marriage, they were simply being denied that privilege by law.

You say marriage is a privilege. The Supreme Court confirms its a right.

"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man"

Loving V. Virginia

Once again, in a contest betwween the Supreme Court and you on what rights exist, you lose every time. As you have no idea what you're talking about.

YOUR SCOTUS states that "a man and a man contracting a union between themselves, or a woman and a woman contraction a union between themselves, as pledging to one another there devotion " Is a right, citing the 14th amendment? Where in the 14th amendment does it state such?
You state that.....
"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man"
The legal definition of ....
Civil rights are the rights of individuals to receive equal treatment (and to be free from unfair treatment or discrimination) in a number of settings
Every man and everywoman receive equal treatment in mariage as any man may enter into a marriage contract with a woman, and any woman may enter into a marriage contract with a man, regardless of race. Hence no one is being discriminated against in contracting a marriage. Equal treatment is that NO man may contract a union between himself and another man in Alabama, and no woman may contract a union between herself and another woman, hence the law is being applied equally.
Your interpretation of YOUR 14th amendment, along with the nine political appointees who seek to extend their fictional power via growing their fictional jurisdiction = Kangaroo court is simply a fiction in that the laws concerning the set legal, traditional, and historical definition of a marriage are applied equally.

Pl

JAMES EVERETT SAID:

“God designed and created Man and Woman, and also designed marriage...”

In your personal, subjective opinion, having no bearing whatsoever on the legal issue.

Marriage is contract law, written by the states, designed to accommodate two consenting adult and equal partners not related to each other in a relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

And as a fact of law to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

But please feel free to go before the justices during oral arguments and explain to them that same-sex couples should be denied their right to equal protection of the law because “God designed and created Man and Woman, and also designed marriage.”

Please could the three or four of you get together and contact someone who would actually be able to offer me a challenging debate? You morons are to easy.

You have been debating? All I have seen is monologuing.

You live in a fantasy world where the Confederacy still exists and the 14th Amendment only means what you say it means.

That is no debate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no debate, just James being a gastric penguin, nothing more.

 

[James Everett]

How pathetic is your simplistic mind.

Says the guy who still can't explain why the Tennessee Supreme Court would be citing the 14th amendment in ANY case if the 14th amendment didn't apply to Tennessee. You're stuck. You've painted yourself into a corner and you can't get out.

Oh, and your sudden refusal to discuss the 14th amendment and complete avoidance of the topic in your reply didn't go unnoticed. Can I take it from your rout that you 1) recognize that the 14th amendment does indeed apply to Tennessee 2) that Tennessee is indeed part of the United States?

I'd be happy to continue to disabuse you of both misconceptions if you're not yet willing to acknowledge these two facts.

A Black man was once said to have a smaller brain than a white man: does that make it so? Just because a man and a woman were denied the privilege of exercising that privilege of marriage did not make it not a contract between a man and a woman, which is a marriage, they were simply being denied that privilege by law.

You say marriage is a privilege. The Supreme Court confirms its a right.

"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man"

Loving V. Virginia

Once again, in a contest betwween the Supreme Court and you on what rights exist, you lose every time. As you have no idea what you're talking about.

YOUR SCOTUS states that "a man and a man contracting a union between themselves, or a woman and a woman contraction a union between themselves, as pledging to one another there devotion " Is a right, citing the 14th amendment? Where in the 14th amendment does it state such?
You state that.....
"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man"
The legal definition of ....
Civil rights are the rights of individuals to receive equal treatment (and to be free from unfair treatment or discrimination) in a number of settings
Every man and everywoman receive equal treatment in mariage as any man may enter into a marriage contract with a woman, and any woman may enter into a marriage contract with a man, regardless of race. Hence no one is being discriminated against in contracting a marriage. Equal treatment is that NO man may contract a union between himself and another man in Alabama, and no woman may contract a union between herself and another woman, hence the law is being applied equally.
Your interpretation of YOUR 14th amendment, along with the nine political appointees who seek to extend their fictional power via growing their fictional jurisdiction = Kangaroo court is simply a fiction in that the laws concerning the set legal, traditional, and historical definition of a marriage are applied equally.

Pl

JAMES EVERETT SAID:

“God designed and created Man and Woman, and also designed marriage...”

In your personal, subjective opinion, having no bearing whatsoever on the legal issue.

Marriage is contract law, written by the states, designed to accommodate two consenting adult and equal partners not related to each other in a relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

And as a fact of law to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

But please feel free to go before the justices during oral arguments and explain to them that same-sex couples should be denied their right to equal protection of the law because “God designed and created Man and Woman, and also designed marriage.”

Please could the three or four of you get together and contact someone who would actually be able to offer me a challenging debate? You morons are to easy.

You have been debating? All I have seen is monologuing.

You live in a fantasy world where the Confederacy still exists and the 14th Amendment only means what you say it means.

That is no debate.

In legal terms our Confederate govt was never surrendered, I challenge you to produce documents to prove otherwise. Our Confederacy can be restored, and just as those States that were occupied by Russia under the former Soviet Union were restored and regained their sovereignty our States may do the same, Ireland was occupied for centuries before regaining their sovereignty. Now, when those States that were occupied by Russia under that forced Soviet Union saw amend to the occupation and the governments that were put in place there as well, those States did not incur the Soviet debt, Russia did, therefore when the occupation is ended, we will not be responsible for your govts debt. So you see, there are a great deal advantages for us to gain including an end to YOUR SCOTUS fictional jurisdiction.

 

[James Everett]

There is no debate, just James being a gastric penguin, nothing more.

YOUR 14th amendment is clear in its text, only those with an agenda would pervert it to establish a fiction. I have already give you logical proof as to why it doesn't apply to your current agenda, any person not so caught up in childish emotion, or politics can see the truth. In fact I may devote my next article to this foolishness for the purpose of opening the eyes of our people just a little more.

 

[JakeStarkey]

James, when your armies surrendered and Jefferson Davis was nabbed while trying to abscond, the war was over. The losers never dictate the terms of surrender. It just is. Davis got to sit in a federal cell for two years. Ask him when you get the chance who lost the war forever.

What Clayton is going to say below. vvv

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no debate, just James being a gastric penguin, nothing more.

YOUR 14th amendment is clear in its text, only those with an agenda would pervert it to establish a fiction. I have already give you logical proof as to why it doesn't apply to your current agenda, any person not so caught up in childish emotion, or politics can see the truth. In fact I may devote my next article to this foolishness for the purpose of opening the eyes of our people just a little more.

You have blabbed, nothing else. Try it in a history class in a secondary education or college history class, the professor will grin and say, "For the sake of your grade, I hope this is a joke.'

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

JAMES EVERETT SAID:

“In legal terms our Confederate govt was never surrendered...”

As a fact of Constitutional law that 'confederate government' never existed, rendering your 'argument' moot.

Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, regardless their jurisdiction of residence, where their rights as citizens are paramount, immune from attack by their jurisdictions of residence; any measure enacted by a jurisdiction seeking to deny gay Americans their right to enter into marriage contracts is un-Constitutional and invalid, just as any effort by that jurisdiction to enforce that measure is likewise un-Constitutional and invalid.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is no debate, just James being a gastric penguin, nothing more.

YOUR 14th amendment is clear in its text, only those with an agenda would pervert it to establish a fiction. I have already give you logical proof as to why it doesn't apply to your current agenda, any person not so caught up in childish emotion, or politics can see the truth. In fact I may devote my next article to this foolishness for the purpose of opening the eyes of our people just a little more.

James, I am a lifelong southerner and a proud patriotic American citizen. As for your claims about the Confederacy being restored, let me be the voice of most southerners when I say, "Oh hell no!". Your fantasies are ridiculous and will not come to pass. We are part of the United States, and the Confederate states no longer exist.