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

[jillian]

Yes, it's encouraging to have fearless judges stand against the black robed tyrants perverting the Constitution and overturning democracy. The homos will blow their lids (or each other) over this.

it's always fun to read the musings of brain dead wackjobs who don't understand our legal system or system of government.

federal decisions take precedence over the states.

this is why you can't have nice things.

Well is this not interesting? We now have a genius entering the discussion, who refers to the "federal decisions" as if a federal
System is still in existence. Please by all means explain the two systems that the framers' cobbled together in the Formation of YOUR CONstitutional system and how those two systems were to operate. This should be no problem for you to exponent us "brain dead wackjobs" who do not understand your CONstitutional system. Please expound on the explanation that I have requested.

She's correct on both counts: the states are subject to Federal rulings, and you are in fact a brain dead wackjob.

Oh, so we have another cheerleader. Well now cheerleader, I offer you the same challenge. You see for there to exist federal authority, there must exist a federal system, so let's travel down the rabbit hole to discover truth from fiction, we begin with your answering my questions.

what's the matter, snuookums. it upsets you when people know more than you do?

again, windsor in inappropriate in this situation. there is a reason every district court but the loons in the south struck down anti-gay marriage legislation.

and there is a reason that the high court didn't overturn any of those district court decisions.

your imbeciles in the state are acting in opposition to the order of the federal district court.

i'm kind of hoping that the feds get to march in and protect gays from you loons like they did from george wallace. i missed it the first time.

 

[James Everett]

Yes, it's encouraging to have fearless judges stand against the black robed tyrants perverting the Constitution and overturning democracy. The homos will blow their lids (or each other) over this.

it's always fun to read the musings of brain dead wackjobs who don't understand our legal system or system of government.

federal decisions take precedence over the states.

this is why you can't have nice things.

Well is this not interesting? We now have a genius entering the discussion, who refers to the "federal decisions" as if a federal
System is still in existence. Please by all means explain the two systems that the framers' cobbled together in the Formation of YOUR CONstitutional system and how those two systems were to operate. This should be no problem for you to exponent us "brain dead wackjobs" who do not understand your CONstitutional system. Please expound on the explanation that I have requested.

the federal system IS in existence, loon.

You state that a system is in existence?
Then by all means explain the system. Can't? If you need assistance feel free to ask this "brain dead whack job" for help.
It is amusing that not one of you have been able to fill this simple request yet each post as if they have understanding of YOUR own government system as established by the Framers'.

 

[Montrovant]

Yes, it's encouraging to have fearless judges stand against the black robed tyrants perverting the Constitution and overturning democracy. The homos will blow their lids (or each other) over this.

it's always fun to read the musings of brain dead wackjobs who don't understand our legal system or system of government.

federal decisions take precedence over the states.

this is why you can't have nice things.

Well is this not interesting? We now have a genius entering the discussion, who refers to the "federal decisions" as if a federal
System is still in existence. Please by all means explain the two systems that the framers' cobbled together in the Formation of YOUR CONstitutional system and how those two systems were to operate. This should be no problem for you to exponent us "brain dead wackjobs" who do not understand your CONstitutional system. Please expound on the explanation that I have requested.

the federal system IS in existence, loon.

You state that a system is in existence?
Then by all means explain the system. Can't? If you need assistance feel free to ask this "brain dead whack job" for help.
It is amusing that not one of you have been able to fill this simple request yet each post as if they have understanding of YOUR own government system as established by the Framers'.

If there is no federal system of governance, what are the congress, president, federal judiciary, FBI, military, and all the other myriad apparatus of what most of us see as the federal government doing? And are the members of these various institutions in on the scam that there is no federal government?

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, it's encouraging to have fearless judges stand against the black robed tyrants perverting the Constitution and overturning democracy. The homos will blow their lids (or each other) over this.

it's always fun to read the musings of brain dead wackjobs who don't understand our legal system or system of government.

federal decisions take precedence over the states.

this is why you can't have nice things.

And did you know that no lower federal decision may contradict a SCOTUS Finding? Especially one made as recently as 2013 that has yet to be Overturned by SCOTUS (The only court in the federal system that may overturn a SCOTUS Finding)?

Speaking of brain dead...lol..

So, because Windsor used the 56-times avered Finding in Windsor 2013 that states have the power to define marriage on the question of same-sex marriage in order to strike down part of DOMA (which was the fed trying to define marriage for states), Alabama made the absolutely brave and correct legal decision to respect its discreet community's consensus that marriage is as it has always been defined there: man/woman.

you're misstating windsor...and the federal court specifically ruled on this. the states loons are actually in contempt. but the supreme court will deal with it.

freak.

No, I'm not: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum 56 times sweetie. Read it and weep.

The LOWER federal court that "ruled" (usurped from underneath) was in error. Alabama was right to correct their mistake in procedure.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I'd just like to add that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So, because Windsor used the 56-times avered Finding in Windsor 2013 that states have the power to define marriage on the question of same-sex marriage in order to strike down part of DOMA (which was the fed trying to define marriage for states), Alabama made the absolutely brave and correct legal decision to respect its discreet community's consensus that marriage is as it has always been defined there: man/woman.

Marriage is defined by nature... per the design intrinsic to human physiology.

Wherein, the Inee is designed SPECIFICALLY to join with the Outee... .

So, in terms of defining marriage, the SCOTUS is quite irrelevant.

 

[Montrovant]

So, because Windsor used the 56-times avered Finding in Windsor 2013 that states have the power to define marriage on the question of same-sex marriage in order to strike down part of DOMA (which was the fed trying to define marriage for states), Alabama made the absolutely brave and correct legal decision to respect its discreet community's consensus that marriage is as it has always been defined there: man/woman.

Marriage is defined by nature... per the design intrinsic to human physiology.

Wherein, the Inee is designed SPECIFICALLY to join with the Outee... .

So, in terms of defining marriage, the SCOTUS is quite irrelevant.

Marriage is a human construct. You are conflating sex with marriage. The two are separate.

 

[Montrovant]

Yes, it's encouraging to have fearless judges stand against the black robed tyrants perverting the Constitution and overturning democracy. The homos will blow their lids (or each other) over this.

it's always fun to read the musings of brain dead wackjobs who don't understand our legal system or system of government.

federal decisions take precedence over the states.

this is why you can't have nice things.

And did you know that no lower federal decision may contradict a SCOTUS Finding? Especially one made as recently as 2013 that has yet to be Overturned by SCOTUS (The only court in the federal system that may overturn a SCOTUS Finding)?

Speaking of brain dead...lol..

So, because Windsor used the 56-times avered Finding in Windsor 2013 that states have the power to define marriage on the question of same-sex marriage in order to strike down part of DOMA (which was the fed trying to define marriage for states), Alabama made the absolutely brave and correct legal decision to respect its discreet community's consensus that marriage is as it has always been defined there: man/woman.

you're misstating windsor...and the federal court specifically ruled on this. the states loons are actually in contempt. but the supreme court will deal with it.

freak.

No, I'm not: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum 56 times sweetie. Read it and weep.

The LOWER federal court that "ruled" (usurped from underneath) was in error. Alabama was right to correct their mistake in procedure.

Yes, the state has the power to define marriage......unless they violate constitutional guarantees.

 

[Silhouette]

it's always fun to read the musings of brain dead wackjobs who don't understand our legal system or system of government.

federal decisions take precedence over the states.

this is why you can't have nice things.

And did you know that no lower federal decision may contradict a SCOTUS Finding? Especially one made as recently as 2013 that has yet to be Overturned by SCOTUS (The only court in the federal system that may overturn a SCOTUS Finding)?

Speaking of brain dead...lol..

So, because Windsor used the 56-times avered Finding in Windsor 2013 that states have the power to define marriage on the question of same-sex marriage in order to strike down part of DOMA (which was the fed trying to define marriage for states), Alabama made the absolutely brave and correct legal decision to respect its discreet community's consensus that marriage is as it has always been defined there: man/woman.

you're misstating windsor...and the federal court specifically ruled on this. the states loons are actually in contempt. but the supreme court will deal with it.

freak.

No, I'm not: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum 56 times sweetie. Read it and weep.

The LOWER federal court that "ruled" (usurped from underneath) was in error. Alabama was right to correct their mistake in procedure.

Yes, the state has the power to define marriage......unless they violate constitutional guarantees.

Of which there are none for an ill-defined lifestyle cult repugnant to the majority's wishes for the word "marriage".

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

[Marriage is defined by nature... per the design intrinsic to human physiology. ...

Marriage is a human construct. You are conflating sex with marriage. The two are separate.

Oh so humans created humanity?

ROFLMNAO! (You can NOT make this crap up!)

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Reader, can you IMAGINE the weeping and gnashing of Leftist tooth, if I had ACCUSED the idiots of LITERALLY creating humanity?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes, it's encouraging to have fearless judges stand against the black robed tyrants perverting the Constitution and overturning democracy. The homos will blow their lids (or each other) over this.

it's always fun to read the musings of brain dead wackjobs who don't understand our legal system or system of government.

federal decisions take precedence over the states.

this is why you can't have nice things.

And did you know that no lower federal decision may contradict a SCOTUS Finding? Especially one made as recently as 2013 that has yet to be Overturned by SCOTUS (The only court in the federal system that may overturn a SCOTUS Finding)?

Speaking of brain dead...lol..

So, because Windsor used the 56-times avered Finding in Windsor 2013 that states have the power to define marriage on the question of same-sex marriage in order to strike down part of DOMA (which was the fed trying to define marriage for states), Alabama made the absolutely brave and correct legal decision to respect its discreet community's consensus that marriage is as it has always been defined there: man/woman.

you're misstating windsor...and the federal court specifically ruled on this. the states loons are actually in contempt. but the supreme court will deal with it.

freak.

No, I'm not: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum 56 times sweetie. Read it and weep.

The LOWER federal court that "ruled" (usurped from underneath) was in error. Alabama was right to correct their mistake in procedure.

Yes, the state has the power to define marriage......unless they violate constitutional guarantees.

Nature defined marriage when it designed Human physiology. You, being an imbecile, thus are incapable of working through even ELEMENTARY calculations, are irrelevant.

But you feel free to 'believe' that ALL FEELINGS ARE EQUAL'. It's all ya really have ... .

 

[James Everett]

Yes, it's encouraging to have fearless judges stand against the black robed tyrants perverting the Constitution and overturning democracy. The homos will blow their lids (or each other) over this.

it's always fun to read the musings of brain dead wackjobs who don't understand our legal system or system of government.

federal decisions take precedence over the states.

this is why you can't have nice things.

Well is this not interesting? We now have a genius entering the discussion, who refers to the "federal decisions" as if a federal
System is still in existence. Please by all means explain the two systems that the framers' cobbled together in the Formation of YOUR CONstitutional system and how those two systems were to operate. This should be no problem for you to exponent us "brain dead wackjobs" who do not understand your CONstitutional system. Please expound on the explanation that I have requested.

the federal system IS in existence, loon.

You state that a system is in existence?
Then by all means explain the system. Can't? If you need assistance feel free to ask this "brain dead whack job" for help.
It is amusing that not one of you have been able to fill this simple request yet each post as if they have understanding of YOUR own government system as established by the Framers'.

If there is no federal system of governance, what are the congress, president, federal judiciary, FBI, military, and all the other myriad apparatus of what most of us see as the federal government doing? And are the members of these various institutions in on the scam that there is no federal government?

You really have no clue do you?
There were two systems that were cobbled together to form YOUR 1787/1789 CONstitution, one being the federal system brought over from the Articles of Confederation, the other being the addition of a national system.
In order to retain the confederacy of States under article I which states ....
"The stile of this confederacy shall be, the United States of America"
The federal system had to be retained, otherwise there would be no union of States if the union of States were transformed/ consolidated under a wholly national system of government. To accomplish the continuation of the union of States/confederacy of States, the State governments had to retain State government representatives within the central body/ the States in union, this was accomplished with the Senate, being one portion of the legislative branch of congress. Each State legislature appointed their two representatives to represent their State government in legislation maintaining the union of States/confederacy of States established by the Articles of Confederation; this was the federal system. The appointment of these representatives by each States legislature insured as James Madison stated in #62 insured that no legislation could ever be passed without first going through the people/ the national portion, and then the through the State governments/the federal portion thus maintaining the federal portion that made the union/confederacy of States to begin with, it also as James Madison stated maintained the AUTHORITY OF THE STATES. The national portion was as James Madison explained in #32 the House of Representatives which is divided not by States, but by simple districts without regard to State affiliation. These district representatives were elected by the people to represent NOT the State governments, but to represent the people of the whole in legislation. This established the addition of the national system. Now, as Madison stated no legislation could be passed without first going through the national portion (the people of the whole), and then trough the State governments (the federal portion).
Now,as a result of Lincoln's rebellion and war on the federal system,the 17th amendment removed the appointment of the Senators by each States legislature, hence removing the federal portion, and without this State governments representation in legislation, the State governments no longer have a say in legislation, they no longer have a means to protect their authority as James Madison stated, they no longer participate in the central government, hence without State government participation in a "United States, how can there actually exist a union of States/ a United States? What exists today is a wholly national system with no residuary aspect of federalism, hence NO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
The two party duopoly control the political system, and ballot access, they fund the election of the Senators, these elected officials, therefore represent the political party of their affiliation rather than, in the case of the Senate, their State government. Originally the senators being appointed representatives of their State goverent, we're be holding to their State government, consulted with their State government, and could be recalled and replaced by their State government if they were not voting in the best interest of their State government.
Only one who accepts fiction, and holds no basic understanding of the foundation, which are the two systems that formed the very base of that system, would refer to any part of this current government as Federal.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, it's encouraging to have fearless judges stand against the black robed tyrants perverting the Constitution and overturning democracy. The homos will blow their lids (or each other) over this.

it's always fun to read the musings of brain dead wackjobs who don't understand our legal system or system of government.

federal decisions take precedence over the states.

this is why you can't have nice things.

And did you know that no lower federal decision may contradict a SCOTUS Finding? Especially one made as recently as 2013 that has yet to be Overturned by SCOTUS (The only court in the federal system that may overturn a SCOTUS Finding)?.

Once again- you have no clue what Windsor said.

The Supreme Court could have overturned any of the lower courts who ruled that bans on same gender marriage were unconstitutional. That is how the Supreme Court tells lower courts that they are wrong.

The Supreme Court declined to over turn any of them. Only when one court found that such a ban was constitutional, did the Supreme Court decide to consider the issue.

And once again- you are delusional when it comes to the courts.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, it's encouraging to have fearless judges stand against the black robed tyrants perverting the Constitution and overturning democracy. The homos will blow their lids (or each other) over this.

it's always fun to read the musings of brain dead wackjobs who don't understand our legal system or system of government.

federal decisions take precedence over the states.

this is why you can't have nice things.

And did you know that no lower federal decision may contradict a SCOTUS Finding? Especially one made as recently as 2013 that has yet to be Overturned by SCOTUS (The only court in the federal system that may overturn a SCOTUS Finding)?

Speaking of brain dead...lol..

So, because Windsor used the 56-times avered Finding in Windsor 2013 that states have the power to define marriage on the question of same-sex marriage in order to strike down part of DOMA (which was the fed trying to define marriage for states), Alabama made the absolutely brave and correct legal decision to respect its discreet community's consensus that marriage is as it has always been defined there: man/woman.

you're misstating windsor...and the federal court specifically ruled on this. the states loons are actually in contempt. but the supreme court will deal with it.

freak.

No, I'm not: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum 56 times sweetie. Read it and weep.

The LOWER federal court that "ruled" (usurped from underneath) was in error. Alabama was right to correct their mistake in procedure.

Yes, the state has the power to define marriage......unless they violate constitutional guarantees.

Nature defined marriage .

Man defined- and defines marriage. There is no marriage in nature.

If we looked at nature for guidance- well then incestuous and polygamous marriage would be perfectly acceptable

 

[JakeStarkey]

We have dolts like the neo-confederate and the social con who believe their pontifications takes the place of history and law.

Neither have had nothing to offer at all.

The CSA lost the war.

The new csa organizations are nothing more than shittenpuppy hobbyist organizations.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"And did you know that no lower federal decision may contradict a SCOTUS Finding?" And they haven't. Windsor remains in the domain of SCOTUS to be reaffirmed, amended, or overturned. To suggest it cannot be challenged reveals an immature mind.

 

[James Everett]

Yes, it's encouraging to have fearless judges stand against the black robed tyrants perverting the Constitution and overturning democracy. The homos will blow their lids (or each other) over this.

it's always fun to read the musings of brain dead wackjobs who don't understand our legal system or system of government.

federal decisions take precedence over the states.

this is why you can't have nice things.

And did you know that no lower federal decision may contradict a SCOTUS Finding? Especially one made as recently as 2013 that has yet to be Overturned by SCOTUS (The only court in the federal system that may overturn a SCOTUS Finding)?

Speaking of brain dead...lol..

So, because Windsor used the 56-times avered Finding in Windsor 2013 that states have the power to define marriage on the question of same-sex marriage in order to strike down part of DOMA (which was the fed trying to define marriage for states), Alabama made the absolutely brave and correct legal decision to respect its discreet community's consensus that marriage is as it has always been defined there: man/woman.

you're misstating windsor...and the federal court specifically ruled on this. the states loons are actually in contempt. but the supreme court will deal with it.

freak.

No, I'm not: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum 56 times sweetie. Read it and weep.

The LOWER federal court that "ruled" (usurped from underneath) was in error. Alabama was right to correct their mistake in procedure.

Yes, the state has the power to define marriage......unless they violate constitutional guarantees.

Nature defined marriage .

Man defined- and defines marriage. There is no marriage in nature.

If we looked at nature for guidance- well then incestuous and polygamous marriage would be perfectly acceptable

Actually God established marriage. Read Genesis.

 

[James Everett]

"And did you know that no lower federal decision may contradict a SCOTUS Finding?" And they haven't. Windsor remains in the domain of SCOTUS to be reaffirmed, amended, or overturned. To suggest it cannot be challenged reveals an immature mind.

Jake, once again you refer to this "federal court" as if a federal system still exists. Please define this federal system and how it operates.

 

[James Everett]

We have dolts like the neo-confederate and the social con who believe their pontifications takes the place of history and law.

Neither have had nothing to offer at all.

The CSA lost the war.

The new csa organizations are nothing more than shittenpuppy hobbyist organizations.

Oh JAKE,
You offer nothing but a regurgitation of the same BS fiction. You have no understanding of YOUR own CONstitutional system as established by the framers'.
You have been unable to answer nothing in that regard forcing me to explain YOUR own system to you, and yet you still are unable to comprehend that system.
You have the intellect of a five year old child.
Do you remember the last discussion we were involved in?
You kept conjuring up others who you thought would "set me straight"
And yet they made fools of themselves by revealing that they had no clue about YOUR CONstitutional
System either and resorted to foul language and then started crying like children. They got so ugly and. Desperate making such fools of themselves that the administrator was forced to shut down that thread.
Your knowledge is base at best.

 

[danielpalos]

"And did you know that no lower federal decision may contradict a SCOTUS Finding?" And they haven't. Windsor remains in the domain of SCOTUS to be reaffirmed, amended, or overturned. To suggest it cannot be challenged reveals an immature mind.

Jake, once again you refer to this "federal court" as if a federal system still exists. Please define this federal system and how it operates.

The federal doctrine is enumerated in our federal Constitution.