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

[BlindBoo]

The only white racists I ever meet are Leftists like her....and now you. A racist right winger is truly a rare thing. But I take you all in stride.

Take a trip through East Texas where the opposite is true.

 

[Skylar]

Federal judges who decide cases where they have no jurisdiction are black robed tyrants. That would be at either side of the argument.
Look guy! If Californians vote to change the definition of marriage, I don't believe SCOTUS has authority to step in there either. Are we clear?

Well then we have no argument- Federal judges do have jurisdiction over Constitutional matters- that is why federal judges have overturned State marriage laws multiple times in the past, and federal judges have overturned State gun laws in the past.

State laws are subject to the U.S. Constitution.

Gun laws I can see. Via the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms is a federal guaranteed right. Marriage is not. 14th be damned.
What ever.... We will see SCOTUS weigh in eventually, or simply say they have no standing Marriage law should and shall be left to the states.

Again- you miss the point.

Either a federal judge has the Constitutional authority to decide whether a state law is Constitutional- or a federal judge does not have the Constitutional authority to decide whether a state law is Constitutional.

Which is it?

Federal judges have standing to rule on matters where the federal government has power granted by the US Constitution. Gun laws and postal rates, yes. Marriage law and healthcare, no.

Marriage is a recognized right. Thus, the federal government has as much authority to protect it as they do any other right.

See how that works?

 

[Syriusly]

Federal judges who decide cases where they have no jurisdiction are black robed tyrants. That would be at either side of the argument.
Look guy! If Californians vote to change the definition of marriage, I don't believe SCOTUS has authority to step in there either. Are we clear?

Well then we have no argument- Federal judges do have jurisdiction over Constitutional matters- that is why federal judges have overturned State marriage laws multiple times in the past, and federal judges have overturned State gun laws in the past.

State laws are subject to the U.S. Constitution.

Gun laws I can see. Via the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms is a federal guaranteed right. Marriage is not. 14th be damned.
What ever.... We will see SCOTUS weigh in eventually, or simply say they have no standing Marriage law should and shall be left to the states.

Again- you miss the point.

Either a federal judge has the Constitutional authority to decide whether a state law is Constitutional- or a federal judge does not have the Constitutional authority to decide whether a state law is Constitutional.

Which is it?

Federal judges have standing to rule on matters where the federal government has power granted by the US Constitution. Gun laws and postal rates, yes. Marriage law and healthcare, no.

Now! Do you understand THAT, nitwit?

And who decides when Federal judges have 'standing'?

And why were mixed race marriages legal in Alabama in 1968- even though Alabama law said such marriages were still illegal?

 

[Ernie S.]

SCOTUS decides. Actually quite often they decide they have no standing and do not rule on cases.

Interracial marriage is a moot point. The State of Alabama has changed their law. Even if it hadn't, interracial marriage is still marriage. Bruce and Steve exchanging vows, is not.

 

[Silhouette]

Agreed. Furthermore "Bruce and Steve" weddings put their female children at psychological peril..

Yes, but we also have amendments like the 14th that provides Equal Protection under the law. The Courts in all the cases have applied the Rational basis test where the government has to only acknowledge a legitimate government interest but they have not convinced the courts that there is a legitimate government interest to prevent people from seeking that social benefit. It's a really low standard yet they can't come up with one secular reason why.
That's why it's failing.

No, there is quite a huge legitimate interest in states denying gay marriage...and why the idea is gaining traction: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

...And the Justice-destroying precedent set in this kangaroo litigation is intolerable to Americans: Breaking Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

***********
For all the uber liberals celebrating overt judicial bias in their favor on this question, consider the following:

Imagine seeing Justice Roberts or Thomas in a photo op just before a case on the Keystone Pipeline, shaking hands with the president of Haliburton; showing either of the Justices with a shovel, breaking ground for Haliburton on "the soon to be approved project".

Or going one step further as the Court is doing in this case and actively eroding state laws, allowing sections of the pipeline to be built in violation of states laws one by one by inexplicably refusing to uphold stays...so by the time a couple years had passed, nearly the entire length of the pipeline was complete so the Court could throw up its hands in surprise and say "well golly, it looks like the whole pipeline's nearly in anyway, so we'll just have to go ahead and approve this thing"..

That is the EXACT analogy of what's going on with this gay marriage thing. It's illegal. It's undemocratic. And it's Tyranny of the Judicial over the states.

The number of states that have legally-ratified "gay marriage" is under 10, or near that number anyway. It is not "36" or what have you. No way. If this injustice goes forward it will be the equivalent of a cult using our Highest Court to force subjegation of the states. Check your federally-issued rainbow "USA" Harvey Milk stamps (and his biography/Ca laws requiring kids to worship him) for details...

 

[Syriusly]

SCOTUS decides. Actually quite often they decide they have no standing and do not rule on cases.

Interracial marriage is a moot point. The State of Alabama has changed their law. Even if it hadn't, interracial marriage is still marriage. Bruce and Steve exchanging vows, is not.

There you go- eventually the Supreme Court does decide.

And the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that marriage is a right- and that State's cannot restrict that right without a compelling purpose.

That is why mixed race marriage was legal in Alabama for 23 years before the voters of Alabama wanted it to be legal.

A federal court said that such a state marriage law was unconstitutional- and that judges ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court

Either Federal judges have the Constitutional authority to determine whether a state law is constitutional or they do not.

And clearly- as we know from Loving v. Virginia- Federal judges do have the Constitutional authority to determine whether a state marriage law is constitutional.

 

[mdk]

Agreed. Furthermore "Bruce and Steve" weddings put their female children at psychological peril..

Yes, but we also have amendments like the 14th that provides Equal Protection under the law. The Courts in all the cases have applied the Rational basis test where the government has to only acknowledge a legitimate government interest but they have not convinced the courts that there is a legitimate government interest to prevent people from seeking that social benefit. It's a really low standard yet they can't come up with one secular reason why.
That's why it's failing.

No, there is quite a huge legitimate interest in states denying gay marriage...and why the idea is gaining traction: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

...And the Justice-destroying precedent set in this kangaroo litigation is intolerable to Americans: Breaking Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

***********
For all the uber liberals celebrating overt judicial bias in their favor on this question, consider the following:

Imagine seeing Justice Roberts or Thomas in a photo op just before a case on the Keystone Pipeline, shaking hands with the president of Haliburton; showing either of the Justices with a shovel, breaking ground for Haliburton on "the soon to be approved project".

Or going one step further as the Court is doing in this case and actively eroding state laws, allowing sections of the pipeline to be built in violation of states laws one by one by inexplicably refusing to uphold stays...so by the time a couple years had passed, nearly the entire length of the pipeline was complete so the Court could throw up its hands in surprise and say "well golly, it looks like the whole pipeline's nearly in anyway, so we'll just have to go ahead and approve this thing"..

That is the EXACT analogy of what's going on with this gay marriage thing. It's illegal. It's undemocratic. And it's Tyranny of the Judicial over the states.

The number of states that have legally-ratified "gay marriage" is under 10, or near that number anyway. It is not "36" or what have you. No way. If this injustice goes forward it will be the equivalent of a cult using our Highest Court to force subjegation of the states. Check your federally-issued rainbow "USA" Harvey Milk stamps (and his biography/Ca laws requiring kids to worship him) for details...

Do you know what The Prince's Trust, Halliburton, The Keystone Pipeline, and Harvey Milk stamps all have in common? None of them have anything to do with gay marriage or gay parents.

 

[Syriusly]

Agreed. Furthermore "Bruce and Steve" weddings put their female children at psychological peril..

Yes, but we also have amendments like the 14th that provides Equal Protection under the law. The Courts in all the cases have applied the Rational basis test where the government has to only acknowledge a legitimate government interest but they have not convinced the courts that there is a legitimate government interest to prevent people from seeking that social benefit. It's a really low standard yet they can't come up with one secular reason why.
That's why it's failing.

No, there is quite a huge legitimate interest in states denying gay marriage...and why the idea is gaining traction: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum..

What is that 'state interest' in preventing the children of gay parents from marrying?

 

[Silhouette]

Not having a role model of their same gender as a parent. It's harmful to kids psychologically. It leaves them with a feeling of not belonging/not mattering. They have no mirror to gaze into to see where they fit in the world..

Worst of all, worse even than the woes of kids of single hetero parents is the implied daily message of a gay household: your gender NEVER matters...whereas single parents are still trying to date/reach out to the child's gender "as mattering"..

 

[Skylar]

SCOTUS decides. Actually quite often they decide they have no standing and do not rule on cases.

Interracial marriage is a moot point.

Not if your question is the federal judiciary's standing to rule on issues of marraige it isn't. Its an undeniable example that proves the federal judiciary has standing on issues of marriage, and can overturn state marriage laws if these laws violate constitutional guarantees.

Which is the basis of every ruling overturning gay marriage bans.

 

[Syriusly]

Not having a role model of their same gender as a parent. It's harmful to kids psychologically. It leaves them with a feeling of not belonging/not mattering.

And again- what does preventing gay marriage do to change that claim?

Scenario 1: Bruce and Bob are raising 2 children- not married.
Scenario 2: Bruce and Bob are raising 2 children- married.

How does Bruce and Bob getting married harm those 2 children?

 

[Skylar]

Not having a role model of their same gender as a parent. It's harmful to kids psychologically. It leaves them with a feeling of not belonging/not mattering.

Says you. The Prince Trust Study says no such thing. It measures the effects of no kind of parenting, nor does it ever even mention gays, same sex parents, or gay marriage.

You hallucinated all of it.

 

[Skylar]

Agreed. Furthermore "Bruce and Steve" weddings put their female children at psychological peril..

Yes, but we also have amendments like the 14th that provides Equal Protection under the law. The Courts in all the cases have applied the Rational basis test where the government has to only acknowledge a legitimate government interest but they have not convinced the courts that there is a legitimate government interest to prevent people from seeking that social benefit. It's a really low standard yet they can't come up with one secular reason why.
That's why it's failing.

No, there is quite a huge legitimate interest in states denying gay marriage...and why the idea is gaining traction: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

...And the Justice-destroying precedent set in this kangaroo litigation is intolerable to Americans: Breaking Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

***********
For all the uber liberals celebrating overt judicial bias in their favor on this question, consider the following:

Imagine seeing Justice Roberts or Thomas in a photo op just before a case on the Keystone Pipeline, shaking hands with the president of Haliburton; showing either of the Justices with a shovel, breaking ground for Haliburton on "the soon to be approved project".

Or going one step further as the Court is doing in this case and actively eroding state laws, allowing sections of the pipeline to be built in violation of states laws one by one by inexplicably refusing to uphold stays...so by the time a couple years had passed, nearly the entire length of the pipeline was complete so the Court could throw up its hands in surprise and say "well golly, it looks like the whole pipeline's nearly in anyway, so we'll just have to go ahead and approve this thing"..

That is the EXACT analogy of what's going on with this gay marriage thing. It's illegal. It's undemocratic. And it's Tyranny of the Judicial over the states.

The number of states that have legally-ratified "gay marriage" is under 10, or near that number anyway. It is not "36" or what have you. No way. If this injustice goes forward it will be the equivalent of a cult using our Highest Court to force subjegation of the states. Check your federally-issued rainbow "USA" Harvey Milk stamps (and his biography/Ca laws requiring kids to worship him) for details...

Do you know what The Prince's Trust, Halliburton, The Keystone Pipeline, and Harvey Milk stamps all have in common? None of them have anything to do with gay marriage or gay parents.

Sil's argument has essentially degenerated into rhetorical word salad.

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if he worked in nuclear meltdowns and zombies.

 

[mdk]

Not having a role model of their same gender as a parent. It's harmful to kids psychologically. It leaves them with a feeling of not belonging/not mattering. They have no mirror to gaze into to see where they fit in the world..

Worst of all, worse even than the woes of kids of single hetero parents is the implied daily message of a gay household: your gender NEVER matters...whereas single parents are still trying to date/reach out to the child's gender "as mattering"..

The Prince's Trust in no way states that same gendered role models solely come from one's parents. Nor does the study even mention same-sex parents or gay marriage. The only person using this study in the gay marriage debate is you.

 

[mdk]

Agreed. Furthermore "Bruce and Steve" weddings put their female children at psychological peril..

Yes, but we also have amendments like the 14th that provides Equal Protection under the law. The Courts in all the cases have applied the Rational basis test where the government has to only acknowledge a legitimate government interest but they have not convinced the courts that there is a legitimate government interest to prevent people from seeking that social benefit. It's a really low standard yet they can't come up with one secular reason why.
That's why it's failing.

No, there is quite a huge legitimate interest in states denying gay marriage...and why the idea is gaining traction: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

...And the Justice-destroying precedent set in this kangaroo litigation is intolerable to Americans: Breaking Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

***********
For all the uber liberals celebrating overt judicial bias in their favor on this question, consider the following:

Imagine seeing Justice Roberts or Thomas in a photo op just before a case on the Keystone Pipeline, shaking hands with the president of Haliburton; showing either of the Justices with a shovel, breaking ground for Haliburton on "the soon to be approved project".

Or going one step further as the Court is doing in this case and actively eroding state laws, allowing sections of the pipeline to be built in violation of states laws one by one by inexplicably refusing to uphold stays...so by the time a couple years had passed, nearly the entire length of the pipeline was complete so the Court could throw up its hands in surprise and say "well golly, it looks like the whole pipeline's nearly in anyway, so we'll just have to go ahead and approve this thing"..

That is the EXACT analogy of what's going on with this gay marriage thing. It's illegal. It's undemocratic. And it's Tyranny of the Judicial over the states.

The number of states that have legally-ratified "gay marriage" is under 10, or near that number anyway. It is not "36" or what have you. No way. If this injustice goes forward it will be the equivalent of a cult using our Highest Court to force subjegation of the states. Check your federally-issued rainbow "USA" Harvey Milk stamps (and his biography/Ca laws requiring kids to worship him) for details...

Do you know what The Prince's Trust, Halliburton, The Keystone Pipeline, and Harvey Milk stamps all have in common? None of them have anything to do with gay marriage or gay parents.

Sil's argument has essentially degenerated into rhetorical word salad.

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if he worked in nuclear meltdowns and zombies.

And wolves, do not forget wolves.

She is only using this thread in hopes of generating traffic to her own failed threads. It is why she spams her thread's links in almost every gay marriage thread.

 

[BlindBoo]

But race and sexual lifestyles have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. One is protected in the Constitution. One is not. Are you proposing Congress ratify a new Amendment protecting (just) LGBT lifestyles that are repugnant to the majority?

I reported Syriusly for spamming. Enough is enough. I get it Syriusly, the points I made in post #1 of this page "have to be quickly disappeared". Only, that's not allowed at USMB.

A February 12–15, 2015 CNN/ORC poll found that 63% of Americans believe same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, while 36% oppose.

 

[1751_Texan]

No kidding. Fed judges aka tyrants in robes really should stop trying to dictate their opinions to the states.

No kidding. Fed judges aka tyrants in robes really should stop trying to dictate their opinions to the states.

Then we need to change the Constitution. Read Article III. It may inlighten you.

The Constitution does not allow state Tyrants to dictate their opinions against the people's Constitutional rights. Period.

 

[1751_Texan]

In the end Alabama will capitulate to the rule of law and the US Constitution...they already tried that secession experiment. Alabama needs a federal ass-kicking once in awhile.

 

[Skylar]

In the end Alabama will capitulate to the rule of law and the US Constitution...they already tried that secession experiment. Alabama needs a federal ass-kicking once in awhile.

Well, Moore's campaign to be releected to the Supreme Court of Alabama was bankrolled by Seccesionists. So it wouldn't surprise me if he's stirring the pot for them.

 

[elektra]

Somebody must protect the children from homosexuals adopting them