Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Obergefell ruling is most definitely part of the discussion. Just because you want to pretend that the Obergefell ruling doesn't cite the Equal Protection clause doesn't magically change the ruling.
See how that works?
You said,
"Now back to the argument that the court actually made: The Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.
Good luck claiming they don't exist",
clearly stating that the debate is about the equal protection clause.
See how that works?
I clearly stated that the Obergefell court cited an equal protection clause. And a due process clause. And that both exist in the 14th amendment....exactly as the Obergefell court found.
Keep running. It doesn't matter either way. Its just fun to watch you come up with excuse after excuse to avoid acknowledging that the Obergefell ruling cited the Equal Protection and Due Processes clauses.
The cited the 14th Amendment as, "States are required to issue licenses to same sex couples". Where does The 14th Amendment day that?
Where did the court claim that the 14th 'says' this?
Instead, the court held that the Equal protection clauses and Due Process clauses of the 14th amendment created the requirement for states to issue marriage certificates to same sex couples.
Keep running. Like I said, you ignoring what the court actually held about the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses.....doesn't matter. But its fun to watch the excuses.
You get caught lying and you double down on the lie.
How sweet!
Liberty Counsel Mat Staver is flailing his arms in the air trying to get our attention! “Hey people, Yoo Hoo! Remember me?” he says in an apparent panic. “The media seems to have missed the significance of Alabama’s historic action on same sex marriage! Didn’t you see that I won? It was a clear victory!” he announced.
http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/liberty-counsel-news-media-missed-alabamas-supreme-court-historic-action-on-same-sex-marriage/50483.htm
The next thing he’ll probably do is announce Napoleon’s clear victory at Waterloo.
.
Yep just like the Confederacy 'won' the Civil War.
Liberty Counsel Mat Staver is flailing his arms in the air trying to get our attention! “Hey people, Yoo Hoo! Remember me?” he says in an apparent panic. “The media seems to have missed the significance of Alabama’s historic action on same sex marriage! Didn’t you see that I won? It was a clear victory!” he announced.
http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/liberty-counsel-news-media-missed-alabamas-supreme-court-historic-action-on-same-sex-marriage/50483.htm
The next thing he’ll probably do is announce Napoleon’s clear victory at Waterloo.
Staver’s petition for writ of mandamus was dismissed. But Staver doesn’t want you to acknowledge that inconvenient fact … no, no, no! He wants you to focus on Justice Moore’s prior unilateral act ordering all probate judges, except probate judges subject to a federal court injunction, to enforce Alabama statutes banning same-sex marriage. Because a federal court order exists enjoining ALL state probate judges from enforcing those unconstitutional statutes, Justice Moore’s order accordingly applies to no one. Thus, it has no force or effect whatsoever. The ACLU’s motion to reverse that order was rendered moot and was dismissed along with Mat Staver’s petition.
Let’s take a look at the alleged “clear victory”:
http://lc.org//PDFs/Attachments2PRsLAs/2016/030416OrderDismissingPetitionsandMotionswConcurrence.pdf
It says, “IT IS ORDERED that all pending motions and petitions are dismissed.”
Justice Moore concurred with that Order and wrote a lengthy dissertation ending with the “clearly wrong” conclusion that his prior unilateral action ordering state probate judges (those who are not subject to a federal injunction) to enforce anti-gay state marriage laws, somehow survives to “uphold the constitutionality” of anti-gay state marriage statutes even though there are no probate judges who are subject to Moore’s order because all probate judges are subject to a federal injunction. The only thing Justice Moore’s writing shows us is that he lacks reason and impartiality shouldn’t be sitting on the bench or holding any public office at all.
On page 107 of the document, Justice Stuart wrote his special concurrence telling the whole world that Justice Moore’s writing explains Justice Moore’s vote only. He is telling the whole word that he doesn’t want to be associated with that writing. He wrote, “Attributing the reasoning and explanation in a special concurrence or a dissent to a Justice who did not issue or join the writing is erroneous and unjust.”
Justice Shaw’s special concurrence starts at page 146. Justice Shaw noted that all of Alabama’s probate court judges are subject to an injunction forbidding them from enforcing Alabama’s ban on the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses. Justice Shaw wrote, “[T]he law is well settled that this Court can do nothing to allow the probate judges of this State to ignore a federal court injunction and a Supreme Court decision.” But, that’s the relief Mat Staver requested in his petition for mandamus. He was asking the Alabama Supreme Court to mandate all probate judges to violate a federal court injunction and ignore a Supreme Court decision. Justice Shaw wrote, “Our decision today refuses to grant the relief requested and should not be construed to mean anything else.” (Liberty Counsel Mat Staver apparently didn’t see that when he declared a “clear victory”.)
Justice Shaw rebuked the content of Justice Moore’s arguments. He said, “I charitably say the arguments are ‘unconvincing’ because virtually no one has ever agreed with their rationales.” (See Page 155.) He writes other meaningful stuff … feel free to read it.
CLEAR VICTORY for Mat Staver? Not even close.
Are progressive tax rates constitutional, in your opinion?
Liberty Counsel Mat Staver is flailing his arms in the air trying to get our attention! “Hey people, Yoo Hoo! Remember me?” he says in an apparent panic. “The media seems to have missed the significance of Alabama’s historic action on same sex marriage! Didn’t you see that I won? It was a clear victory!” he announced.
http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/liberty-counsel-news-media-missed-alabamas-supreme-court-historic-action-on-same-sex-marriage/50483.htm
The next thing he’ll probably do is announce Napoleon’s clear victory at Waterloo.
Staver’s petition for writ of mandamus was dismissed. But Staver doesn’t want you to acknowledge that inconvenient fact … no, no, no! He wants you to focus on Justice Moore’s prior unilateral act ordering all probate judges, except probate judges subject to a federal court injunction, to enforce Alabama statutes banning same-sex marriage. Because a federal court order exists enjoining ALL state probate judges from enforcing those unconstitutional statutes, Justice Moore’s order accordingly applies to no one. Thus, it has no force or effect whatsoever. The ACLU’s motion to reverse that order was rendered moot and was dismissed along with Mat Staver’s petition.
Let’s take a look at the alleged “clear victory”:
http://lc.org//PDFs/Attachments2PRsLAs/2016/030416OrderDismissingPetitionsandMotionswConcurrence.pdf
It says, “IT IS ORDERED that all pending motions and petitions are dismissed.”
Justice Moore concurred with that Order and wrote a lengthy dissertation ending with the “clearly wrong” conclusion that his prior unilateral action ordering state probate judges (those who are not subject to a federal injunction) to enforce anti-gay state marriage laws, somehow survives to “uphold the constitutionality” of anti-gay state marriage statutes even though there are no probate judges who are subject to Moore’s order because all probate judges are subject to a federal injunction. The only thing Justice Moore’s writing shows us is that he lacks reason and impartiality shouldn’t be sitting on the bench or holding any public office at all.
On page 107 of the document, Justice Stuart wrote his special concurrence telling the whole world that Justice Moore’s writing explains Justice Moore’s vote only. He is telling the whole word that he doesn’t want to be associated with that writing. He wrote, “Attributing the reasoning and explanation in a special concurrence or a dissent to a Justice who did not issue or join the writing is erroneous and unjust.”
Justice Shaw’s special concurrence starts at page 146. Justice Shaw noted that all of Alabama’s probate court judges are subject to an injunction forbidding them from enforcing Alabama’s ban on the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses. Justice Shaw wrote, “[T]he law is well settled that this Court can do nothing to allow the probate judges of this State to ignore a federal court injunction and a Supreme Court decision.” But, that’s the relief Mat Staver requested in his petition for mandamus. He was asking the Alabama Supreme Court to mandate all probate judges to violate a federal court injunction and ignore a Supreme Court decision. Justice Shaw wrote, “Our decision today refuses to grant the relief requested and should not be construed to mean anything else.” (Liberty Counsel Mat Staver apparently didn’t see that when he declared a “clear victory”.)
Justice Shaw rebuked the content of Justice Moore’s arguments. He said, “I charitably say the arguments are ‘unconvincing’ because virtually no one has ever agreed with their rationales.” (See Page 155.) He writes other meaningful stuff … feel free to read it.
CLEAR VICTORY for Mat Staver? Not even close.
Are progressive tax rates constitutional, in your opinion?
If I respond yes or no to your question, how would my response be relevant to Staver's "clear victory" declaration?
Restricting marriage as its been done for THOUSANDS of years is in the compelling interest.Where did I say gun ownership isn't a right?- please provide the quote.
Meanwhile- marriage is a right. Repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court.
Rights can be restricted.
But they can only be restricted when there is a reasonable purpose- denying criminals who have been convicted of violent crimes has a reasonable objective- denying gun ownership to all white men has no reasonable objective.
Just as denying the right to marriage to same gender couples has no reasonable objective.
So to you REASONABLE restrictions can be used..
Not to me- that is the standard the courts use- and have used- for marriage laws, for gun laws- whenever a state passes a law that does restrict a right we have- State's can only restrict a right when it serves a compelling interest(no yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater)
So you will insist on a man's right to marry multiple women?
Lol. You just stated to me that my opinion doesn't matter, and that we were arguing points of law.
So, what does his opinion have to do with anything?
Mark
So your argument is that the 2nd amendment rights CAN be restricted by rights under the 14th CAN'T be restricted....And then the federal government should pull every military installation out of Alabama and cut off all Social Security payments.
Rights can be restricted. Everyone with a brain knows that. You just can't restrict rights in violation of the equal protection clause.
Rights can be restricted.
But they can only be restricted when there is a reasonable purpose- denying criminals who have been convicted of violent crimes has a reasonable objective- denying gun ownership to all white men has no reasonable objective.
Just as denying the right to marriage to same gender couples has no reasonable objective.
What is the reasonable objection to polygamy?
Mark
Good question Mark.
Do you have any objection to polygamous marriage.
If you don't- do you think polygamous marriage should be legal.
My opinion matters not. We are arguing point of law.
Mark
Fuck scotus.
So your argument is that the 2nd amendment rights CAN be restricted by rights under the 14th CAN'T be restricted....
Rights can be restricted.
But they can only be restricted when there is a reasonable purpose- denying criminals who have been convicted of violent crimes has a reasonable objective- denying gun ownership to all white men has no reasonable objective.
Just as denying the right to marriage to same gender couples has no reasonable objective.
What is the reasonable objection to polygamy?
Mark
Good question Mark.
Do you have any objection to polygamous marriage.
If you don't- do you think polygamous marriage should be legal.
My opinion matters not. We are arguing point of law.
Mark
Everyone's opinion matters.
Especially in a democratic Republic.
Do you think that polygamous marriage should be legal?
they take more than they give fyi
Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?
state constitutions can not violate The Constitution and state courts are legally bound to the supremacy of the supreme court.
State courts are only bound to ruling by SCOTUS that are legal.
Every ruling by the Supreme Court is by definition legal.
Even bad ones.
The legal encyclopedia American Jurisprudence states:
logic children; 18% had molested a niece or nephew; and
5% had molested a grandchild but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void
Dred Scott was an unconstitutional ruling, and was therefore unenforceable, even if the government treats it as law.
Mark
Mark once again displaying his contempt for reading comprehension.
'unconstitutional statute'- that would be the State law that the Supreme Court rules unconstitutional.
An 'unconstitutional law'- i.e. Virginia's law against mixed race marriages, Texas's law against sodomy, and three states laws against gay marriage- all unconstitutional laws.
Says who? The Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court decides if a law is constitutional or not- by definition every ruling by the Supreme Court is legal- even the bad ones.
Which is why the only way to change a Supreme Court ruling 'we the people' disagree with- is to pass a Constitutional Amendment.
Which is why Dred Scott decision was legal- (and bad) and it was enforced- until reversed by the 13th and the 14th Amendments.
Hmmm. Who to believe? You or my link??? Tough choice, I know.
Mark
Rights can be restricted.
But they can only be restricted when there is a reasonable purpose- denying criminals who have been convicted of violent crimes has a reasonable objective- denying gun ownership to all white men has no reasonable objective.
Just as denying the right to marriage to same gender couples has no reasonable objective.
What is the reasonable objection to polygamy?
Mark
Good question Mark.
Do you have any objection to polygamous marriage.
If you don't- do you think polygamous marriage should be legal.
My opinion matters not. We are arguing point of law.
Mark
Everyone's opinion matters.
Especially in a democratic Republic.
Do you think that polygamous marriage should be legal?
I have to say, my favorite part of this entire debate are the excuses these poor souls give to avoid questions and topics. They're so varied and so colorful. Its like watching fallacy fireworks.
Actually, a state can stop gays from marrying..
No more than a state can stop a mixed race couple from marrying
Which is why in all 50 states it is legal for mixed race couples- and gay couples to marry- despite State's objections.
And why it should be legal for a woman to marry the entire Dallas Cowboy team, if she so chooses.
Mark
So you are in favor of polygamous marriage- thank you for once taking a stand on behalf of that poor woman and the entire Dallas Cowboy team.
Now all they have to do is do what the Lovings and the Obergefell's did- go to the court and claim that their Constitutional rights have been violated and that they should be able to be married.
Like the Lovings and the Obergefells they have to make their case- and the State has to come up with a compelling reason why the State law against polygamous marriage should stand.
BUT if the State can't come up with a valid reason why bans on polygamous marriages are good- then why does the State even have the bans?
You could start the ball rolling tomorrow- by going to court claiming your right to marry 3 women or 3 men is being denied- go for it.
did the woman with the dallas cowboys' team consent? if she did, it's none of your business. which isn't to say there isn't a societal interest that mitigates against polygamy.
as for loving...
You have it backwards. They can't stop gay people from marrying, no matter how much they stamp their club feet or how long they hold their stinking breath.
Actually, a state can stop gays from marrying..
No more than a state can stop a mixed race couple from marrying
Which is why in all 50 states it is legal for mixed race couples- and gay couples to marry- despite State's objections.
And why it should be legal for a woman to marry the entire Dallas Cowboy team, if she so chooses.
Mark
interesting and yet irrelevant assertion since that isn't being requested by anyone.
we are speaking only of two consenting adults.
and who consenting adults choose as their life partner isn't your business and the government presented no compelling state interest in preventing marriage equality....something it would have been required to do since marriage is a fundamental right as the court already held in loving.
the fact that loons are still whining about this is bizarre
go on with your lives... if you don't want to marry someone of the same sex...don't.
And what about the left? Do they stop whining when they lose? If they did, gay marriage wouldn't be the law of the land. Don't ask me to do something you didn't do yourself.
Mark
Every ruling by the Supreme Court is by definition legal.
Even bad ones.
The legal encyclopedia American Jurisprudence states: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void
Dred Scott was an unconstitutional ruling, and was therefore unenforceable, even if the government treats it as law.
Mark
Mark once again displaying his contempt for reading comprehension.
'unconstitutional statute'- that would be the State law that the Supreme Court rules unconstitutional.
An 'unconstitutional law'- i.e. Virginia's law against mixed race marriages, Texas's law against sodomy, and three states laws against gay marriage- all unconstitutional laws.
Says who? The Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court decides if a law is constitutional or not- by definition every ruling by the Supreme Court is legal- even the bad ones.
Which is why the only way to change a Supreme Court ruling 'we the people' disagree with- is to pass a Constitutional Amendment.
Which is why Dred Scott decision was legal- (and bad) and it was enforced- until reversed by the 13th and the 14th Amendments.
Hmmm. Who to believe? You or my link??? Tough choice, I know.
Mark
And who says that Obergefell is an 'unconstitutional statute'? The USSC says this:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Who to believe? You or my link? Tough choice, I know.
No where in the 14th Amendment is marriage mentioned.
Liberty Counsel Mat Staver is flailing his arms in the air trying to get our attention! “Hey people, Yoo Hoo! Remember me?” he says in an apparent panic. “The media seems to have missed the significance of Alabama’s historic action on same sex marriage! Didn’t you see that I won? It was a clear victory!” he announced.
http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/liberty-counsel-news-media-missed-alabamas-supreme-court-historic-action-on-same-sex-marriage/50483.htm
The next thing he’ll probably do is announce Napoleon’s clear victory at Waterloo.
Staver’s petition for writ of mandamus was dismissed. But Staver doesn’t want you to acknowledge that inconvenient fact … no, no, no! He wants you to focus on Justice Moore’s prior unilateral act ordering all probate judges, except probate judges subject to a federal court injunction, to enforce Alabama statutes banning same-sex marriage. Because a federal court order exists enjoining ALL state probate judges from enforcing those unconstitutional statutes, Justice Moore’s order accordingly applies to no one. Thus, it has no force or effect whatsoever. The ACLU’s motion to reverse that order was rendered moot and was dismissed along with Mat Staver’s petition.
Let’s take a look at the alleged “clear victory”:
http://lc.org//PDFs/Attachments2PRsLAs/2016/030416OrderDismissingPetitionsandMotionswConcurrence.pdf
It says, “IT IS ORDERED that all pending motions and petitions are dismissed.”
Justice Moore concurred with that Order and wrote a lengthy dissertation ending with the “clearly wrong” conclusion that his prior unilateral action ordering state probate judges (those who are not subject to a federal injunction) to enforce anti-gay state marriage laws, somehow survives to “uphold the constitutionality” of anti-gay state marriage statutes even though there are no probate judges who are subject to Moore’s order because all probate judges are subject to a federal injunction. The only thing Justice Moore’s writing shows us is that he lacks reason and impartiality shouldn’t be sitting on the bench or holding any public office at all.
On page 107 of the document, Justice Stuart wrote his special concurrence telling the whole world that Justice Moore’s writing explains Justice Moore’s vote only. He is telling the whole word that he doesn’t want to be associated with that writing. He wrote, “Attributing the reasoning and explanation in a special concurrence or a dissent to a Justice who did not issue or join the writing is erroneous and unjust.”
Justice Shaw’s special concurrence starts at page 146. Justice Shaw noted that all of Alabama’s probate court judges are subject to an injunction forbidding them from enforcing Alabama’s ban on the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses. Justice Shaw wrote, “[T]he law is well settled that this Court can do nothing to allow the probate judges of this State to ignore a federal court injunction and a Supreme Court decision.” But, that’s the relief Mat Staver requested in his petition for mandamus. He was asking the Alabama Supreme Court to mandate all probate judges to violate a federal court injunction and ignore a Supreme Court decision. Justice Shaw wrote, “Our decision today refuses to grant the relief requested and should not be construed to mean anything else.” (Liberty Counsel Mat Staver apparently didn’t see that when he declared a “clear victory”.)
Justice Shaw rebuked the content of Justice Moore’s arguments. He said, “I charitably say the arguments are ‘unconvincing’ because virtually no one has ever agreed with their rationales.” (See Page 155.) He writes other meaningful stuff … feel free to read it.
CLEAR VICTORY for Mat Staver? Not even close.
Are progressive tax rates constitutional, in your opinion?
Dred Scott was an unconstitutional ruling, and was therefore unenforceable, even if the government treats it as law.
Fuck scotus.
Hey, look...your avatar shows a boy with *drum roll*.... BOTH a mother and father. If gay marriage was legal back then and some dude had gotten to that boy's father when he was "of the age to turn" as the gays call it or just "to turn", that boy might be shown in the picture with two gay men instead. What the heck. Just as good as his mother, right?Fuck scotus.
Kagan? Gay sex? You're biased.
Hey, look...your avatar shows a boy with *drum roll*.... BOTH a mother and father. If gay marriage was legal back then and some dude had gotten to that boy's father when he was "of the age to turn" as the gays call it or just "to turn", that boy might be shown in the picture with two gay men instead. What the heck. Just as good as his mother, right?
Hey, look...your avatar shows a boy with *drum roll*.... BOTH a mother and father.
So he would've been statistically better off with these two? Midwest Lesbians Beat Son With Hammer & Kicked His Groin Until He Suffered Two StrokesHey, look...your avatar shows a boy with *drum roll*.... BOTH a mother and father.
.....Who turned sith and murdered his father.
