Alabama supreme court tells SC to take a hike on marriage opinion

[Syriusly]

So there is a nexus between 'sodomy' and 'sexual intercourse'

No, nothing in reality has changed, it's just regressive moral relativism. If they don't like the implications of a term, they just redefine it, kind of like they're doing to the Constitution.

Nothing is being 'redefined'. The Constitution clearly protects equal treatment under the law,

which means that same sex marriage is entitled to the same treatment as opposite sex marriage.

BS, the 14th didn't protect faghadist marriage for 147 years, the only thing that changed was the number of regressive judges on the court that were willing to invent a right that never existed in history.

The 14th Amendment didn't protect what you would call "n*gger lover" marriage for 100 years. People like you are still upset about those 'repressive judges that suddenly 'invented' the right of a mixed race couple to marry.

I got some news for you hero, I have never thought the decision to allow mixed race marriages was wrong, I've never agreed with discrimination base on race. To attempt to equate mixed race marriages with faghadist marriages is pure unadulterated bullshit.

Oh so you are for some kinds of discrimination but not others?

You are okay with what you would call "n*ggerhadist' marriages' but your fellow bigots were just as aghast at mixed race marriages as you are about gay marriage.

Bigotry is bigotry- and you are its poster boy.

 

[Syriusly]

Sexual Intercourse Law & Legal Definition

Sexual intercourse is defined as “vaginal intercourse or any insertion, however slight, of a hand, finger or object into the vagina, vulva, or labia, excluding such insertion for medical treatment or examination.” Gov't of the V.I. v. Vicars, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 17633 (3d Cir. V.I. Aug. 7, 2009)

I guess gay men can't have sexual intercourse- but of course lesbians can........lol...according to the legal dictionary-

But the Medical Dictionary has a different definition
sexual intercourse
sexual intercourse
n.
1. Sexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina.
2. Sexual activity that includes insertion of the penis into the anus or mouth.

sodomy
[sod-uh-mee]

• Word Origin

noun
1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
2. copulation with a member of the same sex.
3. bestiality (def 4).

the definition of sodomy

So there is a nexus between 'sodomy' and 'sexual intercourse'

No, nothing in reality has changed, it's just regressive moral relativism. If they don't like the implications of a term, they just redefine it, kind of like they're doing to the Constitution.

Words are how we describe reality- and words change.

The repressive Conservatives and Christians who have tried to persecute homosexuals for centuries are just pissed off that they can't get away with it anymore- and are pissing and moaning.

Of course you regressives are the only ones capable of describing reality or changing definitions, right? That's just a tad bit arrogant and narcissistic, don't you think?

Well- as a 'regressive'- I use the dictionary- and legal reality to define words.

Nothing narcissistic about using a dictionary definition- what is arrogant and narcissistic is denying what marriage - denying both what the dictionary says- and what the law says.

And that would be you.

 

[OKTexas]

No, nothing in reality has changed, it's just regressive moral relativism. If they don't like the implications of a term, they just redefine it, kind of like they're doing to the Constitution.

Nothing is being 'redefined'. The Constitution clearly protects equal treatment under the law,

which means that same sex marriage is entitled to the same treatment as opposite sex marriage.

BS, the 14th didn't protect faghadist marriage for 147 years, the only thing that changed was the number of regressive judges on the court that were willing to invent a right that never existed in history.

The 14th Amendment didn't protect what you would call "n*gger lover" marriage for 100 years. People like you are still upset about those 'repressive judges that suddenly 'invented' the right of a mixed race couple to marry.

I got some news for you hero, I have never thought the decision to allow mixed race marriages was wrong, I've never agreed with discrimination base on race. To attempt to equate mixed race marriages with faghadist marriages is pure unadulterated bullshit.

Oh so you are for some kinds of discrimination but not others?

You are okay with what you would call "n*ggerhadist' marriages' but your fellow bigots were just as aghast at mixed race marriages as you are about gay marriage.

Bigotry is bigotry- and you are its poster boy.

Fuck off and die you ignorant mother fucker, I damned tired of your putting words in my mouth I never said. Now take your obvious hate and shove it up your ass.

 

[Syriusly]

Nothing is being 'redefined'. The Constitution clearly protects equal treatment under the law,

which means that same sex marriage is entitled to the same treatment as opposite sex marriage.

BS, the 14th didn't protect faghadist marriage for 147 years, the only thing that changed was the number of regressive judges on the court that were willing to invent a right that never existed in history.

The 14th Amendment didn't protect what you would call "n*gger lover" marriage for 100 years. People like you are still upset about those 'repressive judges that suddenly 'invented' the right of a mixed race couple to marry.

I got some news for you hero, I have never thought the decision to allow mixed race marriages was wrong, I've never agreed with discrimination base on race. To attempt to equate mixed race marriages with faghadist marriages is pure unadulterated bullshit.

Oh so you are for some kinds of discrimination but not others?

You are okay with what you would call "n*ggerhadist' marriages' but your fellow bigots were just as aghast at mixed race marriages as you are about gay marriage.

Bigotry is bigotry- and you are its poster boy.

Fuck off and die you ignorant mother fucker, I damned tired of your putting words in my mouth I never said. Now take your obvious hate and shove it up your ass.

Ah the poor bigot is upset when I point out his bigotry- sad you have to live with so much hate and aggression.

LOL.....

 

[Seawytch]

Nothing is being 'redefined'. The Constitution clearly protects equal treatment under the law,

which means that same sex marriage is entitled to the same treatment as opposite sex marriage.

BS, the 14th didn't protect faghadist marriage for 147 years, the only thing that changed was the number of regressive judges on the court that were willing to invent a right that never existed in history.

The 14th Amendment didn't protect what you would call "n*gger lover" marriage for 100 years. People like you are still upset about those 'repressive judges that suddenly 'invented' the right of a mixed race couple to marry.

I got some news for you hero, I have never thought the decision to allow mixed race marriages was wrong, I've never agreed with discrimination base on race. To attempt to equate mixed race marriages with faghadist marriages is pure unadulterated bullshit.

Oh so you are for some kinds of discrimination but not others?

You are okay with what you would call "n*ggerhadist' marriages' but your fellow bigots were just as aghast at mixed race marriages as you are about gay marriage.

Bigotry is bigotry- and you are its poster boy.

Fuck off and die you ignorant mother fucker, I damned tired of your putting words in my mouth I never said. Now take your obvious hate and shove it up your ass.

Sounds like what you don't like is the uncomfortable parallels between your stance and the stance of the anti miscegenationists.

 

[OKTexas]

BS, the 14th didn't protect faghadist marriage for 147 years, the only thing that changed was the number of regressive judges on the court that were willing to invent a right that never existed in history.

The 14th Amendment didn't protect what you would call "n*gger lover" marriage for 100 years. People like you are still upset about those 'repressive judges that suddenly 'invented' the right of a mixed race couple to marry.

I got some news for you hero, I have never thought the decision to allow mixed race marriages was wrong, I've never agreed with discrimination base on race. To attempt to equate mixed race marriages with faghadist marriages is pure unadulterated bullshit.

Oh so you are for some kinds of discrimination but not others?

You are okay with what you would call "n*ggerhadist' marriages' but your fellow bigots were just as aghast at mixed race marriages as you are about gay marriage.

Bigotry is bigotry- and you are its poster boy.

Fuck off and die you ignorant mother fucker, I damned tired of your putting words in my mouth I never said. Now take your obvious hate and shove it up your ass.

Sounds like what you don't like is the uncomfortable parallels between your stance and the stance of the anti miscegenationists.

There are no parallels, race is genetic. When you prove to me that being gay is genetic, I'll be happy to consider your argument.

 

[Seawytch]

The 14th Amendment didn't protect what you would call "n*gger lover" marriage for 100 years. People like you are still upset about those 'repressive judges that suddenly 'invented' the right of a mixed race couple to marry.

I got some news for you hero, I have never thought the decision to allow mixed race marriages was wrong, I've never agreed with discrimination base on race. To attempt to equate mixed race marriages with faghadist marriages is pure unadulterated bullshit.

Oh so you are for some kinds of discrimination but not others?

You are okay with what you would call "n*ggerhadist' marriages' but your fellow bigots were just as aghast at mixed race marriages as you are about gay marriage.

Bigotry is bigotry- and you are its poster boy.

Fuck off and die you ignorant mother fucker, I damned tired of your putting words in my mouth I never said. Now take your obvious hate and shove it up your ass.

Sounds like what you don't like is the uncomfortable parallels between your stance and the stance of the anti miscegenationists.

There are no parallels, race is genetic. When you prove to me that being gay is genetic, I'll be happy to consider your argument.

Whether being gay is a choice or not is irrelevant. Race and sexual orientation aren't being compared, bigots are...and there is no daylight between them (and it IS a choice to be a bigot)

 

[Silhouette]

Oh so you are for some kinds of discrimination but not others?

You are okay with what you would call "n*ggerhadist' marriages' but your fellow bigots were just as aghast at mixed race marriages as you are about gay marriage.

Bigotry is bigotry- and you are its poster boy.

Hmm...wasn't it you not so long ago or one of your cohorts going on and on about how polygamy isn't a sexual orientation allowed to marry but meanwhile "gay" is?

Yes, bigotry is bigotry and you are its poster girl.

Whether being gay is a choice or not is irrelevant. Race and sexual orientation aren't being compared, bigots are...and there is no daylight between them (and it IS a choice to be a bigot)

Oh, it's quite relevant. In fact, it's the whole of the relevance of what I just said (see my response to Syriusly above... ) Either you believe that polygamy and adult-consenting incest marriage is legal right now, today, or you are a bigot. There is nothing that elevates homosexuality over polyamory or incest when the majority finds all three sexual orientations repugnant to the word "marriage"..

 

[Skylar]

Oh so you are for some kinds of discrimination but not others?

You are okay with what you would call "n*ggerhadist' marriages' but your fellow bigots were just as aghast at mixed race marriages as you are about gay marriage.

Bigotry is bigotry- and you are its poster boy.

Hmm...wasn't it you not so long ago or one of your cohorts going on and on about how polygamy isn't a sexual orientation allowed to marry but meanwhile "gay" is?

Yes, bigotry is bigotry and you are its poster girl.

Whether being gay is a choice or not is irrelevant. Race and sexual orientation aren't being compared, bigots are...and there is no daylight between them (and it IS a choice to be a bigot)

Oh, it's quite relevant. In fact, it's the whole of the relevance of what I just said (see my response to Syriusly above... ) Either you believe that polygamy and adult-consenting incest marriage is legal right now, today, or you are a bigot. There is nothing that elevates homosexuality over polyamory or incest when the majority finds all three sexual orientations repugnant to the word "marriage"..

If you want polygamous marriage....make your case for it. If you want adult incest marriage....make your case of it.

As the only one advocating either...is you.

 

[Skylar]

Nothing is being 'redefined'. The Constitution clearly protects equal treatment under the law,

which means that same sex marriage is entitled to the same treatment as opposite sex marriage.

Not when it comes to marriage or other locally regulated privileges. If it did, automatically polygamy and incest marriage would also today be legal between consenting adults. You can't pick and choose which repugnant sexual orientation gets to marry and which don't while simultaneously citing "equal rights in the constitution"...

Show us any court or any law that recognizes that polygamy or adult incest were legalized by the Obergefell ruling.

You can't. Like your babble about 'contract law' and supreme court hearings being a 'mistrial', you're citing your imagination as the law.

And with same sex marriage legal in 50 of 50 States....while polygamy and incest marriage aren't legal in any State....

....you citing your imagination means jack shit legally.

 

[Skylar]

So there is a nexus between 'sodomy' and 'sexual intercourse'

No, nothing in reality has changed, it's just regressive moral relativism. If they don't like the implications of a term, they just redefine it, kind of like they're doing to the Constitution.

Nothing is being 'redefined'. The Constitution clearly protects equal treatment under the law,

which means that same sex marriage is entitled to the same treatment as opposite sex marriage.

BS, the 14th didn't protect faghadist marriage for 147 years, the only thing that changed was the number of regressive judges on the court that were willing to invent a right that never existed in history.

The 14th Amendment didn't protect what you would call "n*gger lover" marriage for 100 years. People like you are still upset about those 'repressive judges that suddenly 'invented' the right of a mixed race couple to marry.

I got some news for you hero, I have never thought the decision to allow mixed race marriages was wrong, I've never agreed with discrimination base on race. To attempt to equate mixed race marriages with faghadist marriages is pure unadulterated bullshit.

Your State certainly did. Remember, when Loving V. Virginia overturned miscegenation laws in Virginia......they also overturned them in Texas. This Great State of Texas has a long and distinguished record of being on the wrong side of history.

And every 'constitutional' argument you're making in favor of laws banning same sex marriage would apply to laws banning interracial marriage. If your arguments weren't laughably pseudo-legal gibberish, of course.

 

[OKTexas]

I got some news for you hero, I have never thought the decision to allow mixed race marriages was wrong, I've never agreed with discrimination base on race. To attempt to equate mixed race marriages with faghadist marriages is pure unadulterated bullshit.

Oh so you are for some kinds of discrimination but not others?

You are okay with what you would call "n*ggerhadist' marriages' but your fellow bigots were just as aghast at mixed race marriages as you are about gay marriage.

Bigotry is bigotry- and you are its poster boy.

Fuck off and die you ignorant mother fucker, I damned tired of your putting words in my mouth I never said. Now take your obvious hate and shove it up your ass.

Sounds like what you don't like is the uncomfortable parallels between your stance and the stance of the anti miscegenationists.

There are no parallels, race is genetic. When you prove to me that being gay is genetic, I'll be happy to consider your argument.

Whether being gay is a choice or not is irrelevant. Race and sexual orientation aren't being compared, bigots are...and there is no daylight between them (and it IS a choice to be a bigot)

Wrong answer, it's totally relevant. We discriminate against immoral behavior all the time, we have law books full of examples. What you folks refuse to admit is that gays had the exact same rights as their genetic equivalents before the supremes invented them a new one.

 

[Skylar]

Oh so you are for some kinds of discrimination but not others?

You are okay with what you would call "n*ggerhadist' marriages' but your fellow bigots were just as aghast at mixed race marriages as you are about gay marriage.

Bigotry is bigotry- and you are its poster boy.

Fuck off and die you ignorant mother fucker, I damned tired of your putting words in my mouth I never said. Now take your obvious hate and shove it up your ass.

Sounds like what you don't like is the uncomfortable parallels between your stance and the stance of the anti miscegenationists.

There are no parallels, race is genetic. When you prove to me that being gay is genetic, I'll be happy to consider your argument.

Whether being gay is a choice or not is irrelevant. Race and sexual orientation aren't being compared, bigots are...and there is no daylight between them (and it IS a choice to be a bigot)

Wrong answer, it's totally relevant. We discriminate against immoral behavior all the time, we have law books full of examples. What you folks refuse to admit is that gays had the exact same rights as their genetic equivalents before the supremes invented them a new one.

And how is homosexuality 'immoral'? Says who?

How is same sex marriage 'immoral'? And again, says who?

 

[Silhouette]

Remember, when Loving V. Virginia overturned miscegenation laws in Virginia......they also overturned them in Texas. This Great State of Texas has a long and distinguished record of being on the wrong side of history.

And every 'constitutional' argument you're making in favor of laws banning same sex marriage would apply to laws banning interracial marriage. If your arguments weren't laughably pseudo-legal gibberish, of course.

That is patently wrong. Loving v Virginia had specific language in the Constitution to point to in order to find for Loving. There can be no discrimination based upon race. Since they were a man and woman, there was no other barrier to their marrying and so, they won. However, there is no language in the US Constitution that refers to sexual behaviors or orientations. NONE. And so in a gross overreach into the Legislative Powers, the USSC decided to "phantom-create" special protections for a class that didn't and doesn't exist (defined: just some of the Court's favorite deviant sexual orientations but not others). It can't exist even in theory (for it does not exist at all in language) because to support "marriage equality" for just one deviant sex behavior while denying all others is not allowed by the spirit and intent of the 14th Amendment...

...of which was cited to support Loving's victory... You can't use the 14th Amendment to disqualify some people of a same or similar class (based on sexual orientation) while at the same time using it to support some people of a same or similar class...

 

[Skylar]

Remember, when Loving V. Virginia overturned miscegenation laws in Virginia......they also overturned them in Texas. This Great State of Texas has a long and distinguished record of being on the wrong side of history.

And every 'constitutional' argument you're making in favor of laws banning same sex marriage would apply to laws banning interracial marriage. If your arguments weren't laughably pseudo-legal gibberish, of course.

That is patently wrong. Loving v Virginia had specific language in the Constitution to point to in order to find for Loving.

You're clearly not following the conversation, Sil. As OK has insisted that something that wasn't recognized as constitutionally protected when the 14th was passed can't be a fundamental right now. Interracial marriage wasn't constitutionally recognized as a right at the time the 14th was passed. With the 14th being cited extensively in both the Loving and Obergefell decision.

And every 'constitutional' argument OK is making in favor of laws banning same sex marriage would apply to laws banning interracial marriage. If his arguments and those of the Great State of Texas weren't laughably pseudo-legal gibberish, of course.

There can be no discrimination based upon race. Since they were a man and woman, there was no other barrier to their marrying and so, they won. However, there is no language in the US Constitution that refers to sexual behaviors or orientations. NONE. And so in a gross overreach into the Legislative Powers, the USSC decided to "phantom-create" special protections for a class that didn't and doesn't exist (defined: just some of the Court's favorite deviant sexual orientations but not others).

Obvious nonsense. The 14th makes no mention of any limit based on race or sexual orientation to the priveledges and immunities it protects. The 14th never so much as mentions either race or sexual orientation. Yet both Loving and Obergefell cited the 14th. Demonstrating the absurdity of your argument.

Worse for your pseudo-legal nonsense.....the basis of the right to marry for same sex couples *wasn't* sexual orientation. There's no requirement that same sex couples getting married be gay. Or opposite sex couples getting married be straight.

Only that States can't prevent two adults from marrying based on their genders.

Are you going to say that genders aren't protected?

 

[Syriusly]

The 14th Amendment didn't protect what you would call "n*gger lover" marriage for 100 years. People like you are still upset about those 'repressive judges that suddenly 'invented' the right of a mixed race couple to marry.

I got some news for you hero, I have never thought the decision to allow mixed race marriages was wrong, I've never agreed with discrimination base on race. To attempt to equate mixed race marriages with faghadist marriages is pure unadulterated bullshit.

Oh so you are for some kinds of discrimination but not others?

You are okay with what you would call "n*ggerhadist' marriages' but your fellow bigots were just as aghast at mixed race marriages as you are about gay marriage.

Bigotry is bigotry- and you are its poster boy.

Fuck off and die you ignorant mother fucker, I damned tired of your putting words in my mouth I never said. Now take your obvious hate and shove it up your ass.

Sounds like what you don't like is the uncomfortable parallels between your stance and the stance of the anti miscegenationists.

There are no parallels, race is genetic. When you prove to me that being gay is genetic, I'll be happy to consider your argument.

No you won't. Bigotry is not genetic.

The parallels are that bigots like you opposed couples getting married- in one case because the couple were the opposite race- and now its because they are the same gender.

Bigotry is bigotry.

You are no different than the ones appalled by mixed race marriages- no different from those who call blacks 'n*ggers'

 

[Syriusly]

Oh so you are for some kinds of discrimination but not others?

You are okay with what you would call "n*ggerhadist' marriages' but your fellow bigots were just as aghast at mixed race marriages as you are about gay marriage.

Bigotry is bigotry- and you are its poster boy.

Hmm...wasn't it you not so long ago or one of your cohorts going on and on about how polygamy isn't a sexual orientation allowed to marry but meanwhile "gay" is?
..

Not sure why you are choosing that particular lie- but a great opening

Are you in favor of polygamous marriage?

Or against it?

 

[Syriusly]

[
Oh, it's quite relevant. In fact, it's the whole of the relevance of what I just said (see my response to Syriusly above... ) Either you believe that polygamy and adult-consenting incest marriage is legal right..

Are you in favor of polygamous marriage and incestuous marriage?

Or by your own standards are you calling yourself a bigot?

 

[Syriusly]

Oh so you are for some kinds of discrimination but not others?

You are okay with what you would call "n*ggerhadist' marriages' but your fellow bigots were just as aghast at mixed race marriages as you are about gay marriage.

Bigotry is bigotry- and you are its poster boy.

Fuck off and die you ignorant mother fucker, I damned tired of your putting words in my mouth I never said. Now take your obvious hate and shove it up your ass.

Sounds like what you don't like is the uncomfortable parallels between your stance and the stance of the anti miscegenationists.

There are no parallels, race is genetic. When you prove to me that being gay is genetic, I'll be happy to consider your argument.

Whether being gay is a choice or not is irrelevant. Race and sexual orientation aren't being compared, bigots are...and there is no daylight between them (and it IS a choice to be a bigot)

Wrong answer, it's totally relevant. We discriminate against immoral behavior all the time, we have law books full of examples. What you folks refuse to admit is that gays had the exact same rights as their genetic equivalents before the supremes invented them a new one.

What you bigots refuse to admit is that same gender couples were discriminated against just the way that mixed race couples were discriminated against.

I know 'Conservatives' like yourself want Big Brother to legislate 'morality' i.e. tell Americans what the acceptable sex is between consenting adults- but you don't have that kind of power any more.

 

[Syriusly]

Remember, when Loving V. Virginia overturned miscegenation laws in Virginia......they also overturned them in Texas. This Great State of Texas has a long and distinguished record of being on the wrong side of history.

And every 'constitutional' argument you're making in favor of laws banning same sex marriage would apply to laws banning interracial marriage. If your arguments weren't laughably pseudo-legal gibberish, of course.

That is patently wrong. Loving v Virginia had specific language in the Constitution to point to in order to find for Loving.\..

Both Loving and Obergefell cited the exact same language of the Constitution- the 14th Amendment's protections for due process and equal treatment before the law.