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

[Silhouette]

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.

Apparently you are incapable of reading comprehension. Here, let's try again:

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]

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.

Apparently you are incapable of reading comprehension. Here, let's try again:

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...

Obvious nonsense. You're clearly not capable of following the conversation. The 14th makes no mention of any limit based on race or sexual orientation to the privileges 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.

The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State

Where is any mention of 'sexual orientation'? Merely 'two people of the same sex'.

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

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Apparently you are incapable of reading comprehension. Here, let's try again:

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

And once again- you are an idiot.

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

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Yes, we do pass laws against "immoral behavior". We passed laws that prohibited blacks from marrying whites because it was "immoral". We passed laws prohibiting the consumption of alcohol because drinking is "immoral".

Before "the supremes" ruled on Loving v Virginia, blacks had the same rights as their "generic equivalents".

 

[Skylar]

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.

Yes, we do pass laws against "immoral behavior". We passed laws that prohibited blacks from marrying whites because it was "immoral". We passed laws prohibiting the consumption of alcohol because drinking is "immoral".

Before "the supremes" ruled on Loving v Virginia, blacks had the same rights as their "generic equivalents".

And of course interracial sex and interracial marriage before the Loving decision was considered sexual deviancy. That perception has no relevance to the Loving decision's impact, authority or enforcibility.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Yes, we do pass laws against "immoral behavior". We passed laws that prohibited blacks from marrying whites because it was "immoral". We passed laws prohibiting the consumption of alcohol because drinking is "immoral".

Before "the supremes" ruled on Loving v Virginia, blacks had the same rights as their "generic equivalents".

Before "the supremes" ruled on Loving v Virginia, blacks had the same rights as their "generic equivalents".

That's a lie, genetically men are men and women are women, race has no bearing on that genetic fact.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That's a lie, genetically men are men and women are women, race has no bearing on that genetic fact.

No, it's not a lie...

The State of Virginia tried to argue that because blacks and whites were treated the same, there was no discrimination.

It's right there in the decision.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Yes, we do pass laws against "immoral behavior". We passed laws that prohibited blacks from marrying whites because it was "immoral". We passed laws prohibiting the consumption of alcohol because drinking is "immoral".

Before "the supremes" ruled on Loving v Virginia, blacks had the same rights as their "generic equivalents".

Before "the supremes" ruled on Loving v Virginia, blacks had the same rights as their "generic equivalents".

That's a lie, genetically men are men and women are women, race has no bearing on that genetic fact.

I did not lie. Blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. That was considered "equal" until Loving.

It was also considered immortal to contemplate blacks marrying whites..

 

[Skylar]

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.

Yes, we do pass laws against "immoral behavior". We passed laws that prohibited blacks from marrying whites because it was "immoral". We passed laws prohibiting the consumption of alcohol because drinking is "immoral".

Before "the supremes" ruled on Loving v Virginia, blacks had the same rights as their "generic equivalents".

Before "the supremes" ruled on Loving v Virginia, blacks had the same rights as their "generic equivalents".

That's a lie, genetically men are men and women are women, race has no bearing on that genetic fact.

This was the 'genetic fact' that the Virginia court used when convicting Loving:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix

Remember, the pseudo-legal gibberish you pull out your ass isn't the same pseudo-legal gibberish they pulled out of their ass back in the 1960s.

Your insistence that YOUR made up criteria is relevant while THEIR made up criteria isn't is uselessly arbitrary. And has nothing to do with the Supreme Court ruling either way.

At least Judge Leon Bazille was, you know, a judge. While you're nobody. So he did a much better job of defining the position of the State of Virginia that you do.

 

[OKTexas]

That's a lie, genetically men are men and women are women, race has no bearing on that genetic fact.

No, it's not a lie...

The State of Virginia tried to argue that because blacks and whites were treated the same, there was no discrimination.

It's right there in the decision.


>>>>

That would have been a false argument, because they weren't treated the same as Asians or American indians, were they? I think Loving was a proper decision, unlike this last one.

 

[Skylar]

That's a lie, genetically men are men and women are women, race has no bearing on that genetic fact.

No, it's not a lie...

The State of Virginia tried to argue that because blacks and whites were treated the same, there was no discrimination.

It's right there in the decision.


>>>>

That would have been a false argument, because they weren't treated the same as Asians or American indians, were they? I think Loving was a proper decision, unlike this last one.

It may be a horseshit argument.....but then so is 'biological compatibility' and various sundry nonsense you've pulled out of your ass and tried to pretend was the law.

Thankfully the Supreme Court doesn't have much use for Leon Bazille's pseudo-legal gibberish.

Or yours.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Yes, we do pass laws against "immoral behavior". We passed laws that prohibited blacks from marrying whites because it was "immoral". We passed laws prohibiting the consumption of alcohol because drinking is "immoral".

Before "the supremes" ruled on Loving v Virginia, blacks had the same rights as their "generic equivalents".

Before "the supremes" ruled on Loving v Virginia, blacks had the same rights as their "generic equivalents".

That's a lie, genetically men are men and women are women, race has no bearing on that genetic fact.

I did not lie. Blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. That was considered "equal" until Loving.

It was also considered immortal to contemplate blacks marrying whites..

And who could Asians and American indians marry?

 

[WorldWatcher]

That's a lie, genetically men are men and women are women, race has no bearing on that genetic fact.

No, it's not a lie...

The State of Virginia tried to argue that because blacks and whites were treated the same, there was no discrimination.

It's right there in the decision.


>>>>

That would have been a false argument, because they weren't treated the same as Asians or American indians, were they? I think Loving was a proper decision, unlike this last one.

It's false argument now.


To the Commonwealth of Virginia it was a perfectly logical argument at the time.

A time when 80% of the population was against blacks being able to marry whites. The difference is that now only 40% are against same-sex civil marriage.

 

[OKTexas]

That's a lie, genetically men are men and women are women, race has no bearing on that genetic fact.

No, it's not a lie...

The State of Virginia tried to argue that because blacks and whites were treated the same, there was no discrimination.

It's right there in the decision.


>>>>

That would have been a false argument, because they weren't treated the same as Asians or American indians, were they? I think Loving was a proper decision, unlike this last one.

It's false argument now.


To the Commonwealth of Virginia it was a perfectly logical argument at the time.

A time when 80% of the population was against blacks being able to marry whites. The difference is that now only 40% are against same-sex civil marriage.

Rights aren't granted by popular vote.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That's a lie, genetically men are men and women are women, race has no bearing on that genetic fact.

No, it's not a lie...

The State of Virginia tried to argue that because blacks and whites were treated the same, there was no discrimination.

It's right there in the decision.


>>>>

That would have been a false argument, because they weren't treated the same as Asians or American indians, were they? I think Loving was a proper decision, unlike this last one.

It's false argument now.


To the Commonwealth of Virginia it was a perfectly logical argument at the time.

A time when 80% of the population was against blacks being able to marry whites. The difference is that now only 40% are against same-sex civil marriage.

Rights aren't granted by popular vote.

Exactly.

I hope to see you remind those who cite the states voting to take away rights of equal treatment and due process from same sex couples when they voted to ban Civil Marriage and Civil Unions for same-sex couples in the early 2000's.


>>>>

 

[OKTexas]

That's a lie, genetically men are men and women are women, race has no bearing on that genetic fact.

No, it's not a lie...

The State of Virginia tried to argue that because blacks and whites were treated the same, there was no discrimination.

It's right there in the decision.


>>>>

That would have been a false argument, because they weren't treated the same as Asians or American indians, were they? I think Loving was a proper decision, unlike this last one.

It's false argument now.


To the Commonwealth of Virginia it was a perfectly logical argument at the time.

A time when 80% of the population was against blacks being able to marry whites. The difference is that now only 40% are against same-sex civil marriage.

Rights aren't granted by popular vote.

Exactly.

I hope to see you remind those who cite the states voting to take away rights of equal treatment and due process from same sex couples when they voted to ban Civil Marriage and Civil Unions for same-sex couples in the early 2000's.


>>>>

"same-sex couples", the ultimate oxymoron, since two of the same sex, can't couple as nature intended.

 

[Skylar]

No, it's not a lie...

The State of Virginia tried to argue that because blacks and whites were treated the same, there was no discrimination.

It's right there in the decision.


>>>>

That would have been a false argument, because they weren't treated the same as Asians or American indians, were they? I think Loving was a proper decision, unlike this last one.

It's false argument now.


To the Commonwealth of Virginia it was a perfectly logical argument at the time.

A time when 80% of the population was against blacks being able to marry whites. The difference is that now only 40% are against same-sex civil marriage.

Rights aren't granted by popular vote.

Exactly.

I hope to see you remind those who cite the states voting to take away rights of equal treatment and due process from same sex couples when they voted to ban Civil Marriage and Civil Unions for same-sex couples in the early 2000's.


>>>>

"same-sex couples", the ultimate oxymoron, since two of the same sex, can't couple as nature intended.

Laughing....if only we used your conception of 'nature' to define every word, your argument might have some relevance. Alas, we use dictionaries.

 

[WorldWatcher]

"same-sex couples", the ultimate oxymoron, since two of the same sex, can't couple as nature intended.

So what other laws should we have in place to ensure that people only do things that nature intended?

Would you ground all airplanes since nature didn't give us wings, without wings we shouldn't fly since that is what nature intended?

Does this only apply to the bedroom? Would you make oral and anal sex illegal again - since that wasn't what nature intended?



>>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Yes, we do pass laws against "immoral behavior". We passed laws that prohibited blacks from marrying whites because it was "immoral". We passed laws prohibiting the consumption of alcohol because drinking is "immoral".

Before "the supremes" ruled on Loving v Virginia, blacks had the same rights as their "generic equivalents".

Before "the supremes" ruled on Loving v Virginia, blacks had the same rights as their "generic equivalents".

That's a lie, genetically men are men and women are women, race has no bearing on that genetic fact.

I did not lie. Blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. That was considered "equal" until Loving.

It was also considered immortal to contemplate blacks marrying whites..

And who could Asians and American indians marry?

From Wiki:

All anti-miscegenation laws banned the marriage of whites and non-white groups, primarily blacks, but often also Native Americans and Asians.

 

[Seawytch]

No, it's not a lie...

The State of Virginia tried to argue that because blacks and whites were treated the same, there was no discrimination.

It's right there in the decision.


>>>>

That would have been a false argument, because they weren't treated the same as Asians or American indians, were they? I think Loving was a proper decision, unlike this last one.

It's false argument now.


To the Commonwealth of Virginia it was a perfectly logical argument at the time.

A time when 80% of the population was against blacks being able to marry whites. The difference is that now only 40% are against same-sex civil marriage.

Rights aren't granted by popular vote.

Exactly.

I hope to see you remind those who cite the states voting to take away rights of equal treatment and due process from same sex couples when they voted to ban Civil Marriage and Civil Unions for same-sex couples in the early 2000's.


>>>>

"same-sex couples", the ultimate oxymoron, since two of the same sex, can't couple as nature intended.

Bigots thought interracial marriage was against nature too...

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.