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

[OKTexas]

That wasn't the point, the point was FF&C is discretionary. It doesn't apply to all licenses. And you don't want to get me started on gender, because gays had the exact same rights as as anyone of their gender before the supremes decided to fuck up marriage.

So couldn't fined a state that accepts some nursing licenses, but not others depending on who holds the license.

So couldn't fined a state that accepts some doctors licenses, but not others depending on who holds the license.

So couldn't fined a state that accepts some lawyer licenses, but not others depending on who holds the license.

So couldn't fined a state that accepts some drivers licenses, but not others depending on who holds the license.

That is NOT what FF&C is about.




But you support states accepting some Civil Marriage licenses but not others depending on who holds the license.

The Supreme Court just reversed a case out of Alabama trying to not accept an adoption out of Georgia, because of who the adoptive parents were.

That is what FF&C is about.


>>>>

Didn't find anything, didn't look, couldn't fine them either, don't have that authority, so no one got fined.

Don't mean it's sex.

Why do you care?

Because I'm damned tired of you fucking regressives trying to rewrite history and the goddamned dictionary to suit your perversions.

You'd sing a totally different tune if some state that had a gun control law struck down and that state told the Supreme Court to take a hike.

You mean a court that would actually follow the Constitution on guns, what fantasy land do you live in.

See? I told you you'd sing a different tune.

Same tune I always sung, few rights are as clearly defined in the Constitution as "the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." The right wasn't invented by some judge, the founders put it right in the Constitution for all the world to see. So simple even a 3 year old could understand, yet you regressives and a few lawyers, just can't seem to grasp the concept. But hey, it was a nice strawman on your part.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That wasn't the point, the point was FF&C is discretionary. It doesn't apply to all licenses. And you don't want to get me started on gender, because gays had the exact same rights as as anyone of their gender before the supremes decided to fuck up marriage.

So couldn't fined a state that accepts some nursing licenses, but not others depending on who holds the license.

So couldn't fined a state that accepts some doctors licenses, but not others depending on who holds the license.

So couldn't fined a state that accepts some lawyer licenses, but not others depending on who holds the license.

So couldn't fined a state that accepts some drivers licenses, but not others depending on who holds the license.

That is NOT what FF&C is about.




But you support states accepting some Civil Marriage licenses but not others depending on who holds the license.

The Supreme Court just reversed a case out of Alabama trying to not accept an adoption out of Georgia, because of who the adoptive parents were.

That is what FF&C is about.


>>>>

Didn't find anything, didn't look, couldn't fine them either, don't have that authority, so no one got fined.

Why do you care?

Because I'm damned tired of you fucking regressives trying to rewrite history and the goddamned dictionary to suit your perversions.

You'd sing a totally different tune if some state that had a gun control law struck down and that state told the Supreme Court to take a hike.

You mean a court that would actually follow the Constitution on guns, what fantasy land do you live in.

See? I told you you'd sing a different tune.

Same tune I always sung, few rights are as clearly defined in the Constitution as "the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." The right wasn't invented by some judge, the founders put it right in the Constitution for all the world to see. So simple even a 3 year old could understand, yet you regressives and a few lawyers, just can't seem to grasp the concept. But hey, it was a nice strawman on your part.

So what?

You want Alabama to have the authority to ignore Supreme Court rulings then you have to let every state have that authority on all Supreme Court rulings.

 

[OKTexas]

That wasn't the point, the point was FF&C is discretionary. It doesn't apply to all licenses. And you don't want to get me started on gender, because gays had the exact same rights as as anyone of their gender before the supremes decided to fuck up marriage.

So couldn't fined a state that accepts some nursing licenses, but not others depending on who holds the license.

So couldn't fined a state that accepts some doctors licenses, but not others depending on who holds the license.

So couldn't fined a state that accepts some lawyer licenses, but not others depending on who holds the license.

So couldn't fined a state that accepts some drivers licenses, but not others depending on who holds the license.

That is NOT what FF&C is about.




But you support states accepting some Civil Marriage licenses but not others depending on who holds the license.

The Supreme Court just reversed a case out of Alabama trying to not accept an adoption out of Georgia, because of who the adoptive parents were.

That is what FF&C is about.


>>>>

Didn't find anything, didn't look, couldn't fine them either, don't have that authority, so no one got fined.

Because I'm damned tired of you fucking regressives trying to rewrite history and the goddamned dictionary to suit your perversions.

You'd sing a totally different tune if some state that had a gun control law struck down and that state told the Supreme Court to take a hike.

You mean a court that would actually follow the Constitution on guns, what fantasy land do you live in.

See? I told you you'd sing a different tune.

Same tune I always sung, few rights are as clearly defined in the Constitution as "the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." The right wasn't invented by some judge, the founders put it right in the Constitution for all the world to see. So simple even a 3 year old could understand, yet you regressives and a few lawyers, just can't seem to grasp the concept. But hey, it was a nice strawman on your part.

So what?

You want Alabama to have the authority to ignore Supreme Court rulings then you have to let every state have that authority on all Supreme Court rulings.

And? It's not the courts place to dictate social policies to the States, that's ass backwards to the founders intent.

 

[Silhouette]

So what?

You want Alabama to have the authority to ignore Supreme Court rulings then you have to let every state have that authority on all Supreme Court rulings.

In Obergefell there was no legal Ruling and states are mandated to challenge it. States must abide by the US Constitution. There is, however, no language in the US Constitution guaranteeing marriage as a "right to all". In fact there's no mention of marriage at all. And, there's no mention of sexual behaviors either.

But what there IS mention of is the separation of powers and their limitations. The Judicial Branch is limited to interpreting what's already in the Constitution. Not creating new or implied parts to it that never in a million years existed before. This is especially true with Obergefell because the Court making up what it saw as a "civil right for gays" actually at the same time made no mention of any and all other sexual orientations which must enjoy the same rights at the same time. (that's the logic of the 14th, used, ironically, to support Obergefell for just gays but no other sexual orientations..)

This is why I say and maintain that either polygamy is already legal in all 50 states or Obergefell may and should be disobeyed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

But what there IS mention of is the separation of powers and their limitations. The Judicial Branch is limited to interpreting what's already in the Constitution. .

That is not true. You can't cite that limitation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So what?

You want Alabama to have the authority to ignore Supreme Court rulings then you have to let every state have that authority on all Supreme Court rulings.

In Obergefell there was no legal Ruling and states are mandated to challenge it. States must abide by the US Constitution. There is, however, no language in the US Constitution guaranteeing marriage as a "right to all". In fact there's no mention of marriage at all. And, there's no mention of sexual behaviors either.

But what there IS mention of is the separation of powers and their limitations. The Judicial Branch is limited to interpreting what's already in the Constitution. Not creating new or implied parts to it that never in a million years existed before. This is especially true with Obergefell because the Court making up what it saw as a "civil right for gays" actually at the same time made no mention of any and all other sexual orientations which must enjoy the same rights at the same time. (that's the logic of the 14th, used, ironically, to support Obergefell for just gays but no other sexual orientations..)

This is why I say and maintain that either polygamy is already legal in all 50 states or Obergefell may and should be disobeyed.

Equal protection IS in the Constitution.

 

[OKTexas]

So what?

You want Alabama to have the authority to ignore Supreme Court rulings then you have to let every state have that authority on all Supreme Court rulings.

In Obergefell there was no legal Ruling and states are mandated to challenge it. States must abide by the US Constitution. There is, however, no language in the US Constitution guaranteeing marriage as a "right to all". In fact there's no mention of marriage at all. And, there's no mention of sexual behaviors either.

But what there IS mention of is the separation of powers and their limitations. The Judicial Branch is limited to interpreting what's already in the Constitution. Not creating new or implied parts to it that never in a million years existed before. This is especially true with Obergefell because the Court making up what it saw as a "civil right for gays" actually at the same time made no mention of any and all other sexual orientations which must enjoy the same rights at the same time. (that's the logic of the 14th, used, ironically, to support Obergefell for just gays but no other sexual orientations..)

This is why I say and maintain that either polygamy is already legal in all 50 states or Obergefell may and should be disobeyed.

Equal protection IS in the Constitution.

Unequal protection is also in the Constitution.

 

[Silhouette]

But what there IS mention of is the separation of powers and their limitations. The Judicial Branch is limited to interpreting what's already in the Constitution. .

That is not true. You can't cite that limitation.

Just as you can't cite an authority that forces states to abide by a new interpretation of the Constitution that no one in their wildest dreams could say was part of the intent of any of it. Plus, Obergefell is illegal. Either you use the 14th interpretation to elevate ALL sexual orientations or none of them when it comes to marriage.

So either polygamy is legal and mandated upon all 50 states or gay marriage is not. Which is it?

Making things worse for your argument, there is a USSC finding from 1982 that says any expressed or implied constitutional right that harms children either physically or mentally, cannot be enjoyed by the adult, no matter how sacred the adult(s) feel that right is...might want to look up "New York vs Ferber". Gay marriage contractually and newly strips children of their unique rights to the marriage contract of either a father or mother FOR LIFE. That is cruel and unusual and cannot stand legally.

Look for its citation in upcoming challenges to Obergefell: Is Gay Marriage Void? New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.

 

[NYcarbineer]

But what there IS mention of is the separation of powers and their limitations. The Judicial Branch is limited to interpreting what's already in the Constitution. .

That is not true. You can't cite that limitation.

Just as you can't cite an authority that forces states to abide by a new interpretation of the Constitution that no one in their wildest dreams could say was part of the intent of any of it. Plus, Obergefell is illegal. Either you use the 14th interpretation to elevate ALL sexual orientations or none of them when it comes to marriage.

So either polygamy is legal and mandated upon all 50 states or gay marriage is not. Which is it?

The Supremacy Clause is the authority and the rest of your post is gibberish.