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

[Syriusly]

I feel that Alabama should suffer a loss of their their federal funding by not promoting rights for EVERY American.

Maybe Alabama should stop sending federal tax money to Washington.

Mark

And then the federal government should pull every military installation out of Alabama and cut off all Social Security payments.

Equal protection under the law is protected, so as long as states have marriage LAWs, they are obligated to keep those laws constitutional.

btw, I didn't miss that you are totally oblivious to what the Supremacy Clause says.

Marriage is not a right. So. By YOUR own words EVERYONE should be allowed to own a gun since that IS a right.

It is now.

Gonna answer the question or not? 2nd amendment is a RIGHT so everyone should be allowed to own a gun? Right? Or as you libtards LOVE pointing out a right CAN BE restricted.

Rights can be restricted. Everyone with a brain knows that. You just can't restrict rights in violation of the equal protection clause.

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.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[Syriusly]

Meanwhile- in Alabama- Americans- gay and straight- are getting married and ignoring the Alabama Supreme Court.

 

[Silhouette]

Alabama Supreme Court tells Supreme Court to Take a Hike on Marriage Opinion

Awesome! You tell them Alabama! Keep fighting the good fight!

Agreed. And finally. Tennessee is doing a version of this too: Tennessee Reminds SCOTUS: Separation of Powers: Passes Resolution Calling Out Gay Marriage Decision

Looks like some spamming buried this ^^ link. So I reposted..

 

[Silhouette]

Meanwhile- in Alabama- Americans- gay and straight- are getting married and ignoring the Alabama Supreme Court.

Not legally they aren't. An illegal USSC decision forcing no mother or father on children for life is no more enforceable than a ban on interracial marriage between a man and a woman.

 

[Preacher]

Fag "marriage" is not covered under the constitution. Thanks for playing.

Equal protection under the law is protected, so as long as states have marriage LAWs, they are obligated to keep those laws constitutional.

btw, I didn't miss that you are totally oblivious to what the Supremacy Clause says.

Marriage is not a right. So. By YOUR own words EVERYONE should be allowed to own a gun since that IS a right.

Marriage is a right.

But gun ownership isn't?

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.

I feel that Alabama should suffer a loss of their their federal funding by not promoting rights for EVERY American.

Maybe Alabama should stop sending federal tax money to Washington.

Mark

And then the federal government should pull every military installation out of Alabama and cut off all Social Security payments.

Marriage is not a right. So. By YOUR own words EVERYONE should be allowed to own a gun since that IS a right.

It is now.

Gonna answer the question or not? 2nd amendment is a RIGHT so everyone should be allowed to own a gun? Right? Or as you libtards LOVE pointing out a right CAN BE restricted.

Rights can be restricted. Everyone with a brain knows that. You just can't restrict rights in violation of the equal protection clause.

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.

So to you REASONABLE restrictions can be used. Then REASONABLE restrictions can be used for marriage as well. No faggots should be allowed to marry is reasonable. They can do like criminals with guns do just get things illegally. They can illegally marry and the left can howl about more control over things. Either ALL rights are UNLIMITED or NO rights are UNLIMITED. The leftists argument fails. Its hypocritical.OK with mentally ill faggots "marrying" but not OK with law abiding gun owners being able to own a gun without waiting periods,background checks,fingerprinting etc etc etc.

 

[Silhouette]

Well see that's the thing. Any LGBT advocate will tell you point blank that polygamy isn't legal. Then the next second they will tell you that "Obergefell was a victory for marriage equality". LGBT cultists know there is no marriage equality . And when asked how polygamists can be denied marriage licenses, they reply that "polygamy marriage isn't legal". Yet they don't point to the specific law that says polygamists can't marry, other than the current laws on the books that say marriage is limited to one man/one woman only. !! What makes the number 2 special while "mom and dad" are no longer special to the kids involved? Answer: nothing. Answer: it's arbitrary discrimination against polygamists and guess what? The cult of LGBT cites the blind equality of the 14th Amendment to promote their sexual kink may marry, while at the same time saying that other sexual kinks may not marry. Who decides which sexual kinks can marry? Why just 5 people on the USSC I guess. They picked their favorites in Obergefell while citing the 14th..

How's that for irony? Obergefell was an illegal decision. It violates the 14th Amendment.

 

[mdk]

The cult of LGBT cites the blind equality of the 14th Amendment to promote their sexual kink may marry, while at the same time saying that other sexual kinks may not marry. Who decides which sexual kinks can marry? Why just 5 people on the USSC I guess. They picked their favorites in Obergefell while citing the 14th..

The only person that is citing the 'blind equality of the 14 Amendment' is you and you don't have the slightest clue as to what you're speaking about. Take a look at your legal prediction for wonderful examples of that fact. Moore's opinion, like yours, doesn't have any relevance to reality.

 

[mdk]

Meanwhile- in Alabama- Americans- gay and straight- are getting married and ignoring the Alabama Supreme Court.

Not legally they aren't. An illegal USSC decision forcing no mother or father on children for life is no more enforceable than a ban on interracial marriage between a man and a woman.

No, both are legally marrying in Alabama and all you can do is start dozens of thread whining about it. Too bad, so sad.

 

[80zephyr]

Maybe Alabama should stop sending federal tax money to Washington.

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: 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

 

[80zephyr]

Alabama Supreme Court tells Supreme Court to Take a Hike on Marriage Opinion

Awesome! You tell them Alabama! Keep fighting the good fight!

they can't do that, moron.

Who's going to stop them?

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

 

[80zephyr]

I feel that Alabama should suffer a loss of their their federal funding by not promoting rights for EVERY American.

Maybe Alabama should stop sending federal tax money to Washington.

Mark

And then the federal government should pull every military installation out of Alabama and cut off all Social Security payments.

Marriage is not a right. So. By YOUR own words EVERYONE should be allowed to own a gun since that IS a right.

It is now.

Gonna answer the question or not? 2nd amendment is a RIGHT so everyone should be allowed to own a gun? Right? Or as you libtards LOVE pointing out a right CAN BE restricted.

Rights can be restricted. Everyone with a brain knows that. You just can't restrict rights in violation of the equal protection clause.

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

 

[Debra K]

Alabama Supreme Court tells Supreme Court to Take a Hike on Marriage Opinion

Awesome! You tell them Alabama! Keep fighting the good fight!

How can it be "Awesome!" to you, dear Odium, when it's not true? The Alabama Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision dismissing all motions and petitions. They didn't tell the United States Supreme Court to "take a hike". Why are you peddling misinformation?

 

[Syriusly]

Alabama Supreme Court tells Supreme Court to Take a Hike on Marriage Opinion

Awesome! You tell them Alabama! Keep fighting the good fight!

Agreed. And finally. Tennessee is doing a version of this too: Tennessee Reminds SCOTUS: Separation of Powers: Passes Resolution Calling Out Gay Marriage Decision

Looks like some spamming buried this ^^ link. So I reposted..

Silhouette is so worried about her spam being buried that she is respamming.

Meanwhile- in Alabama- happy couples continue to get legally married.

 

[Syriusly]

Alabama Supreme Court tells Supreme Court to Take a Hike on Marriage Opinion

Awesome! You tell them Alabama! Keep fighting the good fight!

How can it be "Awesome!" to you, dear Odium, when it's not true? The Alabama Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision dismissing all motions and petitions. They didn't tell the United States Supreme Court to "take a hike". Why are you peddling misinformation?

To be more exact why is Odium lying?

Well because that is what he does.

 

[Syriusly]

Maybe Alabama should stop sending federal tax money to Washington.

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: 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.

 

[Syriusly]

I feel that Alabama should suffer a loss of their their federal funding by not promoting rights for EVERY American.

Maybe Alabama should stop sending federal tax money to Washington.

Mark

And then the federal government should pull every military installation out of Alabama and cut off all Social Security payments.

It is now.

Gonna answer the question or not? 2nd amendment is a RIGHT so everyone should be allowed to own a gun? Right? Or as you libtards LOVE pointing out a right CAN BE restricted.

Rights can be restricted. Everyone with a brain knows that. You just can't restrict rights in violation of the equal protection clause.

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.

 

[Syriusly]

they can't do that, moron.

Who's going to stop them?

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

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.

 

[Syriusly]

Well see that's the thing. Any LGBT advocate will tell you point blank that polygamy isn't legal. .

Anyone who has read the law will tell you that polygamous marriage is not legal.

Thats just a fact.

Just as its a fact that marriage is legal for same gender and opposite gender couples.

 

[Syriusly]

Equal protection under the law is protected, so as long as states have marriage LAWs, they are obligated to keep those laws constitutional.

btw, I didn't miss that you are totally oblivious to what the Supremacy Clause says.

Marriage is not a right. So. By YOUR own words EVERYONE should be allowed to own a gun since that IS a right.

Marriage is a right.

But gun ownership isn't?

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.

I feel that Alabama should suffer a loss of their their federal funding by not promoting rights for EVERY American.

Maybe Alabama should stop sending federal tax money to Washington.

Mark

And then the federal government should pull every military installation out of Alabama and cut off all Social Security payments.

It is now.

Gonna answer the question or not? 2nd amendment is a RIGHT so everyone should be allowed to own a gun? Right? Or as you libtards LOVE pointing out a right CAN BE restricted.

Rights can be restricted. Everyone with a brain knows that. You just can't restrict rights in violation of the equal protection clause.

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.

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)