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

[Seawytch]

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.

Yup Amendment II recognizes a specific RIGHT just as Amendment I free speech recognizes a right. But just as free speech is limited to curb say speech that would incite a riot, Amendment II is also limited. As Justice Scalia wrote in D. C. v. Heller;

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." [Emphasis Added]

Even a trite wing SC Justice like Scalia recognized there were limitations to Amendment II and that decision is the current Law of the Land. Before you go where all the other uninformed 2A nuts go, read up on Judicial Review and the Supremacy Clause!

Just as the 14th amendment that you liberals like using for proof of anyone being allowed to marriage can be restricted.

Naturally....but there must be a compelling state interest in doing so.

 

[Preacher]

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.

Yup Amendment II recognizes a specific RIGHT just as Amendment I free speech recognizes a right. But just as free speech is limited to curb say speech that would incite a riot, Amendment II is also limited. As Justice Scalia wrote in D. C. v. Heller;

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." [Emphasis Added]

Even a trite wing SC Justice like Scalia recognized there were limitations to Amendment II and that decision is the current Law of the Land. Before you go where all the other uninformed 2A nuts go, read up on Judicial Review and the Supremacy Clause!

Just as the 14th amendment that you liberals like using for proof of anyone being allowed to marriage can be restricted.

Can be, but wasn't. Same sex and opposite sex marriage are sufficiently similar to qualify for equal protection.

One is a mental illness another is not. ALL rights should be equally restricted or equally unrestricted...here in the Cultural Marxist USA guess for NOW we get used to the hypocrisy. It won't always be this way....

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Yup Amendment II recognizes a specific RIGHT just as Amendment I free speech recognizes a right. But just as free speech is limited to curb say speech that would incite a riot, Amendment II is also limited. As Justice Scalia wrote in D. C. v. Heller;

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." [Emphasis Added]

Even a trite wing SC Justice like Scalia recognized there were limitations to Amendment II and that decision is the current Law of the Land. Before you go where all the other uninformed 2A nuts go, read up on Judicial Review and the Supremacy Clause!

Just as the 14th amendment that you liberals like using for proof of anyone being allowed to marriage can be restricted.

Can be, but wasn't. Same sex and opposite sex marriage are sufficiently similar to qualify for equal protection.

One is a mental illness another is not. ALL rights should be equally restricted or equally unrestricted...here in the Cultural Marxist USA guess for NOW we get used to the hypocrisy. It won't always be this way....

You're a mental illness personified.

 

[ogibillm]

so... what do you say about single parents, divorced parents, widowed/widower parents, and those married without children?

also marriage isn't required to have children, nor is having children a requirement of marriage

1. States anticipate the arrival of children in marriage. They can't sit with a gun at people's heads in their bedrooms forcing them to copulate without birth control. So states do the next best thing and always have: they incentivize people to marry and have children with tax breaks. If not for children, there would be no earthly reason whatsoever, no fiscal benefit derived by offering tax breaks merely for two adults just to live together.

2. The marriage contract and all its implied provisions (including a mother and father both for children) was created to remedy all the inferior situations via enticements that children find themselves in. States hope single parents will marry to cure that ill. So they entice with tax breaks. States reluctantly grant divorce when the home environment becomes too hostile for children to tolerate...but they still keep the parents quasi-married until the children are of age..dangling further enticements should they remarry into more happy man/woman father/mother relationships. Same with widows/widowers.

It's all about the kids. Otherwise: no gain for tax breaks states offer. States want children raised in father/mother married homes because states know that these children turn out to be the most fiscally productive, happy and well adjusted adults statistically speaking. States have to deal with statistical propensities and not random rare examples that you will no doubt offer up "I knew a kid raised in a father/mother married home that turned out terribly" or "I know a boy raised in a lesbian home that turned out great" .. States don't bank on dark horse gambling. They bank on statistical sure-deals...

but if, as you've said, raising kids without both a mother and a father is child abuse, how can the state allow for parents to divorce, or allow single parenting?

what should we do with all the unwed mothers out there? what kind of punishment do you think they should face for abusing their children?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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.

Yup Amendment II recognizes a specific RIGHT just as Amendment I free speech recognizes a right. But just as free speech is limited to curb say speech that would incite a riot, Amendment II is also limited. As Justice Scalia wrote in D. C. v. Heller;

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." [Emphasis Added]

Even a trite wing SC Justice like Scalia recognized there were limitations to Amendment II and that decision is the current Law of the Land. Before you go where all the other uninformed 2A nuts go, read up on Judicial Review and the Supremacy Clause!

Just as the 14th amendment that you liberals like using for proof of anyone being allowed to marriage can be restricted.

Can't defend your bullshit on Amendment II so you deflect and switch back to same sex marriage, HUH! The same Constitutional principles apply, douchebag!

The decision in Obergefell v. Hodges was based on the due process and equal protection clauses of Amendment XIV and that the sovereignty of the States, Amendment X, were not impaired nor those principles of federalism by the decision because basically marriage was a civil right and trumps all State laws and regulations regarding those principles of law. Again, read up on Judicial Review and the Supremacy Clause!

 

[Silhouette]

The decision in Obergefell v. Hodges was based on the due process and equal protection clauses of Amendment XIV and that the sovereignty of the States, Amendment X, were not impaired nor those principles of federalism by the decision because basically marriage was a civil right and trumps all State laws and regulations regarding those principles of law. Again, read up on Judicial Review and the Supremacy Clause!

So then all sexual orientations may marry. The Brown family of Utah will be so pleased to hear that. Glad we got that settled.

And if not, then the states are the ones to say which ones can and cannot marry. Correct? If not, please explain why citing the 14th Amendment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sils theory of contract, children, and marriage may be the looniest POV that we have seen on the Board in years.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The decision in Obergefell v. Hodges was based on the due process and equal protection clauses of Amendment XIV and that the sovereignty of the States, Amendment X, were not impaired nor those principles of federalism by the decision because basically marriage was a civil right and trumps all State laws and regulations regarding those principles of law. Again, read up on Judicial Review and the Supremacy Clause!

So then all sexual orientations may marry. The Brown family of Utah will be so pleased to hear that. Glad we got that settled.

And if not, then the states are the ones to say which ones can and cannot marry. Correct? If not, please explain why citing the 14th Amendment.

Already covered in the post to which you responded. Do you need a larger font to understand the implications of that post or a nurse to change your messed cloths?

 

[OnePercenter]

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...ever heard of HYPOCRITE? Your Anti American Cultural Marxism is showing.

So your argument is that the 2nd amendment rights CAN be restricted by rights under the 14th CAN'T be restricted...ever heard of HYPOCRITE? Your Anti American Cultural Marxism is showing.

I'm a gun owner, and my rights haven't been infringed. But then again, I'm NOT a racist/bigot/homophobe that gets my name on watch lists.

Your 2nd amendment IS restricted if you ever bought a weapon or ammo and had to have a background check,register the weapon,wait 3 days to get the weapon etc. Since NONE of that is included in the 2nd amendment to the constitution. Thanks for playing. Oh and I am PROUD of my name being in the FBI files. It means I have done something WORTHY of pissing the feds and the SPLC and ADL off.

Your 2nd amendment IS restricted if you ever bought a weapon or ammo and had to have a background check,register the weapon,wait 3 days to get the weapon etc. Since NONE of that is included in the 2nd amendment to the constitution. Thanks for playing. Oh and I am PROUD of my name being in the FBI files. It means I have done something WORTHY of pissing the feds and the SPLC and ADL off.

The cause of 'background check,register the weapon,wait 3 days to get the weapon etc.' are the fuck-ups that get themselves on watch lists, and are somehow proud.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And the idiots yammer on.

Take it up with SCOTUS and Congress, kids.

 

[Skylar]

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

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

Yeah, your 'article' couldn't even spell Obergefell. So I'm not thinking its the best source on the Obergefell ruling.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>


Hmmmmmm....


The petitions challenging same-sex marriage were rejected, same-sex Civil Marriage remains valid in Alabama.

"Today's ruling means same-sex marriage is still intact in Alabama and the petitions challenging it are tossed. The petitions had sought to challenge the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling declaring same-sex marriage legal in the Obergefell case."
Alabama Supreme Court dismisses petitions opposing gay marriage



"With the outright dismissal of all matters related to the defiance case, that legal controversy came to an end, leaving Alabama’s probate judges under only the federal court order to treat same-sex couples equally in access to marriage licenses."
Same-sex marriage: Finally settled in Alabama?


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

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)

Restricting marriage as its been done for THOUSANDS of years is in the compelling interest.

So you will insist on a man's right to marry multiple women?

 

[Skylar]

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

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

Yeah, I think you may have misread the order. It dismissed challenges to same sex marriage.

The Alabama Supreme Court refused Friday to defy the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that effectively legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, cutting off a conservative bid to prevent gay weddings in the state.

The court issued a one-sentence order dismissing a challenge by a probate judge and a conservative policy group that wanted the state to bar gay marriage despite the landmark federal decision.

Alabama Supreme Court Refuses Challenge to Gay Marriage

As a general rule, if the source you're citing can't even spell the name of the case its talking about......you should probably find a better source.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Alabama might as well be telling the Supreme Court to take a hike on decisions against Jim Crow.

 

[Syriusly]

The decision in Obergefell v. Hodges was based on the due process and equal protection clauses of Amendment XIV and that the sovereignty of the States, Amendment X, were not impaired nor those principles of federalism by the decision because basically marriage was a civil right and trumps all State laws and regulations regarding those principles of law. Again, read up on Judicial Review and the Supremacy Clause!

So then all sexual orientations may marry. The Brown family of Utah will be so pleased to hear that. Glad we got that settled.

And if not, then the states are the ones to say which ones can and cannot marry. Correct? If not, please explain why citing the 14th Amendment.

Silhouette- do you support incestuous marriage?

 

[Syriusly]

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

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

Yeah, I think you may have misread the order. It dismissed challenges to same sex marriage.

The Alabama Supreme Court refused Friday to defy the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that effectively legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, cutting off a conservative bid to prevent gay weddings in the state.

The court issued a one-sentence order dismissing a challenge by a probate judge and a conservative policy group that wanted the state to bar gay marriage despite the landmark federal decision.

Alabama Supreme Court Refuses Challenge to Gay Marriage

As a general rule, if the source you're citing can't even spell the name of the case its talking about......you should probably find a better source.

Odium never lets the facts get in the way of his outrage or bigotry.

 

[Kondor3]

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

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

They will lose....but I like how they put out there just how inbred and backwards they are.....as if we didn't already know.

Nothing inbred nor backwards about shoving back against recent legal gains made by sexual deviants and perverts - a.k.a. homosexuals.

 

[Preacher]

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.

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)

Restricting marriage as its been done for THOUSANDS of years is in the compelling interest.

So you will insist on a man's right to marry multiple women?

Sure why the hell not....I for one would NOT want to marry more than one woman LOL

 

[Skylar]

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

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

Yeah, I think you may have misread the order. It dismissed challenges to same sex marriage.

The Alabama Supreme Court refused Friday to defy the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that effectively legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, cutting off a conservative bid to prevent gay weddings in the state.

The court issued a one-sentence order dismissing a challenge by a probate judge and a conservative policy group that wanted the state to bar gay marriage despite the landmark federal decision.

Alabama Supreme Court Refuses Challenge to Gay Marriage

As a general rule, if the source you're citing can't even spell the name of the case its talking about......you should probably find a better source.

Odium never lets the facts get in the way of his outrage or bigotry.

You mean 'DC Clothesline' isn't a reliable source on the 'the Oberkfell case'?

Laughing....next time, Odium should probably read the actual order rather than WordPress blog about it.