Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You apparently do not know how our government works. State constitutions cannot override Federal Constitutional guarantees. For example, a state cannot ignore the 2nd amendment any more than it can ignore the 14th amendment.If it's in the state constitution you do. Federal laws only apply when dealing with federal entities.
You're confused. Its not Federal law that the judge is applying. Its constitutional rights that the judge is guaranteeing. And State constitutions are most definitely subject to constitutional guarantees.
And if it is indeed in the state constitution, it isn't unconstitutional.
It is if it violates the rights and privileges of US citizens. Or applies the law unequally to any US citizen.
As the rights guaranteed in the US constitution trump any State constitution.
You are the one who is confused, maybe you should learn the differences between state and federal law, and also how those laws can and can't be applied. Let me say this again. If it is in their state constitution, it would need to be voted on to ratify. A judge cannot override constitutional law. In your liberal dream world where hopes and wishes overrule reality that works. In the real world there are checks and balances.
And again, it is only unconstitutional if it violates the constitution. And when it is concerning state law, and state authorities the state constitution applies. When dealing with federal entities, the federal constitution applies.
And yet several States and local governments repeatedly violate the 2nd amendment, and liberal assholes applaud it.
How does this federal judge propose to enforce her decision if the probate judges refuse to cooperate? Those judges are elected officials, not appointed ones.
And what happens if the States violate the 2nd Amendment?
Someone sues them- like what happened in this case in Alabama- and a court decides whether or not the 2nd Amendment is being violated.
Voters in San Francisco voted a gun ban- and the court overturned it.
Conservative assholes applaud the courts when they agree with the ruling, and call them tyrants when they don't.
Increased incidence of unstructured families leads to social demise. Look at the crime and failing schools. No studies necessary.The two homos are NOT the parents.
Says you. As I said, by any rational standard, the people that raise a child are the child's parents. Adoptive parents who raise children they never sired nor bore are those children's parents.
You disagree. So what?
Marriage was intended as an aid in procreation as I pointed out in my post's last line.
Whatever it was 'intended' as, its not longer about procreation. There are millions of people that get married and never have kids. There are millions of people that can't have kids that are allowed to remain married. Infertile couples can marry just as easily as the fertile ones. Nor is there any law in any state that requires that a couple be able to have children before they can marry.
Demonstrating elegantly that there is obviously a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. So your basis of excluding gays is non-existent.
As for kids being raised in non-nuclear families and the social ills that have increased with the increased incidence of that condition, you need to pay attention and progress a little. Your thinking is out of date.
The studies I'm citing are as current as last month. And the overwhelming consensus of these studies is that children raised by same sex parents are fine.
Ignore as you will. Just don't expect the courts to.
And you're just rationalizing your way all the way back to my original question; why should the rest of us be coerced by the government to subsidize male-on-male buttfucking?
And why should children be denied the natural right to be raised by their actual parents?
Is that, in some way, manditory?They ask how is their lifestyle abuse, while leaving out all the details that make them homosexual.
It is through our ignorance that Homosexuals force themselves upon Orphaned children.
Is it the fact that they do not care enough to conceive as man and woman, that we see they have zero consideration for children.
These are your opinions. And your opinions only.If a child is asked if they want to remain at the orphanage or go with two loving parents.....I'd argue most would pick the parents. Regardless of the gender make up.And so the lies continue, pure denial.
And here is the answer, the Homosexuals must and will lie to the Child.
The Homosexuals will deny the truth to the child.
The question will never be, "Johnny, do you want two Homosexual parents?"
They must hide the truth. As I said, they lie and deny who they are to advance and force themselves upon Children.
Skylar gives us an example of this.
Do you spend time explaining what it means to be a heterosexual man and woman?Yes, but before they could make a choice you must explain to a three year old what it means to be two homosexual men.Pretty sure they'd choose two homosexual men rather than remain in an orphanage or foster home.Of course, they will make the claim that a majority of Americans want Homosexual marriage, while at the same time refusing to ask those polled if as a three year old would they have chosen to have two Homosexual men as parents.
Is that your idea, to teach what homosexuality is to 3 year old children?
Race is not the only condition entitled to Constitutional protections.A state where American citizens reside who are entitled to their civil rights as American citizens, first and foremost.Another Red State.
They already have fucking civil rights, they aren't a fucking race.
Nonsense.Forcing people to live against their principles only goes so far.
It is not about what I want, it is not about what you want, its about about what children prefer, and need. MOM and DADWhy would exclude Homosexuals? To protect children from being adopted by Homosexuals.Austira.Move to Russia? No, I am just hoping my country elects a government that opposes continued EU sanctions on Russia. Basically I am tired of my country and Europe as a whole being lapdogs for America. It is regular Europeans that have to pay the price for America's desire to expand NATO to Russia's border. It is regular Europeans that have to pay the price for Merkel and Hollande's dreams of bringing Ukraine into the EU. These sanctions on Russia only serve the interests of US elites, and hurt our economies.
And what is 'your country'?Exception to the rule doesn't disprove the rule. The purpose of marriage is to form a family and procreate, to provide the foundation of society for the next generation, to very literally continue the society.You didn't answer my question. You just made a detached comment. Why should the public be forced to subsidize male-on-male buttfucking?
Marriage isn't about sex. As demonstrated by all the infertile and childless folks that are allowed to marry or remain married.
So the entire premise of your argument is invalid. A classic 'when did you stop beating your wife' question.
Not in the US it isn't. We allow the infertile and childless to marry or remain married by the millions. Demonstrating elegantly that there is a perfectly valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. In fact, there's not a single state in the union that requires someone be able to have children to get married.
Why then would we exclude gays from marriage based on a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?
There is no reason.
National policy should be focused on promoting high birthrates and marriage to ensure that not only the nation survives, but thrives in a pro-social manner.
If your desire to have children is intrinsically linked to the marital status of people you don't even know then you've got far greater problems than any national policy could fix.
Austria's birth rate has been stagnant since the mid 80s. Trying to blame that on the gays is a bit of a stretch.
The nuclear family is the most important building block off which the life of the community, the nation, is built. Infertile men and women who get married can and should adopt. Through this they can still build a core nuclear family and they should.
And gays and lesbians can have their own kids or adopt as well. Its not mutually exclusive. That's the beauty of the situation: you can have both.
Because you would prefer that kids not have families- and age out to be abandoned by the State, rather than be adopted by a family who commits to supporting them financially and emotionally for the rest of their lives- if those parents are homosexuals.
Homosexuals adopting children forces children to live against the child's principles.Nonsense.Forcing people to live against their principles only goes so far.
No one is being 'forced' to do anything.
To who?Do you spend time explaining what it means to be a heterosexual man and woman?Yes, but before they could make a choice you must explain to a three year old what it means to be two homosexual men.Pretty sure they'd choose two homosexual men rather than remain in an orphanage or foster home.Of course, they will make the claim that a majority of Americans want Homosexual marriage, while at the same time refusing to ask those polled if as a three year old would they have chosen to have two Homosexual men as parents.
Is that your idea, to teach what homosexuality is to 3 year old children?
It is not my opinion, you refuse to use the term Homosexual and will not tell a child that they are being adopted by homosexuals, that is fact.These are your opinions. And your opinions only.If a child is asked if they want to remain at the orphanage or go with two loving parents.....I'd argue most would pick the parents. Regardless of the gender make up.And so the lies continue, pure denial.
And here is the answer, the Homosexuals must and will lie to the Child.
The Homosexuals will deny the truth to the child.
The question will never be, "Johnny, do you want two Homosexual parents?"
They must hide the truth. As I said, they lie and deny who they are to advance and force themselves upon Children.
Skylar gives us an example of this.
Incorrect.Judge Roy Moore has ordered ALL probate judges to follow STATE LAW and ignore the tyrant thug in the robe that thinks she can overrule state law without the SC ruling first. At least 1 so far has PUBLICLY said he will not be issuing homosexuals marriage licenses.
You don't need a SC ruling to overrule unconstitutional state law. Where did you ever get that idea? Its blithering nonsense.
If it's in the state constitution you do. Federal laws only apply when dealing with federal entities.
And if it is indeed in the state constitution, it isn't unconstitutional.
Is that, in some way, manditory?
This is comprehensively ignorant.Judge Roy Moore has ordered ALL probate judges to follow STATE LAW and ignore the tyrant thug in the robe that thinks she can overrule state law without the SC ruling first. At least 1 so far has PUBLICLY said he will not be issuing homosexuals marriage licenses.
You don't need a SC ruling to overrule unconstitutional state law. Where did you ever get that idea? Its blithering nonsense.
If it's in the state constitution you do. Federal laws only apply when dealing with federal entities.
You're confused. Its not Federal law that the judge is applying. Its constitutional rights that the judge is guaranteeing. And State constitutions are most definitely subject to constitutional guarantees.
And if it is indeed in the state constitution, it isn't unconstitutional.
It is if it violates the rights and privileges of US citizens. Or applies the law unequally to any US citizen.
As the rights guaranteed in the US constitution trump any State constitution.
You are the one who is confused, maybe you should learn the differences between state and federal law, and also how those laws can and can't be applied. Let me say this again. If it is in their state constitution, it would need to be voted on to ratify. A judge cannot override constitutional law. In your liberal dream world where hopes and wishes overrule reality that works. In the real world there are checks and balances.
And again, it is only unconstitutional if it violates the constitution. And when it is concerning state law, and state authorities the state constitution applies. When dealing with federal entities, the federal constitution applies.
It is not about what I want, it is not about what you want, its about about what children prefer, and need. MOM and DADWhy would exclude Homosexuals? To protect children from being adopted by Homosexuals.Austira.And what is 'your country'?Exception to the rule doesn't disprove the rule. The purpose of marriage is to form a family and procreate, to provide the foundation of society for the next generation, to very literally continue the society.Marriage isn't about sex. As demonstrated by all the infertile and childless folks that are allowed to marry or remain married.
So the entire premise of your argument is invalid. A classic 'when did you stop beating your wife' question.
Not in the US it isn't. We allow the infertile and childless to marry or remain married by the millions. Demonstrating elegantly that there is a perfectly valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. In fact, there's not a single state in the union that requires someone be able to have children to get married.
Why then would we exclude gays from marriage based on a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?
There is no reason.
National policy should be focused on promoting high birthrates and marriage to ensure that not only the nation survives, but thrives in a pro-social manner.
If your desire to have children is intrinsically linked to the marital status of people you don't even know then you've got far greater problems than any national policy could fix.
Austria's birth rate has been stagnant since the mid 80s. Trying to blame that on the gays is a bit of a stretch.
The nuclear family is the most important building block off which the life of the community, the nation, is built. Infertile men and women who get married can and should adopt. Through this they can still build a core nuclear family and they should.
And gays and lesbians can have their own kids or adopt as well. Its not mutually exclusive. That's the beauty of the situation: you can have both.
Because you would prefer that kids not have families- and age out to be abandoned by the State, rather than be adopted by a family who commits to supporting them financially and emotionally for the rest of their lives- if those parents are homosexuals.
Just because you dictate to a three year old that Two Homosexual men are family does not mean the child will believe you.
You can fight me all you want, you can twist my words, make things up about how I think, showing that homosexuals must lie and distort the reality to fool the people.
Two loving men or two loving women make a worst parent than a man and a woman. It just natural.
I fooled someone?It is not about what I want, it is not about what you want, its about about what children prefer, and need. MOM and DADWhy would exclude Homosexuals? To protect children from being adopted by Homosexuals.Austira.Exception to the rule doesn't disprove the rule. The purpose of marriage is to form a family and procreate, to provide the foundation of society for the next generation, to very literally continue the society.
Not in the US it isn't. We allow the infertile and childless to marry or remain married by the millions. Demonstrating elegantly that there is a perfectly valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. In fact, there's not a single state in the union that requires someone be able to have children to get married.
Why then would we exclude gays from marriage based on a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?
There is no reason.
National policy should be focused on promoting high birthrates and marriage to ensure that not only the nation survives, but thrives in a pro-social manner.
If your desire to have children is intrinsically linked to the marital status of people you don't even know then you've got far greater problems than any national policy could fix.
Austria's birth rate has been stagnant since the mid 80s. Trying to blame that on the gays is a bit of a stretch.
The nuclear family is the most important building block off which the life of the community, the nation, is built. Infertile men and women who get married can and should adopt. Through this they can still build a core nuclear family and they should.
And gays and lesbians can have their own kids or adopt as well. Its not mutually exclusive. That's the beauty of the situation: you can have both.
Because you would prefer that kids not have families- and age out to be abandoned by the State, rather than be adopted by a family who commits to supporting them financially and emotionally for the rest of their lives- if those parents are homosexuals.
Just because you dictate to a three year old that Two Homosexual men are family does not mean the child will believe you.
You can fight me all you want, you can twist my words, make things up about how I think, showing that homosexuals must lie and distort the reality to fool the people.
Two loving men or two loving women make a worst parent than a man and a woman. It just natural.
"My personal opinion happens to be the opinion of 99% of Americans. My personal opinion happens to be the opinion of all Children." Your words deary.
A majority of Americans support same-sex couples adopting. Why do you have to lie and distort the reality to fool the people?
I fooled someone?
A majority of Americans support their children being adopted by homosexuals if we die?
That question has never been asked of the American people.
I fooled someone?It is not about what I want, it is not about what you want, its about about what children prefer, and need. MOM and DADWhy would exclude Homosexuals? To protect children from being adopted by Homosexuals.Not in the US it isn't. We allow the infertile and childless to marry or remain married by the millions. Demonstrating elegantly that there is a perfectly valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. In fact, there's not a single state in the union that requires someone be able to have children to get married.
Why then would we exclude gays from marriage based on a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?
There is no reason.
If your desire to have children is intrinsically linked to the marital status of people you don't even know then you've got far greater problems than any national policy could fix.
Austria's birth rate has been stagnant since the mid 80s. Trying to blame that on the gays is a bit of a stretch.
And gays and lesbians can have their own kids or adopt as well. Its not mutually exclusive. That's the beauty of the situation: you can have both.
Because you would prefer that kids not have families- and age out to be abandoned by the State, rather than be adopted by a family who commits to supporting them financially and emotionally for the rest of their lives- if those parents are homosexuals.
Just because you dictate to a three year old that Two Homosexual men are family does not mean the child will believe you.
You can fight me all you want, you can twist my words, make things up about how I think, showing that homosexuals must lie and distort the reality to fool the people.
Two loving men or two loving women make a worst parent than a man and a woman. It just natural.
"My personal opinion happens to be the opinion of 99% of Americans. My personal opinion happens to be the opinion of all Children." Your words deary.
A majority of Americans support same-sex couples adopting. Why do you have to lie and distort the reality to fool the people?
A majority of Americans support their children being adopted by homosexuals if we die?
That question has never been asked of the American people.
Eventually. Sure. As will necrophilia and bestiality.How will the SCOTUS rule that SSM should be allowed, but continue making incest marriages, polygamy, not also be legal?
