Gay Marriage Is About to Be Legal in Alabama

[bodecea]

It will be up to the people to fight back on their own. The ballot box has failed. The jury box has failed. There's only one box left.

You forgot to mention that repeated attempts to enshrine discrimination in the Constitution of the United States on the marriage issue also failed.


>>>>

There is just no way to make the people accept the edicts. There are a myriad of ways gays forcing themselves on normal people can have their lives be made absolutely miserable. All while following the letter of the law.

It will be up to the people to fight back on their own. The ballot box has failed. The jury box has failed. There's only one box left.

If you feel strongly enough, then go for that last box. I think you will be surprised at the number of people who will be against you. And many of us are quite capable with that box as well.

There are many kinds of ammunition. You just won't be able to fight them all.

As I said. There are myriad ways normals can make the lives of forceful gays absolutely miserable. Isn't that something gays point to when they address the high number of gay suicides? Go. Fight that.

I have and I will continue to do so. The tide has turned and homosexuality is more accepted today than ever before. You are losing. If causing more teens to commit suicide is your goal, you are simply a despicable human being.

That's because once a culture starts on the path of perversion and depravity it doesn't stop until that culture is dead.

Like the perverted and depraved christians destroyed the Western Roman Empire.

 

[Syriusly]

I am still amazed at the vehemnce against same-sex marriage. What the hell difference does it make to any of you?

I am 55 years old and have been married twice. I have also been divorced twice. Once it was a big church wedding, and once it was a civil ceremony. Did that have any effect on you?

Does anyone think recognizing gay marriages will mean we have more gays? If so, you are an idiot.

So you completely support forcing 3 year old orphans into homosexual lifestyles, that is what you wanted for yourself if your parents died and left you an Orphan, or is it simply okay for everyone else's children if they happen to suffer the lost of both parents?

Three year olds are not being forced into a homosexual lifestyle. They are being adopted and raised by homosexuals. There IS a difference. A 3 year old has not learned to hate yet. They will see that they have 2 parents that love them and wantto create a solid, supportive, loving home for them. My daughter knew that her aunt was with another woman from the time she could understand that people were in relationships. She is fine. All 3 of my children lived in a household run by 2 lesbians. They turned out better than most kids. Perhaps it will improve the overall lives of children and teens everywhere.

Homosexuality will improve the lives of teens and children? Orphans always adopt to homosexual parents when that is not true of children of heterosexual parents?

Sounds like a fantasy to me. Contrary to what you think, children have a mind of their own, some will be repulsed see dad and dad kiss, some will be repulsed knowing what homosexual sex entails.

There is a reason there is an extreme minority of people who practice homosexuality, people are actually repulsed by the sexual act of anal sex, for most of us nothing but smells come out of our butt. Not many children will be okay with dad and dad getting it on.

What is true, of Orphans, and all children, they want a mother and father, who love one another, and nothing will or can ever replace that, and to do so if they are Orphaned is horrid abuse.

Your children were not Orphans.

Your kids are perfect, I hope your not in denial.

I did not say my children are perfect. But I did brag on their accomplishments.

As for anal sex, plenty of straight couples engage in it too. Whether gay couples do or not is up to them and between them and their partner. Not anyone else's business.

Kids raised by gay couples show no greater propensity towards being gay than do children of straight couples.

Oh, and my kids were repulsed when they would see me kiss their mother if it was anything more than just a peck.

Excuse me, I have been speaking in the context of Orphans. When you adopt it does become my business, your neighbors business, the business of our Republic. What happens to Orphans is fundamentally societies business.

And again, you forget the context, Orphans.

What orphans?

Seriously what orphans?

You keep bringing up orphans- which are almost non-existent.

The vast majority of children who are available for adoption are children who have been abandoned by their biological parents- babies given up by their birth mother, children abandoned by their parents who are either too drug addled or otherwise unable to care for a child.

Most 'orphans'(children with both parents dead) are adopted by their family members- uncles, aunts, grandparents- even older siblings.

Here is an example of a what was formerly called an 'orphanage'

Who does Thornwell serve?

Once an orphanage, today Thornwell serves abused, abandoned and neglected children

What about the children awaiting adoption who are not orphans- i.e. the vast majority of children?

Do you just not care about them?

Or do you object to my pointing out that those children spend years awaiting adoption, and that 20,000 children age out of the system every year, which is a very well documented high risk outcome.

 

[bodecea]

How will the SCOTUS rule that SSM should be allowed, but continue making incest marriages, polygamy, not also be legal?

Eventually. Sure. As will necrophilia and bestiality.

Arguments legalizing interracial marriage are used to justify same sex marriage. The same points can be used for any depravity. That's why cultures that start becoming degenerate don't stop until they are dead.

There it is.

 

[Syriusly]

How will the SCOTUS rule that SSM should be allowed, but continue making incest marriages, polygamy, not also be legal?

Eventually. Sure. As will necrophilia and bestiality.

Arguments legalizing interracial marriage are used to justify same sex marriage. The same points can be used for any depravity. That's why cultures that start becoming degenerate don't stop until they are dead.

Exactly- first we outlawed slavery, then African American men were allowed to vote, and then women got the vote.

Then Americans were allowed to legally buy contraceptives, and marry someone of the opposite race, now Americans can have private consensual sex without the Government arresting them, and soon, in all states, same gender couples will be allowed to marry.

I approve of all of that 'degeneracy'- you bigots can continue to oppose them all until you all die off.

 

[Katzndogz]

You forgot to mention that repeated attempts to enshrine discrimination in the Constitution of the United States on the marriage issue also failed.


>>>>

There is just no way to make the people accept the edicts. There are a myriad of ways gays forcing themselves on normal people can have their lives be made absolutely miserable. All while following the letter of the law.

It will be up to the people to fight back on their own. The ballot box has failed. The jury box has failed. There's only one box left.

If you feel strongly enough, then go for that last box. I think you will be surprised at the number of people who will be against you. And many of us are quite capable with that box as well.

There are many kinds of ammunition. You just won't be able to fight them all.

As I said. There are myriad ways normals can make the lives of forceful gays absolutely miserable. Isn't that something gays point to when they address the high number of gay suicides? Go. Fight that.

I have and I will continue to do so. The tide has turned and homosexuality is more accepted today than ever before. You are losing. If causing more teens to commit suicide is your goal, you are simply a despicable human being.

That's because once a culture starts on the path of perversion and depravity it doesn't stop until that culture is dead.

Like the perverted and depraved christians destroyed the Western Roman Empire.

Christians replaced a perverted and depraved Roman empire.

 

[bodecea]

There are many kinds of ammunition. You just won't be able to fight them all.

As I said. There are myriad ways normals can make the lives of forceful gays absolutely miserable. Isn't that something gays point to when they address the high number of gay suicides? Go. Fight that.

I have and I will continue to do so. The tide has turned and homosexuality is more accepted today than ever before. You are losing. If causing more teens to commit suicide is your goal, you are simply a despicable human being.

That's because once a culture starts on the path of perversion and depravity it doesn't stop until that culture is dead.

Our culture already has gays. They are more accepted now than ever before. Marriage does not change that. Nor will it increase the number of such couples.

Actually, they are less accepted, people are pushing back against the advocates which is hurting the non-advocate homosexuals. There is an increase in bullying in schools, there is a push against pride parades, people are avoiding places like Palm Springs because it is now a majority Gay City. People are careful about going to disneyland on the gay days. People are voting against Gays at the ballot. In California I see a bigger divide than ever, especially when it comes to the mexicans and blacks accepting what is being forced in the schools.

At least in southern California gays are being pushed into gay enclaves like West Hollywood and Palm Springs by simple social rejection. We have a lot of immigrants here that aren't as easily manipulated by propaganda.

I live in SoCal, and what KatznDogz is saying is total bullshit. In fact, the opposite is happening. Gay couples are in all neighborhoods and are welcomed as just like any other neighbor...except for bigots like Katz who doesn't dare do anything but pretend to be tough on the internet.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

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.

And yet states around the country continue to pass laws violating the 2nd amendment...I guess they missed the part that said SHALL NOT INFRINGE...aka pass no laws against it...your argument holds no water.

Deflection and fallacy of false comparison.

AKA I can't defeat your argument so I just act like it means nothing...

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.

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.

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.

And yet states around the country continue to pass laws violating the 2nd amendment...I guess they missed the part that said SHALL NOT INFRINGE...aka pass no laws against it...your argument holds no water.

And who decides if a states is violating the 2nd Amendment?

The courts- without Federal courts to turn to, gun owners would have no recourse to fight gun laws that they feel are unconstitutional.

. I personally wanna see from French Revolution style stuff!

Wow- are you really that ignorant- or just hate Americans- and America that much?

No sane person would wish a 'French Revolution style stuff' on America or Americans.

 

[bodecea]

There is just no way to make the people accept the edicts. There are a myriad of ways gays forcing themselves on normal people can have their lives be made absolutely miserable. All while following the letter of the law.

If you feel strongly enough, then go for that last box. I think you will be surprised at the number of people who will be against you. And many of us are quite capable with that box as well.

There are many kinds of ammunition. You just won't be able to fight them all.

As I said. There are myriad ways normals can make the lives of forceful gays absolutely miserable. Isn't that something gays point to when they address the high number of gay suicides? Go. Fight that.

I have and I will continue to do so. The tide has turned and homosexuality is more accepted today than ever before. You are losing. If causing more teens to commit suicide is your goal, you are simply a despicable human being.

That's because once a culture starts on the path of perversion and depravity it doesn't stop until that culture is dead.

Like the perverted and depraved christians destroyed the Western Roman Empire.

Christians replaced a perverted and depraved Roman empire.

And then destroyed it. The Roman Empire was quite successful as pagan. And then the christians came in and weakened it to the point of being destroyed by OTHER strong pagans.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

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.

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.

I applaud the court when they do their fucking job, which is to clarify, not create or destroy. And the courts seem to be doing a hell of a job in NYC of protecting my gun rights, considering the local judges laugh at any attempt to enforce said gun rights via lawsuits.

Like I said- conservative assholes applaud the courts when they disagree, and call them tyrants when they don't- thanks for confirming my claim.

 

[mdk]

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.

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.

And yet states around the country continue to pass laws violating the 2nd amendment...I guess they missed the part that said SHALL NOT INFRINGE...aka pass no laws against it...your argument holds no water.

Deflection and fallacy of false comparison.

AKA I can't defeat your argument so I just act like it means nothing...

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.

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.

And yet states around the country continue to pass laws violating the 2nd amendment...I guess they missed the part that said SHALL NOT INFRINGE...aka pass no laws against it...your argument holds no water.

And who decides if a states is violating the 2nd Amendment?

The courts- without Federal courts to turn to, gun owners would have no recourse to fight gun laws that they feel are unconstitutional.

. I personally wanna see from French Revolution style stuff!

Wow- are you really that ignorant- or just hate Americans- and America that much?

No sane person would wish a 'French Revolution style stuff' on America or Americans.

Its just bluster.

 

[elektra]

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.

"My personal opinion happens to be the opinion of 99% of Americans. My personal opinion happens to be the opinion of all Children."

If the question has never been asked of the American people - why do you think your claims are valid? Did you just make up your number or can you point us to a link showing that such a question was voted on by the people?


>>>>

Should I use the Liberal Company, Google? Will Google allow a result they disagree with to be found? Is a link proof of anything?

First, I stated Americans with Children, those are the ones who get to decide what happens to their children.

Why is that valid? You believe Mom and Dad would choose a homosexual man and man to adopt their 4 year old son over a loving financially stable mother and father who will see their Child through college and be there the child's entire life?

 

[bodecea]

What makes you think that all immigrants are illegal? Isn't that a bit of bigotry there?

I am not saying that immigrants make California a better place. I am saying that many immigrants come from cultures that do not consider homosexuality normal behavior. They come from different cultures that do not accept perversion as a lifestyle. In these immigrant neighborhoods gays are made just uncomfortable enough that they are moved to find more welcoming communities.

And they find those accepting neighborhoods in the horror that is Palm Springs? lol

Palm Springs is very nice. It is not the tourist destination that it was. West Hollywood is very nice too. No one ever said that the communities gays make are filthy run down ghettos. They are just being guided away from normal people.

Or they choose to move to better places, where bigotry is not the norm.

Exactly. That is exactly why they move.

So they move to better places. Doesn't sound negative to me at all.

Except, what Katzndogz is claiming is totally a lie.

 

[Katzndogz]

There will be no French Revolution style revolt.

What you might see is an invasion of a foreign entity and half the country doesn't care enough to stop it.

 

[Syriusly]

There are many kinds of ammunition. You just won't be able to fight them all.

As I said. There are myriad ways normals can make the lives of forceful gays absolutely miserable. Isn't that something gays point to when they address the high number of gay suicides? Go. Fight that.

I have and I will continue to do so. The tide has turned and homosexuality is more accepted today than ever before. You are losing. If causing more teens to commit suicide is your goal, you are simply a despicable human being.

That's because once a culture starts on the path of perversion and depravity it doesn't stop until that culture is dead.

Like the perverted and depraved christians destroyed the Western Roman Empire.

Christians replaced a perverted and depraved Roman empire.

And then destroyed it. The Roman Empire was quite successful as pagan. And then the christians came in and weakened it to the point of being destroyed by OTHER strong pagans.

The Eastern Empire was certainly weakened by the sack of Constantinople by Crusaders, which led to complete destruction of the last of the Roman empire by the Ottomans 200 years later.

 

[Syriusly]

There will be no French Revolution style revolt.

What you might see is an invasion of a foreign entity and half the country doesn't care enough to stop it.

What you might see first is an invasion by unicorns ridden by leprechauns.

 

[Katzndogz]

And they find those accepting neighborhoods in the horror that is Palm Springs? lol

Palm Springs is very nice. It is not the tourist destination that it was. West Hollywood is very nice too. No one ever said that the communities gays make are filthy run down ghettos. They are just being guided away from normal people.

Or they choose to move to better places, where bigotry is not the norm.

Exactly. That is exactly why they move.

So they move to better places. Doesn't sound negative to me at all.

Except, what Katzndogz is claiming is totally a lie.

Or you are the one lying. After all as a lesbian you have a vested interest.

 

[elektra]

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.

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.

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.

I applaud the court when they do their fucking job, which is to clarify, not create or destroy. And the courts seem to be doing a hell of a job in NYC of protecting my gun rights, considering the local judges laugh at any attempt to enforce said gun rights via lawsuits.

Like I said- conservative assholes applaud the courts when they disagree, and call them tyrants when they don't- thanks for confirming my claim.

Look, there it is, the bigot denigrates and calls people derogatory names to win politically, then stereotypes the conservatives reaction to the courts.

Thanks for confirming what we all see, you do not think rationally.

 

[martybegan]

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.

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.

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.

I applaud the court when they do their fucking job, which is to clarify, not create or destroy. And the courts seem to be doing a hell of a job in NYC of protecting my gun rights, considering the local judges laugh at any attempt to enforce said gun rights via lawsuits.

Like I said- conservative assholes applaud the courts when they disagree, and call them tyrants when they don't- thanks for confirming my claim.

So you have no actual point and have to resort to being a whiny little twat?

Fuck off.

 

[bodecea]

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.

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.

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 those violations get, correctly, shot down by the Federal courts. And I am a liberal gun owner and applaud any court upholding our rights under the 2nd Amendment.

 

[bodecea]

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.

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.

I applaud the court when they do their fucking job, which is to clarify, not create or destroy. And the courts seem to be doing a hell of a job in NYC of protecting my gun rights, considering the local judges laugh at any attempt to enforce said gun rights via lawsuits.

Like I said- conservative assholes applaud the courts when they disagree, and call them tyrants when they don't- thanks for confirming my claim.

So you have no actual point and have to resort to being a whiny little twat?

Fuck off.

Here Marty goes again.