Gay Marriage Is About to Be Legal in Alabama

[martybegan]

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.

They won't see it. Truth and facts mean nothing against "The Narrative"

Better to just call them a bunch of ***** and be done with it. Its like trying to reason with a rock.

 

[Skylar]

Oh my. The USSC just denied the stay for Alabama.

That's huge. As a stay is only granted when there is a plausible chance of success on the parties seeking it. The USSC maintianing its perfect record of preserving federal rulings that overturn gay marriage bans is significant. Especially after its granting cert for the one and only case that affirmed such bans.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.


I still can't get a CCW in NYC unless I prove to the NYPD I "need" one. How is that an example of the courts defending my rights?

 

[martybegan]

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.

Welcome to the party, pal.

 

[High_Gravity]

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.

Interracial marriage is a depravity?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Now you are flat out liar, nobody pushes gays out, they are not socially rejected, in super cool california having a gay friend is like hanging fuzzy dice on your review mirror. Gays moving to enclaves is simply that birds of a feather flock together. Despite acceptance people of common interests have a tendency to congregate together, to live together.

Pushed? Not even close. You believe we are socially rejecting gay, and pushing them out of our neighborhoods? You best go get the rubber hoses and german sheppards and put a stop to this injustice. And my, if your so wrong about why more gay people live in one area than another, how are you right about a thing, beings how you base things on wrong assumptions.

You are discussing my neighborhood. Do you live here too? I seriously doubt that my muslim neighbors have cool gay friends. Mostly their friends speak farsi. Just like they do.

Well, I can easily see you, may be a bit quick to stereotype people.

Farsi, Persians from Iran who came to Los Angeles after the fall of the Shah of Iran. Persians as in People who fled Islam, not devote Muslims.

Back then when we looked at Iran its population was not pure Arab-Muslim, not even close, half at best.

How about the Zoroastirans (from Iran speak farsi), I bet you had no idea that the Persians from Iran here include Zoroastirans, how about the Persian Jews in your neighborhood who speak farsi, I bet you had zero idea you would have to stammer out of this question when you woke this morning.

I seriously doubt that the half that is muslim neighbors are not gay, why do you think they fled radical Islamist to begin with?

So you don't live here. You should have just said so.

I do....and know that you are lying..............again.

 

[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.

Interracial marriage is a depravity?

That's what she said. Isn't it interesting?

 

[bodecea]

Forcing people to live against their principles only goes so far.

Nonsense.

No one is being 'forced' to do anything.

Homosexuals adopting children forces children to live against the child's principles.

You are saying that our straight daughter is being forced to live against her principles?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Pretty sure they'd choose two homosexual men rather than remain in an orphanage or foster home.

Yes, but before they could make a choice you must explain to a three year old what it means to be two homosexual men.
Is that your idea, to teach what homosexuality is to 3 year old children?

Do you spend time explaining what it means to be a heterosexual man and woman?

To who?

To 3 year old children....such as in your post.

 

[bodecea]

And so the lies continue, pure denial.

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 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.

These are your opinions. And your opinions only.

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.

It is your opinion that it is not a lie to hide that truth from orphans being adopted.

That is your opinion. How many gay couples with children do you really know?

 

[Skylar]

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?

Holy fuck.....now GOOGLE is part of the liberal conspiracy?!

The fringe right is now achieving all new levels of batshit.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Pretty sure they'd choose two homosexual men rather than remain in an orphanage or foster home.

Yes, but before they could make a choice you must explain to a three year old what it means to be two homosexual men.
Is that your idea, to teach what homosexuality is to 3 year old children?

Do you spend time explaining what it means to be a heterosexual man and woman?

To who?

To 3 year old children....such as in your post.

An interesting question. And remember, it has to be in the detail that Electra insists gays describe homosexual sex.

Who would explain something as graphic as any kind of intercourse with a 3 year old?

 

[elektra]

Forcing people to live against their principles only goes so far.

Nonsense.

No one is being 'forced' to do anything.

Homosexuals adopting children forces children to live against the child's principles.

You are saying that our straight daughter is being forced to live against her principles?

Yes, that is exactly what I said and how I meant to say it, even though I did not write it that way and you had to twist it all up to figure out what I really meant.

Good job, very intelligent you are.

I do not understand why you would bring your daughter into this conversation but if you would like to make her the topic tell us more about her.

 

[Skylar]

Forcing people to live against their principles only goes so far.

Nonsense.

No one is being 'forced' to do anything.

Homosexuals adopting children forces children to live against the child's principles.

You are saying that our straight daughter is being forced to live against her principles?

Yes, that is exactly what I said and how I meant to say it, even though I did not write it that way and you had to twist it all up to figure out what I really meant.

How do you know their daughter's principles?

You claim to speak for so many people you don't know, nor have ever met. 99% of the population. And all children. But delusional nonsense. You don't speak for any of these folks, merely yourself.

Your entire argument is thus based on self delusion. Where you cite your imagination as other people's thoughts, beliefs and principles.

 

[elektra]

Pretty sure they'd choose two homosexual men rather than remain in an orphanage or foster home.

Yes, but before they could make a choice you must explain to a three year old what it means to be two homosexual men.
Is that your idea, to teach what homosexuality is to 3 year old children?

Do you spend time explaining what it means to be a heterosexual man and woman?

To who?

To 3 year old children....such as in your post.

An interesting question. And remember, it has to be in the detail that Electra insists gays describe homosexual sex.

Who would explain something as graphic as any kind of intercourse with a 3 year old?

Another great example, when confronted with a fact, again it must be about me, not about the person adopting, at that the homosexuals must make up something and attribute it to me. Why would they have to lie here to prove a point or fact if they have the facts on their side?

 

[bodecea]

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

I would imagine because no one has made a compelling court case yet. Here's your opportunity.

 

[elektra]

Forcing people to live against their principles only goes so far.

Nonsense.

No one is being 'forced' to do anything.

Homosexuals adopting children forces children to live against the child's principles.

You are saying that our straight daughter is being forced to live against her principles?

Yes, that is exactly what I said and how I meant to say it, even though I did not write it that way and you had to twist it all up to figure out what I really meant.

How do you know their daughter's principles?

You claim to speak for so many people you don't know, nor have ever met. 99% of the population. And all children. But delusional nonsense. You don't speak for any of these folks, merely yourself.

Your entire argument is thus based on self delusion. Where you cite your imagination as other people's thoughts, beliefs and principles.

The person I responded to stated them.

Self Delusion, you will not admit that one Orphan will reject being adopted by homosexuals, that is a self-delusion at its finest.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, but before they could make a choice you must explain to a three year old what it means to be two homosexual men.
Is that your idea, to teach what homosexuality is to 3 year old children?

Do you spend time explaining what it means to be a heterosexual man and woman?

To who?

To 3 year old children....such as in your post.

An interesting question. And remember, it has to be in the detail that Electra insists gays describe homosexual sex.

Who would explain something as graphic as any kind of intercourse with a 3 year old?

Another great example, when confronted with a fact, again it must be about me, not about the person adopting, at that the homosexuals must make up something and attribute it to me. Why would they have to lie here to prove a point or fact if they have the facts on their side?

Then what children are you talking about when you describe the graphic sexual acts they would be 'repulsed' by?

 

[bodecea]

Forcing people to live against their principles only goes so far.

Nonsense.

No one is being 'forced' to do anything.

Homosexuals adopting children forces children to live against the child's principles.

You are saying that our straight daughter is being forced to live against her principles?

Yes, that is exactly what I said and how I meant to say it, even though I did not write it that way and you had to twist it all up to figure out what I really meant.

Good job, very intelligent you are.

I do not understand why you would bring your daughter into this conversation but if you would like to make her the topic tell us more about her.

Well, YOU are the one who seems to want to speak up and say we are forcing our daughter to live against her principles. You have set yourself up as her (and other children of gay couples) spokesperson. Tell us more about how our daughter is being forced to live against her principles.

 

[elektra]

Pretty sure they'd choose two homosexual men rather than remain in an orphanage or foster home.

Yes, but before they could make a choice you must explain to a three year old what it means to be two homosexual men.
Is that your idea, to teach what homosexuality is to 3 year old children?

Do you spend time explaining what it means to be a heterosexual man and woman?

To who?

To 3 year old children....such as in your post.

An interesting question. And remember, it has to be in the detail that Electra insists gays describe homosexual sex.

Who would explain something as graphic as any kind of intercourse with a 3 year old?

Who would put a three year old in a situation not of their choosing is what I stated, very different than your fantasy that you attribute to me.