Gay Marriage Is About to Be Legal in Alabama

[bodecea]

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.

LOL....what i find really fricken hilarious about your post is that when I use the term:
'conservative assholes'- I was responding to a post that referred to 'liberal assholes'.

Which post did you decide was a bigoted post? Well mine of course......lol....homophobic bigots like yourself are a hoot.

homophobic? It is the bigot that stereotypes all that are opposed to adoption of children by homosexuals as homophobic.

Can I not be against the adoption of children by homosexuals and be a homosexual at the same time.

So you see, maybe I know something about me that you do not, hence I see that you stereotype me by one position I take, not by who I am. It is the bigot who judges without knowing, you judge me as homophobic yet I could be a closet homosexual.

You know so little and assume so much when you make derogatory personal statements about me.

If I said I was against adoption of children by black couples, would I escape being called racist?
If I said I was against adoption of children by poor couples, would I escape being called a class snob?
If I said I was against adoption of children by Jewish couples, would I escape being called an anti-semite?

 

[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 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?

Here is the thing- I understand that you believe that NY law is unconstitutional.

But without the Federal courts having jurisidiction- you have no recourse at all- New York could pass laws telling you to turn in all of your firearms at the nearest police station- and you would have no legal recourse.

So what is the recourse in your case? Going to court. If the courts disagree- well then they disagree with you- like the State of NY disagrees with you regarding the constitutionality of the law. You can attempt to appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court- which has overturned many gun laws. But if the SOTC disagrees- well then you have had your day in court- and under our Constitution you have to live with the law.

The recourse in the case of any level of government asking people to turn in all their firearms is armed resistance, because a government that demands gun confiscation knows it will result in bloodshed is 1) asking for a fight anyway) and 2) cannot be trusted with anything else.

What should happen in politicians who pass laws declared unconstitutional should be prosecuted as criminals.

 

[Syriusly]

So three year olds get to make such decisions in your world? Most 3 year olds would choose to live with Mickey Mouse.

Now you get it, a 3 year old can not make a decisions about something they have not learned, hence you will be forcing a homosexual lifestyle on that child, a lifestyle they may or may not choose later in life.

But what is the harm of the 'homosexual lifestyle'....which is apparently everyday life. Eating lunch. Going to get the carwashed. Going to birthday parties. Watching a movie. While gay.

What about any of that is abusive?

I knew you would come around.

Yeah, you're still stuck at square 1 with the whole 'abuse' angle. You've never been able to factually establish it. And I'm still chuckling about your claim to speak for 99% of all people. And 100% of all children.

Eating is not a lifestyle, Washing the car is not a lifestyle. Watching movies is not a lifestyle.

You simply can not bring yourself to telling the truth or including anything remotely relating to homosexuality into your narrative.

Then you must cherry pick my post to another and add it to your quote, as if we are having that particular discussion, again why can you not be truthful?

You do not think 100% of all children want a mother and a father?

100% of all children waiting for adoption wants a parent- or parents who commit to raising them with love and emotional and financial support.

Now that is a pretty good lie, how can a orphan want a homosexual parent if you are going to hide that truth from them.
.

You are quick to call what others post a lie, while providing nothing but your opinion in response.

a) who are these orphans you are talking about? Are they part of- or not part of the 102,000 children availible for adoption, 40% of which will wait 3 or more years before being adopted?

b) 'orphans' want a parent- orphans don't ask parents what gender that they are sexually attracted to.

c) 'orphans' need a parent- or parents- who will commit to raising them and supporting them financially and emotionally. Every year 20,000 children age out of the system with no family to support them- what about them?

 

[bodecea]

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.

LOL....what i find really fricken hilarious about your post is that when I use the term:
'conservative assholes'- I was responding to a post that referred to 'liberal assholes'.

Which post did you decide was a bigoted post? Well mine of course......lol....homophobic bigots like yourself are a hoot.

homophobic? It is the bigot that stereotypes all that are opposed to adoption of children by homosexuals as homophobic.

Can I not be against the adoption of children by homosexuals and be a homosexual at the same time.

So you see, maybe I know something about me that you do not, hence I see that you stereotype me by one position I take, not by who I am. It is the bigot who judges without knowing, you judge me as homophobic yet I could be a closet homosexual.

You know so little and assume so much when you make derogatory personal statements about me.

You whine about being picked on, and yet you are the one ASSUMING to speak for children like my daughter. You've got some nerve there.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Here is the thing- I understand that you believe that NY law is unconstitutional.

But without the Federal courts having jurisidiction- you have no recourse at all- New York could pass laws telling you to turn in all of your firearms at the nearest police station- and you would have no legal recourse.

So what is the recourse in your case? Going to court. If the courts disagree- well then they disagree with you- like the State of NY disagrees with you regarding the constitutionality of the law. You can attempt to appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court- which has overturned many gun laws. But if the SOTC disagrees- well then you have had your day in court- and under our Constitution you have to live with the law.

What should happen in politicians who pass laws declared unconstitutional should be prosecuted as criminals.

And who decides that the law is unconstitutional?

 

[elektra]

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.

So three year olds get to make such decisions in your world? Most 3 year olds would choose to live with Mickey Mouse.

Now you get it, a 3 year old can not make a decisions about something they have not learned, hence you will be forcing a homosexual lifestyle on that child, a lifestyle they may or may not choose later in life.

But what is the harm of the 'homosexual lifestyle'....which is apparently everyday life. Eating lunch. Going to get the carwashed. Going to birthday parties. Watching a movie. While gay.

What about any of that is abusive?

I knew you would come around.

Yeah, you're still stuck at square 1 with the whole 'abuse' angle. You've never been able to factually establish it. And I'm still chuckling about your claim to speak for 99% of all people. And 100% of all children.

Eating is not a lifestyle, Washing the car is not a lifestyle. Watching movies is not a lifestyle.

You simply can not bring yourself to telling the truth or including anything remotely relating to homosexuality into your narrative.

Then you must cherry pick my post to another and add it to your quote, as if we are having that particular discussion, again why can you not be truthful?

You do not think 100% of all children want a mother and a father?

You have to show us any 3 year olds who are forced to be homosexual. That would definitely be child abuse of the highest order. Other than that, you are full of it.

How do you feel about 3 year olds being adopted into a fundamental christianity lifestyle? Or about 3 year olds being adopted into a rich lifestyle. Or 3 year olds being adopted into a Kansas farm lifestyle?

I do not have to show you anything, I have been using you as an example to others, to the reader of the threads who never posts.

Anybody reading your post I am responding to will see that you have no logical response.

I never ever said or implied that 3 year old orphans are being raped by homosexuals.

If you have all the facts, why make things up?

 

[Syriusly]

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?


>>>>

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?

Most children up for adoption were abandoned by their 'Mom and Dad"- what makes you think that they care what happens to their abandoned children at all?

If they cared enough- why didn't those parents arrange for legal guardians of their choice for their kids?

 

[Katzndogz]

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?

Here is the thing- I understand that you believe that NY law is unconstitutional.

But without the Federal courts having jurisidiction- you have no recourse at all- New York could pass laws telling you to turn in all of your firearms at the nearest police station- and you would have no legal recourse.

So what is the recourse in your case? Going to court. If the courts disagree- well then they disagree with you- like the State of NY disagrees with you regarding the constitutionality of the law. You can attempt to appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court- which has overturned many gun laws. But if the SOTC disagrees- well then you have had your day in court- and under our Constitution you have to live with the law.

They have to live with the law. They don't have to live with homosexuality.

 

[Syriusly]

So three year olds get to make such decisions in your world? Most 3 year olds would choose to live with Mickey Mouse.

Now you get it, a 3 year old can not make a decisions about something they have not learned, hence you will be forcing a homosexual lifestyle on that child, a lifestyle they may or may not choose later in life.

But what is the harm of the 'homosexual lifestyle'....which is apparently everyday life. Eating lunch. Going to get the carwashed. Going to birthday parties. Watching a movie. While gay.

What about any of that is abusive?

I knew you would come around.

Yeah, you're still stuck at square 1 with the whole 'abuse' angle. You've never been able to factually establish it. And I'm still chuckling about your claim to speak for 99% of all people. And 100% of all children.

Eating is not a lifestyle, Washing the car is not a lifestyle. Watching movies is not a lifestyle.

You simply can not bring yourself to telling the truth or including anything remotely relating to homosexuality into your narrative.

Then you must cherry pick my post to another and add it to your quote, as if we are having that particular discussion, again why can you not be truthful?

You do not think 100% of all children want a mother and a father?

You have to show us any 3 year olds who are forced to be homosexual. That would definitely be child abuse of the highest order. Other than that, you are full of it.

How do you feel about 3 year olds being adopted into a fundamental christianity lifestyle? Or about 3 year olds being adopted into a rich lifestyle. Or 3 year olds being adopted into a Kansas farm lifestyle?

I do not have to show you anything, I have been using you as an example to others, to the reader of the threads who never posts.

Anybody reading your post I am responding to will see that you have no logical response.

You have yet to make any logical post.

You have offered nothing but rather bizarre unsubstantiated claims.

 

[elektra]

I for one could not imagine how vile the attacks would become. Outright lies about what I say, stating I am describing sex graphically as well as talking about peoples personal relationships with their daughter. It certainly is a dangerous game, to discuss this with such irrational people.

Seriously, you people must bait people with your family? You must lie about what is buried in the posts? Much of what this conversation should entail is too repulsive to posted. Much of what should be discussed is graphic and disgusting.

Of course the idiots will think that I stated their sexual proclivity is disgusting, what is disgusting is the physiology of how non-sexual organs of the body will be used for sexual gratification.

You have stated some pretty nasty things about gay families and yet you managed to perpetrate yourself as a victim. Well done. It must be terribly hard to type with that cross on your back.

You are a filthy scoundrel of a liar, I did not say one nasty thing about gay families.

You get your but kicked trying to defend the indefensible so you come back lie.

Cross on my back? No, its not hard for me to type at all, actually I can type with great speed, as you notice I have responded to about 50 posts will you finger peck out 1 post.

 

[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 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?

Here is the thing- I understand that you believe that NY law is unconstitutional.

But without the Federal courts having jurisidiction- you have no recourse at all- New York could pass laws telling you to turn in all of your firearms at the nearest police station- and you would have no legal recourse.

So what is the recourse in your case? Going to court. If the courts disagree- well then they disagree with you- like the State of NY disagrees with you regarding the constitutionality of the law. You can attempt to appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court- which has overturned many gun laws. But if the SOTC disagrees- well then you have had your day in court- and under our Constitution you have to live with the law.

What should happen in politicians who pass laws declared unconstitutional should be prosecuted as criminals.

And who decides that the law is unconstitutional?

A Supreme Court that follows its Constitutional mandate, not the whims of the Justices own viewpoints.

Sadly we do not have that.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage between two persons of the same gender is now legal in Alabama.

People in love are getting married.

What a wonderful development.

 

[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 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?

Here is the thing- I understand that you believe that NY law is unconstitutional.

But without the Federal courts having jurisidiction- you have no recourse at all- New York could pass laws telling you to turn in all of your firearms at the nearest police station- and you would have no legal recourse.

So what is the recourse in your case? Going to court. If the courts disagree- well then they disagree with you- like the State of NY disagrees with you regarding the constitutionality of the law. You can attempt to appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court- which has overturned many gun laws. But if the SOTC disagrees- well then you have had your day in court- and under our Constitution you have to live with the law.

The recourse in the case of any level of government asking people to turn in all their firearms is armed resistance, because a government that demands gun confiscation knows it will result in bloodshed is 1) asking for a fight anyway) and 2) cannot be trusted with anything else.

What should happen in politicians who pass laws declared unconstitutional should be prosecuted as criminals.

But that does happen occasionally. That is what the courts are for....to determine constitutionality. Keep in mind, in some states, like CA, it is the people who vote in UNconstitutional laws....such as Prop 8 and earlier Prop 186.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Roy Moore is right and federal judges are fools to ignore God's Law.

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. - Galatians 6:7

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Marriage between two persons of the same gender is now legal in Alabama.

People in love are getting married.

What a wonderful development.

It's a tragedy beyond belief.

 

[bodecea]

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?

Here is the thing- I understand that you believe that NY law is unconstitutional.

But without the Federal courts having jurisidiction- you have no recourse at all- New York could pass laws telling you to turn in all of your firearms at the nearest police station- and you would have no legal recourse.

So what is the recourse in your case? Going to court. If the courts disagree- well then they disagree with you- like the State of NY disagrees with you regarding the constitutionality of the law. You can attempt to appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court- which has overturned many gun laws. But if the SOTC disagrees- well then you have had your day in court- and under our Constitution you have to live with the law.

What should happen in politicians who pass laws declared unconstitutional should be prosecuted as criminals.

And who decides that the law is unconstitutional?

A Supreme Court that follows its Constitutional mandate, not the whims of the Justices own viewpoints.

Sadly we do not have that.

Tell us how much more about Constitutional law you know.....than those Justices. You know they are selected, vetted and approved based on their case history in Constitutional issues, right?

 

[bodecea]

Marriage between two persons of the same gender is now legal in Alabama.

People in love are getting married.

What a wonderful development.

It's a tragedy beyond belief.

Don't have a gay marriage then.

 

[WinterBorn]

Of course it doesn't matter. When objectionable laws are imposed on an unwilling public that public finds ways not to comply.

How long have we had laws mandating integration? That hasn't worked either. Segregation is as much of a problem today as it was in 1964.

People just cannot be made to behave in government approved ways. The nation is becoming more degenerate by law. Not everyone will become degenerate.

If people choose to live in a certain area and attend schools in that area ect, it is one thing. When laws force people out of an area or of a school, that is a different thing completely.

 

[bodecea]

Roy Moore is right and federal judges are fools to ignore God's Law.

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. - Galatians 6:7

Which god?

 

[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 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?

Here is the thing- I understand that you believe that NY law is unconstitutional.

But without the Federal courts having jurisidiction- you have no recourse at all- New York could pass laws telling you to turn in all of your firearms at the nearest police station- and you would have no legal recourse.

So what is the recourse in your case? Going to court. If the courts disagree- well then they disagree with you- like the State of NY disagrees with you regarding the constitutionality of the law. You can attempt to appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court- which has overturned many gun laws. But if the SOTC disagrees- well then you have had your day in court- and under our Constitution you have to live with the law.

The recourse in the case of any level of government asking people to turn in all their firearms is armed resistance, because a government that demands gun confiscation knows it will result in bloodshed is 1) asking for a fight anyway) and 2) cannot be trusted with anything else.

What should happen in politicians who pass laws declared unconstitutional should be prosecuted as criminals.

But that does happen occasionally. That is what the courts are for....to determine constitutionality. Keep in mind, in some states, like CA, it is the people who vote in UNconstitutional laws....such as Prop 8 and earlier Prop 186.

Only unconstitutional due to an activist court that overstepped its bounds.

There is no end to this argument between us. You think the constitution means whatever suits you at the moment, and I do not.