Gay Marriage Is About to Be Legal in Alabama

[Syriusly]

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 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.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

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.

 

[Syriusly]

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 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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Does not matter.

 

[Syriusly]

The Daily Fix Gay Marriage Is About to Be Legal in Alabama - Yahoo News

Tomorrow Alabama is open for marriage equality.

This is good, this is American, this is our values.

Those who don't like it, I have a hint: don't marry someone of your own sex.

You are right, America is becoming the new Sodom. That is why many of us and the European Right are aligning with Russia

Oh- with Russia?

Russia- such a paragon of virtue......such a shining example of Democracy and lets not forget how dedicated Russia is to personal rights....well of the oligarchy.

Why am I not surprised that you are a Russia fan.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course he is, as he ignores Russia's centuries of pogroms.

 

[Syriusly]

Or....you're simply useful idiots, susceptible to Russian anti-US propaganda. And now sound like a Soviet Era politburo press release.

Might I suggest you emigrate to Russia. Its a win-win for everyone.

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'?

Austira.

The answer is that is regulating marriage. You don't like it, don't marry someone who looks like you.

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.

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.

Why would exclude Homosexuals? To protect children from being adopted by Homosexuals.

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.

 

[Preacher]

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 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...

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 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.

There comes a time when the courts are corrupted and don't follow the rule of law as its written. Its damn near that time...People like the Koch brothers and Soros can afford to buy a seat on the SC for their pet pal....the SC is a joke and barely even worth listening to anymore...once people get tired of the bullshit and lies and corrupt and false interpretations of the law they will do something about it. I personally wanna see from French Revolution style stuff!

 

[JakeStarkey]

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'?

Austira.

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.

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.

Why would exclude Homosexuals? To protect children from being adopted by Homosexuals.

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.

Absolutely, Elketra appears not to care about children at all.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

In fact, the argument was a deflection that had nothing to do with the OP and thus was a fallacy.

 

[Syriusly]

Or....you're simply useful idiots, susceptible to Russian anti-US propaganda. And now sound like a Soviet Era politburo press release.

Might I suggest you emigrate to Russia. Its a win-win for everyone.

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'?

Austira.

The answer is that is regulating marriage. You don't like it, don't marry someone who looks like you.

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.

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.

Homos need to have a specific other of the opposite sex to create babies. The two homos are not the parents.

So couples who adopt, are not parents of those children?

Bob Hope kids would be surprised to find that out.

And couples who use sperm donations- they are not really the parents of those children?

Oh wait- I know- you are just saying your perverse reasoning only applies to homosexuals.

Well as usual, your bigotry is wrong.

Parents are the people who commit to raising and loving children as their own- whether they are adopted or biological offspring.

 

[bodecea]

How many of those states had a constitutional amendment, which banned gay marriage? No judge can just erase that! And you can't get around that! This is why Alabama is having a constitutional crisis, and Alabama's chief justice has ordered a ban on licenses. In fact he has barred one county from issuing them all together. If someone with unicorn dreams could just wipe out constitutional amendments, we would be in big trouble. That is why we have checks and balances. Have a good night.

Nullification of a state constitutional amendment, you can't make this shit up.

If it happens there should be another civil war, because that is massive.

California did, with Prop 8. And a federal judge struck it down...as was proper to do...based on that California Amendment being UnConstitutional when held up to the 14th Amendment.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Yeah......just look at the example of Alabama and the ban on mixed race marriages.........oh wait....Alabama obeyed the Supreme Court and proceeded with mixed race marriages......

 

[JakeStarkey]

"How long have we had laws mandating integration? That hasn't worked either." is the first truly stupid posting today.

Of course the laws have worked: politically and socially are population is integrated. And the laws prevent folks from deliberately keeping folks out of housing, etc.

 

[bodecea]

The Daily Fix Gay Marriage Is About to Be Legal in Alabama - Yahoo News

Tomorrow Alabama is open for marriage equality.

This is good, this is American, this is our values.

Those who don't like it, I have a hint: don't marry someone of your own sex.

Since you homo marriage proponents like to misuse the word equality so much, I have one question for you to answer; why should the general public be forced by law to subsidize male-on-male buttfucking? Simple question. What's your answer?

The answer is that is regulating marriage. You don't like it, don't marry someone who looks like you.

You didn't answer my question. You just made a detached comment. Why should the public be forced to subsidize male-on-male buttfucking?

Probably for the same reason it subsidizes male on female buttfucking as long as it is done within a marriage. And it does.

 

[JakeStarkey]

These so-called Tea Party drones sure sound like the Tory Loyalists of the Ward of Indpendence.

"Let's leave things the way they were" in 1763. Dolts.

 

[bodecea]

Homosexuals need marriage, it's a backdoor move to teach homosexuality to children under the guise of sensitivity and to end bullying.

So..ending bullying isn't a good thing?

 

[Syriusly]

As same-sex couples cannot procreate and, in fact, have the potential to harm any children they might raise, it is certainly in the interest of the federal government to maintain the stance it presented in the Defense of Marriage Act. That's the only truth.

How does having same-sex couples as parents cause harm to their children?

It deprives the child of either a mother or father, which in turn creates many a child that becomes a drug addict, a criminal, depressed, and suicidal.

On the other hand- many heterosexual couples create children that become drug addicts, criminals,depressed or suicidal.

The single largest group lacking either a mother or father, are children being raised by single parents, or by grandparents. Gay parents don't even come close to that number. But of course the homophobes only 'care' about the children when it comes to homosexuals.

Preventing 'gay marriage' does one thing- and one thing only- it ensures that the children being raised by gay parents, don't have married parents.

It doesn't prevent gay parents from having children. Doesn't prevent them from adopting children. Just prevents their children from having married parents.

 

[bodecea]

Why would exclude Homosexuals? To protect children from being adopted by Homosexuals.

Gays and lesbians are already having kids. Depriving gays and lesbians of marriage doesn't magically prevent their children from being raised by same sex parents. It only guarantees that those children will never have married parents. So the entire basis of your reasoning is blithering nonsense.

And that's before we get to your claims of 'protecting children' from their own parents.

Having kids and adopting orphans are two completely different things.

Orphans life is tragic enough, without Homosexuals forcing Orphans into a Homosexual lifestyle.

Contrary to what you believe, it is not natural to enter through the exit for the bodies waste, most children will find that a bit repulsive. At the very least, bringing them into the Homosexual lifestyle is abuse.

Are you calling gay parents abusers?