Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
[
As for marriage, no state in the union forbade marriage. If you and your other found a religion that would marry you, then you got married under that religion and no state would stop you. The issue isn't as much about restriction than it is about forced acceptance.
The only marriage in question is legal marriage.
You know- the type of marriage you want to deny gay couples and are peeved that you can't.
Under admiralty law (which we are under) marriage is simply the merging of two corporate entities with the state being a third party to it thus subjecting this "union" to the acts, statutes and codes of the Universal Commercial Code.
LOL 'admiralty law'?
No- 'we' are not under admiralty law except if 'we' are on the water
Admiralty law or maritime law is a distinct body of law that governs maritime questions and offenses. It is a body of both domestic law governing maritime activities, and private international law governing the relationships between private entities that operate vessels on the oceans. It deals with matters including marine commerce, marine navigation, marine salvaging, shipping, sailors, and the transportation of passengers and goods by sea. Admiralty law also covers many commercial activities, although land based or occurring wholly on land, that are maritime in character.
Did I stutter? "Law of the Flag" pertains to the gold fringe around the American flag that you see in court and in "gubermint" offices....they didn't put the gold fringe on there just so they could "pimp the flag". It is symbolic. You see, I know more than you. District courts are admiralty courts and that is a fact.
"Pursuant to the "Law of the Flag", a military flag does result in jurisdictional implication when flown. The Plaintiff cites the following: "Under what is called international law, the law of the flag, a shipowner who sends his vessel into a foreign port gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the shipmaster that he intends the law of the flag to regulate those contracts with the shipmaster that he either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all." - Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 ILL. 133, 49 LRA 181, 76 AM.
The committee also alluded to "the great force" of "the great constitutional question as to the power of Congress to extend maritime jurisdiction beyond the ground occupied by it at the adoption of the Constitution...." - Ibid. H.R. Rep. No. 72 31st Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1850)
"This power is as extensive upon land as upon water. The Constitution makes no distinction in that respect. And if the admiralty jurisdiction, in matters of contract and tort which the courts of the United States may lawfully exercise on the high seas, can be extended to the lakes under the power to regulate commerce, it can with the same propriety and upon the same construction, be extended to contracts and torts on land when the commerce is between different States. And it may embrace also the vehicles and persons engaged in carrying it on (my note - remember what the law of the flag said when you receive benefits from the king.) It would be in the power of Congress to confer admiralty jurisdiction upon its courts, over the cars engaged in transporting passengers or merchandise from one State to another, and over the persons engaged in conducting them, and deny to the parties the trial by jury. Now the judicial power in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, has never been supposed to extend to contracts made on land and to be executed on land. But if the power of regulating commerce can be made the foundation of jurisdiction in its courts, and a new and extended admiralty jurisdiction beyond its heretofore known and admitted limits, may be created on water under that authority, the same reason would justify the same exercise of power on land." -- Propeller Genessee Chief et al. v. Fitzhugh et al. 12 How. 443 (U.S. 1851)
Oh- so you are completely delusional.
I've pointed it out over a dozen times now. .As I've stated (and you're far too stupid to comprehend) - we are all harmed when the law is violated. Especially the highest law in the land.Yep, and you know why? Because it's against the law. Anybody discriminating based on that alone can get sued into the next century. Nobody is going to accept that liability no matter how much they hate gay people.
Liberals love to play the victim - don't they?
LOL- how very ironic coming from the poster who keeps claiming that he was horribly injured because the Supreme Court supported the rights of Americans who are gay.
Look at the amount of whining and victimhood you have spouted in this thread.
Of course you have yet to establish any actual harm.
.
You keep saying that.
Yet you still can't point to any actual harm.
That is as relevant as me saying we are all harmed when you post your usual idiotic claims at USMB.
Good grief...you don't even know the Obergefell decision. No wonder your ignorant of everything else.but the Supreme Court is the institution to decide on the Constitutionality of laws.
Exactly! And that is not what they did with Obergefell, junior. They implemented a new law forcing all 50 states to accept gay marriage. They do not have that authority. Never have. Never will. Only the legislative branch can create legislation. The Supreme Court is part of the Judicial branch.
.
Nope- just as in Loving V. Virginia, the Supreme Court overturned unconstitutional State laws- specifically the laws in question.
It applies to other states by precedent- but technically the Supreme Court ruled on the 4 or 5 states that were part of the Obergefell appeal- just as they did when they ruled on Virginia's appeal.
Your psychic harm is not measurable. Your opinion that you are suffering is irrelevant- because you can't point out any actual harm. You just keep bloviating. I leave you to bloviate more- I have things to do- I will come back later to point out again what a dumbass you are.
Sure, hater dupe bigot. Change the channel. Google something- goes on forever. Only 22 states protect gays on housing and employment.
15 Examples Of Anti-Gay Discrimination Conservatives Want To ...
thinkprogress.org/lgbt/.../15-examples-of-anti-gay-discrimination-cons...
ThinkProgress
Jul 2, 2013 - Jennie McCarthy and Melisa Erwin filed a complaint against New York's ... but similarly highlighted 15 examples of discrimination against gay ...
The New York Times Shares Examples of Discrimination Facing LGBT ...
www.hrc.org/.../the-new-york-times-shares-examples-of-disc...
Human Rights Campaign
Jul 15, 2015 - ... the stories of LGBT people facing discrimination across the country. ... have any Islamic churches even spoken out against homosexuality.
You don't want to get married- don't get married.
Most Americans want to get married. Which is why mixed race couples fought for their right to marry. And gay couples fought for their right to marry.
So do you want to eliminate legal marriage for all Americans?
There are a thousand government cash and prizes awarded by law to married couples.
"...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
You don't want to get married- don't get married.
Most Americans want to get married. Which is why mixed race couples fought for their right to marry. And gay couples fought for their right to marry.
So do you want to eliminate legal marriage for all Americans?
Yep, I want government totally out of marriage. Then you and people like you will have nothing to complain about.
There are a thousand government cash and prizes awarded by law to married couples.
"...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
There is no deprivation of life, liberty or property in the SMS thing. And having marriage to continue as one man and one woman is not denying equal protection. Any gay guy and gay woman should be allowed to marry. And no state in the union ever forbade marriage, they just didn't recognize it. But any couple who found a religion to marry them got married, and nobody ever tried to stop it.
[
As for marriage, no state in the union forbade marriage. If you and your other found a religion that would marry you, then you got married under that religion and no state would stop you. The issue isn't as much about restriction than it is about forced acceptance.
The only marriage in question is legal marriage.
You know- the type of marriage you want to deny gay couples and are peeved that you can't.
Under admiralty law (which we are under) marriage is simply the merging of two corporate entities with the state being a third party to it thus subjecting this "union" to the acts, statutes and codes of the Universal Commercial Code.
LOL 'admiralty law'?
No- 'we' are not under admiralty law except if 'we' are on the water
Admiralty law or maritime law is a distinct body of law that governs maritime questions and offenses. It is a body of both domestic law governing maritime activities, and private international law governing the relationships between private entities that operate vessels on the oceans. It deals with matters including marine commerce, marine navigation, marine salvaging, shipping, sailors, and the transportation of passengers and goods by sea. Admiralty law also covers many commercial activities, although land based or occurring wholly on land, that are maritime in character.
Did I stutter? "Law of the Flag" pertains to the gold fringe around the American flag that you see in court and in "gubermint" offices....they didn't put the gold fringe on there just so they could "pimp the flag". It is symbolic. You see, I know more than you. District courts are admiralty courts and that is a fact.
"Pursuant to the "Law of the Flag", a military flag does result in jurisdictional implication when flown. The Plaintiff cites the following: "Under what is called international law, the law of the flag, a shipowner who sends his vessel into a foreign port gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the shipmaster that he intends the law of the flag to regulate those contracts with the shipmaster that he either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all." - Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 ILL. 133, 49 LRA 181, 76 AM.
The committee also alluded to "the great force" of "the great constitutional question as to the power of Congress to extend maritime jurisdiction beyond the ground occupied by it at the adoption of the Constitution...." - Ibid. H.R. Rep. No. 72 31st Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1850)
"This power is as extensive upon land as upon water. The Constitution makes no distinction in that respect. And if the admiralty jurisdiction, in matters of contract and tort which the courts of the United States may lawfully exercise on the high seas, can be extended to the lakes under the power to regulate commerce, it can with the same propriety and upon the same construction, be extended to contracts and torts on land when the commerce is between different States. And it may embrace also the vehicles and persons engaged in carrying it on (my note - remember what the law of the flag said when you receive benefits from the king.) It would be in the power of Congress to confer admiralty jurisdiction upon its courts, over the cars engaged in transporting passengers or merchandise from one State to another, and over the persons engaged in conducting them, and deny to the parties the trial by jury. Now the judicial power in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, has never been supposed to extend to contracts made on land and to be executed on land. But if the power of regulating commerce can be made the foundation of jurisdiction in its courts, and a new and extended admiralty jurisdiction beyond its heretofore known and admitted limits, may be created on water under that authority, the same reason would justify the same exercise of power on land." -- Propeller Genessee Chief et al. v. Fitzhugh et al. 12 How. 443 (U.S. 1851)
Oh- so you are completely delusional.
There are 28 states with no protection for gays against discrimination in housing and employment. Your position is ridiculous.Sure, hater dupe bigot. Change the channel. Google something- goes on forever. Only 22 states protect gays on housing and employment.
15 Examples Of Anti-Gay Discrimination Conservatives Want To ...
thinkprogress.org/lgbt/.../15-examples-of-anti-gay-discrimination-cons...
ThinkProgress
Jul 2, 2013 - Jennie McCarthy and Melisa Erwin filed a complaint against New York's ... but similarly highlighted 15 examples of discrimination against gay ...
The New York Times Shares Examples of Discrimination Facing LGBT ...
www.hrc.org/.../the-new-york-times-shares-examples-of-disc...
Human Rights Campaign
Jul 15, 2015 - ... the stories of LGBT people facing discrimination across the country. ... have any Islamic churches even spoken out against homosexuality.
More crap from the crap pusher.
In your first link, it told of businesses that did not want to cater to gay weddings. Good, I think it's their right to not go against their religious or moral beliefs. That's not discrimination.
Your second article talks about ONE couple who SAID they were denied rental because they were lesbians. Of course, what would you expect but one side from a left-wing rag like Think Progress?
Digging further into the story, Fox reported that the landlord agreed to their questioning and he claims the application was not filled out properly. They just "assumed" (as most liberals do) they were not given the house because they were gay. No proof of anything, just make the allegation. I have not accepted many rental applications because there was something wrong with the application. This happens all the time to people of all kinds of backgrounds.
I can't read all the crap you post that has no empirical evidence. Go peddle it somewhere else. My time is better spent elsewhere.
And it's funny and gets ratings. Sorry your bigotry suqs and you're just great at getting Dems elected now...Every other character is gay on television. I don't mind gay characters that appear naturally but knowing how the left likes to use entertainment to push its agenda it made me realize that they are turning telivision shows into a political tool for them.
We know what your position is when it comes to gays...bent over and squealing like Obama negotiating with the Ayatollah.There are 28 states with no protection for gays against discrimination in housing and employment. Your position is ridiculous.Sure, hater dupe bigot. Change the channel. Google something- goes on forever. Only 22 states protect gays on housing and employment.
15 Examples Of Anti-Gay Discrimination Conservatives Want To ...
thinkprogress.org/lgbt/.../15-examples-of-anti-gay-discrimination-cons...
ThinkProgress
Jul 2, 2013 - Jennie McCarthy and Melisa Erwin filed a complaint against New York's ... but similarly highlighted 15 examples of discrimination against gay ...
The New York Times Shares Examples of Discrimination Facing LGBT ...
www.hrc.org/.../the-new-york-times-shares-examples-of-disc...
Human Rights Campaign
Jul 15, 2015 - ... the stories of LGBT people facing discrimination across the country. ... have any Islamic churches even spoken out against homosexuality.
More crap from the crap pusher.
In your first link, it told of businesses that did not want to cater to gay weddings. Good, I think it's their right to not go against their religious or moral beliefs. That's not discrimination.
Your second article talks about ONE couple who SAID they were denied rental because they were lesbians. Of course, what would you expect but one side from a left-wing rag like Think Progress?
Digging further into the story, Fox reported that the landlord agreed to their questioning and he claims the application was not filled out properly. They just "assumed" (as most liberals do) they were not given the house because they were gay. No proof of anything, just make the allegation. I have not accepted many rental applications because there was something wrong with the application. This happens all the time to people of all kinds of backgrounds.
I can't read all the crap you post that has no empirical evidence. Go peddle it somewhere else. My time is better spent elsewhere.
Good grief...you don't even know the Obergefell decision. No wonder your ignorant of everything else.but the Supreme Court is the institution to decide on the Constitutionality of laws.
Exactly! And that is not what they did with Obergefell, junior. They implemented a new law forcing all 50 states to accept gay marriage. They do not have that authority. Never have. Never will. Only the legislative branch can create legislation. The Supreme Court is part of the Judicial branch.
.
Nope- just as in Loving V. Virginia, the Supreme Court overturned unconstitutional State laws- specifically the laws in question.
It applies to other states by precedent- but technically the Supreme Court ruled on the 4 or 5 states that were part of the Obergefell appeal- just as they did when they ruled on Virginia's appeal.
By the way, "precedence" is not the U.S. Constitution. It's just a term desperate libtards point to when the U.S. Constitution prevents them from forcing their bizarre ideology on the masses. Precedence is not the highest law in the land. The U.S. Constitution is. Game over.
LOL- but I am not complaining.
Nor are the gay couples who are happily getting married.
The ones complaining are you- and Patty- and the others with their panties all wadded up because gay couples are now treated exactly the same as my wife and I are.
But you have every right to try to end legal marriage in America. Let us know how it goes.
There are a thousand government cash and prizes awarded by law to married couples.
"...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
There is no deprivation of life, liberty or property in the SMS thing. And having marriage to continue as one man and one woman is not denying equal protection. Any gay guy and gay woman should be allowed to marry. And no state in the union ever forbade marriage, they just didn't recognize it. But any couple who found a religion to marry them got married, and nobody ever tried to stop it.
LOL- but I am not complaining.
Nor are the gay couples who are happily getting married.
The ones complaining are you- and Patty- and the others with their panties all wadded up because gay couples are now treated exactly the same as my wife and I are.
But you have every right to try to end legal marriage in America. Let us know how it goes.
I will. I vote Republican in hopes the Republican President can load our Supreme Court with justices that actually understand what our founders intended for this country--an no, it wasn't gay marriage.
As the saying goes, you won the battle but not the war.
And down the road, I hope people will be able to explain to their children and grandchildren how our society got so F'd up, so freakish, so morally bankrupt by liberals. By that time, men will be marrying their dogs, children will be marrying grandparents to get their SS check when they die, and sisters will be marrying their brothers.
And by that time, marriage will be such a joke that nobody will participate in it any longer, and it will be ruined forever. Then liberals can truly celebrate, because the only time a liberal is happy is when they take happiness away from other people.
Righties don't like college, so they haven't taken those first year intro to logic courses.Well yeah - you dispute indisputable facts all the time..I've made dozens of points. All of them indisputable..[, it's not called a straw man. It's called an analogy sweetie. What that completely obliterates your absurd position (which is why you hate it so much).
LOL- isn't it cute when Patty declares victory even though he hasn't been able to make a single point?
LOL......'all of them indisputable'- and yet I have disputed them.
You are hilarious.
By definition- if I dispute what you say- the opinions you pose as facts- your claims are clearly not 'indisputable'.
Remember your 'proof' is your opinion- repeated by you often. Nothing more.
So gd dumb lol...you da best!We know what your position is when it comes to gays...bent over and squealing like Obama negotiating with the Ayatollah.There are 28 states with no protection for gays against discrimination in housing and employment. Your position is ridiculous.Sure, hater dupe bigot. Change the channel. Google something- goes on forever. Only 22 states protect gays on housing and employment.
15 Examples Of Anti-Gay Discrimination Conservatives Want To ...
thinkprogress.org/lgbt/.../15-examples-of-anti-gay-discrimination-cons...
ThinkProgress
Jul 2, 2013 - Jennie McCarthy and Melisa Erwin filed a complaint against New York's ... but similarly highlighted 15 examples of discrimination against gay ...
The New York Times Shares Examples of Discrimination Facing LGBT ...
www.hrc.org/.../the-new-york-times-shares-examples-of-disc...
Human Rights Campaign
Jul 15, 2015 - ... the stories of LGBT people facing discrimination across the country. ... have any Islamic churches even spoken out against homosexuality.
More crap from the crap pusher.
In your first link, it told of businesses that did not want to cater to gay weddings. Good, I think it's their right to not go against their religious or moral beliefs. That's not discrimination.
Your second article talks about ONE couple who SAID they were denied rental because they were lesbians. Of course, what would you expect but one side from a left-wing rag like Think Progress?
Digging further into the story, Fox reported that the landlord agreed to their questioning and he claims the application was not filled out properly. They just "assumed" (as most liberals do) they were not given the house because they were gay. No proof of anything, just make the allegation. I have not accepted many rental applications because there was something wrong with the application. This happens all the time to people of all kinds of backgrounds.
I can't read all the crap you post that has no empirical evidence. Go peddle it somewhere else. My time is better spent elsewhere.
