Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige

[Skylar]

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says that the Constitution rules,

no matter what the States might claim to the contrary.

Tell that to Colorado and Washington State.

And what court rulings are Colorado and Washington defying?

.......

...

..

.


That's what I thought.

 

[Seawytch]

Gays and lesbians want equal access and protections, that's all. You set up this system and we want the same thing ya'll get. Change the name, take away the cash and prizes...whatever. We'll still want the same exact thing you get.

No they want to pretend men are women and vice versa and build on those fantasies. They currently have the same protections anyone else does.

Ah...so now we know where you get your fucked up ideas from...the 1950s!

We do have the same protections in MOST states, but we're going after the small handful left.

Argument #1 and #2!

^^^Rabbi's secret rules of deflection!^^^

Nothing secret about them. Unless you're stupid.

Ah, I see...but the deflection part I got right on the money. Got it.

 

[danielpalos]

Marriage is not a States' right to decide. It really is that simple. The proof is, that any private Act may be commuted public, by simply recording it with the appropriate public sector.

 

[Syriusly]

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says that the Constitution rules,

no matter what the States might claim to the contrary.

Tell that to Colorado and Washington State.

Oh the Federal Government could tell that to Colorado and Washington State anytime that the Feds want to.

Personally I think Federal drug laws are an abuse of the Commerce Clause, but the Supreme Court has generally not agreed with me- but any time the DEA wanted to go in an bust 'legal' pot business's in Colorado and Washington State they could.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Because, as you RWnuts are normally so quick to remind us, a constitutional republic protects the rights of minorities,

against that so-called 'mob rule' you people love to hate.

First off, homosexuals have every right that anyone else in this country has.
Second, the most basic right is voting for self determination. That is what the Left and the gay lobby want to strip us of.

No homosexuals do not have the same rights. They are entitled to the right to marry according to their sexual orientation.

No, they're not. That would be an extra right. Currently no one can marry someone of the same sex.
Youre really ill equipped to argue here.

A long time ago, the King was considered to have absolute power by divine right.

How did we manage to decide that wasn't the case?

We voted on it.

I think that was a war not a vote.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige"

Actually he urges ignorance and hate; ignorance of the law and hate toward gay Americans.

And the notion that this is solely a 'states' rights' issue is completely false, it's an issue solely about animus toward same-sex couples, where measures seeking to deny gay Americans their right to due process and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment are devoid of merit.

Thats completely wrong, of course.
People voted, overwhelmingly in most cases, to define marriage as one man one woman. What right does the judiciary have to overturn that? None.

Because, as you RWnuts are normally so quick to remind us, a constitutional republic protects the rights of minorities,

against that so-called 'mob rule' you people love to hate.

First off, homosexuals have every right that anyone else in this country has.
Second, the most basic right is voting for self determination. That is what the Left and the gay lobby want to strip us of.

No homosexuals do not have the same rights. They are entitled to the right to marry according to their sexual orientation.

No, they're not. That would be an extra right. Currently no one can marry someone of the same sex.
Youre really ill equipped to argue here.

So it was 'extra' rights that blacks got with the 13th amendment, with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, with the Voting Rights Act of 1965?

lol good one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

People voted, overwhelmingly in most cases, to define marriage as one man one woman. What right does the judiciary have to overturn that? None.

Homosexual couples, if they make the commitment to each other, should have every right to act and enjoy the "benefits" equal to married heterosexual couples. To name a few: hospital visits, inheritance and other marriage benefits including health insurance etc. It is just baffling why do they want to call their commitment to each other "marriage?" Why don't they call it "life partner" or similar expression related to their lifelong commitment to each other? Changing the meaning of the word "marriage" just shows arrogance and an "in your face" attitude.

Because the civil license issued in all 50 states is called a marriage license. If you don't like us getting a marriage license, you should have called it something else. Feel free to change it, but the onus is not on gays to do so.

Look, I do not give a rat's ass what instrument you want to play in the great orchestra of humanity. If you want to play the flute that's your choice. You are assuming that I am in favor of the issuance of marriage licenses by the state. It is just another way to take one's money as fee what in reality is just another form of tax. Now, I assume, homosexuals wanted to call their union "marriage" from the get go. Otherwise, they would have lobbied to call their contract of lifelong commitment something else descriptive of it such as "civil union" or "life partner" or whatever is best fit.

Gays and lesbians want equal access and protections, that's all. You set up this system and we want the same thing ya'll get. Change the name, take away the cash and prizes...whatever. We'll still want the same exact thing you get.

No they want to pretend men are women and vice versa and build on those fantasies. They currently have the same protections anyone else does.

So, using your logic, if same-sex marriage were the ONLY legal form of marriage,

opposite sex couples would have no legal beef?

Really? You are really out there with that belief...

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Marriage is not a States' right to decide. It really is that simple. The proof is, that any private Act may be commuted public, by simply recording it with the appropriate public sector.

There's nothing private about the fag militia agenda. They are all about pushing it in our faces.

 

[Skylar]

Marriage is not a States' right to decide. It really is that simple. The proof is, that any private Act may be commuted public, by simply recording it with the appropriate public sector.

There's nothing private about the fag militia agenda. They are all about pushing it in our faces.

Well, at least you've given up all pretense of this being about 'states rights'.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Marriage is not a States' right to decide. It really is that simple. The proof is, that any private Act may be commuted public, by simply recording it with the appropriate public sector.

There's nothing private about the fag militia agenda. They are all about pushing it in our faces.

Well, at least you've given up all pretense of this being about 'states rights'.

Not really. I think every state should decide for themselves and have said nothing to the contrary.

 

[Skylar]

Marriage is not a States' right to decide. It really is that simple. The proof is, that any private Act may be commuted public, by simply recording it with the appropriate public sector.

There's nothing private about the fag militia agenda. They are all about pushing it in our faces.

Well, at least you've given up all pretense of this being about 'states rights'.

Not really. I think every state should decide for themselves and have said nothing to the contrary.

I think 'fag militia agenda' gives us a pretty clear window into what's motivating you. As I've said, the reason that your ilk do so poorly in court is they can't argue what is actually behind their position. Instead, they have to come up with half assed second tier arguments that fail with an almost perfect regularity.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage is not a States' right to decide. It really is that simple. The proof is, that any private Act may be commuted public, by simply recording it with the appropriate public sector.

There's nothing private about the fag militia agenda. They are all about pushing it in our faces.

F*g....n*gger...c*nt...k*ke....all words used by bigots and always for the same reason.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Marriage is not a States' right to decide. It really is that simple. The proof is, that any private Act may be commuted public, by simply recording it with the appropriate public sector.

There's nothing private about the fag militia agenda. They are all about pushing it in our faces.

F*g....n*gger...c*nt...k*ke....all words used by bigots and always for the same reason.

Whatever you say, faggot.

 

[rightwinger]

Marriage is not a States' right to decide. It really is that simple. The proof is, that any private Act may be commuted public, by simply recording it with the appropriate public sector.

There's nothing private about the fag militia agenda. They are all about pushing it in our faces.

Well, at least you've given up all pretense of this being about 'states rights'.

They were perfectly willing to demand a constitutional amendment....then it became states rights

 

[Silhouette]

Whatever you say, faggot.

Oh, it's high theater again starring St. Mike as the "gay basher stand in"! Just in time to ramp sympathy for the big hearing coming up!



Syriusly, you and St. Mike's gig is up. You've already been exposed. Did you think you could try to sneak off and pull this on someone else's thread?

 

[Skylar]

Whatever you say, faggot.

Oh, it's high theater again starring St. Mike as the "gay basher stand in"! Just in time to ramp sympathy for the big hearing coming up!



Syriusly, you and St. Mike's gig is up. You've already been exposed. Did you think you could try to sneak off and pull this on someone else's thread?

Silo.....do any of us need to be here for your conversation with yourself?

 

[The Rabbi]

No they want to pretend men are women and vice versa and build on those fantasies. They currently have the same protections anyone else does.

Ah...so now we know where you get your fucked up ideas from...the 1950s!

We do have the same protections in MOST states, but we're going after the small handful left.

Argument #1 and #2!

^^^Rabbi's secret rules of deflection!^^^

Nothing secret about them. Unless you're stupid.

Ah, I see...but the deflection part I got right on the money. Got it.

The only thing you've gotten on the money is sex.
Try again.

 

[The Rabbi]

Homosexual couples, if they make the commitment to each other, should have every right to act and enjoy the "benefits" equal to married heterosexual couples. To name a few: hospital visits, inheritance and other marriage benefits including health insurance etc. It is just baffling why do they want to call their commitment to each other "marriage?" Why don't they call it "life partner" or similar expression related to their lifelong commitment to each other? Changing the meaning of the word "marriage" just shows arrogance and an "in your face" attitude.

Because the civil license issued in all 50 states is called a marriage license. If you don't like us getting a marriage license, you should have called it something else. Feel free to change it, but the onus is not on gays to do so.

Look, I do not give a rat's ass what instrument you want to play in the great orchestra of humanity. If you want to play the flute that's your choice. You are assuming that I am in favor of the issuance of marriage licenses by the state. It is just another way to take one's money as fee what in reality is just another form of tax. Now, I assume, homosexuals wanted to call their union "marriage" from the get go. Otherwise, they would have lobbied to call their contract of lifelong commitment something else descriptive of it such as "civil union" or "life partner" or whatever is best fit.

Gays and lesbians want equal access and protections, that's all. You set up this system and we want the same thing ya'll get. Change the name, take away the cash and prizes...whatever. We'll still want the same exact thing you get.

No they want to pretend men are women and vice versa and build on those fantasies. They currently have the same protections anyone else does.

So, using your logic, if same-sex marriage were the ONLY legal form of marriage,

opposite sex couples would have no legal beef?

Really? You are really out there with that belief...

That's true but absurd.
That all you got?

 

[Silhouette]

Oh, it's high theater again starring St. Mike as the "gay basher stand in"! Just in time to ramp sympathy for the big hearing coming up!



Syriusly, you and St. Mike's gig is up. You've already been exposed. Did you think you could try to sneak off and pull this on someone else's thread?

Silo.....do any of us need to be here for your conversation with yourself?

As long as your pretend gay-bashers don't show up, I don't care who posts. But when they do, I'm going to call them out.

 

[Seawytch]

Marriage is not a States' right to decide. It really is that simple. The proof is, that any private Act may be commuted public, by simply recording it with the appropriate public sector.

There's nothing private about the fag militia agenda. They are all about pushing it in our faces.

Well, at least you've given up all pretense of this being about 'states rights'.

Not really. I think every state should decide for themselves and have said nothing to the contrary.

If the rest of the unconstitutional DOMA were struck down, that'd be fine by me. If a state does not wish to perform a same sex marriage, fine...but a same sex marriage license issued by another state must be recognized in all 50 states.