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

[Silhouette]

If children have that natural right, then why does the State allow their parents to divorce, and leave the children without one or the other?

States do not have to allow divorce- there is no 'right' to divorce'.

The reality is that children have many rights- but they don't have a right to a mother and father.

The state grants divorce reluctantly, but only in cases where the fighting is detrimental to the kids. You have asked this question before and are engaging in argumentative roundabout when I answered you before. You knew the answer to your question before you asked it. But thanks for the opportunity to provide it again..

In both mother/father marriage (which the state happily grants on behalf of children's best interests) and divorce (which the state reluctantly and with a heavy heart grants on behalf of children's best interests) the focus in both cases is on the children and not the adults. Don't believe me? Go to a family court and see who gets the bulk of the discussion in front of the judge..

 

[bendog]

It's absurd to argue for a natl right to a male daddy and female mommy, because with the advent of science, that module does not exist in reality, but when has reality gotten in the way of a sil rant. LOL

But, I suppose it is so that children have a natl law right to enforce some level of support from parent(s) who can afford it.

 

[Syriusly]

Prop 8 setting the standards for mother/father for children in that state passed. It was the second of "mother/father" legislation to have passed in the most liberally-permissive state in the Union..

And the LGBT cult is afraid of putting it on the ballot there again...and many many other states. Want to know why? Because they know the statement they've been duping the public with "a majority of Americans now support gay marraige" is a patent lie. Completely manufactured out of thin air. The proof is in the pudding. Their fear of putting gay marriage on state ballots, a thing that would've been much easier than all this federal court of appeals BS, says it all. In fact, in Ohio, the cult pulled gay marraige off the ballot (in a state they were telling everyone was in their favor). They did so because they feared the numbers in reality wouldn't match the chant of the lie-mantra..

For cult values selling the public on their "popularity", they're sure avid about shutting out the voices of the majority at the polls..

There is no appeal to ignorance of the supreme law of the land of any State in our Union.

A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens

There is no violation of that in laws that specify marriage is between one man and one woman. Any man is entitled to marry any woman, and vice versa.

The courts have found otherwise. And of course the courts are correct. You like to ignore the courts because you disagree with the reasoning of the courts- and have no argument to counter the courts reasoning.

Take the decision in Prop 8
The plaintiff's argued:

• 1. It prevents each plaintiff from marrying the person ofhis or her choice;
• 2.The choice of a marriage partner is sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment from the state’s unwarranted usurpation of that choice;
• 1.Discriminates against gay men and lesbians by denying them a right to marry the person of their choice whereasheterosexual men and women may do so freely; and
• 2.Disadvantages a suspect class in preventing only gay men and lesbians, not heterosexuals, from marrying.

The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household. FF 19-20, 34-35. Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage. FF 33. Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside,same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law. FF 48.

Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.

Proponents argue that Proposition 8 does not target gays and lesbians because its language does not refer to them. In so arguing, proponents seek to mask their own initiative. FF 57.Those who choose to marry someone of the opposite sex ——heterosexuals —— do not have their choice of marital partner restricted by Proposition 8.

Those who would choose to marry someone of the same sex —— homosexuals —— have had their right to marry eliminated by an amendment to the state constitution.

Homosexual conduct and identity together define what it means to begay or lesbian. See FF 42-43. Indeed, homosexual conduct andattraction are constitutionally protected and integral parts of what makes someone gay or lesbian. Lawrence, 539 US at 579; FF 42-43; see also Christian Legal Society v Martinez, 561 US __, 130 SCt2971, No 08-1371 Slip Op at 23 (“Our decisions have declined todistinguish between status and conduct in [the context of sexualorientation].”) (June 28, 2010) (citing Lawrence, 539 US at 583(O’Connor, J, concurring)).Proposition 8 targets gays and lesbians in a mannerspecific to their sexual orientation and, because of theirrelationship to one another, Proposition 8 targets them

 

[Syriusly]

If children have that natural right, then why does the State allow their parents to divorce, and leave the children without one or the other?

States do not have to allow divorce- there is no 'right' to divorce'.

The reality is that children have many rights- but they don't have a right to a mother and father.

The state grants divorce reluctantly, but only in cases where the fighting is detrimental to the kids...

No- the state doesn't care whether parents are fighting or not. Most states have 'no fault divorce'

You just make this crap up don't you?

In California, all divorces are "No Fault" divorces, meaning the spouse asking for a divorce does not have to prove the other spouse did something wrong. Generally, the spouse who files for divorce does so because of something called "irreconcilable differences." This means the two spouses just couldn't get along.

It does not matter if one spouse had an affair in a no fault divorce. California law does not punish the party who has an affair with less property or more pay support because of an affair.

- See more at: California No Fault Divorce California Divorce Guide

 

[danielpalos]

State Constitutions secure natural rights, not bills of attainder, regardless of any legal machination.

Speakig of nature...children have a natural right to a mother and a father. States have a right to incentivize that natural right.

Nope; they have a natural right to "parents" and adults who are willing to take care of them, even if at the social cost and expense of the State.

That isnt true because of Gresham's Law and Rousseau's theory of the natural man.

dude, even Gresham and Rousseau cannot appeal to ignorance of the law; children have a natural right to "parents" and adults who are willing to take care of them, even if at the social cost and expense of the State.

There is no natural right of a State to deny or disparage privileges and immunities of Individuals without due process.

 

[danielpalos]

Prop 8 setting the standards for mother/father for children in that state passed. It was the second of "mother/father" legislation to have passed in the most liberally-permissive state in the Union..

And the LGBT cult is afraid of putting it on the ballot there again...and many many other states. Want to know why? Because they know the statement they've been duping the public with "a majority of Americans now support gay marraige" is a patent lie. Completely manufactured out of thin air. The proof is in the pudding. Their fear of putting gay marriage on state ballots, a thing that would've been much easier than all this federal court of appeals BS, says it all. In fact, in Ohio, the cult pulled gay marraige off the ballot (in a state they were telling everyone was in their favor). They did so because they feared the numbers in reality wouldn't match the chant of the lie-mantra..

For cult values selling the public on their "popularity", they're sure avid about shutting out the voices of the majority at the polls..

There is no appeal to ignorance of the supreme law of the land of any State in our Union.

A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens

There is no violation of that in laws that specify marriage is between one man and one woman. Any man is entitled to marry any woman, and vice versa.

How does that work for Persons and Citizens in the several States?

 

[Silhouette]

There is no violation of that in laws that specify marriage is between one man and one woman. Any man is entitled to marry any woman, and vice versa.

How does that work for Persons and Citizens in the several States?

The same as driving does for the blind. It excludes certain people from participating for the protection of others. Gays are excluded from marrying to protect children's interests and best formative environment to have a father and mother incentivized by the state to be present in their lives.

 

[The Rabbi]

Prop 8 setting the standards for mother/father for children in that state passed. It was the second of "mother/father" legislation to have passed in the most liberally-permissive state in the Union..

And the LGBT cult is afraid of putting it on the ballot there again...and many many other states. Want to know why? Because they know the statement they've been duping the public with "a majority of Americans now support gay marraige" is a patent lie. Completely manufactured out of thin air. The proof is in the pudding. Their fear of putting gay marriage on state ballots, a thing that would've been much easier than all this federal court of appeals BS, says it all. In fact, in Ohio, the cult pulled gay marraige off the ballot (in a state they were telling everyone was in their favor). They did so because they feared the numbers in reality wouldn't match the chant of the lie-mantra..

For cult values selling the public on their "popularity", they're sure avid about shutting out the voices of the majority at the polls..

There is no appeal to ignorance of the supreme law of the land of any State in our Union.

A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens

There is no violation of that in laws that specify marriage is between one man and one woman. Any man is entitled to marry any woman, and vice versa.

How does that work for Persons and Citizens in the several States?

Just fine, thank you.

 

[Syriusly]

There is no violation of that in laws that specify marriage is between one man and one woman. Any man is entitled to marry any woman, and vice versa.

How does that work for Persons and Citizens in the several States?

The same as driving does for the blind. .

Once again-and this cannot be repeated often enough to you:
Driving is not a right- it is a privelage.
Marriage is not a prevelage- it is a right.

 

[Seawytch]

There is no violation of that in laws that specify marriage is between one man and one woman. Any man is entitled to marry any woman, and vice versa.

How does that work for Persons and Citizens in the several States?

The same as driving does for the blind. .

Once again-and this cannot be repeated often enough to you:
Driving is not a right- it is a privelage.
Marriage is not a prevelage- it is a right.

And even if it were a right to drive a car, I'd say being blind would be a compelling state reason to deny a license.

 

[Skylar]

They do have the same rights. Marriage laws have never discriminated against them. Ever.

In the same way that marriage laws never discriminated against mixed race couples.

Argument 1
You guys are so predictable.

They argue in tiny little ignorant circles.

Kinda like how you discriminate in ignorant little circles. BTW...guess which argument is winning?

Argument 2! Right on cue.
No, the pro traditional marriage case is much stronger intellectually.

And you run from Argument 2, right on cue.

You make this so easy.

 

[Skylar]

States don't have rights. People do. States have powers. And since the 14th amendment, the States Powers can't trump the people's rights save under very specific conditions: it has to serve a valid state interest, it has to serve a legitimate legislative end, and it has to have a very good reason.

And gay marriage bans can do any of the three.

And thanks for once again demonstrating that hatred of homosexuals is the at the root of much of the opposition to gay marriage.

You mean the 14th amendment passed without allowing southern members of congress to vote on it? Yea that would be illegal therefore null and void. Same with 13th amendment.

So slavery is still legal? The Supreme Court says otherwise. As does sequence. The ex-Confederate States hadn't been readmitted to the union at the time of the vote for the 13th amendment was taken. Same for the 14th. Making even the possibility of their participation in the amendment process moot.

If you stupid fucks had wanted a say, you shouldn't have seceded from the union and waged war on the nation. Then your participation would have been requisite on any vote for the amendments.

Facts remain my friend...You need 3/4ths of the states to agree to a new amendment...that didn't happen therefore they aren't legal. Oh and Your pal Lincoln is the one that called up the military and attacked the CSA....

Um...they weren't states at the time. Are you trying to say that the amendments that occurred before a state entered the union are "invalid"?

Guess California CAN ban all guns.

The CSA had no longer existed so technically they were...they had no representation either so. I stand by the facts.California can do whatever the hell it wants....I don't live there...

The ex-confederate states hadn't been readmitted to the union. If they aren't part of the US, they don't get a vote.

 

[Skylar]

Prop 8 setting the standards for mother/father for children in that state passed. It was the second of "mother/father" legislation to have passed in the most liberally-permissive state in the Union..

Prop 8 never mentions mothers or fathers. You're hallucinating again.

Completely manufactured out of thin air.

Or, gleaned from a Gallup poll:

Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%
Nearly eight in 10 young adults favor gay marriage

Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55

As is your habit, you ignore anything that contradicts you. Any poll, any study, and ruling, any court order, any person, any judge, any source, anything at all that contradicts you.

Back in reality, your willful ignorance doesn't translate into Gallup 'lying'. You're simply in denial. Its common for people who believe something that the evidence overwhelmingly contradicts.

Their fear of putting gay marriage on state ballots, a thing that would've been much easier than all this federal court of appeals BS, says it all.

You do realize that the last 3 times gay marriage has been put up for a vote, it won, right?

 

[Seawytch]

Prop 8 setting the standards for mother/father for children in that state passed. It was the second of "mother/father" legislation to have passed in the most liberally-permissive state in the Union..

Prop 8 never mentions mothers or fathers. You're hallucinating again.

Completely manufactured out of thin air.

Or, gleaned from a Gallup poll:

Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%
Nearly eight in 10 young adults favor gay marriage

Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55

As is your habit, you ignore anything that contradicts you. Any poll, any study, and ruling, any court order, any person, any judge, any source, anything at all that contradicts you.

Back in reality, your willful ignorance doesn't translate into Gallup 'lying'. You're simply in denial. Its common for people who believe something that the evidence overwhelmingly contradicts.

Their fear of putting gay marriage on state ballots, a thing that would've been much easier than all this federal court of appeals BS, says it all.

You do realize that the last 3 times gay marriage has been put up for a vote, it won, right?

Kennedy DID mention children during the Prop 8 hearings. I doubt Sil liked what he had to say though...

 

[Skylar]

Prop 8 setting the standards for mother/father for children in that state passed. It was the second of "mother/father" legislation to have passed in the most liberally-permissive state in the Union..

Prop 8 never mentions mothers or fathers. You're hallucinating again.

Completely manufactured out of thin air.

Or, gleaned from a Gallup poll:

Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%
Nearly eight in 10 young adults favor gay marriage

Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55

As is your habit, you ignore anything that contradicts you. Any poll, any study, and ruling, any court order, any person, any judge, any source, anything at all that contradicts you.

Back in reality, your willful ignorance doesn't translate into Gallup 'lying'. You're simply in denial. Its common for people who believe something that the evidence overwhelmingly contradicts.

Their fear of putting gay marriage on state ballots, a thing that would've been much easier than all this federal court of appeals BS, says it all.

You do realize that the last 3 times gay marriage has been put up for a vote, it won, right?

Kennedy DID mention children during the Prop 8 hearings. I doubt Sil liked what he had to say though...

Oh, Silly knows exactly what Kennedy said in the Prop 8 hearings. But like anything else that doesn't ape his narrative, Silly ignores it and pretends it doesn't exist.

That's odd. Predictable, but odd. Things get surreal when Silly concludes that since he ignored a contradiction, that the courts must as well. Even when what he's ignoring IS the courts.

You can't teach that.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Alabama! Yeeeeeeeeehaaaaaawwwwwww! The TIDE has surely turned.

 

[Contumacious]

There is no violation of that in laws that specify marriage is between one man and one woman. Any man is entitled to marry any woman, and vice versa.

How does that work for Persons and Citizens in the several States?

The same as driving does for the blind. .

Once again-and this cannot be repeated often enough to you:
Driving is not a right- it is a privelage.
Marriage is not a prevelage- it is a right.

BOTH , driving and marriage are rights.


.

 

[Syriusly]

There is no violation of that in laws that specify marriage is between one man and one woman. Any man is entitled to marry any woman, and vice versa.

How does that work for Persons and Citizens in the several States?

The same as driving does for the blind. .

Once again-and this cannot be repeated often enough to you:
Driving is not a right- it is a privelage.
Marriage is not a prevelage- it is a right.

BOTH , driving and marriage are rights.


.

Driving is not a right in my state. Maybe in yours.

 

[Thoughts N Views]




Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1


The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

The Supreme Court has no choice but to rule in favor of Gay marriage. The government be it Federal, State or Local cannot discriminate in the United States. The Constitution is quite clear in this.

 

[candycorn]

Alabama.....Texas here we come.