State Nullification on Gay Marriage!

[Kosh]

Once again proving that the whole gays can not be "Married" to be a myth and a falsehood.

I don't think 'proving' means what you think it means. As your arbitrary dismissal of generations of case law doesn't actually change any law, any legal definition, or any jurisdiction. You remain just as irrelevant to the process before typing the claim as you do after.

Yes so you have ZERO proof that two gay people being "Married" is "illegal" and that the calls for "rights" and "Civil rights" is nothing more than propaganda based on a fear that you will not get a certificate that has the word "Marriage" on it and gain access to your partners Social Security.

I knew that, I also knew all the keywords and phrase you would use.

Like I said get the government out of the Business of "Marriage" then you can decide who gets it..

This is unsurprisingly ignorant and ridiculous.

The states write the marriage (contract) law, which is administered by state courts – government and marriage are one in the same, government can't be 'gotten' out of marriage.

"Marriage" is not a "right".

 

[Skylar]

"Marriage" is not a "right".

The USSC disagrees.

 

[Kosh]

This is unsurprisingly ignorant and ridiculous.

The states write the marriage (contract) law, which is administered by state courts – government and marriage are one in the same, government can't be 'gotten' out of marriage.

At this point Kosh's claims are almost wholy disconnected from what is being posted in the thread. He's refuting 'quotes' that have never been made, arguments that have never been offered. Its Strawman'Poluzza.

I'm pretty sure we don't need to be here for Kosh to keep posting indefinitely.

So yes you can not back up your claims that "Marriage" will be in validated if the government gets out of that business.

You have yet to prove that any gays have been arrested for be "illegally" "Married" in any state.

You have yet to prove that gays can NOT be "Married".

All examples being shown have more to do with race than being gay, they thing that being gay is a race.

And thus proving you do not understand the Constitution, or what "rights" are, much less "Civil Rights" and the new keyword "invalidate".

No proof and it is all based on far left talking points and propaganda..

 

[Kosh]

"Marriage" is not a "right".

The USSC disagrees.

"Marriage" is NOT a "right".

And you still have no proof that marriages will be "invalidated" if the government gets out of the business.

Another far left talking point taken away.

 

[Katzndogz]

Men and women have children together that need to be protected. Same sex couples are incapable of having children.

Children are not required nor needed to have a legally valid marriage in this nation. Your arguement has been throughly laughed out of almost every court in the nation.

Children aren't necessary to have a valid marriage but if mother and father cannot have a valid marriage those children have no choice but to be bastards. The parents have no choice and could not legitimize their children. It isn't very important today but it was when Loving was decided.

Is. English your first language?

 

[Skylar]

So yes you can not back up your claims that "Marriage" will be in validated if the government gets out of that business.

I haven't made the claim.

You have yet to prove that any gays have been arrested for be "illegally" "Married" in any state.

I haven't made that claim either.

You have yet to prove that gays can NOT be "Married".

Actually, I've said that in 30 states gays can be married. Only in those states with standing gay marriage bans are the marriages of gays and lesbians within the state not recognized by the State.

All examples being shown have more to do with race than being gay, they thing that being gay is a race.

I've never claimed that gay is a race.

And thus proving you do not understand the Constitution, or what "rights" are, much less "Civil Rights" and the new keyword "invalidate".

You say that marriage is not a right. The Supreme Court says it is. The SCOTUS is legally authoritative. You're not.

Its that simple.

 

[Kosh]

So yes you can not back up your claims that "Marriage" will be in validated if the government gets out of that business.

I haven't made the claim.

You have yet to prove that any gays have been arrested for be "illegally" "Married" in any state.

I haven't made that claim either.

You have yet to prove that gays can NOT be "Married".

Actually, I've said that in 30 states gays can be married. Only in those states with standing gay marriage bans are the marriages of gays and lesbians within the state not recognized by the State.

All examples being shown have more to do with race than being gay, they thing that being gay is a race.

I've never claimed that gay is a race.

And thus proving you do not understand the Constitution, or what "rights" are, much less "Civil Rights" and the new keyword "invalidate".

You say that marriage is not a right. The Supreme Court says it is. The SCOTUS is legally authoritative. You're not.

Its that simple.

Yes you did! You made those claims, but hey it is just like the far left to say them and then to deny saying them.

"Marriage" is not a "right".

 

[Skylar]

"Marriage" is NOT a "right"

The SCOTUS says otherwise. Legally, they're authoritative. Legally, you're not. Thus, marriage is a legally recognized and legally protected right. Regardless of your agreement.

And you still have no proof that marriages will be "invalidated" if the government gets out of the business.

Probably because I've never made the claim.

Are....are you actually reading anything you're responding to or are you on full autopilot?

 

[Skylar]

Yes you did! You made those claims, but hey it is just like the far left to say them and then to deny saying them.

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to quote me. You'll find its just you citing some imaginary 'far left winger' that only you can see and hear.

I've said that marriage is a right. And if you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry you need a good reason. And no such reason exists. Which, of course, you've ignored entirely in favor of whatever argument you're having with yourself. Alas, the courts aren't privy to the conversations you have with you.

Which might explain why they've ruled in favor of gay marriage about 2 dozen times.

"Marriage" is not a "right".

The SCOTUS says otherwise. And the courts aren't going to ignore the Supreme Court on what is a right....just because you do.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“More propaganda being handed over by the far left drones. They think that being gay is a race.”



Nonsense.

No one has said any such thing.

As a fact of law gay Americans manifest a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections:

“The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

 

[Skylar]

“More propaganda being handed over by the far left drones. They think that being gay is a race.”



Nonsense.

No one has said any such thing.

Dude, he's just monologuing. I have yet to see him take a swing at an argument that wasn't a strawman in about an hour and half. We don't actually need to be here, as he's not actually reading anything that's being said.

As a fact of law gay Americans manifest a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections:

“The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Yeah, but that's just the USSC. What possible relevance does the SCOTUS have in adjudicating cases?

 

[mdk]

Men and women have children together that need to be protected. Same sex couples are incapable of having children.

Children are not required nor needed to have a legally valid marriage in this nation. Your arguement has been throughly laughed out of almost every court in the nation.

Children aren't necessary to have a valid marriage but if mother and father cannot have a valid marriage those children have no choice but to be bastards. The parents have no choice and could not legitimize their children. It isn't very important today but it was when Loving was decided.

Is. English your first language?

English is one of three languages I speak, Spanish and Jive being the other two. Thanks for the snark though.

You wish to make having children a reason to deny gays access to marriage and I simply pointed out your silly argument. Having children is not a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license in the nation. If that was the case it would deny access to a whole host of heterosexuals seeking to get married. You want to have a set of standards for marriage that only applies to homosexuals but not heterosexuals.

 

[Kosh]

“More propaganda being handed over by the far left drones. They think that being gay is a race.”



Nonsense.

No one has said any such thing.

As a fact of law gay Americans manifest a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections:

“The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

And yet the far left still can not post anything close to support their claims on gay "Marriage".

"Marriage" is not a "right"

 

[Kosh]

Yes you did! You made those claims, but hey it is just like the far left to say them and then to deny saying them.

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to quote me. You'll find its just you citing some imaginary 'far left winger' that only you can see and hear.

I've said that marriage is a right. And if you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry you need a good reason. And no such reason exists. Which, of course, you've ignored entirely in favor of whatever argument you're having with yourself. Alas, the courts aren't privy to the conversations you have with you.

Which might explain why they've ruled in favor of gay marriage about 2 dozen times.

"Marriage" is not a "right".

The SCOTUS says otherwise. And the courts aren't going to ignore the Supreme Court on what is a right....just because you do.

Easy look at the posts that started this round you will see that, but if you wish to deny it, then fine, be like far left drone.

 

[Kosh]

“More propaganda being handed over by the far left drones. They think that being gay is a race.”



Nonsense.

No one has said any such thing.

Dude, he's just monologuing. I have yet to see him take a swing at an argument that wasn't a strawman in about an hour and half. We don't actually need to be here, as he's not actually reading anything that's being said.

As a fact of law gay Americans manifest a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections:

“The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Yeah, but that's just the USSC. What possible relevance does the SCOTUS have in adjudicating cases?

Yes the straw man that is being pushed by the far left that no can be "Married" unless the state say so..

And also if the government gets out of the business of "Marriage" those "Marriages" will be invalidated.

Any other far left myths you wish to push?

 

[Silhouette]

"Marriage" is not a "right"

Specifically, marriage is a state-defined prievelege that cannot be denied based on race but can be denied based on age and behaviors.

And if you say it's an inaliable right to consenting adults, all of them, then it's legal right now, for polygamists and siblings to be married in any of the states that gays claim they can "legally marry".

 

[Skylar]

And yet the far left still can not post anything close to support their claims on gay "Marriage".

The arguments that you've refuted no one has made. While you've fastidiously avoided any argument that has actually been forwarded in this thread.

As for equal protection violations when a State fails to recognize a gay marriage as being legally valid, that point has been made. And supported by about 2 dozen seperate federal court rulings, as well as direct citation of the 14th amendment. Equal protection guarantees do exist. And they do apply if a gay and lesbians are denied the right to marry under the law.

"Marriage" is not a "right"

Says you. The Supreme Court recognizes marriage is a right. And a fundamental one.

Easy look at the posts that started this round you will see that, but if you wish to deny it, then fine, be like far left drone.

I already have. None of the 'quotes' you've offered for me are actually there. Nor can you present any. You've imagined them all.

If your claims had actual merit, you wouldn't have needed the strawmen to pummel.

 

[Skylar]

Specifically, marriage is a state-defined prievelege that cannot be denied based on race but can be denied based on age and behaviors.

More accurately marriage is a right, as defined by the USSC. The Supreme Court is legally authoritative. You aren't. In any legal contest of terms, they win. As no court has ever cited you on the meaning of legal terms as you define nothing. While the USSC can create binding precedent with its rulings.

And if you say it's an inaliable right to consenting adults, all of them, then it's legal right now, for polygamists and siblings to be married in any of the states that gays claim they can "legally marry".

Who has used the word 'inaliable'. I'm not sure that's even a word. Marriage is a legally recognized and legally protected right. And if you're going to deny it to gays and lesbians, you'll need a good reason.

You don't have one. Which is why roughly 2 dozen federal court rulings have come down against gay marriage bans. And in favor of legal recognition of the marriages of gays and lesbians. With roughly 30 states where gay marriage is legal.

 

[Kosh]

"Marriage" is not a "right"

Specifically, marriage is a state-defined prievelege that cannot be denied based on race but can be denied based on age and behaviors.

And if you say it's an inaliable right to consenting adults, all of them, then it's legal right now, for polygamists and siblings to be married in any of the states that gays claim they can "legally marry".

Polygyny, the practice of one husband taking multiple wives, has been described as a form of human rights abuse.

So why is it Human rights abuse if they are all consenting adults?

Personally I do not care if gay "Marriage" is legalized, I hope that it does become legal so they way they can see the NON benefits of it. Also they can lobby their far left masters to make "Marriage" penalties disappear.

None the less I still want the government out of the business of "Marriage". However certain members of the far left thinks it will invalidate "Marriage". I doubt it would to those that are married, but I guess some need that state recognition for their own validation.

 

[Skylar]

Yes the straw man that is being pushed by the far left that no can be "Married" unless the state say so..

No one's made that argument. I've said that you can't be legally married without the State recognizing your union. And its legally recognized marriage that gays and lesbians are fighting for in court.

Religious marriage can be whatever you imagine it is. As it has no relevance to the legal definitions.

And also if the government gets out of the business of "Marriage" those "Marriages" will be invalidated.

No one has made that argument either.

Is there anything to your claims but strawmen?