State Nullification on Gay Marriage!

[Kosh]

And the far left reached in to show that the far left believes a non-opinion and non-ruling is a ruling!

You say that the USSC didn't reject the appeal of 5 different states and preserve the lower court rulings overturning gay marriage bans. Alas, history doesn't change just because you deny reality:

The Supreme Court on Monday turned away appeals from five states looking to prohibit gay marriage, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in those states and likely others -- but also leaving the issue unresolved nationally.

The justices rejected appeals from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. The court's order immediately ends delays on gay marriage in those states.

Supreme Court paves way for gay marriage in several states leaves issue unresolved nationally Fox News

Get used to the idea. It happened. Gay marriage is valid in 30 of 50 states. And you pretending otherwise doesn't change a thing.

And the revenge agenda is well in play from the far left. Yes a non-opinion and non-ruling that only the far left take as a ruling.

Thanks again for proving that FOX is more balanced than any far left blog site.

 

[bripat9643]

Many states passed referenda and constitutional amendments declaring marriage as between one man and one woman. In some cases those votes passed with over 80% approval.
It's time states, which are sovereign, nullified meddling by Federal courts against the will of the people and simply declared that any official granting a license to anything other than two non-consanguineous single adults of the opposite sex will lose their salaries and benefits in perpetuity.

We're a constitutional republic, remember?

Those powers not explicitly grandted to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people respectively.
Seems states have the power to say who can marry and who can't, not the federal government.

...nor prohibited by it...

Unconstitutional state laws are prohibited.

Where does the Constitution mention marriage?

 

[bripat9643]

Those powers not explicitly grandted to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people respectively.
Seems states have the power to say who can marry and who can't, not the federal government.

...nor prohibited by it...

Unconstitutional state laws are prohibited.

Nothing unconstitutional about them. The states have been setting their own laws for marriage for 200 years. It is the proper function of the state, not the federtal goverment. If the feds want to exert control, nullify it!

Really? Then how did miscegenation prohibitions get overturned?

That was a racial issue. This is not a racial issue.

Equal protection is not limited to race. I'm not surprised you don't know that.

Funny that you say states have been setting their own laws for marriage for 200 years, and claim it's a proper function of the state,

but then confronted with the unconstitutionality of laws against miscegenation, laws which the states were setting for 200 years,

suddenly your position is, well, that's different.

lol. Go argue with yourself.

"Equal protection" doesn't mean you get to claim things that are clearly not alike to be alike. "Gay marriage" is an oxymoron, and always will be.

 

[bripat9643]

And the far left reached in to show that the far left believes a non-opinion and non-ruling is a ruling!

You say that the USSC didn't reject the appeal of 5 different states and preserve the lower court rulings overturning gay marriage bans. Alas, history doesn't change just because you deny reality:

The Supreme Court on Monday turned away appeals from five states looking to prohibit gay marriage, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in those states and likely others -- but also leaving the issue unresolved nationally.

The justices rejected appeals from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. The court's order immediately ends delays on gay marriage in those states.

Supreme Court paves way for gay marriage in several states leaves issue unresolved nationally Fox News

Get used to the idea. It happened. Gay marriage is valid in 30 of 50 states. And you pretending otherwise doesn't change a thing.

We are fully aware of the fact that unelected federal judges are ramming this down our throats

 

[bripat9643]

Many states passed referenda and constitutional amendments declaring marriage as between one man and one woman. In some cases those votes passed with over 80% approval.
It's time states, which are sovereign, nullified meddling by Federal courts against the will of the people and simply declared that any official granting a license to anything other than two non-consanguineous single adults of the opposite sex will lose their salaries and benefits in perpetuity.

The states have no authority to deny citizens their civil rights.

No one is being denied anything, bozo. States have the power to set rules for marriage. The government cannot deny the will of the citizens.

AGAIN, why were anti-miscegenation laws overturned? Judicial overreach?

The Constitution clearly bars discrimination on the basis of race. It mentions nothing about sex or marriage.

 

[bripat9643]

Many states passed referenda and constitutional amendments declaring marriage as between one man and one woman. In some cases those votes passed with over 80% approval.
It's time states, which are sovereign, nullified meddling by Federal courts against the will of the people and simply declared that any official granting a license to anything other than two non-consanguineous single adults of the opposite sex will lose their salaries and benefits in perpetuity.

The states have no authority to deny citizens their civil rights.

No one is being denied anything, bozo. States have the power to set rules for marriage. The government cannot deny the will of the citizens.

Yeah Clayton it's like when Governor Wallace stood in the school doorway to block black students from going into the school. That was his right!

It's nothing like that.

 

[Skylar]

And the far left reached in to show that the far left believes a non-opinion and non-ruling is a ruling!

You say that the USSC didn't reject the appeal of 5 different states and preserve the lower court rulings overturning gay marriage bans. Alas, history doesn't change just because you deny reality:

The Supreme Court on Monday turned away appeals from five states looking to prohibit gay marriage, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in those states and likely others -- but also leaving the issue unresolved nationally.

The justices rejected appeals from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. The court's order immediately ends delays on gay marriage in those states.

Supreme Court paves way for gay marriage in several states leaves issue unresolved nationally Fox News

Get used to the idea. It happened. Gay marriage is valid in 30 of 50 states. And you pretending otherwise doesn't change a thing.

We are fully aware of the fact that unelected federal judges are ramming this down our throats

Um, no federal judges are elected. They never have been. They are appointed by design. Exactly as the founders intended.

And national support for gay marriage leads opposition by about 12 points. Rulings by the courts to protect rights, rights the people solidly support is hardly 'ramming it down our throats'. ANd that's assuming the people can arbitrarily vote away rights.

Which, of course, they can't. They need a very good reason. And there is no good reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.

 

[Skylar]

"Equal protection" doesn't mean you get to claim things that are clearly not alike to be alike. "Gay marriage" is an oxymoron, and always will be.

Virtually every court to hear that argument has rejected it. At last count, that was over 2 dozen rejections of your argument.

There's no substantive difference between gay and straight marriages. And no good reason to treat their marriages differently under the law than straight marriages. Nor is there any state interest in denying gays and lesbians the right to marry.

Without a good reason, without a substative state interest, you can't abrogate rights. Which might explain the near perfect record of failure of gay marriage opponents.

 

[bripat9643]

"Equal protection" doesn't mean you get to claim things that are clearly not alike to be alike. "Gay marriage" is an oxymoron, and always will be.

Virtually every court to hear that argument has rejected it. At last count, that was over 2 dozen rejections of your argument.

There's no substantive difference between gay and straight marriages. And no good reason to treat their marriages differently under the law than straight marriages. Nor is there any state interest in denying gays and lesbians the right to marry.

Without a good reason, without a substative state interest, you can't abrogate rights. Which might explain the near perfect record of failure of gay marriage opponents.

Only a moron would claim there is "no substantive difference" between marriage and the oxymoron called "gay marriage." Only a moron believes the ability to procreate isn't "substantive." The rest of your post is equally idiotic.

 

[Skylar]

Only a moron would claim there is "no substantive difference" between marriage and the oxymoron called "gay marriage." Only a moron believes the ability to procreate isn't "substantive." The rest of your post is equally idiotic.

So that's it? Random insults to any one who doesn't think exactly like you do?

So with the USSC rejecting all 5 appeals by states that have had their gay marriage bans overturned, with gay marriage legal in 30 of 50 states, with the USSC preserving every lower court ruling overturning gay marriage, with the USSC overturning provisions in DOMA that prohibit recognition of gay marriage.....

.....um, how's that working out for you?

 

[bripat9643]

And the far left reached in to show that the far left believes a non-opinion and non-ruling is a ruling!

You say that the USSC didn't reject the appeal of 5 different states and preserve the lower court rulings overturning gay marriage bans. Alas, history doesn't change just because you deny reality:

The Supreme Court on Monday turned away appeals from five states looking to prohibit gay marriage, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in those states and likely others -- but also leaving the issue unresolved nationally.

The justices rejected appeals from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. The court's order immediately ends delays on gay marriage in those states.

Supreme Court paves way for gay marriage in several states leaves issue unresolved nationally Fox News

Get used to the idea. It happened. Gay marriage is valid in 30 of 50 states. And you pretending otherwise doesn't change a thing.

We are fully aware of the fact that unelected federal judges are ramming this down our throats

Um, no federal judges are elected. They never have been. They are appointed by design. Exactly as the founders intended.

Are they elected or are they appointed? You can't seem to make up your mind. The rest of your blather about "gay marriage" is equally incoherent.

And national support for gay marriage leads opposition by about 12 points. Rulings by the courts to protect rights, rights the people solidly support is hardly 'ramming it down our throats'. ANd that's assuming the people can arbitrarily vote away rights.

Gay marriage lost in the only poll that counts. It's called an "election." Federal judges are overturning election results. Obama's popularity is down to 40%. Does that mean we can ignore what all the judges he has appointed rule? According to your logic we can.

Which, of course, they can't. They need a very good reason. And there is no good reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.

Check the Constitution. You won't find marriage listed as a right.

 

[bripat9643]

Only a moron would claim there is "no substantive difference" between marriage and the oxymoron called "gay marriage." Only a moron believes the ability to procreate isn't "substantive." The rest of your post is equally idiotic.

So that's it? Random insults to any one who doesn't think exactly like you do?

So with the USSC rejecting all 5 appeals by states that have had their gay marriage bans overturned, with gay marriage legal in 30 of 50 states, with the USSC preserving every lower court ruling overturning gay marriage, with the USSC overturning provisions in DOMA that prohibit recognition of gay marriage.....

.....um, how's that working out for you?

My insults aren't "random." They are well tailored to apply to the people they are directed at.

I don't give a flying fuck what federal judges have ruled. They are all nothing more than a gang of hacks selected specifically to reach a predetermined conclusion and not to administer justice.

 

[Skylar]

Are they elected or are they appointed? You can't seem to make up your mind. The rest of your blather about "gay marriage" is equally incoherent.

Did you even read what you're responding to? Try again, this time reading for comprehension:

Um, no federal judges are elected. They never have been. They are appointed by design. Exactly as the founders intended.

So tell me, slick....am I saying that judges are appointed or elected? If you still can't tell, I'll walk you through each super tough sentence. I mean the first one alone has 6 whole words. And a comma!

Gay marriage lost in the only poll that counts.

As gay marriage is now legal in 30 of 50 states....apparently not.

It's called an "election." Federal judges are overturning election results. Obama's popularity is down to 40%. Does that mean we can ignore what all the judges he has appointed rule? According to your logic we can.

Gay marriage support outpaces opposition by about 12 points. If you honestly think a majority of the American people are with you on gay marriage bans, you may want to think again.

And laws aren't 'elected'. They never have been. Nor can any the people vote away the rights of minorities without a very, very good reason. And for gay marriage, there is none. You're literally arguing for the tyranny of the majority.....where the majority can do anything it wants to the minority, strip away any right, freedom, privilege or protection.....if they have the votes.

That's now how our system works. We're a republic. Where the tyranny of the majority is restrained by recognition of individual rights. And any law that abrogates these rights is constitutionally invalid. The courts are using the exact same process, the exact same authority they used when overturning interracial marriage laws in the 60s. As rights trump powers without a very, very good reason.

And as the failure of gay marriage bans in court after court demonstrates, there is no good reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Equal protection" doesn't mean you get to claim things that are clearly not alike to be alike. "Gay marriage" is an oxymoron, and always will be.

Virtually every court to hear that argument has rejected it. At last count, that was over 2 dozen rejections of your argument.

There's no substantive difference between gay and straight marriages. And no good reason to treat their marriages differently under the law than straight marriages. Nor is there any state interest in denying gays and lesbians the right to marry.

Without a good reason, without a substative state interest, you can't abrogate rights. Which might explain the near perfect record of failure of gay marriage opponents.

Only a moron would claim there is "no substantive difference" between marriage and the oxymoron called "gay marriage." Only a moron believes the ability to procreate isn't "substantive." The rest of your post is equally idiotic.

A man and woman can reproduce without getting married. A man and a woman can get married without being able to reproduce.

Reproduction has nothing to do with opposite sex marriage, which eliminates it as any sort of argument whatsoever against same sex marriage.

 

[Skylar]

I don't give a flying fuck what federal judges have ruled.

Given that their rulings are defining the legality of gay marriage, if you have any interest in the topic you probably should.

They are all nothing more than a gang of hacks selected specifically to reach a predetermined conclusion and not to administer justice.

Says you. And you're the one arguing for the tyranny of the majority over the rights of minorities, where their rights can just be arbitrarily voted away by a simple majority. That's not how our system of government works or was meant to work.

The role of the judiciary is review the consitutionality of laws. And overrule those that don't meet constitutional muster. Check out Federalist Paper 78 if you doubt it. This was what the federal judiciary was designed to do. And with the 14th amendment, the bill of rights was eventually applied to the States (well, most of the Bill of RIghts). The States lack the authority to deny equal protection under the law.

Any law that denies equal protection is invalid and unconstitutional. And should be.

 

[NYcarbineer]

State nullification unless it challenged the Constitution is illegal. Your thread should have been dead from the first post. Stop keeping this trash alive please. The Constitution is Freedom of Religion. Only RELIGION challenges gay marriage. Politics doesn't get any more basic than this so if you don't understand this, you won't understand ANYTHING in politics EVER.

It is like I said it is all over a word. One side wants to punish the other by using said word. The other side say s the word belongs to them and believes that the government will force them to do something against their beliefs.

So get the government out of the business of "Marriage".

Governments are never going to get out of the business of marriage, therefore governments are going to have to comply with the Constitution in the business of marriage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And the far left reached in to show that the far left believes a non-opinion and non-ruling is a ruling!

You say that the USSC didn't reject the appeal of 5 different states and preserve the lower court rulings overturning gay marriage bans. Alas, history doesn't change just because you deny reality:

The Supreme Court on Monday turned away appeals from five states looking to prohibit gay marriage, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in those states and likely others -- but also leaving the issue unresolved nationally.

The justices rejected appeals from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. The court's order immediately ends delays on gay marriage in those states.

Supreme Court paves way for gay marriage in several states leaves issue unresolved nationally Fox News

Get used to the idea. It happened. Gay marriage is valid in 30 of 50 states. And you pretending otherwise doesn't change a thing.

We are fully aware of the fact that unelected federal judges are ramming this down our throats

Um, no federal judges are elected. They never have been. They are appointed by design. Exactly as the founders intended.

Are they elected or are they appointed? You can't seem to make up your mind. The rest of your blather about "gay marriage" is equally incoherent.

And national support for gay marriage leads opposition by about 12 points. Rulings by the courts to protect rights, rights the people solidly support is hardly 'ramming it down our throats'. ANd that's assuming the people can arbitrarily vote away rights.

Gay marriage lost in the only poll that counts. It's called an "election." Federal judges are overturning election results. Obama's popularity is down to 40%. Does that mean we can ignore what all the judges he has appointed rule? According to your logic we can.

Which, of course, they can't. They need a very good reason. And there is no good reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.

Check the Constitution. You won't find marriage listed as a right.

Obama came out in support of same sex marriage BEFORE he was re-elected. Is that election you're talking about?

 

[Skylar]

Only a moron would claim there is "no substantive difference" between marriage and the oxymoron called "gay marriage." Only a moron believes the ability to procreate isn't "substantive." The rest of your post is equally idiotic.

Then show us one state that requires children for a marriage to be valid. Show us one state that requires the ability to have children for a marriage to be valid.

I'll end the suspense for you: there isn't one. The 'procreation' standard is one that NO marriage is held to. Why the would we make up a standard that is applied to no one. Then apply it to gays exclusively for the sole purpose of excluding them from marriage?

It makes no sense. Or to use your idiom so its easier for you comprehend, what moron would think that's a good idea?

 

[Kosh]

State nullification unless it challenged the Constitution is illegal. Your thread should have been dead from the first post. Stop keeping this trash alive please. The Constitution is Freedom of Religion. Only RELIGION challenges gay marriage. Politics doesn't get any more basic than this so if you don't understand this, you won't understand ANYTHING in politics EVER.

It is like I said it is all over a word. One side wants to punish the other by using said word. The other side say s the word belongs to them and believes that the government will force them to do something against their beliefs.

So get the government out of the business of "Marriage".

Governments are never going to get out of the business of marriage, therefore governments are going to have to comply with the Constitution in the business of marriage.

Yes that is just what the far left wants, more government control over your life. Good little far left drone.

Time to get the government out of the business of "Marriage".

 

[Skylar]

[
Yes that is just what the far left wants, more government control over your life. Good little far left drone.

And how is equal protection under the law the government controlling your life?

I don't get it.