State Nullification on Gay Marriage!

[The Rabbi]

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.

So a state ban of privately owned firearms can't be overturned by the Supreme Court?

lol

Huh?
That wasnt even a good deflection.

The city of Chicago banned handguns. The Supreme Court overturned that law.

Why can't the city of Chicago simply nullify the Court ruling, if nullification is a right?

They have and do. Under federal law all LEOs can carry weapons anywhere in the US. But in Chicago that will get you arrested and prosecuted.
Next.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

So a state ban of privately owned firearms can't be overturned by the Supreme Court?

lol

Huh?
That wasnt even a good deflection.

Why don't you answer the question?

Guess. lol

Becayse the answer is way too obvious and has been answered over and over? Just a guess.

 

[Kosh]

Here is a link that may help the far left understand the Constitution:

The Constitution for Kids Kindergarten - 3rd Grade - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

A Short History
Marriage has a long history in the religious world. It has become so ingrained in the social fabric of the people of the nation, and indeed of the world, that the benefits of marriage to society at large became apparent. Because this religious rite had so many secular benefits, it became recognized by the secular world, and became subject to governmental definition and regulation.

In the religious world, marriage is almost exclusively the committed union between a single man and a single woman. Generally, the union is blessed or consecrated by a representative of the religion. An example is the presiding priest in a wedding ceremony. Marriage is found in all societies and religions, including the major religions of the West like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as those of the East like Buddhism and Hinduism.

In modern Christianity, marriage, and the love and sex that accompanies it, is seen as a blessing from God. Children are a prime goal of marriage, and continued marriage is of importance to the continuation of the faith as children are raised by devout parents.

Islam sees marriage as so important that it does not recognize the need for clerics to be celibate as in some Christian sects, such as Catholicism. The purpose of marriage in Islam is to provide company, to encourage love, to procreate, and to live in peace under the commands of Allah.

As one final example, Hindu marriage is also found in sacred texts. It is one of the sixteen essential rituals of a person's life. Married people have responsibilities to their parents, children, to guests, the community, and to the dead. Marriage is seen as a sacred duty.

Constitutional Topic Marriage - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I say get the government out of the business of "marriage".

 

[bodecea]

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?

Yet another far left drone that has no clue about the Constitution other than far left programmed talking points.

If you want to claim that we are not a constitutional republic I'd be happy to debate you on that.

One on one if you'd like.

lol

And with every post this far left drone continues to prove they do not understand the Constitution.

I notice you don't seem to want to take up NYcarbineer on his debate offer.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

So a state ban of privately owned firearms can't be overturned by the Supreme Court?

lol

Huh?
That wasnt even a good deflection.

Why don't you answer the question?

Guess. lol

Becayse the answer is way too obvious and has been answered over and over? Just a guess.

No because you don't have an answer. Why can a state nullify a marriage right protection but not a gun right protection?

 

[konradv]

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?

Yet another far left drone that has no clue about the Constitution other than far left programmed talking points.

Far left..., blah, blah, blah...., far left. *YAWN*

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Yet another far left drone that has no clue about the Constitution other than far left programmed talking points.

If you want to claim that we are not a constitutional republic I'd be happy to debate you on that.

One on one if you'd like.

lol

And with every post this far left drone continues to prove they do not understand the Constitution.

I notice you don't seem to want to take up NYcarbineer on his debate offer.

He can't get it through his head I already have a girlfriend.

 

[bodecea]

Here is a link that may help the far left understand the Constitution:

The Constitution for Kids Kindergarten - 3rd Grade - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

A Short History
Marriage has a long history in the religious world. It has become so ingrained in the social fabric of the people of the nation, and indeed of the world, that the benefits of marriage to society at large became apparent. Because this religious rite had so many secular benefits, it became recognized by the secular world, and became subject to governmental definition and regulation.

In the religious world, marriage is almost exclusively the committed union between a single man and a single woman. Generally, the union is blessed or consecrated by a representative of the religion. An example is the presiding priest in a wedding ceremony. Marriage is found in all societies and religions, including the major religions of the West like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as those of the East like Buddhism and Hinduism.

In modern Christianity, marriage, and the love and sex that accompanies it, is seen as a blessing from God. Children are a prime goal of marriage, and continued marriage is of importance to the continuation of the faith as children are raised by devout parents.

Islam sees marriage as so important that it does not recognize the need for clerics to be celibate as in some Christian sects, such as Catholicism. The purpose of marriage in Islam is to provide company, to encourage love, to procreate, and to live in peace under the commands of Allah.

As one final example, Hindu marriage is also found in sacred texts. It is one of the sixteen essential rituals of a person's life. Married people have responsibilities to their parents, children, to guests, the community, and to the dead. Marriage is seen as a sacred duty.

Constitutional Topic Marriage - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I say get the government out of the business of "marriage".

There's where your problem is....you studied the U.S. Constitution based on 3rd grade texts.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

Because races are equal, SSM and OSM are not.

Only in your opinion and it's not your authority to decide. The Supreme Court has the authority to decide whether equal protection applies.

No the ultimate authority are the citizens of the states. All power derives from the consent of the governed.

 

[The Rabbi]

Here is a link that may help the far left understand the Constitution:

The Constitution for Kids Kindergarten - 3rd Grade - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

A Short History
Marriage has a long history in the religious world. It has become so ingrained in the social fabric of the people of the nation, and indeed of the world, that the benefits of marriage to society at large became apparent. Because this religious rite had so many secular benefits, it became recognized by the secular world, and became subject to governmental definition and regulation.

In the religious world, marriage is almost exclusively the committed union between a single man and a single woman. Generally, the union is blessed or consecrated by a representative of the religion. An example is the presiding priest in a wedding ceremony. Marriage is found in all societies and religions, including the major religions of the West like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as those of the East like Buddhism and Hinduism.

In modern Christianity, marriage, and the love and sex that accompanies it, is seen as a blessing from God. Children are a prime goal of marriage, and continued marriage is of importance to the continuation of the faith as children are raised by devout parents.

Islam sees marriage as so important that it does not recognize the need for clerics to be celibate as in some Christian sects, such as Catholicism. The purpose of marriage in Islam is to provide company, to encourage love, to procreate, and to live in peace under the commands of Allah.

As one final example, Hindu marriage is also found in sacred texts. It is one of the sixteen essential rituals of a person's life. Married people have responsibilities to their parents, children, to guests, the community, and to the dead. Marriage is seen as a sacred duty.

Constitutional Topic Marriage - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I say get the government out of the business of "marriage".

There's where your problem is....you studied the U.S. Constitution based on 3rd grade texts.

Which is more than you ever did
Next.

 

[konradv]

Things have to be equal first.

This is about people being equal, not things.

 

[The Rabbi]

So a state ban of privately owned firearms can't be overturned by the Supreme Court?

lol

Huh?
That wasnt even a good deflection.

Why don't you answer the question?

Guess. lol

Becayse the answer is way too obvious and has been answered over and over? Just a guess.

No because you don't have an answer. Why can a state nullify a marriage right protection but not a gun right protection?

They can and do. I already gave an example.

 

[The Rabbi]

Things have to be equal first.

This is about people being equal, not things.

You dont understand what that means.

 

[Silhouette]

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 county clerk in San Diego County, CA was talking about just such a thing when he questioned how a federal entity could nullify a majority statute voted in as referendum without actually finding that statute unconstitutional at the highest level. He was suing, hoping to get the Supreme Court to clarify what it meant in Windsor when it said [like almost 100 times in many differenT ways] that states have the "unquestioned authority" on marriage. That Clerk was worried about having to choose between his Oath to uphold laws enacted by the people of his state vs the threats from CA AG' Kamila Harris' and Gov Jerry Brown's office that he would be fired if he didn't defy his Oath.

Anyone who doesn't think this is orchestrated sedition had better rip off their rose colored glasses before they are required to do other things that the majority finds repugnant. Both sides of the aisle are up to it. The GOP's version of sedition using SCOTUS most glaringly [besides it's telling silence on the gay steamroller] is of course granting US citizenship to non-naturalized citizens who still hold and swear allegiance to foreign countries...even those that support Al Qaida. aka "Citizen's United". Your core values and your democracy itself dear citizens, are up for sale to the highest bidder from the FREAKS and TRAITORS at either end of the spectrum.

The Court in Windsor 2013 United States v. Windsor brought up Loving v Virginia but declined to apply it evidently because they ended the Windsor Decision saying that "gay marriage is only allowed in 11 states"...and they didn't include the State of California, being the 12th one gay lawyers were claiming "had legal gay marriage".

County Clerk Ernie Dronenburg's pleas were shut down. His appeals denied without comment. And this is the conservative bastion of the People protecting state's rights to sovereign rule!?

The interim-default AT ROCK BOTTOM LEAST should favor democracy over a newcoming weird social behavior challenge that the majority finds repugnant. SCOTUS even called gay marriage in Windsor "a new, weird concept defying thousands of years of tradition and repugnant to the majority" [paraphrased from page 13]:

"For marriage between a man and a woman no doubt had been thought of by most people as essential to the very definition of that term and to its role and function throughout the history of civilization. That belief, for many who long have held it, became even more urgent, more cherished when challenged. For others, however, came the beginnings of anew perspective..

So the Court itself admits it is repugnant to the majority and the new idea is just that. New and not supported by the majority. Equal rights of race are not new however. They have been grappled over by various cultures for millenia. So the Court defaults to the "new untested idea" of completely rearranging the core institution of society in favor of a vocal and impatient deviant sex-behavior minority? Untested gay marriage has more rights than states' self-rule while appeals are pending!!???? And subjecting children to this fool's-errand legally as guinea pigs?

Clearly as you say overwhelming majorities time and again have voted it down. And there's good reason for voting down "anything goes marriage". Countries in Europe now are facing a tidal wave of new marriage lawsuits...incest couples who want to marry...and polygamists...and due to their laws on equality and precedent...very similar or the same as ours in many cases....their courts, in disgust but with their hands tied are having to grant legal rights to marry to these "coattail-rider" repugnant "marriages"...and the children of course that will be caught up in these psychological and physical nightmares.

Yes, states should do THIS to Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Roberts right now. Because they had the power of just their four votes to take up this case and give the tens of millions who have already voiced their opinions at the ballot box on these BEHAVIORS marrying. When your conservative party abandons a state's right to self-rule on repugnant human behaviors, that's when voter apathy kicks in. Why even bother waking up, warming up the car, driving in foul weather or traffic or what have you...to cast your vote...only to have it not matter one iota because the party you thought would protect children... the most essential conservative resource this country's future, has FAILED...why bother?

I wonder if it has occured to anyone that the GOP's passive involvement in its own murder will result in its near-future extinction? After all, as they assist normalizing the most far left values in human history into the center, where does that move the bar on conservative values and their pet projects like oil, greed, etc? Off the cliff...

It's hard to rally a base around values their gay left parents and likewise supporter/sympathizer parents taught them "are only things those old crazy conservatives used to embrace back in the 20th Century"...

 

[bendog]

Huh?
That wasnt even a good deflection.

Why don't you answer the question?

Guess. lol

Becayse the answer is way too obvious and has been answered over and over? Just a guess.

No because you don't have an answer. Why can a state nullify a marriage right protection but not a gun right protection?

They can and do. I already gave an example.

But your op was not about nullification. It posited that a state should fire and deny benefits to any state official who issued a marriage certificate or did something else to further gay marriage that was banned under state law. That's not nullification.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Better yet Rabbi

Why not take a page from your boy Perry's book and call for SECESSION!

 

[Kosh]

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?

Yet another far left drone that has no clue about the Constitution other than far left programmed talking points.

If you want to claim that we are not a constitutional republic I'd be happy to debate you on that.

One on one if you'd like.

lol

And with every post this far left drone continues to prove they do not understand the Constitution.

I notice you don't seem to want to take up NYcarbineer on his debate offer.

What debate? that they do not understand the Constitution? Every post proves that, including your own.

The Cherokee tribe does not recognize same sex marriage, should the US courts force them to?

 

[The Rabbi]

Why don't you answer the question?

Guess. lol

Becayse the answer is way too obvious and has been answered over and over? Just a guess.

No because you don't have an answer. Why can a state nullify a marriage right protection but not a gun right protection?

They can and do. I already gave an example.

But your op was not about nullification. It posited that a state should fire and deny benefits to any state official who issued a marriage certificate or did something else to further gay marriage that was banned under state law. That's not nullification.

That is nullification.
Next

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Better yet Rabbi

Why not take a page from your boy Perry's book and call for SECESSION!

Go right ahead, Nutsucker.

 

[BlindBoo]

There is no federal law that the states can nullify is there? The courts have decided that some of the states laws are unconstitutional. Their last hope is that someday the SC will take the issue up again and rule in their favor.

Yes States Can Nullify Some Federal Laws Not All Cato Institute