State Nullification on Gay Marriage!

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

The Constitution doesn't protect perverse and lewd acts

 

[g5000]

And the clueless far left continue to show they do not understand the Constitution and what to apply their religion to all except themselves.

I'm gonna go with the Supreme Court on the constitution over you quoting yourself. And the USSC has found that marriage is a right.

You disagree. So what?

Just goes to show that you do not understand what you are talking about other than outdated far left talking points and blog sites.

"Marriage" is not a "right", But then again the far left has demonstrated they do not understand what a "right" is.

The US Supreme Court disagrees with you. And I think we all know who is more of an authority on what a right is. Hint: It is not you.

 

[g5000]

The Constitution doesn't protect perverse and lewd acts

It most certainly does.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

At least the OP is consistent at being wrong:


Cooper v. Aaron (1958)


Issue

• Are state government officials bound to comply with Supreme Court rulings and court orders based upon the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution?
  

Holding and Rule (Warren, per curiam)

• Yes. State government officials are bound to comply with Supreme Court rulings and court orders based upon the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution.
  

The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land per the Supremacy Clause of Article VI. In Marbury v. Madison, the federal judiciary was declared the supreme authority with respect to Constitutional interpretation. Marbury v. Madison has been respected by this Court and the nation as a permanent and indispensable component of the American constitutional system of government.

The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment in Brown v. Board of Education case is therefore binding on the states and state officials. By refusing to conform to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution and precedent, state government officials violate their oath to support the Constitution. To rule otherwise would make the Constitution a solemn mockery.

Cooper v. Aaron 8211 Case Brief Summary

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is about people being equal, not things.

People are equal, what isn't equal is the marriages some are seeking.

That's not yours to decide. That is why we have a Court to interpret the Constitution.

You don't let the fans decide whether the player was in or out of bounds. That decision belongs to the referees.

The referees can't decide that the forward pass is illegal all of a sudden, on their own. The rulebook as to be changed for that.

and most pro sports are more like dictatorships than a democracy. Poor choice of comparison there, although most progressives do seem to like the hard handed fist of a dictator.

Marty brings up an interesting point, imo. Did the Sup Ct change the rule book, aka constitution and 14th amend, in finding DOMA illegal as to federal employees, and did the Circuits do the same in finding bans on same sex marriage unenforceable? Basically, the courts have found there is no rational argument for treating non-heteros differently in marriage from heteros.

If there was never any rational reason, then did the law change or was enforcement simply changed? I realize Marty and Rabbi would argue "it's for the children," but that argument was thoroughly discredited because there was no showing gays had no more negative impacts on child rearing than heteros.

I can give a rats ass about the children. My concern is solely that the courts have gone from interpreting law to creating law. They are changing the rule book, not interpreting the rules. We have an amendment process to change the rulebook if needed.

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?

The Constitution doesn't protect perverse and lewd acts

Then why haven't you been imprisoned or deported?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Constitution doesn't protect perverse and lewd acts

It most certainly does.

No it does not. why do you think crimes against nature also targeted gay sex?

 

[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?

The Constitution doesn't protect perverse and lewd acts

Says who?

 

[ogibillm]

Not according to Gallup:

OK, your gallup poll vs the 82% who showed up silently to vote on the link in my last post and then drifted back into the shadows.. And gallup vs the crowds who silently clogged Chic Fil-a that fateful day, without so much as a peep except the sound or unwrapped lunches... And gallup vs the over million people who showed up at the "Boycott A&E Facebook" page within 24 hours of its being put up to silently support Phil Robertson's stance against gay marriage..

OK politicians. Will it be the USMB poll and all the rest? Or will you stake your future on gallup's poll instead? Your choice.

you really don't understand the difference between a scientific poll and some protesters at a restaurant? you don't understand the difference between asking if religions institutions should be made to do something against their beliefs and if that something should be illegal?

here's a clue for you - i would vote that churches shouldn't be made to host homosexual weddings, but i would also vote to allow same-sex marriages.

 

[g5000]

The Constitution doesn't protect perverse and lewd acts

It most certainly does.

No it does not. why do you think crimes against nature also targeted gay sex?

Those laws banning gay sex were found unconstitutional. Q.E.D.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[

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?

The Constitution doesn't protect perverse and lewd acts

Then why haven't you been imprisoned or deported?

For what dumb fuck?

 

[bodecea]

The Constitution doesn't protect perverse and lewd acts

It most certainly does.

No it does not. why do you think crimes against nature also targeted gay sex?

Where is "crimes against nature" in the Constitution?

 

[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?

The Constitution doesn't protect perverse and lewd acts

Then why haven't you been imprisoned or deported?

For what dumb fuck?

For what dumb fuck what?

 

[Kosh]

And the clueless far left continue to show they do not understand the Constitution and what to apply their religion to all except themselves.

I'm gonna go with the Supreme Court on the constitution over you quoting yourself. And the USSC has found that marriage is a right.

You disagree. So what?

Just goes to show that you do not understand what you are talking about other than outdated far left talking points and blog sites.

"Marriage" is not a "right", But then again the far left has demonstrated they do not understand what a "right" is.

The US Supreme Court disagrees with you. And I think we all know who is more of an authority on what a right is. Hint: It is not you.

Another far left poster that does not have a clue.

Hint: You are far left!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Constitution doesn't protect perverse and lewd acts

It most certainly does.

No it does not. why do you think crimes against nature also targeted gay sex?

Those laws banning gay sex were found unconstitutional. Q.E.D.

Only because of the gay agenda pushing against them, it still doesn't change the fact they were crimes They are perverse and lewd acts

 

[Skylar]

Gallop is owned by a far left media sources, not as trustworthy as it may have been.

So Gallup is wrong and you're right....because you say so, huh.

What makes you citing yourself a more reliable source than Gallup?

For a better view try this:
Civil Rights

K.

CBS News/New York Times Poll.
"Do you think it should be legal or not legal for same-sex couples to marry?"
Legal: 56%
Illegal: 37%

Civil Rights

So that affirms Gallup and contradicts you. With a 19 point spread in favor of gay marriage

"Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally?"
Strongly favor: 27% Favor: 27% Oppose: 19% Strongly Oppose: 19%

Civil Rights

That supports Gallup and contradicts you. With a 16 point spread in favor of gay marriage.

When do you stop being laughably, comically wrong?

 

[Kosh]

The Constitution doesn't protect perverse and lewd acts

It most certainly does.

No it does not. why do you think crimes against nature also targeted gay sex?

Where is "crimes against nature" in the Constitution?

Nope! Just like "Marriage" is not in the Constitution either.

 

[Kosh]

The Constitution doesn't protect perverse and lewd acts

It most certainly does.

No it does not. why do you think crimes against nature also targeted gay sex?

Those laws banning gay sex were found unconstitutional. Q.E.D.

So there were places were sodomy was "illegal" have those been over turned?

I believe there was a state that had a law that anything beyond the missionary position was "illegal".

 

[bodecea]

And the clueless far left continue to show they do not understand the Constitution and what to apply their religion to all except themselves.

I'm gonna go with the Supreme Court on the constitution over you quoting yourself. And the USSC has found that marriage is a right.

You disagree. So what?

Just goes to show that you do not understand what you are talking about other than outdated far left talking points and blog sites.

"Marriage" is not a "right", But then again the far left has demonstrated they do not understand what a "right" is.

The US Supreme Court disagrees with you. And I think we all know who is more of an authority on what a right is. Hint: It is not you.

Another far left poster that does not have a clue.

Hint: You are far left!

You keep saying that with no proof to back you or to shoot down someone else's assertions. All hat no cattle, eh?

 

[bodecea]

The Constitution doesn't protect perverse and lewd acts

It most certainly does.

No it does not. why do you think crimes against nature also targeted gay sex?

Where is "crimes against nature" in the Constitution?

Nope! Just like "Marriage" is not in the Constitution either.

But equal treatment under the law is.

 

[Kosh]

Gallop is owned by a far left media sources, not as trustworthy as it may have been.

So Gallup is wrong and you're right....because you say so, huh.

What makes you citing yourself a more reliable source than Gallup?

For a better view try this:
Civil Rights

K.

CBS News/New York Times Poll.

"Do you think it should be legal or not legal for same-sex couples to marry?"

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Legal: 56%
Illegal: 37%

Civil Rights

So that affirms Gallup and contradicts you. With a 19 point spread in favor of gay marriage

"Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally?"
.
Strongly favor	Favor	Oppose	Strongly oppose	Unsure
%	%	%	%	%
8/4-7/14	27	27	19	19	9

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Gotta love how they cite another far left poll to support their original gallop/CNN polls.

Guess if the polls did not lean your way, you would not accept them..