States Have a Valid Legal Argument to Defy Gay Marriage

[Montrovant]

...Your 'behaviors can't be protected by the constitution' nonsense is just ignorance. You don't know what you're talking about. You don't even have a command of the basic constitutional principles we're discussing.

This is why your *every* prediction is wrong. Every single time. Nothing you've predicted about this issue has ever actually happened. And yet you cling to the exact same process that has produced a perfect record of failure.

Why?

Because it ain't over until the fat lady sings. You noticed I hadn't been posting all that regularly recently. It wasn't due to health, it was due to curiosity. And as I sat back and watched you all run with your victory, a Christian was jailed less than 3 months after it, for merely passively refusing to discard her faith in favor of bowing at the new rainbow altar.

Then, I got reanimated again. And I'm not alone..

I am pretty confident that you will only consider the fat lady to have sung if the law returns to the way you prefer it.

 

[Silhouette]

Christians are jailed all the time: every time they break the law. Davis defied a lawful court order and tried to use the State to force people to obey her religion.

Yes, for stealing, murder, rape and so on. Not for passively following deeply important mandates of their faith. PA laws will not trump the 1st and 9th Amendments. Of that I am certain.

Your problem will be the flawed premise "race = behaviors". A Christian can be compelled via the 14th to accomodate any race marrying another because race is specifically mentioned. What isn't specifically mentioned and which now is an erroneous/illegal addition to the 14th made by SCOTUS is that "just some repugnant minority deviant sex behaviors have rights under the 14th, but not other repugnant minority deviant sex behaviors".

Under "equality" either all repugnant sex behaviors get the "right" to marry or none of them do.

Ergo, not only did SCOTUS make gay marraige a mandate across all 50 states, they made incest and polygamy a mandate also. And if you say "no they did not", I will first call you a bigot and then secondly ask you specifically who would deny them, and how would they deny them?

This June 2015 trainwreck of one of the most myopic/blinded subjective decisions based on kneejerk emotions and irrational sentiments will be one of the most quickly overturned Decisions in US History, IMHO. I've not seen even backwater retard lawyers fuck up a premise (and therefore all conclusions drawn from it) so badly. Those five people are not fit to sit on the bench. Two of them were arrogantly biased and flaunted that bias like a pennant flag as spectators rooting for their favorite team in full public view.

 

[Skylar]

Christians are jailed all the time: every time they break the law. Davis defied a lawful court order and tried to use the State to force people to obey her religion.

Yes, for stealing, murder, rape and so on. Not for passively following deeply important mandates of their faith. PA laws will not trump the 1st and 9th Amendments. Of that I am certain.

Christians are jailed for contempt of court regularly. Being Christian doesn't magically make you immune to the law.

And a 5 day stint in the pokey clearly did its job. Kim Davis has accepted the comprimise the judge offered her *before* she was put in jail:

Don't interfere with the deputy clerks when they issue marriage licenses.

Davis could have spared herself a mugshot and just gone with that option from the outset. Instead, we get another Evangelical circle jerk.

 

[Skylar]

...Your 'behaviors can't be protected by the constitution' nonsense is just ignorance. You don't know what you're talking about. You don't even have a command of the basic constitutional principles we're discussing.

This is why your *every* prediction is wrong. Every single time. Nothing you've predicted about this issue has ever actually happened. And yet you cling to the exact same process that has produced a perfect record of failure.

Why?

Because it ain't over until the fat lady sings. You noticed I hadn't been posting all that regularly recently. It wasn't due to health, it was due to curiosity. And as I sat back and watched you all run with your victory, a Christian was jailed less than 3 months after it, for merely passively refusing to discard her faith in favor of bowing at the new rainbow altar.

Then, I got reanimated again. And I'm not alone..

I am pretty confident that you will only consider the fat lady to have sung if the law returns to the way you prefer it.

When it comes to gays, Sil is quite mad. And I don't mean that rhetorically. Sil has commited to sacrificing her health, her integrity, and buckets of time to attack gays in some of the most nonsensical manner's possible.

Which is not well.

And has been *perfectly* wrong in her predictions of legal outcomes. There hasn't been a single case, a single legal principle, a single legal argument that she got right on this issue.

That's what comes of ignoring the evidence and replacing it with what you want to be true. Wishing predicts jack shit.

 

[mdk]

Watching Sil hijack her own thread is hysterical.

 

[Silhouette]

Christians are jailed all the time: every time they break the law. Davis defied a lawful court order and tried to use the State to force people to obey her religion.

Yes, for stealing, murder, rape and so on. Not for passively following deeply important mandates of their faith. PA laws will not trump the 1st and 9th Amendments. Of that I am certain.

Your problem will be the flawed premise "race = behaviors". A Christian can be compelled via the 14th to accomodate any race marrying another because race is specifically mentioned. What isn't specifically mentioned and which now is an erroneous/illegal addition to the 14th made by SCOTUS is that "just some repugnant minority deviant sex behaviors have rights under the 14th, but not other repugnant minority deviant sex behaviors".

Under "equality" either all repugnant sex behaviors get the "right" to marry or none of them do.

Ergo, not only did SCOTUS make gay marraige a mandate across all 50 states, they made incest and polygamy a mandate also. And if you say "no they did not", I will first call you a bigot and then secondly ask you specifically who would deny them, and how would they deny them?

This June 2015 trainwreck of one of the most myopic/blinded subjective decisions based on kneejerk emotions and irrational sentiments will be one of the most quickly overturned Decisions in US History, IMHO. I've not seen even backwater retard lawyers fuck up a premise (and therefore all conclusions drawn from it) so badly. Those five people are not fit to sit on the bench. Two of them were arrogantly biased and flaunted that bias like a pennant flag as spectators rooting for their favorite team in full public view.

Watching Sil hijack her own thread is hysterical.

How is what I said "hijacking" my own thread? Do deviant sex behaviors have the right to lord over children "as parents", stripping them harmfully of either a mother or father, or not?

 

[mdk]

How is what I said "hijacking" my own thread? Do deviant sex behaviors have the right to lord over children "as parents", stripping them harmfully of either a mother or father, or not?

When you started whining about public accommodation laws, polygamy, and, incest. Oh, and for the record the only person here making the argument that behavior equals race is you and you don't have the first clue as to what you're talking about.

The youth don't advise their elders for a very good reason it turns out...

These are your own words. You feel that children should not advise their elders but want them and only them to advise their elders when it comes to gays marrying. lol. You only care about children when you can use them to harm gay people. When you can't use them in your rabidly anti-gay narrative you discard them onto the rubbish heap.

Gays are getting married and another three dozens on the exact same subject from you isn't going to change shit. Too bad, so sad.

 

[Silhouette]

Which person in the photo at the top will be the mother to children in that "married home"?

Which person in the bottom photo will be the father to children in that "married home"?

Where are the children who are involved in all of this? You never speak of them. Wish you would..

 

[mdk]

Which person in the photo at the top will be the mother to children in that "married home"?

Which person in the bottom photo will be the father to children in that "married home"?

Where are the children who are involved in all of this? You never speak of them. Wish you would..

Does it matter? The youth don't advise their elders for a very good reason it turns out. lol.

Don't pretend you care about children. You only care about finding way to smear queers. I take solace in knowing that very few people buy into your metal illness.

 

[Skylar]

Christians are jailed all the time: every time they break the law. Davis defied a lawful court order and tried to use the State to force people to obey her religion.

Yes, for stealing, murder, rape and so on. Not for passively following deeply important mandates of their faith. PA laws will not trump the 1st and 9th Amendments. Of that I am certain.

Your problem will be the flawed premise "race = behaviors". A Christian can be compelled via the 14th to accomodate any race marrying another because race is specifically mentioned. What isn't specifically mentioned and which now is an erroneous/illegal addition to the 14th made by SCOTUS is that "just some repugnant minority deviant sex behaviors have rights under the 14th, but not other repugnant minority deviant sex behaviors".

Under "equality" either all repugnant sex behaviors get the "right" to marry or none of them do.

Ergo, not only did SCOTUS make gay marraige a mandate across all 50 states, they made incest and polygamy a mandate also. And if you say "no they did not", I will first call you a bigot and then secondly ask you specifically who would deny them, and how would they deny them?

This June 2015 trainwreck of one of the most myopic/blinded subjective decisions based on kneejerk emotions and irrational sentiments will be one of the most quickly overturned Decisions in US History, IMHO. I've not seen even backwater retard lawyers fuck up a premise (and therefore all conclusions drawn from it) so badly. Those five people are not fit to sit on the bench. Two of them were arrogantly biased and flaunted that bias like a pennant flag as spectators rooting for their favorite team in full public view.

Watching Sil hijack her own thread is hysterical.

How is what I said "hijacking" my own thread? Do deviant sex behaviors have the right to lord over children "as parents", stripping them harmfully of either a mother or father, or not?

Shit, Sil.....you've been reducing to spamming? I've already addressed this post.

Your problem will be the flawed premise "race = behaviors".

Strrawman. The only one that says that race=behaviors is you citing yourself.

Your problem is you have no idea what you're talking about. I mean, really.......you don't understand the cases you claim to cite, you've flat out made up 'legal' principles that don't exist, you don't understand the legal principles that have actually been used by the courts and you've invented arguments that no one is making.

None of which has a thing to do with the law. There's a reason why your *every* prediction is wrong. Because you keep ignoring evidence and just making up whatever you want. And no one gives a shit what you make up.

 

[Skylar]

Which person in the photo at the top will be the mother to children in that "married home"?

Which person in the bottom photo will be the father to children in that "married home"?

Where are the children who are involved in all of this? You never speak of them. Wish you would..

Does it matter? The youth don't advise their elders for a very good reason it turns out. lol.

Don't pretend you care about children. You only care about finding way to smear queers. I take solace in knowing that very few people buy into your metal illness.

Sil could give a fiddler's fuck about kids. She knows that her proposal doesn't help a single child. And harms 10s of thousands of children. But if it lets her hurt gay people, she's more than willing to screw over children by the boatload.

All while helping none.

 

[mdk]

Which person in the photo at the top will be the mother to children in that "married home"?

Which person in the bottom photo will be the father to children in that "married home"?

Where are the children who are involved in all of this? You never speak of them. Wish you would..

Does it matter? The youth don't advise their elders for a very good reason it turns out. lol.

Don't pretend you care about children. You only care about finding way to smear queers. I take solace in knowing that very few people buy into your metal illness.

Sil could give a fiddler's fuck about kids. She knows that her proposal doesn't help a single child. And harms 10s of thousands of children. But if it lets her hurt gay people, she's more than willing to screw over children by the boatload.

All while helping none.

Yeah, it is why I am pretty much done with her bat shit as I feel like I am enabling her mental illness. A year of reading her babble over and over again is just folly and a waste of my time. It is literally the same shit repackaged every couple months or so.

 

[Nosmo King]

Who knew that children are completely safe and secure in heterosexual marriage? They are as safe there as they would be at Penn State or a Cathilic church.

But allow a same sex couple to raise a child? Why, that's where the danger lays.

Really sip? Do you believe that?

 

[Skylar]

Which person in the photo at the top will be the mother to children in that "married home"?

Which person in the bottom photo will be the father to children in that "married home"?

Where are the children who are involved in all of this? You never speak of them. Wish you would..

Does it matter? The youth don't advise their elders for a very good reason it turns out. lol.

Don't pretend you care about children. You only care about finding way to smear queers. I take solace in knowing that very few people buy into your metal illness.

Sil could give a fiddler's fuck about kids. She knows that her proposal doesn't help a single child. And harms 10s of thousands of children. But if it lets her hurt gay people, she's more than willing to screw over children by the boatload.

All while helping none.

Yeah, it is why I am pretty much done with her bat shit as I feel like I am enabling her mental illness. A year of reading her babble over and over again is just folly and a waste of my time. It is literally the same shit repackaged every couple months or so.

In many instances, exactly the same shit. Sil just cuts and pastes debunked pseudo-legal batshit from one thread into another. Occasionally screeching 'Prince Trust!'.

Its like the Avatar of word salad and steaming pile of bullshit had a threesome with Confirmation Bias.

 

[Seawytch]

Which person in the photo at the top will be the mother to children in that "married home"?

Which person in the bottom photo will be the father to children in that "married home"?

Where are the children who are involved in all of this? You never speak of them. Wish you would..

Does it matter? The youth don't advise their elders for a very good reason it turns out. lol.

Don't pretend you care about children. You only care about finding way to smear queers. I take solace in knowing that very few people buy into your metal illness.

Sil could give a fiddler's fuck about kids. She knows that her proposal doesn't help a single child. And harms 10s of thousands of children. But if it lets her hurt gay people, she's more than willing to screw over children by the boatload.

All while helping none.

Sil would happily take our children away from us...which tells you it's not about children for Sil, but about her debilitating homophobia. Not sure how she functions in society.

 

[Skylar]

Which person in the photo at the top will be the mother to children in that "married home"?

Which person in the bottom photo will be the father to children in that "married home"?

Where are the children who are involved in all of this? You never speak of them. Wish you would..

Does it matter? The youth don't advise their elders for a very good reason it turns out. lol.

Don't pretend you care about children. You only care about finding way to smear queers. I take solace in knowing that very few people buy into your metal illness.

Sil could give a fiddler's fuck about kids. She knows that her proposal doesn't help a single child. And harms 10s of thousands of children. But if it lets her hurt gay people, she's more than willing to screw over children by the boatload.

All while helping none.

Sil would happily take our children away from us...which tells you it's not about children for Sil, but about her debilitating homophobia. Not sure how she functions in society.

Its far easier to be fucking insane when you're isolated on a ranch.

 

[Syriusly]

Valid legal argument in a nutshell: Proaction to protect the psychological health of children; a state's future fledged citizens....

Invalid legal argument made by a nut.

Homophobes have tried to make that argument from the beginning but couldn't manage to actually prove any of the claims.

Like you do.

 

[Syriusly]

In California, for example:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_2
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL
SEC. 2.5. A voter who casts a vote in an election in accordance
with the laws of this State shall have that vote counted.

and

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL
SEC. 8. (a) The initiative is the power of the electors to propose
statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject
them.

Those powers were erroneously removed...

SEC. 10. (a) An initiative statute or referendum approved by a
majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election
unless the measure provides otherwise. If a referendum petition is
filed against a part of a statute the remainder shall not be delayed
from going into effect.

The only way the referendum can be revoked:

SEC. 10.
(c) The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It
may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that
becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the
initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their
approval.

The power of the People in the Golden State is absolute. And that power was just wrongly removed June, 2015. There is only fluff behind the SCOTUS decision and no Constitutional meat or backbone if push came to shove. And I suggest that it does. Removing voting power is such an awful precedent to set..

Still arguing about Prop 8- still not understanding why Prop 8 is no longer valid.

Silhouette is obsessed about homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

I hope the states do contest it . and not because I care about someone getting married. but about the WAY this was brought down us in the middle of night and then say. take it AND shut the HELL up about it forever. 97% of the people in this country is now being FORCED to bow down to 3% or be accused of all kinds of discriminations and be sued out of your business and now be thrown in jail. 97% of you now have no rights to refuse service to anyone, to refuse to cater something you don't feel comfortable catering it and well, that's just too damn bad now. and it will go and on.
enjoy it. I see many more people in jail in the near future. just hope it's no one you know or a family member.

LOL....'the middle of the night"?

This was in the courts for years.

It is fun watching people like Stephanie continue to melt down because no one is listening to her.

 

[Syriusly]

Christians are jailed all the time: every time they break the law. Davis defied a lawful court order and tried to use the State to force people to obey her religion.

Yes, for stealing, murder, rape and so on. Not for passively following deeply important mandates of their faith. PA laws will not trump the 1st and 9th Amendments. Of that I am certain.\.

For breaking the law.

Doesn't matter why a Christian steals or murders or rapes or is in contempt of court- its still breaking the law.