The South's Last, Desperate Stand

[Silhouette]

Sounds like a winning legal argument.

Let me ask you this..do you have any objections to SCOTUS clarifying Obergefell for Justice Moore and the state of Alabama re: the Kim Davis issue and same or similar problems?

There is nothing to clarify. Gay marriage is legal in Alabama and Moore's edict was flatly ignored by most of the probate judges in the state.

The SCOTUS already clarified their position in regards to Kim Davis when they denied hearing her appeal. She lost b/c she didn't have a legal leg to stand on. It's why you consistently lose in the courthouse as well.

So then polygamy is also legal in Alabama? And Christians (even adoption agencies) have to serve, promote or enable both homosexual and polygamy marriage or they'll go to jail?

I bring up polygamy again because you know, you can't pick favorites from the 14th. And Moore is looking ahead to the future. Will his underlings be required to promote adopting little boys to gay men without questioning that what makes them "gay" is sexual behavior? Will they be required to turn a blind eye to all the obvious mental issues that gay men have as subcultural socio-sexual values...values...behavior...values...behavior...? Will you make the LGBT cult legally dominant by manipulating secular law, or will the Court make space for Christians to passively object?

You see, when the Court created a new description for the 14th Amendment (a thing they are Constitutionally estopped from doing) of "just some of our favorite deviant sex behaviors but not others", they violated the framework of the 14th itself. The 14th is all about not being able to pick favorites. So like matter and anti-matter, the two concepts are on a collision course. Moore would like clarification on that before his unique state implodes from this legal fuckpocalypse.. And...I GUARANTEE YOU you haven't heard the end of this. Stay tuned..

 

[mdk]

Sounds like a winning legal argument.

Let me ask you this..do you have any objections to SCOTUS clarifying Obergefell for Justice Moore and the state of Alabama re: the Kim Davis issue and same or similar problems?

There is nothing to clarify. Gay marriage is legal in Alabama and Moore's edict was flatly ignored by most of the probate judges in the state.

The SCOTUS already clarified their position in regards to Kim Davis when they denied hearing her appeal. She lost b/c she didn't have a legal leg to stand on. It's why you consistently lose in the courthouse as well.

So then polygamy is also legal in Alabama? And Christians (even adoption agencies) have to serve, promote or enable both homosexual and polygamy marriage or they'll go to jail?

I bring up polygamy again because you know, you can't pick favorites from the 14th. And Moore is looking ahead to the future. Will his underlings be required to promote adopting little boys to gay men without questioning that what makes them "gay" is sexual behavior? Will they be required to turn a blind eye to all the obvious mental issues that gay men have as subcultural socio-sexual values...values...behavior...values...behavior...? Will you make the LGBT cult legally dominant by manipulating secular law, or will the Court make space for Christians to passively object?

You see, when the Court created a new description for the 14th Amendment (a thing they are Constitutionally estopped from doing) of "just some of our favorite deviant sex behaviors but not others", they violated the framework of the 14th itself. The 14th is all about not being able to pick favorites. So like matter and anti-matter, the two concepts are on a collision course. Moore would like clarification on that before his unique state implodes from this legal fuckpocalypse.. And...I GUARANTEE YOU you haven't heard the end of this. Stay tuned..

Is this post a greatest hits of your legal batshit? Too funny.

 

[Silhouette]

Is this post a greatest hits of your legal batshit? Too funny.

So far, you have yet to differ with me substantively. Care to drop the ad hominems and talk to my points? Or is diverting from doing that your exact intention?

 

[mdk]

Is this post a greatest hits of your legal batshit? Too funny.

So far, you have yet to differ with me substantively. Care to drop the ad hominems and talk to my points? Or is diverting from doing that your exact intention?

Stop being willfully obtuse. You've said the same dumb bullshit over and over again despite the fact it being consistently debunked. Merely repeating it again doesn't make it valid.

 

[Silhouette]

Stop being willfully obtuse. You've said the same dumb bullshit over and over again despite the fact it being consistently debunked. Merely repeating it again doesn't make it valid.

Talk to my points. How has Obergefell been clarified as to the Kim Davis problem? Details; and ones that can and will be applied to Muslims as well..

 

[mdk]

Stop being willfully obtuse. You've said the same dumb bullshit over and over again despite the fact it being consistently debunked. Merely repeating it again doesn't make it valid.

Talk to my points. How has Obergefell been clarified as to the Kim Davis problem? Details; and ones that can and will be applied to Muslims as well..

Oh, it has been clarified for Kim Davis as well as Muslims. You can't use your role as an agent of the government to deny people services on the basis of your deeply held religious beliefs. It wouldn't be any different if a Muslim manager at the DVM decided women are not allowed to drive and forced all the clerks to comply with his beliefs. The only difference is that Davis is hailed as a hero by and the Muslim would have been accused of trying install Sharia Law. Either way, neither have a legal leg to stand on, which is the SCOTUS denied hearing her appeal.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh, it has been clarified for Kim Davis as well as Muslims. You can't use your role as an agent of the government to deny people services on the basis of your deeply held religious beliefs. It wouldn't be any different if a Muslim manager at the DVM decided women are not allowed to drive and forced all the clerks to comply with his beliefs. The only difference is that Davis is hailed as a hero by and the Muslim would have been accused of trying install Sharia Law. Either way, neither have a legal leg to stand on, which is the SCOTUS denied hearing her appeal.

The difference being women are able to drive. Men however are not able to be mothers and women are not able to be fathers...ever. It's a physical reality.

 

[mdk]

Oh, it has been clarified for Kim Davis as well as Muslims. You can't use your role as an agent of the government to deny people services on the basis of your deeply held religious beliefs. It wouldn't be any different if a Muslim manager at the DVM decided women are not allowed to drive and forced all the clerks to comply with his beliefs. The only difference is that Davis is hailed as a hero by and the Muslim would have been accused of trying install Sharia Law. Either way, neither have a legal leg to stand on, which is the SCOTUS denied hearing her appeal.

The difference being women are able to drive. Men however are not able to be mothers and women are not able to be fathers...ever. It's a physical reality.

The difference being is that you would flip your shit if a Muslim attempted to use his government office to deny other citizens their rights on the basis of his religious beliefs. You sing a different tune when it comes to Davis though. All that matters to you is finding a way to harm gay people.

 

[Silhouette]

The difference being is that you would flip your shit if a Muslim attempted to use his government office to deny other citizens their rights on the basis of his religious beliefs. You sing a different tune when it comes to Davis though. All that matters to you is finding a way to harm gay people.

Part of the beauty of Moore's request for clarification on your cult vs ANY religion...which is dominant ideology...is that it will let people know ahead of time before they apply for a public job or open a private industry, if their job or industry will conflict with their beliefs. Will Christians be forced to play along with just some deviant sex behaviors but not others? Or will both belief systems have to respect the other? And for that matter, what the heck was the Court doing the Legislature's job for by adding another incomplete category of "protected persons (based on behaviors)" to the 14th?

That's all stuff, once clarified, that will help Muslims and Christians alike decide which jobs they should hold and which they shouldn't..

 

[mdk]

The difference being is that you would flip your shit if a Muslim attempted to use his government office to deny other citizens their rights on the basis of his religious beliefs. You sing a different tune when it comes to Davis though. All that matters to you is finding a way to harm gay people.

Part of the beauty of Moore's request for clarification on your cult vs ANY religion...which is dominant ideology...is that it will let people know ahead of time before they apply for a public job or open a private industry, if their job or industry will conflict with their beliefs. Will Christians be forced to play along with just some deviant sex behaviors but not others? Or will both belief systems have to respect the other? And for that matter, what the heck was the Court doing the Legislature's job for by adding another incomplete category of "protected persons (based on behaviors)" to the 14th?

That's all stuff, once clarified, that will help Muslims and Christians alike decide which jobs they should hold and which they shouldn't..

Don't hold your breath waiting for that clarification as the issue was clarified in June's ruling. Besides, the vast and overwhelming majority of the probate judges in Alabama flatly ignored his edict. Why? B/c Moore doesn't have a legal leg to stand on and neither do you.

 

[Skylar]

Stop being willfully obtuse. You've said the same dumb bullshit over and over again despite the fact it being consistently debunked. Merely repeating it again doesn't make it valid.

Talk to my points. How has Obergefell been clarified as to the Kim Davis problem? Details; and ones that can and will be applied to Muslims as well..

You're not making points. You're making pseudo-legal declarations that have no relevance to the law. And what relevance does Kim Davis have to the Obergefell ruling?

None. Her refusal to do her job has nothing to do with the right to marry.

 

[Skylar]

The difference being is that you would flip your shit if a Muslim attempted to use his government office to deny other citizens their rights on the basis of his religious beliefs. You sing a different tune when it comes to Davis though. All that matters to you is finding a way to harm gay people.

Part of the beauty of Moore's request for clarification on your cult vs ANY religion...which is dominant ideology...is that it will let people know ahead of time before they apply for a public job or open a private industry, if their job or industry will conflict with their beliefs. Will Christians be forced to play along with just some deviant sex behaviors but not others? Or will both belief systems have to respect the other? And for that matter, what the heck was the Court doing the Legislature's job for by adding another incomplete category of "protected persons (based on behaviors)" to the 14th?

Moore's 'request for clarification' is inelegant pseudo-legal gibberish that even you have contradicted. Moore has insisted that since Obergefell was a ruling for the 6th circuit and Alabama isn't in the 6th circuit, that the ruling doesn't apply to Alabama.

That's utter bullshit. Even you recognized that the Windsor decision applied to Califoria and the law at 'all levels', despite the Windsor decision not involving California directly nor being based on a ruling from the 9th Circuit district that California is a part of.

Loving v. Virginia didn't apply to only Virginia. Brown v. the Board of education didn't apply to only Kansas. And McDonald v. Chicago didn't apply only to Chicago. All three rulings applied to the entire country. At 'all levels of law', as you yourself recognize. And the overwhelming majority of Moore's own probate judges ignored Moore's gibberish, with 54 of 67 still issuing licenses to same sex couples.

Moore's merely trying to distract from his own son's arraignment.

 

[Dana7360]

"Is it your position that all ancient American rights are to be trampled in the name of "gay marriage"? Remember, LGBT isn't a race of people. In fact, they infight among themselves regularly as to what the boundaries of their waffling deviant sexualized behaviors even mean to them... And we are supposed to accept them as a static class? Hardly.."

No, the Constitution recognizes the right of all persons to freedom of choice, to make personal decisions about one's private life absent unwarranted interference by the state (Lawrence v. Texas), as guaranteed by the Fifth and 14th Amendments – gay Americans are protected by that right; race is not the sole criterion used to determine a suspect or protected class of persons.

In addition, state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law for no other reason than being gay violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment (Obergefell v. Hodges), consistent with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence in existence for well over 100 years prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation (Civil Rights Cases (1883)).

That some might have a fear and hatred of gay Americans is not 'justification' to disadvantage them through force of law.

Then why only two people?

Mark

As opposed to what? Someone marrying themselves?

Don't be obtuse. If "freedom" is the aim, then marriage cannot be restricted to the number of people. The statement was that people have a right to freedom.

Mark

The case wasn't about more than 2 people marrying.

So there was no reason for the court to rule on what you asked about.

The court ruled on the subject that was presented to them.

Which was homosexual couples being denied the same rights as heterosexual couples.

If you want to discuss more than 2 people getting married have someone take the issue to court.

 

[80zephyr]

"Is it your position that all ancient American rights are to be trampled in the name of "gay marriage"? Remember, LGBT isn't a race of people. In fact, they infight among themselves regularly as to what the boundaries of their waffling deviant sexualized behaviors even mean to them... And we are supposed to accept them as a static class? Hardly.."

No, the Constitution recognizes the right of all persons to freedom of choice, to make personal decisions about one's private life absent unwarranted interference by the state (Lawrence v. Texas), as guaranteed by the Fifth and 14th Amendments – gay Americans are protected by that right; race is not the sole criterion used to determine a suspect or protected class of persons.

In addition, state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law for no other reason than being gay violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment (Obergefell v. Hodges), consistent with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence in existence for well over 100 years prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation (Civil Rights Cases (1883)).

That some might have a fear and hatred of gay Americans is not 'justification' to disadvantage them through force of law.

Then why only two people?

Mark

As opposed to what? Someone marrying themselves?

Don't be obtuse. If "freedom" is the aim, then marriage cannot be restricted to the number of people. The statement was that people have a right to freedom.

Mark

The case wasn't about more than 2 people marrying.

So there was no reason for the court to rule on what you asked about.

The court ruled on the subject that was presented to them.

Which was homosexual couples being denied the same rights as heterosexual couples.

If you want to discuss more than 2 people getting married have someone take the issue to court.

Yes, I know what the court ruled on. My point was that if marriage is a malleable institution, there is nothing(in law) to stop us from further reshaping its definition.

Mark

 

[Silhouette]

Mark, the 14th Amendment of which was used to justify Obergefell, doesn't play favorites. Therefore, when the Judicial Branch of government created a new class to add to the Constitution (a thing they're forbidden to do), of "just some of our favorite deviant sex behaviors but not others", polygamy and other forms of marriage yet to come, based off of consenting adult behaviors and associations were all immediately legal at the same time. Either they are all legal or they are all not. There's no gray area in the 14th where people can play "Let's pretend like we can discriminate between our favorite repugnant sex behaviors and other repugnant sex behaviors".

The case wasn't about more than 2 people marrying....So there was no reason for the court to rule on what you asked about....The court ruled on the subject that was presented to them.

Which was homosexual couples being denied the same rights as heterosexual couples.

If you want to discuss more than 2 people getting married have someone take the issue to court.

Law doesn't live in a vacuum dear. And no judge should know that better than the top of the line where there is no further appeal. The marriage contract never was limited to the people wearing the rings. In fact, it was created for the benefit of children and by extension, the society that had to deal with their personalities after they grew up. Long ago society recognized the inferior situations children wound up in as a result of their procreation and adults in their midst. And marriage was created precisely because society recognized that the best adjusted adults came from balanced homes where boys had a father and girls had a mother.

So, there were more parties to the Obergefell proposed contract revision. Only they weren't invited to the legal vacuum. Instead, they were illegally omitted from the Proceedings, to their demise. And, no contract involving kids implicitly, ESPECIALLY THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT WHICH WAS CREATED TO PROTECT THEM EXACTLY FROM CONDITIONS CREATED IN OBERGEFELL..may exist that exists to the detriment of children and their vital needs.

Sorry: Besides, any such contract that strips children of a vital component of their lives is void upon its face; REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT CHILDREN ARE EVEN AN IMPLICIT PART OF THAT CONTRACT. So, describe to me which gay male marriage provides a girl with a mother? And describe to me which lesbian marriage provides a boy with a father? Neither? They are void. Everywhere. So says necessities re: infants and contract law...a most ancient and pernicious case-law supported bedrock of American law..

 

[80zephyr]

Mark, the 14th Amendment of which was used to justify Obergefell, doesn't play favorites. Therefore, when the Judicial Branch of government created a new class to add to the Constitution (a thing they're forbidden to do), of "just some of our favorite deviant sex behaviors but not others", polygamy and other forms of marriage yet to come, based off of consenting adult behaviors and associations were all immediately legal at the same time. Either they are all legal or they are all not. There's no gray area in the 14th where people can play "Let's pretend like we can discriminate between our favorite repugnant sex behaviors and other repugnant sex behaviors".

This is incorrect. Man/female sex is not a deviant sexual behavior. It is the natural order of things. If we cannot discriminate deviant sexual behavior then all deviant sex, by logic, has to be approved of. And before you get bent outta shape over the word "deviant", please, look up the definition.

Mark

 

[Silhouette]

This is incorrect. Man/female sex is not a deviant sexual behavior. It is the natural order of things. If we cannot discriminate deviant sexual behavior then all deviant sex, by logic, has to be approved of. And before you get bent outta shape over the word "deviant", please, look up the definition.

Mark

Mark, I was agreeing with you. Either all deviant sex behaviors between consenting adults (including polygamy) are legal or none of them are. So says the 14th. I was rebutting the argument that "gay marriage won't lead to polygamy". It already has. The point of saying that was to bring to light to the public that what they thought they were getting in Obergefell is an incomplete statement.

 

[80zephyr]

This is incorrect. Man/female sex is not a deviant sexual behavior. It is the natural order of things. If we cannot discriminate deviant sexual behavior then all deviant sex, by logic, has to be approved of. And before you get bent outta shape over the word "deviant", please, look up the definition.

Mark

Mark, I was agreeing with you. Either all deviant sex behaviors between consenting adults (including polygamy) are legal or none of them are. So says the 14th. I was rebutting the argument that "gay marriage won't lead to polygamy". It already has. The point of saying that was to bring to light to the public that what they thought they were getting in Obergefell is an incomplete statement.

I wasn't quite sure of your response, so I answered the post the way I interpreted it. Anyhow, sorry for the mis communication.

Mark

 

[Skylar]

"Is it your position that all ancient American rights are to be trampled in the name of "gay marriage"? Remember, LGBT isn't a race of people. In fact, they infight among themselves regularly as to what the boundaries of their waffling deviant sexualized behaviors even mean to them... And we are supposed to accept them as a static class? Hardly.."

No, the Constitution recognizes the right of all persons to freedom of choice, to make personal decisions about one's private life absent unwarranted interference by the state (Lawrence v. Texas), as guaranteed by the Fifth and 14th Amendments – gay Americans are protected by that right; race is not the sole criterion used to determine a suspect or protected class of persons.

In addition, state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law for no other reason than being gay violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment (Obergefell v. Hodges), consistent with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence in existence for well over 100 years prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation (Civil Rights Cases (1883)).

That some might have a fear and hatred of gay Americans is not 'justification' to disadvantage them through force of law.

Then why only two people?

Mark

As opposed to what? Someone marrying themselves?

Don't be obtuse. If "freedom" is the aim, then marriage cannot be restricted to the number of people. The statement was that people have a right to freedom.

Mark

The case wasn't about more than 2 people marrying.

So there was no reason for the court to rule on what you asked about.

The court ruled on the subject that was presented to them.

Which was homosexual couples being denied the same rights as heterosexual couples.

If you want to discuss more than 2 people getting married have someone take the issue to court.

Yes, I know what the court ruled on. My point was that if marriage is a malleable institution, there is nothing(in law) to stop us from further reshaping its definition.

Mark

Oh, we could legalize polygamy if we wanted to. There's just no interest in doing so.

 

[Skylar]

Mark, the 14th Amendment of which was used to justify Obergefell, doesn't play favorites. Therefore, when the Judicial Branch of government created a new class to add to the Constitution (a thing they're forbidden to do), of "just some of our favorite deviant sex behaviors but not others", polygamy and other forms of marriage yet to come, based off of consenting adult behaviors and associations were all immediately legal at the same time. Either they are all legal or they are all not. There's no gray area in the 14th where people can play "Let's pretend like we can discriminate between our favorite repugnant sex behaviors and other repugnant sex behaviors".

Nope. All of that is meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish. The Obergefell ruling didn't even mention polygamy. Let alone authorize it.

Once again you're offering us your imagination as the law. And then insisting that the Supreme Court on down is bound to whatever hapless batshit you make up.

Um, no. They aren't.

Law doesn't live in a vacuum dear. And no judge should know that better than the top of the line where there is no further appeal. The marriage contract never was limited to the people wearing the rings. In fact, it was created for the benefit of children and by extension, the society that had to deal with their personalities after they grew up. Long ago society recognized the inferior situations children wound up in as a result of their procreation and adults in their midst. And marriage was created precisely because society recognized that the best adjusted adults came from balanced homes where boys had a father and girls had a mother.

Um, sweetie.....you're not quoting the law. You're quoting yourself. And the imaginary nonsense you make up about the law is a vacuum. A meaningless void having no relevance to the actual law. No marriage is predicated on children or the ability to have them. No state requires children or the ability to have them in order to get married. And the USSC has explicitly contradicted your imagination:

"This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."

No one is bound by the vacuum of your imagination. Children are not 'married' to their parents, despite your claims otherwise. And no law nor court recognizes a marriage of parents as a 'contract of minors' for their children.

Remember, hon.....you don't have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about