The South's Last, Desperate Stand

[Valerie]

The brilliance of the South...

That's not the south....you have failed

simple metaphor too complicated for you?

 

[Silhouette]

Alabama Chief Justice Effectively Bans Same-Sex Marriage In The State

.

He would have done the same thing over interracial marriage

Except that race and sexual behaviors aren't legally in the same ballpark. Justice Moore woke up to the false premise when Ms. Davis was thrown in jail for refusing to violate her faith as to those behaviors.

 

[Valerie]

it's the very same 'states rights' "ballpark"...

 

[Valerie]

Except that race and sexual behaviors aren't legally in the same ballpark. Justice Moore woke up to the false premise when Ms. Davis was thrown in jail for refusing to violate her faith as to those behaviors.

she had NO right to refuse to do her state job.

 

[Silhouette]

it's the very same 'states rights' "ballpark"...

Then tell me which other behaviors repugnant to the majority, organized, cannot have those same rights? Like polygamy? According to your "behaviors have the same status as race" argument, the instant gay marriage became "legal" (it's not, it violates infants and contract law), then polygamy and incest marriage instantly were legal at the same time.

And if you argue that they aren't, I'll tell you that the 14th then, because of equality, makes gay marriage illegal. They are either all legal now or all illegal now. Your behaviors don't get the red carpet while other repugnant behaviors don't get to dominate the majority.

See how fucked up things get when five STUPID Justices got the very premise of the case their sitting on completely wrong?

 

[Valerie]

According to your "behaviors have the same status as race" argument



that's not the 'argument' or issue...

 

[rightwinger]

Alabama Chief Justice Effectively Bans Same-Sex Marriage In The State

.

He would have done the same thing over interracial marriage

Except that race and sexual behaviors aren't legally in the same ballpark. Justice Moore woke up to the false premise when Ms. Davis was thrown in jail for refusing to violate her faith as to those behaviors.

Marriage is

14th amendment applied in both cases....but the south never liked the 14th amendment anyway

 

[mdk]

According to your "behaviors have the same status as race" argument



that's not the 'argument' or issue...

The only place where that argument exists is in Sil's imagination.

 

[Silhouette]

According to your "behaviors have the same status as race" argument



that's not the 'argument' or issue...

Yes, it is. For the first time in US History in 2015 a USSC case confirmed that just some repugnant minority sexual behaviors who decided to identify themselves by their behaviors, have the same status and protections as race re: the 14th Amendment. Just the Court's favorite repugnant behaviors though...not others....which paradoxically violates the 14th at the same time..

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage is

14th amendment applied in both cases....but the south never liked the 14th amendment anyway

So you're happy that polygamy and incest marriages are now legal. No? How not? You can't create a "separate but equal" paradox for just your favorites using the 14th..

 

[Valerie]

According to your "behaviors have the same status as race" argument


that's not the 'argument' or issue...

Yes, it is. For the first time in US History in 2015 a USSC case confirmed that just some repugnant minority sexual behaviors who decided to identify themselves by their behaviors, have the same status and protections as race re: the 14th Amendment. Just the Court's favorite repugnant behaviors though...not others....which paradoxically violates the 14th at the same time..

people are who they are, it's a free country...

as citizens, we all have the same legal status and protections from state laws... that's what the 14th actually says.

SCOTUS rules on issues as they naturally arise within our legal system, so you're thinking on this is backward.

fact is, no one is asking for state approval of their sexual behavior...

gay couples are asking their state(s) for equal access to all that state marriage laws legally convey...

religious 'conservatives' have this issue ass backwards and cling to tradition...because GOD!

 

[rightwinger]

Marriage is

14th amendment applied in both cases....but the south never liked the 14th amendment anyway

So you're happy that polygamy and incest marriages are now legal. No? How not? You can't create a "separate but equal" paradox for just your favorites using the 14th..

Both polygamy and incest is against the law....homosexuality is not

 

[Silhouette]

that's not the 'argument' or issue...

Yes, it is. For the first time in US History in 2015 a USSC case confirmed that just some repugnant minority sexual behaviors who decided to identify themselves by their behaviors, have the same status and protections as race re: the 14th Amendment. Just the Court's favorite repugnant behaviors though...not others....which paradoxically violates the 14th at the same time..

people are who they are, it's a free country...

as citizens, we all have the same legal status and protections from state laws... that's what the 14th actually says...SCOTUS rules on issues as they naturally arise within our legal system, so you're thinking on this is backward....fact is, no one is asking for state approval of their sexual behavior...gay couples are asking their state(s) for equal access to all that state marriage laws legally convey...

1. I'm not a religious conservative. I'm also a democrat and voted for Clinton twice and...regrettably because of no better alternative...Obama twice.

2. Behaviors cannot seek protection from state regulations. All civil and penal codes in any state are regarding the regulation of behaviors by their respective majorities. Race and behavior are NOT legal equals. Because if they were, any repugnant behavior could escape local regulation by the majority...not JUST your and the 5 Justices' pet favorite minority repugnant behaviors. Toss the false premise.

3. Gays can't hijack the marriage license for one pure, irrefutable and rock-solid reason in law: that violates a necessity to children who also share the marriage contract's enjoyments implicitly...indeed for who it was created over a thousand years ago. "Gay marriage" CANNOT EVER provide the necessary father and mother to children. There is no substitute for a father. There is no substitute for a mother. If a contract violates a necessity to an infant (all minors under age), it isn't merely voidable upon challenge, it is ALREADY VOID AT ITS INCEPTION. Void upon its face without challenge. That's how rock-solid "necessities to infants in contracts" law is. Look it up.

 

[rightwinger]

The South's Last, Desperate Stand

The south's last, desperate stand is....we hate fags?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes, it is. For the first time in US History in 2015 a USSC case confirmed that just some repugnant minority sexual behaviors who decided to identify themselves by their behaviors, have the same status and protections as race re: the 14th Amendment. Just the Court's favorite repugnant behaviors though...not others....which paradoxically violates the 14th at the same time..

No that would have been 1967 with the Loving decision. Blacks could marry. Whites could marry. It was the behavior of interracial marriage (a "repugnant minority sexual behavior" at the time) that was found constitutionally valid.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

The South's Last, Desperate Stand

The south's last, desperate stand is....we hate fags?

Keep beating that drum. Ever hear of the little boy who cried wolf? The point being that people's ears become deaf to your false cry of bigotry. This is an issue of state's rights, behaviors vs race, the 1st Amendment and necessities to infants in contract law.

 

[rightwinger]

The South's Last, Desperate Stand

The south's last, desperate stand is....we hate fags?

Keep beating that drum. Ever hear of the little boy who cried wolf? The point being that people's ears become deaf to your false cry of bigotry. This is an issue of state's rights, behaviors vs race, the 1st Amendment and necessities to infants in contract law.

A state does not have a right to violate the 14th amendment....the courts have already determined that
Federal law supersedes state law...Supremacy clause of the Constitution
Infants do not have a right to enter into a contract

 

[Silhouette]

A state does not have a right to violate the 14th amendment....the courts have already determined that
Federal law supersedes state law...Supremacy clause of the Constitution
Infants do not have a right to enter into a contract

When it comes to race, gender, country of origin or religion. Which one of those do LGBT behaviors fall under? Not gender, because marriage covered both genders already. It was the ACT of marrying the same gender which was given a new class protection under the 14th...by the Judicial...which is forbidden according to checks and balances. That new decree was and is the responsibility of CONGRESS to add, or not, to the Constitutional protections.

Just your favorite minority deviant sex behaviors wishes to marry the same gender ("marry" is a verb, not a noun) and pretend that others cannot. This is paradoxical to the 14th which covers ALL of any class (minority fetish behaviors marrying).

Care to defend against what I just said, using specifics and not your usual generalities?

 

[Valerie]

Keep beating that drum. Ever hear of the little boy who cried wolf?

you mean like the way you 'cry wolf' for incestuous marriage..??

 

[Silhouette]

Keep beating that drum. Ever hear of the little boy who cried wolf?

you mean like the way you 'cry wolf' for incestuous marriage..??

Incest and polygamy marriage by your own misuse of the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and sexual fetishes "getting equal rights" to marriage means incest and polygamy marriage are ALREADY LEGAL. Freedom of association. Who are you or even any federal or state law to deny the same marriage rights to any other consenting adults?