The South's Last, Desperate Stand

[Silhouette]

Remember kids, the topic is gay marriage on ice in Alabama until there is clarity on who has to abide by Obergefell (or not) and why...

 

[WorldWatcher]

Remember kids, the topic is gay marriage on ice in Alabama until there is clarity on who has to abide by Obergefell (or not) and why...

There is no confusion on the application of Obergefell, it is very clear: "The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States."

Judge Moore is just using attempting to use a delaying tactic.

On top of that 67 probate Judges in Alabama, 9 were refusing to issue licenses before Moore's edict, only 4 more stopped. That means that 54 Judges are still complying with Obergefell despite Moore's statement.

When the SCOTUS says it applies to all states, there is no need for further clarity.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Remember kids, the topic is gay marriage on ice in Alabama until there is clarity on who has to abide by Obergefell (or not) and why...

There is no confusion on the application of Obergefell, it is very clear: "The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States."

Judge Moore is just using attempting to use a delaying tactic.

Judge Moore specifically cited the Kim Davis jailing and he is forcing the USSC to clarify how Christians are mandated to play along with a behavior they are forbidden to play along with according to very specific edicts and warnings in their faith (re: Jude 1). He is calling their cards on the table. That's precisely what his move was all about. He took a stand for the 1st Amendment. Does his activism for the Constitution bother you? Because that type of activism you've always embraced when it was about gays tearing away the contractual rights of children to both a mother and father in marriage...

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..

 

[Skylar]

Skylar, you're like a living litmus test. The more vitriol you spew in your replies to the infants/necessities/contracts issue of "gay marriage", the more I feel you fear that issue. In direct proportion.

And as your perfect record if failure in predicting any legal outcome demonstrates, how you 'feel' has zero relevance to anything we're discussing.

 

[Skylar]

Remember kids, the topic is gay marriage on ice in Alabama until there is clarity on who has to abide by Obergefell (or not) and why...

There is no confusion on the application of Obergefell, it is very clear: "The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States."

Judge Moore is just using attempting to use a delaying tactic.

Judge Moore specifically cited the Kim Davis jailing and he is forcing the USSC to clarify how Christians are mandated to play along with a behavior they are forbidden to play along with according to very specific edicts and warnings in their faith (re: Jude 1). He is calling their cards on the table.

Nope. He's just trying to draw attention away from the arraignment of his son on drug charges. His son was arraigned on the 4th. And out of no where, Moore issues his 'reminder' on the 6th. No case motivated. It was in response to no specific legal question. Moore just dropped a judicial deuce.

And the overwhelmingly majority of probate judges in Alabama, 54 or 67, just ignored Moore and his inconsequential babble. As the issue is legally settled. Moore is mrely trying to take a little of the heat off of his kid.

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 one has argued that LBGT is a 'race'. Ending that strawman.

Obergefell recognizes same sex marriage as a constitutional right. You can ignore the USSC if you'd like. But you can't make us ignore them. Which is why gay marriages are happening in 50 of 50 States.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Remember kids, the topic is gay marriage on ice in Alabama until there is clarity on who has to abide by Obergefell (or not) and why...

No, the topic of the thread is that a judicial officer is at war with the Constitution, in violation of the Supremacy Clause, the rule of law, his oath of office, and settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

That's the topic.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"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.

 

[Silhouette]

Skylar, you're like a living litmus test. The more vitriol you spew in your replies to the infants/necessities/contracts issue of "gay marriage", the more I feel you fear that issue. In direct proportion.

And as your perfect record if failure in predicting any legal outcome demonstrates, how you 'feel' has zero relevance to anything we're discussing.

"Perfect...failure"...."zero relevance"...

Are you worried about Moore's decision? Do you think the National Guard is going to Alabama to force Christians to participate with, facilitate, sanction or license "gay" weddings that deprive children of either their vital mother or father? In an election year, really? With the dems only candidate being a 70-something year old woman with health issues?

 

[Silhouette]

..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

But the Constitution does not recognize behaviors as a race. So, "gay Americans" is no more legally valid of a term than "Bulimic Americans"..

And.. The Constitution does not recognize adult personal choices as legally dominant to children's necessities. This is particularly delineated in infants and contract law regarding necessities. Adults' personal decisions in their private life cannot bleed over into depriving a child of a necessity.

"Children Americans" will see their day in court. Though they don't really need to. A Supreme Court of any state could declare "gay marriage" illegal because gay marriage deprives children of their former enjoyment and necessity per contract: Both a mother and a father. Any contract, and I mean ANY contract that does this, is void upon its face while the ink is still wet..

 

[Silhouette]

For the person who tagged the last post as "Funny"...

"...some contracts cannot be voided....perhaps the biggest area of enforceable minor contracts deals with necessaries, which consist of goods reasonably necessary for subsistence, health, comfort or education. As such, contracts furnishing these items to a minor cannot be disaffirmed. " Contracts of Minors

 

[Silhouette]

...the topic of the thread is that a judicial officer is at war with the Constitution, in violation of the Supremacy Clause, the rule of law, his oath of office, and settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

That's the topic.

No, "just some of the Court's favorite minority, repugnant, deviant sex behaviors but not others" has not be "settled and accepted" per the 14th.

Stay tuned.. In fact, what Moore is doing is sort of a de facto "motion for clarity" on Obergefell from the SCOTUS for his state. A lack of clarity is causing chaos. He won't allow Christians to go to jail for not promoting a behavior the Bible tells them not to promote... He mentioned Kim Davis. Did you read his order at all?

 

[mdk]

For the person who tagged the last post as "Funny"...

"...some contracts cannot be voided....perhaps the biggest area of enforceable minor contracts deals with necessaries, which consist of goods reasonably necessary for subsistence, health, comfort or education. As such, contracts furnishing these items to a minor cannot be disaffirmed. " Contracts of Minors

For the person who tagged the last post as "Funny"...

"...some contracts cannot be voided....perhaps the biggest area of enforceable minor contracts deals with necessaries, which consist of goods reasonably necessary for subsistence, health, comfort or education. As such, contracts furnishing these items to a minor cannot be disaffirmed. " Contracts of Minors

Citing entertainment doesn't make gay marriage void. Your whining is enjoyable to behold though.

 

[Skylar]

Skylar, you're like a living litmus test. The more vitriol you spew in your replies to the infants/necessities/contracts issue of "gay marriage", the more I feel you fear that issue. In direct proportion.

And as your perfect record if failure in predicting any legal outcome demonstrates, how you 'feel' has zero relevance to anything we're discussing.

"Perfect...failure"...."zero relevance"...

Are you worried about Moore's decision? Do you think the National Guard is going to Alabama to force Christians to participate with, facilitate, sanction or license "gay" weddings that deprive children of either their vital mother or father? In an election year, really? With the dems only candidate being a 70-something year old woman with health issues?

Not even a little. Again, Sil....you don't know what you're talking about. Every time you've made a legal prediction, no matter the topic, no matter the case, no matter the circumstances, you've been wrong.

And yet here you are, quoting how you 'feel' as legal evidence. Despite that standard *never* producing an accurate prediction on the outcome of any case.

And Moore's attempt to take the pressure off his kid by dropping a pseudo-legal deuce is essentially meaningless. Even the probate judges he was addressing overwhelmingly ignored Moore's inane babble.

 

[Skylar]

...the topic of the thread is that a judicial officer is at war with the Constitution, in violation of the Supremacy Clause, the rule of law, his oath of office, and settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

That's the topic.

No, "just some of the Court's favorite minority, repugnant, deviant sex behaviors but not others" has not be "settled and accepted" per the 14th.

Same sex marriage certainly has. Again, Sil....your argument has been reduced to ignoring the Supreme Court and replacing the Obergefell ruling with whatever you imagine.

Alas, your imagination isn't law. As same sex marriage in 50 of 50 States, including Alabama, demonstrates.......the USSC's ruling is authoritative.

Stay tuned.. In fact, what Moore is doing is sort of a de facto "motion for clarity" on Obergefell from the SCOTUS for his state. A lack of clarity is causing chaos. He won't allow Christians to go to jail for not promoting a behavior the Bible tells them not to promote... He mentioned Kim Davis. Did you read his order at all?

Laughing.....you're making *another* legal prediction? Sil, when have any of your legal predictions *ever* been accurate? Your record of failure is essentially perfect.

But this time its different, huh?

 

[80zephyr]

To paraphrase a popular idiom, "you can lead a country to sodomite marriage but you can't make them accept it".

Yes, because people don't have to accept, promote or play along with ephemeral repugnant behaviors.

You don't have to do a thing. As you're irrelevant to anyone else's marriage but your own.

That is incorrect. Society has often changed individuals. Divorce and abortion are two prime examples. When an activity becomes acceptable, society reacts to it. 50 years ago, recieving welfare was shameful. Today..not so much.

Mark

 

[Skylar]

To paraphrase a popular idiom, "you can lead a country to sodomite marriage but you can't make them accept it".

Yes, because people don't have to accept, promote or play along with ephemeral repugnant behaviors.

You don't have to do a thing. As you're irrelevant to anyone else's marriage but your own.

That is incorrect. Society has often changed individuals. Divorce and abortion are two prime examples. When an activity becomes acceptable, society reacts to it. 50 years ago, recieving welfare was shameful. Today..not so much.

Mark

Sil isn't 'society'. Ending your entire argument.

 

[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

 

[80zephyr]

To paraphrase a popular idiom, "you can lead a country to sodomite marriage but you can't make them accept it".

Yes, because people don't have to accept, promote or play along with ephemeral repugnant behaviors.

You don't have to do a thing. As you're irrelevant to anyone else's marriage but your own.

That is incorrect. Society has often changed individuals. Divorce and abortion are two prime examples. When an activity becomes acceptable, society reacts to it. 50 years ago, recieving welfare was shameful. Today..not so much.

Mark

Sil isn't 'society'. Ending your entire argument.

The argument was that major changes in society have no impact on the individual. History shows that to be false.
Mark

 

[Skylar]

To paraphrase a popular idiom, "you can lead a country to sodomite marriage but you can't make them accept it".

Yes, because people don't have to accept, promote or play along with ephemeral repugnant behaviors.

You don't have to do a thing. As you're irrelevant to anyone else's marriage but your own.

That is incorrect. Society has often changed individuals. Divorce and abortion are two prime examples. When an activity becomes acceptable, society reacts to it. 50 years ago, recieving welfare was shameful. Today..not so much.

Mark

Sil isn't 'society'. Ending your entire argument.

The argument was that major changes in society have no impact on the individual. History shows that to be false.
Mark

The argument was that Sil is irrelevant to anyone else's marriage. And isn't being forced to do a thing regarding same sex marriage.

 

[rcfieldz]

They'll never ban Confederate army hats or the Stars and Bars.