The South's Last, Desperate Stand

[Skylar]

Well, there is also a fundamental difference between regular marriage and homosexual marriage,...

OK, here is your chance. From a legal secular perspective please explain the unique difference as applied to man/woman, man/man, and woman/woman civil marriages that applies to law abiding, tax-paying, non-related, infertile, US Citizens, consenting adults in different-sex relationships who are allowed to Civilly Marry in all 50 states and law abiding, tax-paying, non-related, infertile, US Citizens, consenting adults in same-sex relationships who were denied Civil Marriage based solely on the gender of the prospective spouse...Remember excemptions that apply to man/woman civil marriages would apply to man/man and woman/woman marriages also....Go...

Answer: "Children's contractual rights re: marriage contract, to both a mother and father..." Natural born or adopted into marriage.

...End...

Save that no court nor law recognizes children being married to their parents. You hallucinated that. And your hallucinations have no legal relevance.

End.

 

[Skylar]

Well, there is also a fundamental difference between regular marriage and homosexual marriage, and yet, concessions were made to accommodate those.

Those who insist expansion of freedoms for some while limiting others who think differently are exactly like the folks who protested gay marriage.

Mark

OK, here is your chance. From a legal secular perspective please explain the unique difference as applied to man/woman, man/man, and woman/woman civil marriages that applies only law abiding, tax-paying, non-related, infertile, US Citizens, consenting adults in different-sex relationships who are allowed to Civilly Marry in all 50 states and law abiding, tax-paying, non-related, infertile, US Citizens, consenting adults in same-sex relationships who were denied Civil Marriage based solely on the gender of the prospective spouse.

Remember excempts that apply to man/woman civil marriages would apply to man/man and woman/woman marriages also.


Go...


>>>>

I already have. One man, one woman is unique to all other combinations. You are using PARAMETERS SET BY YOU as a "gotcha" question.

When you set up a question that will "funnel" an expected answer, I will give the correct one.

Mark

No it isn't. You can apply the same law with same sex couples as you do with opposite sex couples. Now, in polygamy, if one person wants out does that mean that they are divorced from the other two while the other two stay married, or that all three are divorced from each other.

Show me the law that defines that. Remember, in same sex or opposite sex marriage......both participants enter and exit the union at the exact same time. But in polygamy, that's not necessarily the case. How does our law account for the differing times of entering and exiting the unions?

Logically, there's a vast difference. Even if you refuse to acknowledge it.

 

[Skylar]

Actually, its the 1st amendment that forbid her from doing what she did. As when she used the State to impose her specific religious views on unwilling individuals.....she violated the 1st amendment prohibition against the Establishment of Religion.

She *might* have gotten away with refusing to do her job on the basis of her religious views. Its when she also forbid any other clerk in the office from issuing such licenses that your argument falls apart. As we're *way* past reasonable accommodation when her religion mandates that she get to control *other* people.

And all that would be true if the premise of "just some of the Court's favorite minority repugnant sex BEHAVIORS are equal to race" wasn't patently false to begin with.

Your 'behavior as race' strawman is irrelevant. As its not the basis of any court decision. Worse for you, behaviors are protected. In fact, the entire basis of your argument is the protection of a behavior: religion. That you laughably insist can never be protected because your pseudo-legal word salad that 'behaviors don't equal race'.

Which only demonstrates that you have no idea how the law works. Nor the slightest clue what you're talking about.

And the fact that the Judicial Branch of Government can't fulfill the Legislature's duties to amend the Constitution's 14th language to include "just some of 5 people on the Court's favorite minority repugnant sex BEHAVIORS, but not others.." Because, polygamy is already technically legal, since the 14th means equality, not selectivity and playing favorites.. Gonna put people in jail for not issuing polygamy marriage licenses are you? No? Too "icky"? Ah...what a fucking quagmire those 5 dumbasses created...

And once again your argument degenerates into 'we must ignore the Supreme Court on the law and use whatever hapless batshit I make up.

Um, no. We're not doing that. The Obergefell ruling was authoritative. And you're still nobody.

And hence all the problems to follow. Since LGBT are behaviors, they are quasi-religion in and of themselves. More properly, a cult. So forcing government officials to abide by a cult is also forbidden. So it is Christianity (a religion) vs LGBT (a cult). And that is the legal standoff at this point.

Christianity is indeed a religion. The rest of your post is pseudo-legal gibberish. As you calling something a 'cult' has no relevance to the Obergefell decision, the law, or the outcome of any court case.

Can you see why you're *always* wrong when making legal predictions? You keep citing your imagination while ignoring the law.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Can you show me anywhere in Lawerence v. Texas, Windsor v. US or Obergefell v. Hodges....where the 'number of people' in a marriage was cited as a particular freedom?

Because I'm pretty sure that's just you citing you.

Well, before gay marriage was legalized, was it cited as a particular freedom? IOW's, why is gender unimportant in a marriage and the number of participants is?

Mark

Cited as a particular freedom.....by whom? You are in love with the passive voice, aren't you? Because neither the law nor the courts have ever recognized any number of participants as being a 'particular freedom'.

So I assume when you say 'cited', you mean by yourself?

Thanks for making my point.

Mark

Your point was apparently that you citing you has some legal or logical relevance to this issue. And as your avoidance of my question as to which law or court ruling has ever recognized the number of participants in a marriage as a 'particular freedom', there is no such relevance. As no law nor court decision has ever sided with you on your 'polygamy must follow gay marriage, logically' nonsense. Nor recognizes them as legally equivalent.

 

[Silhouette]

Your point was apparently that you citing you has some legal or logical relevance to this issue. And as your avoidance of my question as to which law or court ruling has ever recognized the number of participants in a marriage as a 'particular freedom', there is no such relevance. As no law nor court decision has ever sided with you on your 'polygamy must follow gay marriage, logically' nonsense. Nor recognizes them as legally equivalent.

Since "gay" is behavior and since "gay" got the Judicial to retool the 14th Amendment (only the Legislature can do that) to include "repugnant deviant sex behaviors", then no court has to find for polygamy. The 14th already Found for polygamy. It is legal to do polygamy marriage today as it is any other sexual behavior. You remember of course that the 14th is about equality, not "arbitrary favorites".

Polygamy doesn't or didn't "follow" gay marriage. Polygamy IS gay marriage, legally, according to the 14th.

Judge Roy Moore is calling SCOTUS' five's cards on the table. He wants to see how they came to their legal conclusions on gay "marriage's" full impact: to Christians, to polygamists, to children...the whole works. He's calling them on their false premise.

 

[mdk]

Your point was apparently that you citing you has some legal or logical relevance to this issue. And as your avoidance of my question as to which law or court ruling has ever recognized the number of participants in a marriage as a 'particular freedom', there is no such relevance. As no law nor court decision has ever sided with you on your 'polygamy must follow gay marriage, logically' nonsense. Nor recognizes them as legally equivalent.

Since "gay" is behavior and since "gay" got the Judicial to retool the 14th Amendment to include "repugnant deviant sex behaviors", then no court has to find for polygamy. The 14th already Found for polygamy. It is legal to do polygamy marriage today as it is any other sexual behavior. You remember of course that the 14th is about equality, not "arbitrary favorites".

Polygamy doesn't or didn't "follow" gay marriage. Polygamy IS gay marriage, legally, according to the 14th.

The courts are not bound by any of the legal nonsense you pull out of thin air. You would be wise to remember that fact.

 

[Skylar]

Your point was apparently that you citing you has some legal or logical relevance to this issue. And as your avoidance of my question as to which law or court ruling has ever recognized the number of participants in a marriage as a 'particular freedom', there is no such relevance. As no law nor court decision has ever sided with you on your 'polygamy must follow gay marriage, logically' nonsense. Nor recognizes them as legally equivalent.

Since "gay" is behavior and since "gay" got the Judicial to retool the 14th Amendment (only the Legislature can do that) to include "repugnant deviant sex behaviors", then no court has to find for polygamy. The 14th already Found for polygamy. It is legal to do polygamy marriage today as it is any other sexual behavior. You remember of course that the 14th is about equality, not "arbitrary favorites".

Nope. Polygamy isn't legal. And you've never read the Obergefell decision, nor have the slightest idea what its about.

You're again citing your imagination. And as you've demonstrated with your perfect record of failure in predicting any legal outcome, your imagination is legally meaningless.

 

[Skylar]

Your point was apparently that you citing you has some legal or logical relevance to this issue. And as your avoidance of my question as to which law or court ruling has ever recognized the number of participants in a marriage as a 'particular freedom', there is no such relevance. As no law nor court decision has ever sided with you on your 'polygamy must follow gay marriage, logically' nonsense. Nor recognizes them as legally equivalent.

Since "gay" is behavior and since "gay" got the Judicial to retool the 14th Amendment to include "repugnant deviant sex behaviors", then no court has to find for polygamy. The 14th already Found for polygamy. It is legal to do polygamy marriage today as it is any other sexual behavior. You remember of course that the 14th is about equality, not "arbitrary favorites".

Polygamy doesn't or didn't "follow" gay marriage. Polygamy IS gay marriage, legally, according to the 14th.

The courts are not bound by any of the legal nonsense you pull out of thin air. You would be wise to remember that fact.

Which might explain why the court's decisions are never what Sil insists they will be. As the courts cite and follow the *actual* law. Not whatever pseudo-legal gibberish that Sil makes up.

 

[Silhouette]

The courts are not bound by any of the legal nonsense you pull out of thin air. You would be wise to remember that fact.

...and you'd be wise to re-read the 14th's intent..."equality"... And remember, the 14th Amendment cannot play favorites. Polygamy is already legal because of the 14th. Just some sexually deviant repugnant behaviors cannot have a monopoly on the 14th. They all are included. Or none of them are.

 

[mdk]

The courts are not bound by any of the legal nonsense you pull out of thin air. You would be wise to remember that fact.

...and you'd be wise to re-read the 14th's intent..."equality"... And remember, the 14th Amendment cannot play favorites. Polygamy is already legal because of the 14th. Just some sexually deviant repugnant behaviors cannot have a monopoly on the 14th. They all are included. Or none of them are.

Considering your record of abject failure, you'll have to excuse me if I don't hit the panic button when you make a legal prediction.

 

[Skylar]

The courts are not bound by any of the legal nonsense you pull out of thin air. You would be wise to remember that fact.

...and you'd be wise to re-read the 14th's intent..."equality"... And remember, the 14th Amendment cannot play favorites. Polygamy is already legal because of the 14th. Just some sexually deviant repugnant behaviors cannot have a monopoly on the 14th. They all are included. Or none of them are.

Nope. Polygamy isn't legal. You've never read Obergefell and have no idea what the ruling is about.

As usual, you've imagined a version of the ruling, just like you imagine a version of the law....and then pretend that all courts are bound to whatever you imagine.

As usual, we're not obligated to pretend with you.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

So far the South isn't rising again.

We don't have to. Corporations are scrambling to move all their jobs down here. The military has massive, critical bases down here. Our economies are thriving. Our governments aren't saddled with union based unfunded entitlements.

Yeah. Those old ignorant and backward Alabama rednecks are riding around in $40,000.00 pickups towing $20,000.00 bass boats and attending the NCAA champion University of Alabama football games. But they're backwards and ignorant. LOL!!

Alabama QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

Median household income, 2009-2013 Alabama: $43,253 US: $53,046
Persons below poverty level, percent, 2009-2013
Alabama: 18.6% US: 15.4%

Now do a cost of living comparison.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The brilliance of the South...

Southern Europe?

 

[Silhouette]

Nope. Polygamy isn't legal. You've never read Obergefell and have no idea what the ruling is about.

I've read the 14th and know that when a class is created based on behaviors the majority find repugnant gaining access to marriage (and the children in marriage), that class can't exclude others same or similar. Maybe you should read the 14th. Better yet, maybe the five Justices who illegally changed the Constitution should have read it too.

 

[Silhouette]

Ah...the way to warm a Chief Justice's heart, down in "we don't fuck around" country... See, this is what happens when gays' hubris rises unchecked. They actually believe they can politically-assault and massacre any career they see fit. Even using people's children to get the job done. And they they wonder why Alabama doesn't want them around children.

I'm anxious to see if their blackmail worked. Will Justice Moore like so many others before him, completely shelve his nerve and moral compunctions, as well as his sworn duty as a Supreme Dispenser of Justice? Or will he stand strong like Kim Davis?

January 12, 2016 ...Around 150 people came out to Tuesday's "Remove Roy Moore" rally organized by Equality Wiregrass and the Human Rights Campaign....Several people at the rally accused Moore of issuing the order as a publicity stunt, both to garner attention for a future run for governor and to move attention off of his son, Caleb Moore, who earlier this month pleaded not guilty to two drug charges in Pike County. One protester held a sign with Caleb Moore's mugshot that said "Attention Roy Moore: Worry about your own damn family." 'Remove Roy Moore' protesters to Alabama's chief justice: 'Worry about your own damn family'

 

[mdk]

Ah...the way to warm a Chief Justice's heart, down in "we don't fuck around" country... See, this is what happens when gays' hubris rises unchecked. They actually believe they can politically-assault and massacre any career they see fit. Even using people's children to get the job done. And they they wonder why Alabama doesn't want them around children.

I'm anxious to see if their blackmail worked. Will Justice Moore like so many others before him, completely shelve his nerve and moral compunctions, as well as his sworn duty as a Supreme Dispenser of Justice? Or will he stand strong like Kim Davis?

January 12, 2016 ...Around 150 people came out to Tuesday's "Remove Roy Moore" rally organized by Equality Wiregrass and the Human Rights Campaign....Several people at the rally accused Moore of issuing the order as a publicity stunt, both to garner attention for a future run for governor and to move attention off of his son, Caleb Moore, who earlier this month pleaded not guilty to two drug charges in Pike County. One protester held a sign with Caleb Moore's mugshot that said "Attention Roy Moore: Worry about your own damn family." 'Remove Roy Moore' protesters to Alabama's chief justice: 'Worry about your own damn family'

In typical fashion, Caleb Moore, whose been arrested 7 times in four years, blames the police and the media for him getting caught smoking dope in public. Too funny.

I'm not too concerned about Moore. Gay marriage and adoption is legal in Alabama and Moore isn't able to run for Chief Justice anymore due to his age.

 

[Silhouette]

In typical fashion, Caleb Moore, whose been arrested 7 times in four years, blames the police and the media for him getting caught smoking dope in public. Too funny.

I'm not too concerned about Moore. Gay marriage and adoption is legal in Alabama and Moore isn't able to run for Chief Justice anymore due to his age.

A man's sons or daughter's young adult carousing behaviors do not necessarily reflect upon the man, but instead perhaps upon their peer group. Since your cult has had a large hand in influencing young adults of today to all manner of debaucherous behavior, perhaps the finger should be pointed at you LGBT cult members and not Justice Roy Moore.

And like I said, those who pet the fur of a southern tomcat the wrong way are going to have a bloody hard time on their hands getting what they want..

 

[Skylar]

Nope. Polygamy isn't legal. You've never read Obergefell and have no idea what the ruling is about.

I've read the 14th and know that when a class is created based on behaviors the majority find repugnant gaining access to marriage (and the children in marriage), that class can't exclude others same or similar.

You've never read the 14th nor have the slighest clue what it allows. You're again citing your imaginary version of the 14th, just like you cite an imaginary version of the Obergefell ruling and imaginary contract law.

And as usual, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Maybe you should read the 14th. Better yet, maybe the five Justices who illegally changed the Constitution should have read it too.

Laughing.....so the Supreme Court doesn't know the constitution. But you do, huh?

So, um....how's that working out for you?

 

[mdk]

A man's sons or daughter's young adult carousing behaviors do not necessarily reflect upon the man, but instead perhaps upon their peer group.

Caleb Moore's carousing and drug use are the reason why heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt or marry. Or does that standard of yours only apply to queers? lol.

Besides, none of these incidents would have occurred if Caleb Moore had a mother and father as role model.

See The Prince's Trust for more details.

 

[Skylar]

In typical fashion, Caleb Moore, whose been arrested 7 times in four years, blames the police and the media for him getting caught smoking dope in public. Too funny.

I'm not too concerned about Moore. Gay marriage and adoption is legal in Alabama and Moore isn't able to run for Chief Justice anymore due to his age.

A man's sons or daughter's young adult carousing behaviors do not necessarily reflect upon the man, but instead perhaps upon their peer group. Since your cult has had a large hand in influencing young adults of today to all manner of debaucherous behavior, perhaps the finger should be pointed at you LGBT cult members and not Justice Roy Moore.

They reflect poorly enough that Moore found it necessary to draw attention away from his son's arraignment by dropping a judicial deuce.....that even the overwhelming majority of the State's probabe judges treated with the disdain it deserved.

Sonny gets arraigned Monday afternoon. And Wednesday morning on the sharp.....Daddy desperately tries to draw attention to himself.