Was The Windsor/Obergefell Reversal A De Facto Fed Established Religion Move?

[Syriusly]

"Lie"? Is that what you call an opposing opinion?

No- a lie is what I call when you knowingly misrepresent what the court cases actually said.

 

[Silhouette]

If I ran the question in front of juries in the various states "Do you believe marriage laws anticipate the arrival of children to the contract"? The answer would be a resounding "Yes!" Why else would states lose money providing benefits to married couples....just to shack up together? If that was the case, then any combination of adults could marry without any qualifications whatsoever.

What does race have to do with deviant sex behaviors, legally? )

Nothing- which is just one more reasons all of your arguments are so idiotic.

You just refuse to accept that Windsor established two points very clearly:
a) That States have the (Limited) right to establish marriage laws without the interference of Federal legislation and
b) That States are limited by the Constitution- which was established in the precedent of Loving v. Virginia- when the State's marriage law was found to be unconstitutional.

.

Yes, DOMA sought via the Legislative-elected-representative fed power to limit states rights to establish marriage laws too; using Christian principles. Gay-DOMA (Obergefell) established a fed "right" .

No- regardless how many times you lie about what Obergefell stated- or accomplished- Obergefell was merely the latest of 4 different times that the Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws for being unconsitutional.
Loving - Zablocki- Turner- and now Obergefell.

All cases that the Supreme Court ruled that State marriage laws were unconstitutional and overturned.

Four different illegal judicial coups on legislative powers and the power of the states doesn't make them right. Misinterpreting "race" for deviant sex addictions is the flawed premise among all of those coups that will be overturned in the final reckoning. Behavioral practices unless they are a recognized religion, do not have any federal rights to force others to play along. Even if they were a recognized religion (the closes legal species to "gay"), they cannot force other people to abdicate their faith in favor of the new rainbow religion.

Obergefell is IN FACT the fed dictating morals to the states. It is the Gay-DOMA. "You WILL recognized deviant sex addicts as equivalent to race and thereby, deprive children involved of either a mother or father for life as the new "anti-marriage" marriage. ......says five unelected lawyers from DC to the states as a complete upheaval of the word "marriage" as it has been understood since time immemorial.

 

[Syriusly]

What does race have to do with deviant sex behaviors, legally? )

Nothing- which is just one more reasons all of your arguments are so idiotic.

You just refuse to accept that Windsor established two points very clearly:
a) That States have the (Limited) right to establish marriage laws without the interference of Federal legislation and
b) That States are limited by the Constitution- which was established in the precedent of Loving v. Virginia- when the State's marriage law was found to be unconstitutional.

.

Also then you'd agree that when Obergefell is overturned (don't laugh, Windsor was fundamentally overturned in just two years), the Legislative branch cannot dictate to states the type of marriage they allow (outside of race, country of origin and religion).

I am laughing.

Obergefell can only be overturned in one of two ways. The Supreme Court could reverse itself or the United States could pass a Constitutional Amendment to take away marriage rights from same gender couples. Since neither of those have happened- Obergefell is in effect, and gay couples can legally marry in all 50 states- despite your foot stomping and hate mongering.

And the Supreme Court is not the legislative branch- it is the Judicial Branch- which has the power- like it did in Loving and Zablocki and Turner- to overturn unconstitutional marriage laws.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Something refreshing that this thread made me realize... nobody starts threads about gay marriage anymore. A few years ago, every other thread was some rant against gay people. But now, very few people seem to still care at all. Very cool

 

[Syriusly]

If I ran the question in front of juries in the various states "Do you believe marriage laws anticipate the arrival of children to the contract"? The answer would be a resounding "Yes!" Why else would states lose money providing benefits to married couples....just to shack up together? If that was the case, then any combination of adults could marry without any qualifications whatsoever.

What does race have to do with deviant sex behaviors, legally? )

Nothing- which is just one more reasons all of your arguments are so idiotic.

You just refuse to accept that Windsor established two points very clearly:
a) That States have the (Limited) right to establish marriage laws without the interference of Federal legislation and
b) That States are limited by the Constitution- which was established in the precedent of Loving v. Virginia- when the State's marriage law was found to be unconstitutional.

.

Yes, DOMA sought via the Legislative-elected-representative fed power to limit states rights to establish marriage laws too; using Christian principles. Gay-DOMA (Obergefell) established a fed "right" .

No- regardless how many times you lie about what Obergefell stated- or accomplished- Obergefell was merely the latest of 4 different times that the Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws for being unconsitutional.
Loving - Zablocki- Turner- and now Obergefell.

All cases that the Supreme Court ruled that State marriage laws were unconstitutional and overturned.

Four different illegal judicial coups on legislative powers and the power of the states doesn't make them right. l.

What you stomp your foot and call 'judicial coups' is the Supreme Court doing its job.

It is not our problem that you do not understand the Constitution, the law, or the actual court cases.

One of the roles of the Supreme Court is to overturn unconstitutional State laws- because under the 14th Amendment state laws do not supercede Constitutional protections.

Which is why the Supreme Court has overturned State gun laws, overturned state voting laws- and yes- overturned State marriage laws.

 

[Syriusly]

Something refreshing that this thread made me realize... nobody starts threads about gay marriage anymore. A few years ago, every other thread was some rant against gay people. But now, very few people seem to still care at all. Very cool

It is pretty much a dead issue except for a few die hards.

Now they have all moved onto complaining about transgenders.

 

[Silhouette]

It isn't the Court's job to reverse DOMA and then reinstall Gay-DOMA against the Will of the governed and their elected representatives (the Legislature)

It is pretty much a dead issue except for a few die hards.

Now they have all moved onto complaining about transgenders.

Wrong. Obergefell (Gay-DOMA) is in fact going to be revisited, just like Windsor was and reversed within two years.

 

[Syriusly]

If I ran the question in front of juries in the various states "Do you believe marriage laws anticipate the arrival of children to the contract"? The answer would be a resounding "Yes!" Why else would states lose money providing benefits to married couples....just to shack up together? If that was the case, then any combination of adults could marry without any qualifications whatsoever.

What does race have to do with deviant sex behaviors, legally? )

Nothing- which is just one more reasons all of your arguments are so idiotic.

You just refuse to accept that Windsor established two points very clearly:
a) That States have the (Limited) right to establish marriage laws without the interference of Federal legislation and
b) That States are limited by the Constitution- which was established in the precedent of Loving v. Virginia- when the State's marriage law was found to be unconstitutional.

.

Yes, DOMA sought via the Legislative-elected-representative fed power to limit states rights to establish marriage laws too; using Christian principles. Gay-DOMA (Obergefell) established a fed "right" .

No- regardless how many times you lie about what Obergefell stated- or accomplished- Obergefell was merely the latest of 4 different times that the Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws for being unconsitutional.
Loving - Zablocki- Turner- and now Obergefell.

All cases that the Supreme Court ruled that State marriage laws were unconstitutional and overturned.

Obergefell is IN FACT the fed dictating morals to the states. .

You don't even know what a fact is.

DOMA was actually the Federal government imposing moral judgment on the states.
Obergefell was the Supreme court overturning an unconstitutional law- without any moral judgement.

 

[Silhouette]

One (A)moral DOMA replaces another moral DOMA.

 

[Silhouette]

If I ran the question in front of juries in the various states "Do you believe marriage laws anticipate the arrival of children to the contract"? The answer would be a resounding "Yes!" Why else would states lose money providing benefits to married couples....just to shack up together? If that was the case, then any combination of adults could marry without any qualifications whatsoever.

What does race have to do with deviant sex behaviors, legally? )

Nothing- which is just one more reasons all of your arguments are so idiotic.

You just refuse to accept that Windsor established two points very clearly:
a) That States have the (Limited) right to establish marriage laws without the interference of Federal legislation and
b) That States are limited by the Constitution- which was established in the precedent of Loving v. Virginia- when the State's marriage law was found to be unconstitutional.

.

Yes, DOMA sought via the Legislative-elected-representative fed power to limit states rights to establish marriage laws too; using Christian principles. Gay-DOMA (Obergefell) established a fed "right" .

No- regardless how many times you lie about what Obergefell stated- or accomplished- Obergefell was merely the latest of 4 different times that the Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws for being unconsitutional.
Loving - Zablocki- Turner- and now Obergefell.

All cases that the Supreme Court ruled that State marriage laws were unconstitutional and overturned.

Obergefell is IN FACT the fed dictating morals to the states. .

You don't even know what a fact is.

DOMA was actually the Federal government imposing moral judgment on the states.
Obergefell was the Supreme court overturning an unconstitutional law- without any moral judgement.

And, Gay-DOMA is the fed imposing (a)moral judgment on the states. Obefgefell was the USSC overturning DOMA to insert Gay-DOMA. Long story short.

 

[Syriusly]

It isn't the Court's job to reverse DOMA and then reinstall Gay-DOMA against the Will of the governed and their elected representatives (the Legislature)

It is pretty much a dead issue except for a few die hards.

Now they have all moved onto complaining about transgenders.

Wrong. Obergefell (Gay-DOMA) is in fact going to be revisited, just like Windsor was and reversed within two years.

a) Perhaps someone will try to challenge it all the way to the Supreme Court- but it is unlikely.
b) Windsor was not reversed- which is why the DOMA laws that prevented the Federal government from recognizing gay marriages is still overturned.

You are just delusional.

 

[Syriusly]

One (A)moral DOMA replaces another moral DOMA.

There was only one DOMA- and it was overturned because Congress cannot dictate to States what their marriage laws are.

 

[mdk]

Something refreshing that this thread made me realize... nobody starts threads about gay marriage anymore. A few years ago, every other thread was some rant against gay people. But now, very few people seem to still care at all. Very cool

That's because most people have moved on to more pressing issues at hand. The only people that are still squawking about gay marriage are the diehards and queer bashers like Sil, but most people don't give a shit.

 

[Syriusly]

Something refreshing that this thread made me realize... nobody starts threads about gay marriage anymore. A few years ago, every other thread was some rant against gay people. But now, very few people seem to still care at all. Very cool

That's because most people have moved on to more pressing issues at hand. The only people that are still squawking about gay marriage are the diehards and queer bashers like Sil, but most people don't give a shit.

Not only moved on- but most Americans support marriage for all

U.S. Support for Gay Marriage Edges to New High
A record percentage of Americans supports gay marriage, new poll finds

 

[Syriusly]

If I ran the question in front of juries in the various states "Do you believe marriage laws anticipate the arrival of children to the contract"? The answer would be a resounding "Yes!" .

Is that what the voices in your head keep telling you?

I can say with great certainty that when my 80 year old uncle married his 70 year old bride- there was no anticipation of the arrival of children in their contract.

The marriage 'contract' neither expects or requires children.

 

[Silhouette]

That's because most people have moved on to more pressing issues at hand. The only people that are still squawking about gay marriage are the diehards and queer bashers like Sil, but most people don't give a shit.

And people concerned about a brand new contract forced on states (by five unelected lawyers, two of which displayed over bias before the Hearing) that deprives children in marriage by law of either a mother or father for life....

U.S. Support for Gay Marriage Edges to New High
A record percentage of Americans supports gay marriage, new poll finds

This poll says otherwise:

Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

 

[mdk]

That's because most people have moved on to more pressing issues at hand. The only people that are still squawking about gay marriage are the diehards and queer bashers like Sil, but most people don't give a shit.

And people concerned about a brand new contract forced on states (by five unelected lawyers, two of which displayed over bias before the Hearing) that deprives children in marriage by law of either a mother or father for life....

They'll get over it. When will you provide a father in your household? Worry about your own roof, Mrs. Kravitz.

 

[Silhouette]

The topic is about gay marriage laws in the country. Please stick to the topic mdk.

 

[Syriusly]

That's because most people have moved on to more pressing issues at hand. The only people that are still squawking about gay marriage are the diehards and queer bashers like Sil, but most people don't give a shit.

And people concerned about a brand new contract forced on states (by five unelected lawyers, two of which displayed over bias before the Hearing) that deprives children in marriage by law of either a mother or father for life....

To translate from Silhouette speak: When the Supreme Court ruled that states could not deny gay couples their Constitutional rights she completely lost her mind.

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
This poll says otherwise:

Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

That poll just is another indication of your delusion.