Page 20 of 87 FirstFirst ... 1018192021223070 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 869

Thread: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses[W:344,535,718]

  1. #191
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    May 29th, 1790.


    And May 9, 1865 when the Union won the U.S. Civil War.

  2. #192
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 04:17 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,032

    Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Loving does not apply here,

    But, even if marriage was eventually declared a federal constitutional right by some convoluted erroneous reasoning, it's still "marriage", meaning "between a man and a woman as husband and wife". By it's very nature, "marriage" rightly discriminates between a single person by him or her self, three or more people, a man and a little girl, a dog and a cat, .. and a man and a man and a woman and a woman.

    No exceptions can rightly be made with respect to the word "marriage".

    If you want to have private enterprise and government recognition of certain specific domestic partnerships (marriage itself is a civil union domestic partnership legal statute in every state), then each distinct civil union domestic partnership must be defined in detail and identified with an identifying word .. so "homarriage" or the like would be a new civil union domestic partnership "between two same sex people as husband and husband or wife and wife" or whatever.

    But that's rightly up to each state to decide, as there is no federal constitutional even remotely applicable passage in this matter to force states to create specific statutes.

    Justice Thomas is absolutely correct, in that not only is it apparent that the SCOTUS is tipping their hand that the majority will attempt to construe a federal right to the ridiculous oxymoronic "gay marriage" / "same-sex marriage", but that that would obviously be the wrong decision, as though clearly the majority of Americans favor recognition, the majority of Americans also don't support that recognition under the inapplicable term "marriage", and because the SCOTUS simply has no final conclusion as to whether gay is from birth or a conscious choice, they cannot intelligently conclude it's an inalienable right.

    The SCOTUS simply has no rationally intelligent grounds to conclude that "any two people" can "marry", both with respect to definitive propriety, respecting words and their true meaning, constitutionally, and with respect to the majority of Americans who have yet to show that gays marrying is a time-honored cultural reasonable and customary tradition.

    Ultimately, the likely thing the SCOTUS is going to do is to require same-sex union recognition in every state but to let each state decide what to call that particular union. Some states will call it rightly "homarriage", and others will erroneously refer to it as "marriage".

    But the right thing for the SCOTUS to do is to allow recognition in every state but require that it be given a name other than marriage, as it's reasonable and customary for adult humans to bond one-to-one (not polygamously), but there is no reasonable and customary cultural tradition to call such bondings "marriage".

    Again, marriage is a contract, and contract law is the province of the state, not the federal.
    Wow, what a lot of typing for so little substance! I'll do a lot less and cover more, how about that?

    Absolutely Loving applies here.

    You may think marriage is only between two people of opposite sex. You are now wrong. The definition has changed in many countries and in many states.

    You can't call same-sex marriage something "different" - that's the "separate but equal" theory which has been tossed out.

    As someone else mentioned, contracts still have to follow the federal constitution. Real estate contracts that include clauses that you can't resell to blacks or chinese - those clauses aren't valid, no matter what you signed.

    You don't like same sex marriage? don't have one.

    What is causing issues right now is that a couple married in one state moves to another state -and suddenly they are no longer considered married. or they can't get a divorce since the state doesn't recognize the marriage. Or they can't adopt a child. That's just crazy.

    And what happens when one member of a opposite-gender couple changes their gender? It was man/woman, now it's man/man or woman/woman. Are they still married? Are they forced to split up? Or conversely, if a woman changes her gender to a man, and then marries a woman - is it YOUR definition of marriage? or a same sex marriage? Remember the woman in Texas? her husband was a firefighter or police officer? he died in the line of duty. His parents demanded that they get his hazardous duty life insurance, saying that the couple was never really married because the woman was transgender. How awful.

    All this stupidity is swept aside by having same sex marriage legal throughout the country.

    Any rate, this is a bit off-topic re the justices in Alabama who are defying the federal court

  3. #193
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,777

    Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Loving does not apply here, as to apply it one most show that there is both "invidious" discrimination at play (which there isn't) and that the discrimination is an attempt to make a particular class superior (again, which is not the case here): http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-con...post1064246320.

    And the issue about prisoners being allowed to marry in no way recognized a federal constitutional right to marry, but that the state had no federal grounds to deny either rights or privileges to prisoners that were not specifically denied in the constitution or denial of which constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Rights or privileges not explicitly granted in the constitution are left to the states and the people. Marriage is one of these.

    But, even if marriage was eventually declared a federal constitutional right by some convoluted erroneous reasoning, it's still "marriage", meaning "between a man and a woman as husband and wife". By it's very nature, "marriage" rightly discriminates between a single person by him or her self, three or more people, a man and a little girl, a dog and a cat, .. and a man and a man and a woman and a woman.

    No exceptions can rightly be made with respect to the word "marriage".

    If you want to have private enterprise and government recognition of certain specific domestic partnerships (marriage itself is a civil union domestic partnership legal statute in every state), then each distinct civil union domestic partnership must be defined in detail and identified with an identifying word .. so "homarriage" or the like would be a new civil union domestic partnership "between two same sex people as husband and husband or wife and wife" or whatever.

    But that's rightly up to each state to decide, as there is no federal constitutional even remotely applicable passage in this matter to force states to create specific statutes.

    Justice Thomas is absolutely correct, in that not only is it apparent that the SCOTUS is tipping their hand that the majority will attempt to construe a federal right to the ridiculous oxymoronic "gay marriage" / "same-sex marriage", but that that would obviously be the wrong decision, as though clearly the majority of Americans favor recognition, the majority of Americans also don't support that recognition under the inapplicable term "marriage", and because the SCOTUS simply has no final conclusion as to whether gay is from birth or a conscious choice, they cannot intelligently conclude it's an inalienable right.

    The SCOTUS simply has no rationally intelligent grounds to conclude that "any two people" can "marry", both with respect to definitive propriety, respecting words and their true meaning, constitutionally, and with respect to the majority of Americans who have yet to show that gays marrying is a time-honored cultural reasonable and customary tradition.

    Ultimately, the likely thing the SCOTUS is going to do is to require same-sex union recognition in every state but to let each state decide what to call that particular union. Some states will call it rightly "homarriage", and others will erroneously refer to it as "marriage".

    But the right thing for the SCOTUS to do is to allow recognition in every state but require that it be given a name other than marriage, as it's reasonable and customary for adult humans to bond one-to-one (not polygamously), but there is no reasonable and customary cultural tradition to call such bondings "marriage".

    Again, marriage is a contract, and contract law is the province of the state, not the federal.
    I stopped reading after the bolded part since its 100% factually wrong making the rest of your opinions meaningless. 25+ court cases and 45+ judges disagree and MANY of those cases reference loving, equal protection and the 14th right in thier decisions, ill take those facts over your post
    as usual your post completely fails and facts win again
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  4. #194
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,777

    Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Again, the "equal protection" clause simply does not apply in this situation: http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-con...post1064246097.
    already proven false by the many judges and court cases that referred to it in their rullings, your mistake

    so again your post is factually wrong lol
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  5. #195
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    I will never understand why a man sitting in Europe, as you are, thinks he can lord over and dictate to the people of Alabama how they are supposed to live in their own state. The ego some of you guys have astounds me.


    The U.S. Supreme Court is going to dictate to them and there's nothing that you can do about that.

    Wait and see what happens.

  6. #196
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,081

    Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by SlevinKelevra View Post
    What an incredibly effective way to waste taxpayer dollars.

    I feel for those lower judges who will probably lose their jobs.
    The governor has announced there will be no punishment of judges regardless of their decision.

    Which, unlike SCOTUS, was the correct call.

  7. #197
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,777

    Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by shrubnose View Post
    The U.S. Supreme Court is going to dictate to them and there's nothing that you can do about that.

    Wait and see what happens.
    yep just last minute desperation move by bigots to try and infringe on equal rights, it wont last though . . . in the end equal rights will triumph just like it should
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  8. #198
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,525

    Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    So it's the federal government (federal court) dictating to the states what they can and can't do. Again, when did we become that country?

    The courts have far, far overstepped their constitutional authority long ago.
    It's too bad that it has come to this, but I am glad that they are finally standing up and saying that you've over stepped your authority (once again).

    The feds are granted no authority here, it remains with the States and the people. Sorry, 14th doesn't even remotely apply.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  9. #199
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,777

    Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    It's too bad that it has come to this, but I am glad that they are finally standing up and saying that you've over stepped your authority (once again).

    The feds are granted no authority here, it remains with the States and the people. Sorry, 14th doesn't even remotely apply.
    so the 25+ cases and 45+ judges got it wrong?
    based on what? lol
    please present to us what facts you have on your side that should trump the constitution, law, rights, and all those court cases and judges besides your feelings, thanks
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  10. #200
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    The governor has announced there will be no punishment of judges regardless of their decision.

    Which, unlike SCOTUS, was the correct call.

    Governor Bentley announced that "he" would not punish Probate Judges refusing the Federal Court order.

    He cannot say "there will be no punishment", depending on how the contempt case(s) turn out - he has no control over penalties issued by a Federal court.



    (Just pointing out the minor correction)



    >>>>

Page 20 of 87 FirstFirst ... 1018192021223070 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •