Federal judge strikes down AL marriage ban :) (amendment, children, official)

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by MMM05

And then innocent children raised by homosexuals grow up exposed to the perverted, UnGodly wicked, abnormal lifestyle....and society suffers more with the burden.

Marriage was ordained by the Creator, between a Man and woman. That's a fact !!!

I know. My lifestyle is so wicked. Cooking, cleaning, grocery shopping, maybe a movie, walking the dogs, running errands, running kids to dr appointments and karate and soccer, laundry, helping with homework, maybe shooting a game of pool with the kids, occasional dinner out, family vacations.

We are so wicked and our "lifestyle" has brought up three horrible mal-adjusted children. One boy scout on the AB honor roll, one college student on a full ride scholarship, and one naval aircraft mechanic. Just horrible the way they turned out.

[~HecateWhisperCat~]

Originally Posted by Hellion1999

the questions to the court are reported by the Washington Post: Supreme Court agrees to hear gay marriage issue - The Washington Post

The Supreme Court announced Friday that it will decide a historic question about whether the Constitution requires that same-sex couples be allowed to marry no matter where they live or whether states are free to limit wedlock to its traditional definition as a union only between a man and a woman.



whether states are free to limit wedlock to its traditional definition as a union between a man and a woman.,,,,,,,hmmmmm the 10th amendment comes in play here.



let me continue with the report:


Kennedy, who sides with conservatives on most issues, is the pivotal member of the court and has written all of its modern decisions protecting gay rights, including Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down sodomy laws that targeted gay men.
But in his Windsor decision, Kennedy also cited the principles of state autonomy, which states have made central in arguments defending laws and state constitutional amendments defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.


10th amendment will come in play with at least 4 Supreme Court Justices maybe 5.....they can't ignore the state autonomy here.

It won't get more than 3 . You just watch. He was also critical of the view that states had an interest in banning gay marriage.

[~HecateWhisperCat~]

Originally Posted by jjrose

I know. My lifestyle is so wicked. Cooking, cleaning, grocery shopping, maybe a movie, walking the dogs, running errands, running kids to dr appointments and karate and soccer, laundry, helping with homework, maybe shooting a game of pool with the kids, occasional dinner out, family vacations.

We are so wicked and our "lifestyle" has brought up three horrible mal-adjusted children. One boy scout on the AB honor roll, one college student on a full ride scholarship, and one naval aircraft mechanic. Just horrible the way they turned out.

Ehmargerd JJ! Stop infecting them with the gay .

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by Hellion1999

the questions to the court are reported by the Washington Post: Supreme Court agrees to hear gay marriage issue - The Washington Post

The Supreme Court announced Friday that it will decide a historic question about whether the Constitution requires that same-sex couples be allowed to marry no matter where they live or whether states are free to limit wedlock to its traditional definition as a union only between a man and a woman.



whether states are free to limit wedlock to its traditional definition as a union between a man and a woman.,,,,,,,hmmmmm the 10th amendment comes in play here.



let me continue with the report:


Kennedy, who sides with conservatives on most issues, is the pivotal member of the court and has written all of its modern decisions protecting gay rights, including Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down sodomy laws that targeted gay men.
But in his Windsor decision, Kennedy also cited the principles of state autonomy, which states have made central in arguments defending laws and state constitutional amendments defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.


10th amendment will come in play with at least 4 Supreme Court Justices maybe 5.....they can't ignore the state autonomy here.

HMMMMMMM, maybe you should look at what the supreme court says the question is.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/c...615zr_f2q3.pdf

The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of
certiorari are granted limited to the following questions: 1)
Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a
marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the
Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same sex when their marriage was
lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Not some news source, but the actual supreme court documents.

[Hellion1999]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

I'll bet you $10 that the 10th Amendment isn't mentioned - not even once - by any Justice in the upcoming gay marriage case whether in the majority opinion, a concurrence, or a dissent.

ok its on!!! just make sure that check doesn't bounce.

Remember, the 10th amendment has to be mention once by any of the members....that's the bet.


you want to make it $100?

[~HecateWhisperCat~]

Originally Posted by Hellion1999

ok its on!!! just make sure that check doesn't bounce.

Remember, the 10th amendment has to be mention once by any of the members....that's the bet.


you want to make it $100?

It will be mentioned heavily in arguments alone I feel.

[Hellion1999]

Originally Posted by jjrose

HMMMMMMM, maybe you should look at what the supreme court says the question is.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/c...615zr_f2q3.pdf


Not some news source, but the actual supreme court documents.

Justices are allow to ask any question they like during argument....to say the justices are only restrain to 2 questions is absurd.

but you all come back now, ya hear!

[hammertime33]

Originally Posted by Hellion1999

States can define marriage between 1 man and 1 woman requirement and age requirement or change it as they see fit.

My excuse is that is a state issue. If California wants to give marriage licenses to everybody including illegals if they want to and no restrictions or requirements that's their issue and the people of the state.

If this is a 10th Amendment issue, and marriage is left to the states as you claim it is, then why can't states define the racial requirements of marriage as they see fit? Why wasn't Loving v. Virginia decided on 10th Amendment grounds in favor of Virginia being able to set the restrictions and requirements of marriage as Virginia sees fit? Why can't Virginia or California ban interracial marriages pursuant to State Sovereignty under the 10th Amendment?

my issue is if you want to expand the 14th amendment to sexual orientation, do it constitutionally. Don't make shiat up because you feel is the "right" thing to do.
Ratifying the Constitution and


Ratifying an Amendment.......LOOK IT UP HOW TO DO IT!

I'll ask you once again (since you've twice refused to answer the question) - maybe the third time's the charm:

Please tell me, exactly what groups does the 14th Amendment cover and what groups does it not cover. How, from the text, have you concluded it doesn't cover sexual orientation? I'll quote for you the relevant clauses (the Privileges and Immunities, the Due Process, and the Equal Protection clauses):

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by Hellion1999

Justices are allow to ask any question they like during argument....to say the justices are only restrain to 2 questions is absurd.

but you all come back now, ya hear!

The justices are the ones that said the question is limited to the 14th amendment question. They can ask anything they want, but the questions being ruled on are the 14th amendment questions.

[Hellion1999]

shiat, lets make it $1,000 if you like......remember the bet BY YOUR CALL is any of the justices have to mention the 10th amendment in the argument questions or their ruling......1 justice or more.


this is taking candy from a baby!