Federal judge strikes down AL marriage ban :) (Virginia, constitutional, against)

[hammertime33]

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?

Have you actually read the opinion of the only Appeals Court (the 6th Circuit) to uphold gay marriage bans? If so, did you find it interesting that the court didn't mention the 10th Amendment - not even once? As I recall, none of the gay marriage appeals cases - even the dissenters - ever mention the 10th Amendment - not even once. Why do you think that is?

[Hellion1999]

Originally Posted by jjrose

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.

and they can bring the 10th amendment in their opinion.....where does it states they can't?


you don't think Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito and maybe Kennedy won't bring up the 10th amendment on whether states are free to limit wedlock to its traditional definition as a union between a man and a woman?


no need to argue here, we shall have to wait for the arguments and opinions of the court.

[Hellion1999]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

Have you actually read the opinion of the only Appeals Court (the 6th Circuit) to uphold gay marriage bans? If so, did you find it interesting that the court didn't mention the 10th Amendment - not even once? As I recall, none of the gay marriage appeals cases - even the dissenters - ever mention the 10th Amendment - not even once. Why do you think that is?

thanks for your opinion but your opinion doesn't mean shiat in the S.C. decision.....you want to make the bet to $1,000?


you open the can of worms my friend.

[css9450]

Originally Posted by MMM05

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

My marriage was ordained by the Tooth Fairy. That's a fact!

[hammertime33]

Originally Posted by Hellion1999

thanks for your opinion but your opinion doesn't mean shiat in the S.C. decision.

Um, I stated a fact, and then asked you why you thought that fact occurred. Facts are not opinions.

I notice you didn't address my question. I'll ask you again:

Have you actually read the opinion of the only Appeals Court (the 6th Circuit) to uphold gay marriage bans? If so, did you find it interesting that the court didn't mention the 10th Amendment - not even once? As I recall, none of the gay marriage appeals cases - even the dissenters - ever mention the 10th Amendment - not even once. Why do you think that is?

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by Hellion1999

If the last clause is your argument, the counter of how it does not violate this is, Heterosexual persons are also not allowed to marry the same sex, hence the law is being applied equally to Homosexual persons who are also denied the same. I.e, A Heterosexual person has no more choice in who they can marry than a Homosexual person, both are equally restrained by the same age and sex requirements of who can be the spouse. Since this is applied equally to both (the 14th Amendment does not state it has to be liked in the manner, just that it has to be equal) these laws do not violate the 14th Amendment.

Aaand here we go again. Under that tortured logic, anti-miscegenation laws were non-discriminatory.

That argument has been measured and found wanting by the country's highest court, no matter how clever you think it is. It's dead. It has shuffled off this mortal coil. It has gone to meet its maker, run down the curtain, joined the choir invisible. It is an ex-argument.

Now if a state made differing requirements for Hetero and Homo sexual relationships, it would in fact violate equal protection.

Or if it offered different privileges to one over the other. Yeah, oops.

[Smash255]

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 !!!

Do you care to actually discuss the legality of the law and how Alabama will overturn the Court's Decision (an actual discussion rather than just wait and see). Or would you just rather engage in gay bashing than having an actual discussion??

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by steven_h

If a union and marriage are identical to each other in every aspect but tax incentives, than what's the problem? Isn't that equal access? <<whatever that means

What "union" are you talking about? You do know that "civil unions" have never been on the table, execept now when the bigots are losing and trying to salvage some remnant of dignity, right?

[Hellion1999]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

Um, I stated a fact, and then asked you why you thought that fact occurred. Facts are not opinions.

I notice you didn't address my question. I'll ask you again:

Have you actually read the opinion of the only Appeals Court (the 6th Circuit) to uphold gay marriage bans? If so, did you find it interesting that the court didn't mention the 10th Amendment - not even once? As I recall, none of the gay marriage appeals cases - even the dissenters - ever mention the 10th Amendment - not even once. Why do you think that is?

if you are correct like you believe you are, you will get $1,000 from me.


why are you ignoring the bet?....you said none of the Supreme Court Justices will mention the 10th amendment when arguments are made and when they give their opinions....you said that.


I would like to take you on the bet...you said $10, I say $1,000 and you are not sure anymore!


you want to make it official? you open the can of worms my friend....how strongly do you feel about what you say?

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by Hellion1999

and they can bring the 10th amendment in their opinion.....where does it states they can't?


you don't think Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito and maybe Kennedy won't bring up the 10th amendment on whether states are free to limit wedlock to its traditional definition as a union between a man and a woman?


no need to argue here, we shall have to wait for the arguments and opinions of the court.

They can bring up anything they want, but the ruling will be regarding the 14th amendment and is it applicable to state laws banning same sex marriage.
The court rules on the question before it, not some other question they pull out of thin air.