Alabama and Nullification:

[travelinman67]

Nice. A Neil Young reference.

Lynryd Skynyrd

Someone needs to create a clapping 'tard emoticon.

[kalm]

Lynryd Skynyrd

Someone needs to create a clapping 'tard emoticon.

Speaking if which I'm guessing Ibanez knew that.

[Ibanez]

Nice. A Neil Young reference.

Lynryd Skynyrd

No shit, I know Sweet Home Alabama is Lynyrd Skynyrd. Neil Young is the "Southern Man" in that line. That's the reference. The song was composed in response to Southern Man by Neil Young.

"Well, I hope Neil Young will remember a southern man don't need him around anyhow"

[Ibanez]

Lynryd Skynyrd

Someone needs to create a clapping 'tard emoticon.

For what?

[Ibanez]

Someone needs to create a clapping 'tard emoticon.

Speaking if which I'm guessing Ibanez knew that.

[Grizalltheway]

Would all of you just shut the hell up?

[Ibanez]

Would all of you just shut the hell up?

I'm right. Andy's mistaken. Tman is...i'm not sure. Talking about clapping turds.

[Grizalltheway]

Nobody's right if everybody's wrong.

[Ibanez]

Nobody's right if everybody's wrong.

Well, for what it's worth, I'm right.

[BDKJMU]

Which is precisely why the government shouldn't be in the marriage business.

Get rid of the tax implications and this is a non-issue overnight.

CID and I have been saying this ^ since 2006... dating back to AGS poly debates



That single point is the beginning - middle - and end of the argument

People have talked about the fed govt getting out of the marriage business. But what about the states? Could a state right now get out of the marriage business all together? Say they aren't going to recognize any marriages, straight or gay, replaced by some type of secular common law legal contract for people currently married, and for anyone in the future co-habitating for a certain amount of time, whether they were married by their church or not.

[Chizzang]

CID and I have been saying this ^ since 2006... dating back to AGS poly debates



That single point is the beginning - middle - and end of the argument

People have talked about the fed govt getting out of the marriage business. But what about the states? Could a state right now get out of the marriage business all together? Say they aren't going to recognize any marriages, straight or gay, replaced by some type of secular common law legal contract for people currently married, and for anyone in the future co-habitating for a certain amount of time, whether they were married by their church or not.

A State can do whatever it wants - but - it can't have both
You can't grant a tax advantage to one set of consenting adults and not another
Particularly when your basis for Tax advantage criteria is the Bible



But any State could say:
We NIX the TAX advantage henceforth
and also will not grant a "Marriage License" to anyone other than a man and woman

Debate over...
The End

[JohnStOnge]

What you ought to be shaking your head about is Federal Courts doing something so absurd as getting involved in how States define marriage. No way anybody who ever crafted or ratified any language from the Constitution being used to justify this would've said it meant the Constitution requires that States include marriage between individuals of the same sex in their definitions of what marriage is. It's one more example of the Federal Judiciary inventing Constitutional requirements and/or prohibitions that do not really exist.

It's a lot bigger issue than whether or not we're going to recognize perverted relationships as marriage. It's a continuation of the problem whereby we are governed by a Judicial Oligarchy rather than by the Constitution. Any sensible person would be against the level of power we have allowed to the unelected and unaccountable Judiciary. But it's been this way for a long time now. At some time in the past we passed the critical point where having Judges just make up rules that don't exist based on their opinions of the way things should be becamse part of the background.

And nobody cares that we don't have government by the People any more but instead, ultimately, have government by what is effectively a Council of Elders who can make up any rules they want without any accountability or balancing authority. Tyranny. Or at least not enough people do.

[DSUrocks07]

What you ought to be shaking your head about is Federal Courts doing something so absurd as getting involved in how States define marriage. No way anybody who ever crafted or ratified any language from the Constitution being used to justify this would've said it meant the Constitution requires that States include marriage between individuals of the same sex in their definitions of what marriage is. It's one more example of the Federal Judiciary inventing Constitutional requirements and/or prohibitions that do not really exist.

It's a lot bigger issue than whether or not we're going to recognize perverted relationships as marriage. It's a continuation of the problem whereby we are governed by a Judicial Oligarchy rather than by the Constitution. Any sensible person would be against the level of power we have allowed to the unelected and unaccountable Judiciary. But it's been this way for a long time now. At some time in the past we passed the critical point where having Judges just make up rules that don't exist based on their opinions of the way things should be becamse part of the background.

And nobody cares that we don't have government by the People any more but instead, ultimately, have government by what is effectively a Council of Elders who can make up any rules they want without any accountability or balancing authority. Tyranny. Or at least not enough people do.

That's what happens when you have a nation of 300 million plus being ruled by 545 people and call it "democracy".

[Chizzang]

What you ought to be shaking your head about is Federal Courts doing something so absurd as getting involved in how States define marriage. No way anybody who ever crafted or ratified any language from the Constitution being used to justify this would've said it meant the Constitution requires that States include marriage between individuals of the same sex in their definitions of what marriage is. It's one more example of the Federal Judiciary inventing Constitutional requirements and/or prohibitions that do not really exist.

It's a lot bigger issue than whether or not we're going to recognize perverted relationships as marriage. It's a continuation of the problem whereby we are governed by a Judicial Oligarchy rather than by the Constitution. Any sensible person would be against the level of power we have allowed to the unelected and unaccountable Judiciary. But it's been this way for a long time now. At some time in the past we passed the critical point where having Judges just make up rules that don't exist based on their opinions of the way things should be becamse part of the background.

And nobody cares that we don't have government by the People any more but instead, ultimately, have government by what is effectively a Council of Elders who can make up any rules they want without any accountability or balancing authority. Tyranny. Or at least not enough people do.

There is almost no way that a person could actually miss the point of this debate by a wider margin than you have continued to show here...

Johnny
The state can do whatever it dam well pleases - the moment it stops attaching a financial advantage to marriage...

You do get that right?
Tell me you understand that please
Once the federal and Statewide advantages are removed from the Marriage thing
States can do whatever they want

[CID1990]

What you ought to be shaking your head about is Federal Courts doing something so absurd as getting involved in how States define marriage. No way anybody who ever crafted or ratified any language from the Constitution being used to justify this would've said it meant the Constitution requires that States include marriage between individuals of the same sex in their definitions of what marriage is. It's one more example of the Federal Judiciary inventing Constitutional requirements and/or prohibitions that do not really exist.

It's a lot bigger issue than whether or not we're going to recognize perverted relationships as marriage. It's a continuation of the problem whereby we are governed by a Judicial Oligarchy rather than by the Constitution. Any sensible person would be against the level of power we have allowed to the unelected and unaccountable Judiciary. But it's been this way for a long time now. At some time in the past we passed the critical point where having Judges just make up rules that don't exist based on their opinions of the way things should be becamse part of the background.

And nobody cares that we don't have government by the People any more but instead, ultimately, have government by what is effectively a Council of Elders who can make up any rules they want without any accountability or balancing authority. Tyranny. Or at least not enough people do.

There is almost no way that a person could actually miss the point of this debate by a wider margin than you have continued to show here...

Johnny
The state can do whatever it dam well pleases - the moment it stops attaching a financial advantage to marriage...

You do get that right?
Tell me you understand that please
Once the federal and Statewide advantages are removed from the Marriage thing
States can do whatever they want

preach it Cliteris my brotha from anotha motha

[JohnStOnge]

The state can do whatever it dam well pleases - the moment it stops attaching a financial advantage to marriage…

You know darned well that's not true. Seriously.

Suppose five years ago every State and the Federal government would've gotten together said, "Ok, we're going to establish a 'civil union' system whereby homosexual pairs who want to can enter into a civil union and have all the financial and legal benefits associated with marriage. All the tax benefits (such that there are) and all the social benefits such as being able to go see your partner in the hospital, provide input on medical decisions, etc. But we're going to reserve the designation of a relationship as 'marriage' for relationships involving one man and one woman."

Do you think that would've stopped homosexual activists from pushing for having homosexual marriage? You know the answer, Of COURSE it wouldn't have. And the reason is that things like the economic benefit are not the primary reason. They are seeking to be perceived as normal. It's a "normalization" movement.

That's not the main point anyway. The main point is that we have accepted absolute power in the total absence of accountability concentrated, ultimately, in the hands of 9 people. We have, through absence of resistance, allowed the establishment of government by oligarchy. And, no, it's not an oligarchy of the rich. The oligarchy consists of the 9 Justices on the United States Supreme Court. They have the final word on everything, there is no real separation of powers because they can tell the other branches what to do, and they serve for life with no real practical way to remove them.

And there are their lieutenants in the rest of the Federal judiciary currently cramming their personal beliefs about homosexual marriage down the throats of people in many States. It's tyranny. It's tyranny a lot of you guys agree with because you like the result. An ends justify means sort of thing. But it's tyranny.

[kalm]

The state can do whatever it dam well pleases - the moment it stops attaching a financial advantage to marriage…

You know darned well that's not true. Seriously.

Suppose five years ago every State and the Federal government would've gotten together said, "Ok, we're going to establish a 'civil union' system whereby homosexual pairs who want to can enter into a civil union and have all the financial and legal benefits associated with marriage. All the tax benefits (such that there are) and all the social benefits such as being able to go see your partner in the hospital, provide input on medical decisions, etc. But we're going to reserve the designation of a relationship as 'marriage' for relationships involving one man and one woman."

Do you think that would've stopped homosexual activists from pushing for having homosexual marriage? You know the answer, Of COURSE it wouldn't have. And the reason is that things like the economic benefit are not the primary reason. They are seeking to be perceived as normal. It's a "normalization" movement.

That's not the main point anyway. The main point is that we have accepted absolute power in the total absence of accountability concentrated, ultimately, in the hands of 9 people. We have, through absence of resistance, allowed the establishment of government by oligarchy. And, no, it's not an oligarchy of the rich. The oligarchy consists of the 9 Justices on the United States Supreme Court. They have the final word on everything, there is no real separation of powers because they can tell the other branches what to do, and they serve for life with no real practical way to remove them.

And there are their lieutenants in the rest of the Federal judiciary currently cramming their personal beliefs about homosexual marriage down the throats of people in many States. It's tyranny. It's tyranny a lot of you guys agree with because you like the result. An ends justify means sort of thing. But it's tyranny.

John, I'll pose the same question I asked earlier. Suppose gays get all the same rights and a state declares marriage as only being between a man and a women. What if a certain church attempts to ordain a gay marriage anyway? What happens? Is it against the law? How does the state not recognize it in this instance?

This isn't about constitutional rights for you. You find homosexuality gross and similar to all fundies, feel everyone should think the same as you. It's about mind control, John. It really is....

[Chizzang]

Do you think that would've stopped homosexual activists from pushing for having homosexual marriage? You know the answer, Of COURSE it wouldn't have. And the reason is that things like the economic benefit are not the primary reason. They are seeking to be perceived as normal. It's a "normalization" movement.

This ^ here is just uninformed mumbo jumbo...
If you knew any gay folks you'd know right away it is absolutely NOT a normalization movement

Its a RIGHTS movement - like so many before it
No black Person wants to be confused with or viewed as a white person
They just want the same rights

No Homosexual wants to be less fabulous
they just don't want to be blatantly discriminated against

Only Fundamentalists dullards think gay folks want to be like them
I'm here to assure you John - they do not want to be anything like you - trust me on this you're just wrong

[CID1990]

John you missed the point completely.

If government was not involved in marriage AT ALL - in other words- no financial benefits, no estate implications, no "permission" required ... if marriage was solely a religious matter..

then gays would be able to marry - period

and very few of us (save the fundamental Christians and the Muslims- and they are few, comparatively) would really give a damn

[houndawg]

They all need to be arrested.

Obama needs to send the troops to Montgomery.

He'll send troops to Montgomery before he'll send them after ISIS. What a punk.

Thats because the bigger threat is in Montgomery.

ISIS is just a couple thousand wackjobs in the middle of the desert halfway around the world. Let them kill each other.

[houndawg]

The Southern man don't need you 'round, anyhow.

a) I am not the reason Alabama comes in dead last (or near last) in every important state category
b) I love the south... Two of my very best buddies live in Atlanta and I've got family in Louisiana

Louisiana is a different country.

[houndawg]

The state can do whatever it dam well pleases - the moment it stops attaching a financial advantage to marriage…

You know darned well that's not true. Seriously.

Suppose five years ago every State and the Federal government would've gotten together said, "Ok, we're going to establish a 'civil union' system whereby homosexual pairs who want to can enter into a civil union and have all the financial and legal benefits associated with marriage. All the tax benefits (such that there are) and all the social benefits such as being able to go see your partner in the hospital, provide input on medical decisions, etc. But we're going to reserve the designation of a relationship as 'marriage' for relationships involving one man and one woman."

Do you think that would've stopped homosexual activists from pushing for having homosexual marriage? You know the answer, Of COURSE it wouldn't have. And the reason is that things like the economic benefit are not the primary reason. They are seeking to be perceived as normal. It's a "normalization" movement.

That's not the main point anyway. The main point is that we have accepted absolute power in the total absence of accountability concentrated, ultimately, in the hands of 9 people. We have, through absence of resistance, allowed the establishment of government by oligarchy. And, no, it's not an oligarchy of the rich. The oligarchy consists of the 9 Justices on the United States Supreme Court. They have the final word on everything, there is no real separation of powers because they can tell the other branches what to do, and they serve for life with no real practical way to remove them.

And there are their lieutenants in the rest of the Federal judiciary currently cramming their personal beliefs about homosexual marriage down the throats of people in many States. It's tyranny. It's tyranny a lot of you guys agree with because you like the result. An ends justify means sort of thing. But it's tyranny.

Wow, a new record high for John's Drama Queen Index....

You are fabulous Johnny boy!

[kalm]

You know darned well that's not true. Seriously.

Suppose five years ago every State and the Federal government would've gotten together said, "Ok, we're going to establish a 'civil union' system whereby homosexual pairs who want to can enter into a civil union and have all the financial and legal benefits associated with marriage. All the tax benefits (such that there are) and all the social benefits such as being able to go see your partner in the hospital, provide input on medical decisions, etc. But we're going to reserve the designation of a relationship as 'marriage' for relationships involving one man and one woman."

Do you think that would've stopped homosexual activists from pushing for having homosexual marriage? You know the answer, Of COURSE it wouldn't have. And the reason is that things like the economic benefit are not the primary reason. They are seeking to be perceived as normal. It's a "normalization" movement.

That's not the main point anyway. The main point is that we have accepted absolute power in the total absence of accountability concentrated, ultimately, in the hands of 9 people. We have, through absence of resistance, allowed the establishment of government by oligarchy. And, no, it's not an oligarchy of the rich. The oligarchy consists of the 9 Justices on the United States Supreme Court. They have the final word on everything, there is no real separation of powers because they can tell the other branches what to do, and they serve for life with no real practical way to remove them.

And there are their lieutenants in the rest of the Federal judiciary currently cramming their personal beliefs about homosexual marriage down the throats of people in many States. It's tyranny. It's tyranny a lot of you guys agree with because you like the result. An ends justify means sort of thing. But it's tyranny.

Wow, a new record high for John's Drama Queen Index....

You are fabulous Johnny boy!

If I was rabidly homophobic, I might avoid phrases that involve cramming things down throats.

[JohnStOnge]

John, I'll pose the same question I asked earlier. Suppose gays get all the same rights and a state declares marriage as only being between a man and a women. What if a certain church attempts to ordain a gay marriage anyway? What happens? Is it against the law? How does the state not recognize it in this instance?

As I've written before I think the current situation is such that maybe it's time for us to eliminate "marriage" as a civil institution and leave it up to various churches. In any case there is nothing stopping a church from having a marriage ceremony and considering two people to be married in the eyes of their deity. That does not require a civil license.

This isn't about constitutional rights for you. You find homosexuality gross and similar to all fundies, feel everyone should think the same as you. It's about mind control, John. It really is....

If you were right I would not oppose laws against homosexual behavior as I do. I've said many times that I think people should be free to engage in homosexual behavior if they want to.

And as I've written before what you have here is people being FORCED to recognize homosexual behavior as having a certain status when they don't want to. And I'm not just talking about people individually. I'm talking about people doing things like going through the public initiative process and getting marriage defined in a certain way completely through the democratic process and having their will nixed by unelected Federal judges.

What's REALLY bad is what happens next: People who have deep religious objections to seeing homosexual relationships as "marriage" are FORCED to participate in what they consider to be sinful. That is not necessarily the result of action on the part of judges. But it's a true denial of one of the most fundamental Constitutional principles. Government tells people that they must choose between being in business and engaging in commerce and adhering to their religious beliefs. They are not allowed to do both. And I'm not talking about circumstances where their religious beliefs dictate positive attacks on others. Nothing like human sacrifice or killing infidels involved. I'm talking about taking away their choice to simply not participate in activity they consider to be sinful.

[JohnStOnge]

We all agree that we want to be free to do what we want to do as long as we don't definitely and directly hurt someone else. But why would you want to FORCE other people to validate your choices when they don't want to?

That's what this is about and that's what's going on.

And yes, it's a choice. The fact that the inclination to make the choice is at least to some extent innate does not mean that choosing to enter into a homosexual relationship is not a choice.