Alabama Chief Justice Issues Order Blocking Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

Jul 2014
16,065
10,359
massachusetts
That really floored me that you actually said that. It really does. For starters, why do you Tristan of all people support a system that requires a "license" to be married. Fine, you want to have a "legally recognized" marriage for tax purposes etc. etc. I get that. Again, why do you support a system of government issued licenses? Tell me why cant consenting adults go to the circuit clerk or whatever the authority is in your state, sign a piece of paper in front of them that says we are married and hand it to them for them to file? There is absolutely no excuse for that to NOT be how the system works. None, nadda, zilch.
It works like that in some states, it varies by state, the rules are made by the elected representatives of the people. As long as those rules don't violate the constitution they stand.
If you don't like the rules, contact your representative, work to get like minded people elected.
 
Dec 2012
21,396
8,648
California
You have pointed out what you CLAIM is a corrupted use of the XIVth Amendment? So what? Your opinion and $4.25 will get me a Grande Late at Starbucks. The bigger question is why anyone should care that you think this is a corrupted use of the XIVth Amendment. The vast majority of the judges and courts have decided that the XIVth Amendment applies. Unless you can provide some kind of bona fides that shows your opinion should carry more weight then all the judges who have ruled otherwise then you can take your opinion and gently place it where light from Sol fails to encroach.
It's not about my opinion, it's about a Court corrupting the Constitution to achieve their desired personal opinion. It's about an apathetic government, and people who allow this type affront to the Constitution by the Court and then dismiss it with, oh well, what can we do. The Court just put it's boot firmly up your butt and your talking about a coffee at Starbucks?! Is it any wonder that this country is deep trouble? One day, it will be gone, and people like you will be asking why.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Dec 2012
21,396
8,648
California
To change that the constitution would have to be changed. So you have two choices. Work towards a political means of achieving that change or start a revolution and hope it takes off big before you get your ass shot off.

Otherwise, quit bitching.
Quit bitching? It's "we the people" the Court pissed on!! There is no need to change anything. The RESTRICTIONS are there now. How about we just change it to "we the government" and be done with any pretense of Constitutional law?!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Dec 2006
26,366
12,414
New Haven, CT
Legally? The SC says it is so, so it is? That's your argument? It may be true but, is it correct? A ruling based on a corrupted interpretation to achieve a "personal opinion" is all you need to justify your condition. Wrong is wrong no matter what the SC says. There is NO arguable application of Due Process and Equal Protection that applies to Gay marriage. You know it, and I know it. But as long as it serves your purpose your more than willing to except it. And then try to validate it with further sophomoric platitudes. None of which, apply to the issue.
Don't ask questions if you're going to negate the answers because they're so absurdly obvious that it makes the questions look sophomoric ... or just because you don't like them.
 

RNG

Forum Staff
Apr 2013
41,285
29,570
La La Land North
Quit bitching? It's "we the people" the Court pissed on!! There is no need to change anything. The RESTRICTIONS are there now. How about we just change it to "we the government" and be done with any pretense of Constitutional law?!!
That's what I said you should try to do. But acting like a whining four year old on an internet forum isn't going to do much. Instead of pushing your opinions of what constitutes a corrupt court, do convince politicians or militia to do something about it.
 
Feb 2014
12,580
7,845
nunya
It seems to me that it is only the fundie menace that is against that.
No, just wait. You will see liberals jump up and down against it to. Takes away their precious government control of things
 
Feb 2014
12,580
7,845
nunya
It works like that in some states, it varies by state, the rules are made by the elected representatives of the people. As long as those rules don't violate the constitution they stand.
If you don't like the rules, contact your representative, work to get like minded people elected.
The only State I know of is Oklahoma and maybe Alabama. Not sure about Alabama. But, there has been a debate over other states accepting it. So, tell me about other states you know of that has this system of not having to get a marriage license? The whole concept of having to "apply for a marriage license" is archaic. Good grief it is like Scottish rite or something
 
Jul 2008
19,321
13,418
Virginia Beach, VA
It's not about my opinion, it's about a Court corrupting the Constitution to achieve their desired personal opinion. It's about an apathetic government, and people who allow this type affront to the Constitution by the Court and then dismiss it with, oh well, what can we do. The Court just put it's boot firmly up your butt and your talking about a coffee at Starbucks?! Is it any wonder that this country is deep trouble? One day, it will be gone, and people like you will be asking why.
It is your OPINION that the court "corrupted" the Constitution. It is MY opinion that they followed the XIVth Amendment.

We have a difference of opinion. Who do you think would be the most qualified to settle that difference of opinion?

Oh, that's right....the people who have studied and worked in the law for their entire lives. People who are judges! And guess what, they DID settle that difference of opinion and your side lost.
 
Jul 2008
19,321
13,418
Virginia Beach, VA
Quit bitching? It's "we the people" the Court pissed on!! There is no need to change anything. The RESTRICTIONS are there now. How about we just change it to "we the government" and be done with any pretense of Constitutional law?!!
Guess what, "We the People" is not the end all of what is, or is not, Constitutional. The Constitution was enacted, in part, to prevent the majority from trampling on the rights of the minority.

We have freedom of speech not only to prohibit the government from telling us what we can say but also to prohibit the majority, by way of the government, from prohibiting what we can say.

We have a XIVth Amendment to make sure that the government provides equal treatment under the law to everyone but also to make sure that the majority, by way of the government, provides equal treatment under the law.
 
Jun 2012
41,952
15,181
Barsoom
It is your OPINION that the court "corrupted" the Constitution. It is MY opinion that they followed the XIVth Amendment.

We have a difference of opinion. Who do you think would be the most qualified to settle that difference of opinion?

Oh, that's right....the people who have studied and worked in the law for their entire lives. People who are judges! And guess what, they DID settle that difference of opinion and your side lost.
If it is your opinion, then write out your opinion regarding the Fourteenth Amendment any shred of evidence that substantive due process existed in 1866.

You have no clue what judicial activism is nor do you care as long as an activist ruling supports your liberal worldview.