Alabama Chief Justice Issues Order Blocking Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

Jun 2012
41,958
15,181
Barsoom
So you're just going to insult the people who point out reality to you.
What does your therapist say about that?
I am not insulting anyone. You are regurgitating news headlines. That is not an argument unless the topic is news headlines. The discussion is the lack of a constitutional basis in the same-sex ruling. It is a topic that you have yet to make an argument and you will continue to not make an argument. It is pretty black and white.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2008
19,056
12,931
Virginia Beach, VA
I am not insulting anyone. You are regurgitating news headlines. That is not an argument unless the topic is news headlines. The discussion is the lack of a constitutional basis in the same-sex ruling. It is a topic that you have yet to make an argument and you will continue to not make an argument. It is pretty black and white.
The only argument that has not been made so far is yours before a judge telling them why they are wrong.

Until that happens the fact is, your side lost...it lost because people much more educated and smarter than you heard the arguments and, using the Constitution, decided that your side was wrong.
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,181
Barsoom
The only argument that has not been made so far is yours before a judge telling them why they are wrong.

Until that happens the fact is, your side lost...it lost because people much more educated and smarter than you heard the arguments and, using the Constitution, decided that your side was wrong.
You do know that crying and whining about "the Supreme Court ruled" is not an argument, right?

That is a different subject than the one being discussed. That subject deserves its own thread. That thread would only require an Internet connection and vomiting up the results of the Supreme Court ruling. It would basically be mimicking news headlines. Anyone with an IQ of 68 can do that. That is your league.

This particular argument requires an argument on the merits, constitutional basis, knowledge of history, an understanding of the Constitution, and the ability to analyze and manifest the flaws in the same-sex ruling and argue why it has no constitutional basis, thus making it an activist ruling. You need to write out an argument why I am incorrect on a constitutional, historical, and Fourteenth Amendment intent basis. Your post demonstrates that this is out of your league.

I would suggest that you start a thread on how many Supreme Court justices ruled in favor of same-sex marriage and petition the moderators to protect your delicate news headline of a thread by not allowing comments, especially comments that you are unable to respond to under the Snowflake Doctrine.
 
Jul 2008
19,056
12,931
Virginia Beach, VA
You do know that crying and whining about "the Supreme Court ruled" is not an argument, right?

That is a different subject than the one being discussed. That subject deserves its own thread. That thread would only require an Internet connection and vomiting up the results of the Supreme Court ruling. It would basically be mimicking news headlines. Anyone with an IQ of 68 can do that. That is your league.

This particular argument requires an argument on the merits, constitutional basis, knowledge of history, an understanding of the Constitution, and the ability to analyze and manifest the flaws in the same-sex ruling and argue why it has no constitutional basis, thus making it an activist ruling. You need to write out an argument why I am incorrect on a constitutional, historical, and Fourteenth Amendment intent basis. Your post demonstrates that this is out of your league.

I would suggest that you start a thread on how many Supreme Court justices ruled in favor of same-sex marriage and petition the moderators to protect your delicate news headline of a thread by not allowing comments, especially comments that you are unable to respond to under the Snowflake Doctrine.
You know that saying the Supreme Court (or any of the dozens of inferior courts) are wrong is not an argument either.

The arguments were made, in court before judges and YOUR SIDE LOST.

That is all that needs to be said. If you think the courts were wrong then carry your happy ass into said court and tell them why they were wrong.

But until that happens and until the courts agree with you the fact of the matter is that your arguments FAILED. Same sex marriage is legal in all 50 states and all your crapping on the chessboard and strutting around like you won isn't going to do squat.

You can claim that the gravity does not exist, you can give whatever reasons and arguments you want that gravity is a lie but when you drop a hammer it is still going to hit the floor.

You can claim that the courts are wrong, you can give whatever reasons and arguments you want that prohibitions on same sex marriage are Constitutional but when Sam and Dave (or Brenda and Linda) go to the City Hall and request a marriage license in any of the 50 states they are going to get one.
 
Jul 2014
15,623
9,717
massachusetts
I am not insulting anyone. You are regurgitating news headlines. That is not an argument unless the topic is news headlines. The discussion is the lack of a constitutional basis in the same-sex ruling. It is a topic that you have yet to make an argument and you will continue to not make an argument. It is pretty black and white.
Actually, you are whining like a baby, the fact is there is no constitutional basis for prohibiting same sex marriage, what you do is regurgitate your right wing wacko "arguments" that make no sense, about the 14th amendment only applying to former slaves, and other such nonsense.

There is a reason that none of your "brilliant legal theory" ever passes the test of reality in a real courtroom, with a real judge, going by the real constitution.
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,181
Barsoom
You know that saying the Supreme Court (or any of the dozens of inferior courts) are wrong is not an argument either.

The arguments were made, in court before judges and YOUR SIDE LOST.

That is all that needs to be said. If you think the courts were wrong then carry your happy ass into said court and tell them why they were wrong.

But until that happens and until the courts agree with you the fact of the matter is that your arguments FAILED. Same sex marriage is legal in all 50 states and all your crapping on the chessboard and strutting around like you won isn't going to do squat.

You can claim that the gravity does not exist, you can give whatever reasons and arguments you want that gravity is a lie but when you drop a hammer it is still going to hit the floor.

You can claim that the courts are wrong, you can give whatever reasons and arguments you want that prohibitions on same sex marriage are Constitutional but when Sam and Dave (or Brenda and Linda) go to the City Hall and request a marriage license in any of the 50 states they are going to get one.
That is the difference between us. I did not say the Supreme Court was wrong. I explained in detail in many posts why the Supreme Court was wrong. What you cannot do is make an argument to challenge my myriad posts on the subject. You whine that the courts have ruled, and the effects of that ruling, but that makes you a loser in a debate regarding the constitutional merits of the ruling.
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,181
Barsoom
Actually, you are whining like a baby, the fact is there is no constitutional basis for prohibiting same sex marriage, what you do is regurgitate your right wing wacko "arguments" that make no sense, about the 14th amendment only applying to former slaves, and other such nonsense.

There is a reason that none of your "brilliant legal theory" ever passes the test of reality in a real courtroom, with a real judge, going by the real constitution.
You are limited to regurgitating news headlines. That is not an argument unless the topic is news headlines. The discussion is the lack of a constitutional basis in the same-sex ruling. It is a topic that you have yet to make an argument and you will continue to not make an argument. It is pretty black and white that you are incapable of an argument against my arguments.
 
Jul 2008
19,056
12,931
Virginia Beach, VA
You are limited to regurgitating news headlines. That is not an argument unless the topic is news headlines. The discussion is the lack of a constitutional basis in the same-sex ruling. It is a topic that you have yet to make an argument and you will continue to not make an argument. It is pretty black and white that you are incapable of an argument against my arguments.
While you are limited to repeating over and over (ad nauseum) that the Courts are wrong. It is a topic you have yet to convince anyone why we should be taking the opinion of an anonymous internet troll over that of scores of judges who have made their life studying and practicing the law.
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,181
Barsoom
While you are limited to repeating over and over (ad nauseum) that the Courts are wrong. It is a topic you have yet to convince anyone why we should be taking the opinion of an anonymous internet troll over that of scores of judges who have made their life studying and practicing the law.
That is the difference between us. I did not say the Supreme Court was wrong. I explained in detail in many posts why the Supreme Court was wrong. What you cannot do is make an argument to challenge my myriad posts on the subject. You whine that the courts have ruled, and the effects of that ruling, but that makes you a loser in a debate regarding the constitutional merits of the ruling.

Explain why these "scores of judges" have different opinions; and why you cannot produce anyone of credibility that agrees with the basis for the ruling, and if you find one, I can produce twenty better qualified that will disagree. You have no clue what a judge's expertise is.

Basically you are limited to headlines, and have yet to explain why an "anonymous internet troll" continues to make you and your "smarter person" look like the dumbest people in the world.