Miama-Dade County Ends Same-Sex Marri...

Miama-Dade County Ends Same-Sex Marriage Ban

There are 15 comments on the JD Journal story from Jul 28, 2014, titled Miama-Dade County Ends Same-Sex Marriage Ban. In it, JD Journal reports that:

Florida has once again become the latest to rule state-wide bans against same-sex marriage as unconstitutional.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at JD Journal.

Gremlin

Louisville, KY

#1 Jul 28, 2014
Go, gay rights, GO!!!!!!!!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2 Jul 28, 2014
Look like AG Pam Bondi's case isn't doing too well.

3 losses in 2 weeks?

She claims she's not defending a SMM marriage ban or the policy that put that ban in place. She's only defending the choice that put that policy in place.

I've seen less fence jumping in a steeplechase.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#3 Jul 28, 2014
Maybe AG Bondi should get a rat to tutor her.

They are smart enough to leave when a ship begins to sink.
Belle Sexton

Santa Cruz, CA

#4 Jul 29, 2014
Poor, poor, poor Anita.
Cordwainer Trout

Rineyville, KY

#5 Jul 29, 2014
Vice laws should be upheld by the courts and they are breaking the law in not doing so. There is not a thing unconstitutional about making laws defining certain public behaviors as harmful to society. Public acts of homosexuality, including any assertion that homosexual behavior is acceptable, should be illegal and courts are delusional, destructive and unconstitutional themselves in thinking otherwise. The judges validating homosexual behavior in any way should be in prison.
Belle Sexton

Santa Cruz, CA

#6 Jul 29, 2014
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
Vice laws should be upheld by the courts and they are breaking the law in not doing so. There is not a thing unconstitutional about making laws defining certain public behaviors as harmful to society. Public acts of homosexuality, including any assertion that homosexual behavior is acceptable, should be illegal and courts are delusional, destructive and unconstitutional themselves in thinking otherwise. The judges validating homosexual behavior in any way should be in prison.
Repost the same ignorant crap, get the same answer:

Judges are first and foremost bound to Justice and the Constitution.

Let's have a look at the reality, shall we?

ARTICLE 4 [Legal Status of the Constitution]
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

__________

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each."
- Chief Justice John Marshall; Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
__________

"The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."
- Alexander Hamilton; Federalist No. 78

__________

Absolutely pertinent to this situation, and to your position ...

Supreme Court of the United States:

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
- West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
Cordwainer Trout

Rineyville, KY

#7 Jul 29, 2014
Stupid dyke, if you repost, others can repost.

Vice laws should be upheld by the courts and they are breaking the law in not doing so. There is not a thing unconstitutional about making laws defining certain public behaviors as harmful to society. Public acts of homosexuality, including any assertion that homosexual behavior is acceptable, should be illegal and courts are delusional, destructive and unconstitutional themselves in thinking otherwise.

As soon as you admit there is need for vice laws, you admit the need to control sexual deviance. As soon as you admit there is such as sexual deviance, you have to admit that less than one percent of the population acting out in abnormal sexual ways and demanding special attentions validating their abnormal behaviors are not a special class deserving protection from vice laws governing their behavior.

People distorting the Constitution in a way disallowing people from controlling vice in their communities are living in a special world of philosophy called Phenomenology, which is an exercise in meaninglessness and absurdity.
Belle Sexton

Santa Cruz, CA

#8 Jul 29, 2014
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
Stupid dyke, if you repost, others can repost.
Vice laws should be upheld by the courts and they are breaking the law in not doing so. There is not a thing unconstitutional about making laws defining certain public behaviors as harmful to society. Public acts of homosexuality, including any assertion that homosexual behavior is acceptable, should be illegal and courts are delusional, destructive and unconstitutional themselves in thinking otherwise.
As soon as you admit there is need for vice laws, you admit the need to control sexual deviance. As soon as you admit there is such as sexual deviance, you have to admit that less than one percent of the population acting out in abnormal sexual ways and demanding special attentions validating their abnormal behaviors are not a special class deserving protection from vice laws governing their behavior.
People distorting the Constitution in a way disallowing people from controlling vice in their communities are living in a special world of philosophy called Phenomenology, which is an exercise in meaninglessness and absurdity.
"Dyke"

Can't you get ANYTHING correct?

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#9 Jul 29, 2014
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
including any assertion that homosexual behavior is acceptable, should be illegal and courts are delusional, destructive and unconstitutional themselves in thinking otherwise.
That portion of your post tells us all we need to know about you. You now want to do away with the concept of Free Speech.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#10 Jul 29, 2014
Belle Sexton wrote:
Poor, poor, poor Anita.
I'd love it if a reporter with a camera could find her and ask her to comment on this. I doubt she'd be stupid enough to put herself in that position, though. She got smacked-down pretty hard when the Florida Orange Growers dumped her after people started boycotting Florida oranges over her hate.
Chuck in Chicago

Chicago, IL

#11 Jul 29, 2014
My husband and I have been together 16 years. That's longer than her 3 marriages put together.

Since: Oct 10

San Francisco

#12 Jul 29, 2014
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
Stupid dyke, if you repost, others can repost.
As soon as you admit there is such as sexual deviance, you blah blah blah
Be careful what you wish for, Crudwiener. The only sexual deviance here is "straight" bigots who spend countless hours trolling this gay forum, most of them typing with one hand. Something tells me you wouldn't like it if that became illegal.

Since: Dec 08

Toronto, ON, Canada

#13 Jul 29, 2014
When is the first mass same sex wedding on Ocean Drive going to be?

Since: Dec 08

Toronto, ON, Canada

#14 Jul 29, 2014
Chuck in Chicago wrote:
My husband and I have been together 16 years. That's longer than her 3 marriages put together.
May you have 64 more years together!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#15 Jul 29, 2014
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
{nasty personal attack deleted}
Vice laws should be upheld by the courts and they are breaking the law in not doing so.
I agree. Why aren't police officers who pose as prostitutes or tea room boys charged with solicitation?
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
There is not a thing unconstitutional about making laws defining certain public behaviors as harmful to society.
I don't think most gays and lesbians dispute that either.
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
Public acts of homosexuality, including any assertion that homosexual behavior is acceptable, should be illegal and courts are delusional, destructive and unconstitutional themselves in thinking otherwise.
As someone once said one should not do anything in public that will frighten the horses or scare the children.

As for the rest of your obsession with homosexual acts, as long as both people are of legal age to consent, there ain't a damn thing you need to stick your nose into.,
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
As soon as you admit there is need for vice laws, you admit the need to control sexual deviance.
Not necessarily.
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
As soon as you admit there is such as sexual deviance, you have to admit that less than one percent of the population acting out in abnormal sexual ways and demanding special attentions validating their abnormal behaviors are not a special class deserving protection from vice laws governing their behavior.
Committing to the same values of marriage that most of society agrees on doesn't constitute sexual deviance. And no one is asking for exemptions to any laws except anti gay christian businesses.
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
People distorting the Constitution in a way disallowing people from controlling vice in their communities are living in a special world of philosophy called Phenomenology, which is an exercise in meaninglessness and absurdity.
Thank you for providing the perfect example of such people.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Trump appointee resigns after racist, sexist an... 17 min Combat veteran 42
Gay text and call (Aug '12) 2 hr Craving 28
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 hr dollarsbill 17,542
NE Jade Saturday Night Update 2 hr Corn Dodger 1
News Queers May Not Like Lesbians, But Porn Consumer... 3 hr EdmondWA 3
News Connecticut sees - gay baby boom' 5 hr Robby Rob 47
News Winnipeg men trying to get their 1974 marriage ... 5 hr whitey 8
News Former OKC Mayor blames homosexuality for moral... 7 hr Anita Bryant s Jihad 596
News Gay Cakes Are Not a Constitutional Right 8 hr Anita Bryant s Jihad 888
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 19 hr Melvin 27,293
More from around the web