Welcome
Welcome to SuiJurisForum.com --- You are currently viewing our boards as a guest. Members of this FREE Community are able to gain access to write capabilities, private messaging, a chat room, extra forums, and more!

***If you decide to Join our FREE Community... then DON'T FORGET to PASS/SKIP the multiple ADVERTISEMENTS during Registration that ask for Phone Numbers!! ***

‘No Grounding in the Constitution’

Discuss about the world and people freedom as entire.

Re: ‘No Grounding in the Constitution’

Postby fulltitle » Sun May 22, 2016 12:17 am

[quote="PHOSPHENE"]
allowed federal benefits only for spouses in heterosexual marriages.


The whole gay marriage thing is about tax breaks and government hand outs. Less theft is the only reason anybody(gay or straight) seeks government approval of their marriage.


Nope. Its about #1 effecting widespread civil death and terra-nullis just like the 1666 presumption of death after the London Fire; #2 bringing about tacit end of lawful state government; #3 confusing the territorial limits of the United States with that of the several sovereign states; #4 promoting religions and Occultism founded upon perverse sexual activities (man-man **** *** is ancient ritual or rite); #5 paving the way for establishing in America a legal basis for ancient Roman sexual conquest paradigms (i.e. penetrator as being superior to the penetrated). Gay marriage is about promoting a religion or a set of religions in opposition to anything Bible-based.
No liability assumed. No value assured. Without prejudice.

fulltitle has been thanked by:
fulltitle
Freeman
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 12:54 pm
Has thanked: 2 time
Have thanks: 38 time

 

Re: ‘No Grounding in the Constitution’

Postby Shoonra » Sun May 22, 2016 2:00 am

Official recognition (by recordation) of marriage has several important legal effects:
(1) It establishes the inheritance of the widow, which is guaranteed even against a will that attempts to cut her out. Similarly for widower.
(2) It establishes for the husband at least the presumption of paternity of the children, similarly providing for their inheritance, as well as parental rights.
(3) It establishes certain legal rights for either spouse, including confidentiality of communications, visitation rights and some decision-making authority in hospital settings, and similar privileges and authorities.
(4) It establishes the right to joint tax filings, tenancy by the entirety, and certain other forms of concurrent ownership available only to spouses.

I am sure I could think of a few more legal effects if I put my mind to it.
/ Shoonra
"Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft."
First Samuel 15:23
User avatar
Shoonra
Statist
 
Posts: 4978
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:14 am
Location: suburban Maryland
Has thanked: 20 time
Have thanks: 204 time

Re: ‘No Grounding in the Constitution’

Postby Shoonra » Sun May 22, 2016 2:33 am

There is a very real grounding in the Constitution for recognition of same-*** marriages.

The preamble makes clear that one of the purposes of the govt is to assure "domestic tranquility", which indicates happy homes, which in turn suggests marriages between willing partners.

Article I, sec. 10, cl. 1, says that "No State shall ... pass any ... law impairing the obligation of contracts....." Marriage is a contract.

Articl IV, sec. 1, says that "Full faith and credit shall be given by each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State." Which strongly suggests (altho it was not raised, e.g., in the Loving case) that a marriage which was valid in the state where solemnized cannot be invalidated because the couple travels to another States. As same-*** marriages were already valid in some States, the marriages formed in those States must be legally recognized as valid in all States including those which themselves do not allow for same-*** weddings. A somewhat similiar situation long prevails in States that do not permit marriages between first cousins.
/ Shoonra
"Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft."
First Samuel 15:23
User avatar
Shoonra
Statist
 
Posts: 4978
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:14 am
Location: suburban Maryland
Has thanked: 20 time
Have thanks: 204 time

Re: ‘No Grounding in the Constitution’

Postby fulltitle » Sun May 22, 2016 10:15 am

States and companies ignore full faith and credit all the time. One state says its on for an 18 year old to open a brokerage account, The other doesn't give a ****. Just one example.

[quote="Shoonra"]There is a very real grounding in the Constitution for recognition of same-*** marriages.

The preamble makes clear that one of the purposes of the govt is to assure "domestic tranquility", which indicates happy homes, which in turn suggests marriages between willing partners.

Article I, sec. 10, cl. 1, says that "No State shall ... pass any ... law impairing the obligation of contracts....." Marriage is a contract.

Articl IV, sec. 1, says that "Full faith and credit shall be given by each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State." Which strongly suggests (altho it was not raised, e.g., in the Loving case) that a marriage which was valid in the state where solemnized cannot be invalidated because the couple travels to another States. As same-*** marriages were already valid in some States, the marriages formed in those States must be legally recognized as valid in all States including those which themselves do not allow for same-*** weddings. A somewhat similar situation long prevails in States that do not permit marriages between first cousins.


There is zero grounding for so-called 'gay marriage' in the Constitution except maybe remotely to the extent of power of the United States over its territories (not the states)--definitely not with respect to the states of America. Even with respect to the Continental United States of America, it would be the duty of the U.S. District Court clerks to issue gay marriage licenses rather than states or their subdivisions. Now even if one were to say that homosexuals had the right to do what they want to each other in private, they most certainly lack the right to force their beliefs or sexual fetishes on others. Time and time again it has men who have a penchant for buggery who have been out to force their beliefs and sexualities on others even if it meant raping and drugging men they knew weren't interested. Consider, if you will, the disgust and horrors of prison **** and how it has been tolerated or even promoted by prison officials.

The U.S. government and/or Congress is aiming to establish a religion by actively promoting "gay marriage". Sodomy itself is associated with various non-Christian religious rituals. Since all "executive branches" are all extensions and creatures of the U.S. Congress and POTUS is effectively the CEO or Chief Inspector General over Congress' creations, executive branches cannot do what Congress itself cannot do. Military power in the United States armed forces comes to the United States via Congress, therefore its officers cannot do what Congress cannot do.

[quote="Shoonra"]Official recognition (by recordation) of marriage has several important legal effects:
(1) It establishes the inheritance of the widow, which is guaranteed even against a will that attempts to cut her out. Similarly for widower.
(2) It establishes for the husband at least the presumption of paternity of the children, similarly providing for their inheritance, as well as parental rights.
(3) It establishes certain legal rights for either spouse, including confidentiality of communications, visitation rights and some decision-making authority in hospital settings, and similar privileges and authorities.
(4) It establishes the right to joint tax filings, tenancy by the entirety, and certain other forms of concurrent ownership available only to spouses.

I am sure I could think of a few more legal effects if I put my mind to it.


Also, all of those things you mention about estate planning can be overcome with powers of attorney and readily available means of estate planning. Merger of estates is one thing. No one has stopped two men or two women from giving each other medical powers of attorney or including each other in wills. Estate planning techniques for persons of the same gender have most always been readily available.

Remember it was gays that said: marriage has nothing to do with ***. But yet right after they felt enable they started promoting buggery and BSDM to little children. What happened to the "marriage has nothing to do with ***"? --oh wait they are lying so they 'must be trusted'. They're out to promote a specific set of religions and Marxist ideals for destroying anything and everything wholesome.

Also what you say about marriage, U.S. states have for decades denied the validity of common law or Bible-based marriage. So what are you on? More states were respective of gay partnerships than they were of Bible-based or common law marriage.

If two men or two women want to merge their estates and give each other medical powers of attorney, there has been nothing stopping them. I've seen books on estate planning for gays in public libraries and private law school libraries many times over the past twenty years.

Image
Note: SIXTEENTH edition (published 2012)

Equating love with sexual gratification is the stuff of error.
No liability assumed. No value assured. Without prejudice.
fulltitle
Freeman
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 12:54 pm
Has thanked: 2 time
Have thanks: 38 time
Top

Re: ‘No Grounding in the Constitution’

Postby lostandfound » Sun May 22, 2016 1:49 pm

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/20 ... nters.html

Fascinating fact, arranged marriages are vastly more successful than free range coupling.

Measured by rate of divorce.

My be that the Patriarchs and than family join to discuss goals and their philosophy as to the uniting of families in symbiosis.



http://strike-the-root.com/social-justi ... e-assholes
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
User avatar
lostandfound
King of my Own Domain
 
Posts: 2147
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 303 time
Have thanks: 185 time

Re: ‘No Grounding in the Constitution’

Postby fulltitle » Sun May 22, 2016 5:29 pm

[quote="lostandfound"]http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2016/05/lavender-leninists-and-heretic-hunters.html

Fascinating fact, arranged marriages are vastly more successful than free range coupling.

Measured by rate of divorce.

My be that the Patriarchs and than family join to discuss goals and their philosophy as to the uniting of families in symbiosis.



http://strike-the-root.com/social-justi ... e-assholes


Somewhat OT but yes obviously. Marriages arranged with the help of loving parents would also have the support of the parents from the inception. The people who are out to destroy families are against older men marrying younger women (development of such strong bonds is against the Policies of the Chief of the Politburo because ze strongest bonds "must be" with ze Fuhrer) and are also against parental participation in selection of husband/wife for a daughter/son because: they are against marriage and want them to fail. The main reason for high age of consent (18 to 21) is to make it hellish for older men to find spouses that aren't experts on under-cover hookerdom or who aren't so loaded with baggage (for a non-promiscuous man to carry that kind of baggage of a femme with 125 boyfriends and 20 years of sexual promiscuity and resulting inability to form strong bonds with any ONE man--that is edged toward fail and by design.) High age of consent effectively forces older men to select from used, abused or older abusive females who decided to try to find a victim to take care of them once they hit 35 once their deliberate and intentional antics no longer become feasible: if men were generally able to marry 13 to 15 year old girls, the 35 y/o lifetime-hooker-femme wouldn't stand a chance: so they raised the age of consent to reduce the competition and to effectively enable hookerdom. If you believe age of consent is for protecting girls, maybe you'd like to buy a bridge near Manhattan for twenty-four easy payments of $999. The enemies of a society might set out to exploit emotional malleability of females (because its harder to sell much nonsense to men) so as to convince them to engage in self-destructive nonsense: getting people to self-destruct takes a lot less effort (political jujitsu).

Something tells me that the same people that readily engage in human trafficking (even of pre-adolescent children) don't really care about protecting young girls? If you look at the age of consent laws and all of that, it links right into the destruction of the nuclear family. The timing and everything. Truth is, marriage isn't about ***, it is about nuturing, facilitation, fulfillment, enabling and protection and relationships between families. Its about providing a stable environment to raise children and to meet fundamental requirements for affection. It has been suggested that both Hollywood and Roman culture sexualized marriage.
No liability assumed. No value assured. Without prejudice.
fulltitle
Freeman
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 12:54 pm
Has thanked: 2 time
Have thanks: 38 time
Top

Previous

Return to End of America

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron
suspicion-preferred