Quote# 126637

Tangent002:
The SCOTUS did not make law at all, they confirmed that laws cannot restrict the basic right of marriage guaranteed by the Constitution. The decision is that same-sex marriage has always been legal.

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Wrong. The Law says otherwise.

Tangent002:
Which law?

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
1923 Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act

Bob Johnson:
No such law. The Uniform Law Commission provides states with draft legislation, which states then may modify before passing into law. States are not required to use the draft language and most states heavily modify the draft before adoption.

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Wrong. The Committee on Marriage & Divorce of the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws first started the Draft in 1911. In 1913 Marriage was first defined as a "husband and wife". In 1923 the Act was Federally Enacted. While there were many things left up to the states and allowed some variations on some things there were also some things that were required and if violated could result in fines and/or imprisonment.

What's important to note is that it was uniformly accepted at BOTH the State AND Federal level that a Marriage was between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.

Ambulance Chaser:
If it was "federally enacted," you should be able to direct me to the exact location in the United States Code that codifies it.

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
I gave up a long time ago directing your toward anything but the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now, if you would like to surrender your life as a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ and accept Him as your new Lord & Master to live for His glory and beg Him to save your sorry, sinful, behind to save you from eternal torment in the Lake of Fire and spend ALL Eternity with the desire to glorify Him...

I'd be more than happy to direct you in how to do so.

Ambulance Chaser:
So, you're saying you CAN'T back up your statement? It really shouldn't be that hard. The entire US Code is available online.

Royce E. Van Blaricome::
Still having a problem with English I see. Let's see if repeating myself helps. No, what I said was:

"I gave up a long time ago directing your toward anything but the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now, if you would like to surrender your life as a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ and accept Him as your new Lord & Master to live for His glory and beg Him to save your sorry, sinful, behind to save you from eternal torment in the Lake of Fire and spend ALL Eternity with the desire to glorify Him...

I'd be more than happy to direct you in how to do so."

But hey, thanks again for showing everyone you're nothing but a God-hating troll trying to stir up stuff on a CHRISTIAN page.

Ambulance Chaser:
You can't keep running and hiding behind "this is a Christian page" every time you find yourself out of your depth. If you're going to make assertions about earthly topics, you're going to need to be able to provide the earthly explanations for them.

So I'll ask you one last time, where is this supposed law codified? Where can I find it?

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Not running and hiding from anything. It's called TRUTH. Now I realize that is a foreign concept for you but, even so, it does NOT takeaway from the obvious fact that you tried to divert the conversation.

I've given my answer to you. I understand that it really bugs you to no end when you can't control the conversation the way you want. That's typical TROLL behavior.

Too bad. I'm sticking with God's Word. Matt. 7:6 & 10:14.

Now, let's see if you are a man of your word because I am. If you are, I don't expect to hear from you again until you are ready to surrender to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Royce E. Van Blaricome, Christian News Network 14 Comments [4/25/2017 4:39:33 AM]
Fundie Index: 7

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom

Churchy LaFemme

Even assuming the 1923 Marriage Act was part of the US Code, that doesn't mean it can't be changed or declared unconstitutional. Or should we demand that the Dred Scott decision should still be enforced despite later decisions?

It's so easy to provide citations, thanks to the internet, that anyone who refuses to do so or says, "find it yourself," raises the suspicion that their evidence doesn't exist. Think of all the time and effort you'd save if you just gave the requested information.

4/25/2017 5:04:53 AM

Mister Spak

"Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Wrong. The Law says otherwise. "

What about the law that says niggers can't "marry" white women? The supreme court can't affect state laws so that law is still in effect, right?


4/25/2017 5:13:41 AM

creativerealms

He is afchief isn't he?

4/25/2017 5:15:35 AM

Adey

Ignorance of US law, arrogant shithead, avoids questions that make him wrong, repeats the questioners questions without answer and tries to proselytise. Yes, creativerealms, he's afchief.

4/25/2017 5:19:25 AM

Ambulance Chaser

Yeah, Royce, it's really obnoxious when people try to control the conversation.

4/25/2017 5:38:17 AM

Doubting Thomas


4/25/2017 5:44:43 AM

Doubting Thomas

@ #2045954

Yes, creativerealms, he's afchief.


Ah, that explains so much then, like his refusal to back up his claims and his rabid insistence that the Supreme Court has no power.

4/25/2017 5:47:48 AM



Basically he can't back it up, knows he is a piss poor representative of Christ, and won't debate Ambulance Chaser anymore because he always gets destroyed and can't win

4/25/2017 6:11:39 AM

The Angry Dybbuk

In other words, it's not codified. Got it.

4/25/2017 6:28:53 AM

Ambulance Chaser

I dunno, I don't see afchief here. Royce is smug, arrogant, and self-congratulatory whereas afchief was just in a perpetual state of explosive, volcanic rage.

The idea that SCOTUS decisions are just pointless suggestions is, unfortunately, a fairly prevalent idea over at Christian News Network.

4/25/2017 6:51:58 AM

Thinking Allowed

It's odd Royce that the Marriage act also mentions divorce (which your god hates) and no mention of your god either.

4/25/2017 7:44:23 AM

KingOfRhye

His argument is that because the Obergefell decision didn't address those laws in particular, they're still valid.

*facepalm*

4/25/2017 7:46:24 AM

Jocasta McFucken

@Ambulance Chaser

"Royce is smug, arrogant, and self-congratulatory whereas afchief was just in a perpetual state of explosive, volcanic rage."

I usually manage to have Royce in both of those modes.

BTW, has anyone ever peered at Royce's Facebook/Twitter accounts? It seems he lives to be difficult and to stir up controversy. It appears Facebook has banned him for short periods. He appears also to love blowing the shit out of God's creatures and has served in the military.

4/25/2017 7:56:34 AM

Titania

Still on this subject? The Obergefell SCOTUS decision was nearly 2 years ago.

Talk about a dog with a bone.

4/25/2017 4:13:44 PM

1 | top: comments page