Judge Roy Moore defies feds: 'Law is very clear'

[BluesLegend]

A politician lied in order to get elected?? Say it ain't so!!! I mean, what is the world coming to when a politician would actually LIE to win an election???

*the above statement is sarcasm*

That low life progressive liberal pukes think lying is okay doesn't make it okay. Its not okay with most Americans hence the lying scum Democratic party got ***** slapped by voters these past 6 years, historic losses, why? Because they LIE!

 

[SwimExpert]

LOL, it wasn't a complicated point. That's the basic problem here, you guys can't see past your genitals.

Actually, you are the one unable to see past genitalia. You just can't come to terms with two consenting adults living in marriage unless they possess the combination of genitalia you approve of.

The point was that yes, the government does see genders differently and it does so for a reason. You are essentially asking the state to be gender blind and for some reason limit marriage to traditional numbers. It's inconsistent.

Gender distinctive restrooms have a purpose.

 

[The Rabbi]

No one is being denied equal protection.
Gays have the same opportunities to marry that straight people do.
Straight people lack the same opportunities to marry that gay people do.

What opportunities to marry are gays afforded that straights are not?

Any homosexual is free to marry someone of the opposite gender.
And many of them are, btw.

And what opportunities are straights lacking that gays have?

None. That's my point. There is no discrimination anywhere. Everyone is governed by the same set of rules.

But that is not what you said.

You said:
"Gays have the same opportunities to marry that straight people do.
Straight people lack the same opportunities to marry that gay people do."

You claimed that straight people lack the same opportunities to marry that gay people do.

That is why I have asked twice what opportunities straight people lack.

They lack the opportunity to marry someone of the same sex. Just like gay people.

 

[The Rabbi]

States have always had the right to define marriage- subject to constitutional guarantees.

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws at least 3 times- all based upon equal treatment claims.

On sexual preferences? I call bull.

Call whatever you want.

You are obsessed about sexual preferences- the Supreme Court was focusing on equal treatment before the law, and that marriage is an individual right that can only be denied when the State can demonstrate a specific State interest that is accomplished by denying that right.

States have an interest in maintaining the nuclear family.

Okay so if a heterosexual couple can't have kids, the government should nullify their marriage?

What if they decide not to have kids?

What about when the woman in a relationship goes through menopause, is it now the state's job to nullify the marriage? I mean they can't have kids so they can't marry according to you.

Or are you trying to make a relationship between two consenting adults unequal by arbitrary means?

Government mandated medical checkups are in order to make sure all couples are fit to bear children.

Red herring fallacy.
Rabbi Rules!

 

[The Rabbi]

Any homosexual is free to marry someone of the opposite gender.
And many of them are, btw.

And what opportunities are straights lacking that gays have?

None. That's my point. There is no discrimination anywhere. Everyone is governed by the same set of rules.

By that reasoning, they were governed by the same set of rules when interracial marriage could be outlawed state by state.

btw, how can everyone be governed by the same set of rules if same sex couples in one state can get married, but in another they can't?

Interracial bans were unConstitutional because men were treated differently depending on their race. Sexual preference isn't covered.

No they weren't. To use the same logic used by anti-homosexuals, black men were free to marry within their race, just like white men were free to marry within their race. Everyone was equal, right? Isn't that the same as the "gays are free to marry someone of the opposite gender" argument?

Gay is not a race.
Fail.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the right is cognitively dissonant enough to indulge the moral turpitude of bearing false witness to our own laws merely to be repugnant to a moral of "goodwill toward men".

That all men are equally free and independent; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[SwimExpert]

If all men have the same right that's what normal people call equal.

Actually, that's what "normal" people call sexism.

Maybe you meant to say all people. Even then, your claim is demonstrably false, as seen in the example of racial segregation of marriage in times past. All people did not have the same right, despite the fact that all people had a right to marry a person of their own race. If the Congress passed a law that required all people to become members of an Islamic Mosque of their choosing, that would be a violation of people's rights. It would not be equality, despite the fact that all people who have the same "right" to be a member of an Islamic Mosque. It would, in fact, infringe upon those people who are not Muslim.

 

[The Rabbi]

If all men have the same right that's what normal people call equal.

Actually, that's what "normal" people call sexism.

Maybe you meant to say all people. Even then, your claim is demonstrably false, as seen in the example of racial segregation of marriage in times past. All people did not have the same right, despite the fact that all people had a right to marry a person of their own race. If the Congress passed a law that required all people to become members of an Islamic Mosque of their choosing, that would be a violation of people's rights. It would not be equality, despite the fact that all people who have the same "right" to be a member of an Islamic Mosque. It would, in fact, infringe upon those people who are not Muslim.

blahblahblahgaysarereallynegroesblahblahblah
Your originality here is stunning. Stunning in its lack.

 

[Iceweasel]

If all men have the same right that's what normal people call equal.

Actually, that's what "normal" people call sexism.

Maybe you meant to say all people. Even then, your claim is demonstrably false, as seen in the example of racial segregation of marriage in times past. All people did not have the same right, despite the fact that all people had a right to marry a person of their own race. If the Congress passed a law that required all people to become members of an Islamic Mosque of their choosing, that would be a violation of people's rights. It would not be equality, despite the fact that all people who have the same "right" to be a member of an Islamic Mosque. It would, in fact, infringe upon those people who are not Muslim.

I provided an example of how you're wrong. It is not sexism to recognize genders, that's not what the word means. It isn't sexist to have men's and women's restrooms, it's how society wants it and there's nothing in the Constitution to limit government from it. The rest of your post makes no sense for reasons already discussed, i.e. religion being protected as a right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If all men have the same right that's what normal people call equal.

Actually, that's what "normal" people call sexism.

Maybe you meant to say all people. Even then, your claim is demonstrably false, as seen in the example of racial segregation of marriage in times past. All people did not have the same right, despite the fact that all people had a right to marry a person of their own race. If the Congress passed a law that required all people to become members of an Islamic Mosque of their choosing, that would be a violation of people's rights. It would not be equality, despite the fact that all people who have the same "right" to be a member of an Islamic Mosque. It would, in fact, infringe upon those people who are not Muslim.

I provided an example of how you're wrong. It is not sexism to recognize genders, that's not what the word means. It isn't sexist to have men's and women's restrooms, it's how society wants it and there's nothing in the Constitution to limit government from it. The rest of your post makes no sense for reasons already discussed, i.e. religion being protected as a right.

So you'd be satisfied if we gave same sex couples a 'same sex' marriage license that was identical to an opposite sex marriage license,

and each would only differ by a heading on each document showing which was which?

lol

 

[Iceweasel]

If all men have the same right that's what normal people call equal.

Actually, that's what "normal" people call sexism.

Maybe you meant to say all people. Even then, your claim is demonstrably false, as seen in the example of racial segregation of marriage in times past. All people did not have the same right, despite the fact that all people had a right to marry a person of their own race. If the Congress passed a law that required all people to become members of an Islamic Mosque of their choosing, that would be a violation of people's rights. It would not be equality, despite the fact that all people who have the same "right" to be a member of an Islamic Mosque. It would, in fact, infringe upon those people who are not Muslim.

I provided an example of how you're wrong. It is not sexism to recognize genders, that's not what the word means. It isn't sexist to have men's and women's restrooms, it's how society wants it and there's nothing in the Constitution to limit government from it. The rest of your post makes no sense for reasons already discussed, i.e. religion being protected as a right.

So you'd be satisfied if we gave same sex couples a 'same sex' marriage license that was identical to an opposite sex marriage license,

and each would only differ by a heading on each document showing which was which?

lol

Huh? What a dimwitted interpretation.

 

[Dana7360]

I have many times brainiac
14th amendment

14th Amendment doesn't apply. Only the 9th anf 10th Amendments.

Romer v. Evans already found that the withholding rights from gays is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. 15 years ago.

Not when it comes to marriage specifically.

Why would marriage be any different than any other right? You keep making up these imaginary exclusions, caveats and restrictions that are complete bullshit.

You started by insisting that 14th amendment only applied to issues of race and citizenship. That was bullshit.

You then insisted that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to gays. That was bullshit.

And now you're insisting that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to marriage. The courts already applied it to marriage. So bullshit cubed.

Damn. If you'd been offering us answers at random the law of averages would have mandated you get something right by now. But astonishingly, you've managed to be perfectly wrong.

Equal protection my ass then why isn't group marriages legal? Why isn't polygamy legal? your argument doesn't hold water.

I can't believe you're so obtuse.

Because it's illegal for everyone to not marry a group of people. No one is getting something that some other person has been prevented for getting.

Everyone is free to marry the person, not people, they love.

It's very simple and logical but then you're a conservative and logic is evil to a conservative.

 

[Dana7360]

Romer v. Evans already found that the withholding rights from gays is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. 15 years ago.

Not when it comes to marriage specifically.

Why would marriage be any different than any other right? You keep making up these imaginary exclusions, caveats and restrictions that are complete bullshit.

You started by insisting that 14th amendment only applied to issues of race and citizenship. That was bullshit.

You then insisted that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to gays. That was bullshit.

And now you're insisting that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to marriage. The courts already applied it to marriage. So bullshit cubed.

Damn. If you'd been offering us answers at random the law of averages would have mandated you get something right by now. But astonishingly, you've managed to be perfectly wrong.

Equal protection my ass then why isn't group marriages legal? Why isn't polygamy legal? your argument doesn't hold water.

Because no other group is afforded group marriages or polygamy. That is the point. When you single out one group and deny them protection that is afforded everyone else, and you have no valid reason for doing so, the feds step in and correct the problem.

I repeat Marriage gives unfair stuff to married people single people can't get and is thus a violation of the 14th amendment.

If you had not noticed this message board isn't a court of law.

If you believe that people are being discriminated because they can't legally marry a group of people then hire a lawyer and take it to court.

Just like everyone else does.

What makes you think you're so special that you don't have to go through the proper legal process?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What opportunities to marry are gays afforded that straights are not?

Any homosexual is free to marry someone of the opposite gender.
And many of them are, btw.

And what opportunities are straights lacking that gays have?

None. That's my point. There is no discrimination anywhere. Everyone is governed by the same set of rules.

But that is not what you said.

You said:
"Gays have the same opportunities to marry that straight people do.
Straight people lack the same opportunities to marry that gay people do."

You claimed that straight people lack the same opportunities to marry that gay people do.

That is why I have asked twice what opportunities straight people lack.

They lack the opportunity to marry someone of the same sex. Just like gay people.

Gays lack the right to marry someone they want to marry. Heterosexuals do not.

That is discrimination.

 

[SwimExpert]

I provided an example of how you're wrong.

No you didn't. You made a fallacy of accident argument.

It is not sexism to recognize genders, that's not what the word means.

You're right. But you're not recognizing gender. You're prescribing arbitrary difference in treatment and rights, based on gender. That is sexism.

It isn't sexist to have men's and women's restrooms, it's how society wants it and there's nothing in the Constitution to limit government from it.

There is a reason men and women have separate bathrooms. But sometimes, there is no separation. Some bathrooms are for both men and women to use. If you bar one or the other from those bathrooms, you are discriminating based on gender.

The rest of your post makes no sense for reasons already discussed, i.e. religion being protected as a right.

In other words, you can't get past the point that what I said is too logical to refute, so you feign lack of comprehension.

 

[The Rabbi]

Any homosexual is free to marry someone of the opposite gender.
And many of them are, btw.

And what opportunities are straights lacking that gays have?

None. That's my point. There is no discrimination anywhere. Everyone is governed by the same set of rules.

But that is not what you said.

You said:
"Gays have the same opportunities to marry that straight people do.
Straight people lack the same opportunities to marry that gay people do."

You claimed that straight people lack the same opportunities to marry that gay people do.

That is why I have asked twice what opportunities straight people lack.

They lack the opportunity to marry someone of the same sex. Just like gay people.

Gays lack the right to marry someone they want to marry. Heterosexuals do not.

That is discrimination.

Wrong.
Just plain wrong. I wont even go into it, it's all over these stupid discussion.s

 

[NYcarbineer]

If all men have the same right that's what normal people call equal.

Actually, that's what "normal" people call sexism.

Maybe you meant to say all people. Even then, your claim is demonstrably false, as seen in the example of racial segregation of marriage in times past. All people did not have the same right, despite the fact that all people had a right to marry a person of their own race. If the Congress passed a law that required all people to become members of an Islamic Mosque of their choosing, that would be a violation of people's rights. It would not be equality, despite the fact that all people who have the same "right" to be a member of an Islamic Mosque. It would, in fact, infringe upon those people who are not Muslim.

I provided an example of how you're wrong. It is not sexism to recognize genders, that's not what the word means. It isn't sexist to have men's and women's restrooms, it's how society wants it and there's nothing in the Constitution to limit government from it. The rest of your post makes no sense for reasons already discussed, i.e. religion being protected as a right.

Would it be discrimination to only have public toilets for men?

 

[Syriusly]

A politician lied in order to get elected?? Say it ain't so!!! I mean, what is the world coming to when a politician would actually LIE to win an election???

*the above statement is sarcasm*

That low life progressive liberal pukes think lying is okay doesn't make it okay. Its not okay with most Americans hence the lying scum Democratic party got ***** slapped by voters these past 6 years, historic losses, why? Because they LIE!

That perfectly explains why the lying scum Republican party got ***** slapped by voters the previous 2 elections......because they LIE...


LOL.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

And what opportunities are straights lacking that gays have?

None. That's my point. There is no discrimination anywhere. Everyone is governed by the same set of rules.

But that is not what you said.

You said:
"Gays have the same opportunities to marry that straight people do.
Straight people lack the same opportunities to marry that gay people do."

You claimed that straight people lack the same opportunities to marry that gay people do.

That is why I have asked twice what opportunities straight people lack.

They lack the opportunity to marry someone of the same sex. Just like gay people.

Gays lack the right to marry someone they want to marry. Heterosexuals do not.

That is discrimination.

Wrong.
Just plain wrong. I wont even go into it, it's all over these stupid discussion.s

So if a state law ONLY allowed same sex marriage, your argument is that the opposite sex couples would have no legitimate complaint.

lol, this is what we're up against, my sane friends. Pure mental deficiency in large portions.

 

[WinterBorn]

I am sure that Conservatives want to stay intellectually consistent on this issue. If you can't bear children, you can't be married. If you don't bear children, you aren't married.

Conservatives are consistent because they recognize the two different genders. Homosexuals live a lie and pretend gender has no meaning of consequence.

None of us ignore gender. But the gov't damn well should. Why should gender matter to the gov't?