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

[WinterBorn]

Almost no states have legalized gay marriage It has been imposed on them by an acitivist judiciary undermining the wll of the people. If people actually voted for that crap I could accept it. as legitimate.

So you accept same-sex marriage since it has already passed as a ballot initiative in some states?


BTW - 12 Jurisdictions have passed SSCM based legislative action and/or at the ballot.


>>>>

Only in those states where the majority has ruled it so.
States rights.

When the Civil Rights Act was passed, the majority of many states were against it. Should it have been ignored?

 

[Slyhunter]

Men can use the men's restroom on government property but they can't use the ladies room. How is that the same opportunity? This isn't rocket science.

*facepalm*

Are you really comparing the institution of marriage to taking a shit while sitting on a cushion of layered toilet paper? And you would have the nerve to turn around and invoke it's sanctity to "protect" it?

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

Marriage is gender blind now in many ways now that it wasn't before.

Marriage used to be very gender defined- women virtually became the property of her husband when she married- she gave up control of her own legal decisions- it was called coverture

Once she married, however, her legal existence as an individual was suspended under “marital unity,” a legal fiction in which the husband and wife were considered a single entity: the husband. The husband exercised almost exclusive power and responsibility and rarely had to consult his wife to make decisions about property matters. Coverture rendered a woman unable to sue or be sued on her own behalf or to execute a will without her husband’s consent and, unless some prior specific provision separating a woman’s property from her husband’s had been made, stripped a woman of control over real and personal property.

Coverture laws no longer exist- women exist in marriages now as equals- in essence within modern marriage there is no gender distinction- there is no 'male role' or 'female role'- spouses are legal partners.

We need to go back to the good old days.
Now that people don't have to stay married our kids are being ruined by being brought up in single parent homes. It's ruining our childrens future getting rid of the nuclear family.

Children brought up by two parents are more intelligent - because they develop more brain cells Daily Mail Online

 

[nodoginnafight]

And as you know, the restrictions applied to same sex couples must meet constitutional muster. And it doesn't. It doesn't serve a legitimate state interest, it doesn't serve a valid legislative end, and it has no logical purpose.

That's an opinion

That a law restricting rights must serve a legitimate state interest, i a valid legislative end, and have a valid reason isn't 'opinion'. Its the finding of Romer v. Evans. That the marriage restrictions must meet constitutional muster isn't opinion. Its the finding of Loving V. Virginia.

No rights are being restricted.

Then same sex marriage is legal in every state? If no, then obviously something is being restricted.

You can pretend otherwise.....but we're not obligated to pretend with you. And the courts certainly won't.

If left up to the voters it wouldn't be.
Don't you believe in Democracy?

You can't vote away someone's Constitutional rights

 

[SwimExpert]

How about two female sockets together, again doesn't transport electricity when you try it. Thus it isn't natural.

 

[Syriusly]

It's stupid to put civil rights up for a popular vote, the people who organized such unconstitutional initiatives had to know they were eventually doomed.

Marriage isn't a civil right.

You're free to believe that all you want.

However what you believe means absolutely nothing.

What means something is our constitution and our supreme court.

The supreme court ruled decades ago that marriage is a right so you can spout all the nonsense you want. You're perfectly free to do that. However intelligent people are just as free to mock you and treat you as the uneducated fool you are.

Show me in the constitution where Marriage is defined as a human right.
Don't wave the 14th amendment that dog has already been disproven.

Funny, the 14th has not been disproven according to the federal courts.

What has been proven is that marriage is not a right therefore the 14th amendment has nothing to do with marriage.

'Proven' by whom and how?

The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that marriage is indeed a right.

Let me 'prove' that to you- though I am confident you will still pretend that there is no 'right' to marriage

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

 

[Slyhunter]

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

The whole point, the only point, of limiting marriage to opposite sex couples,

is to discriminate against same sex couples. That is purely discrimination by definition.

No the point is to limit it to those who can propagate the species.

That's not marriage in our country. As the infertile are allowed to marry or remain married by the millions. As are those who choose to have no children.

Elegantly establishing that there is a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

It has to do with how biology made things work. Nature.

Speaking of biology, I don't suppose you know that same gender sexual encounters are routine in the natural world. Many species engage in it. You didn't know this? Huh.

Because Animals sometimes do something that is unnatural doesn't make it natural.

 

[WinterBorn]

Men can use the men's restroom on government property but they can't use the ladies room. How is that the same opportunity? This isn't rocket science.

*facepalm*

Are you really comparing the institution of marriage to taking a shit while sitting on a cushion of layered toilet paper? And you would have the nerve to turn around and invoke it's sanctity to "protect" it?

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

Marriage is gender blind now in many ways now that it wasn't before.

Marriage used to be very gender defined- women virtually became the property of her husband when she married- she gave up control of her own legal decisions- it was called coverture

Once she married, however, her legal existence as an individual was suspended under “marital unity,” a legal fiction in which the husband and wife were considered a single entity: the husband. The husband exercised almost exclusive power and responsibility and rarely had to consult his wife to make decisions about property matters. Coverture rendered a woman unable to sue or be sued on her own behalf or to execute a will without her husband’s consent and, unless some prior specific provision separating a woman’s property from her husband’s had been made, stripped a woman of control over real and personal property.

Coverture laws no longer exist- women exist in marriages now as equals- in essence within modern marriage there is no gender distinction- there is no 'male role' or 'female role'- spouses are legal partners.

We need to go back to the good old days.
Now that people don't have to stay married our kids are being ruined by being brought up in single parent homes. It's ruining our childrens future getting rid of the nuclear family.

Children brought up by two parents are more intelligent - because they develop more brain cells Daily Mail Online

The good old days? When husbands could beat their wives, blacks could be lynched, and gays were beaten or lost their jobs for who they were?

Yeah, thanks but no thanks.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

In 1967 your argument would be:

Conservatives are consistent because they recognize the two different races. Blacks live a lie and pretend race has no meaning of consequence.

No because blacks can and do impregnate whites.
Men can't impregnate men.

 

[WinterBorn]

The whole point, the only point, of limiting marriage to opposite sex couples,

is to discriminate against same sex couples. That is purely discrimination by definition.

No the point is to limit it to those who can propagate the species.

That's not marriage in our country. As the infertile are allowed to marry or remain married by the millions. As are those who choose to have no children.

Elegantly establishing that there is a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

It has to do with how biology made things work. Nature.

Speaking of biology, I don't suppose you know that same gender sexual encounters are routine in the natural world. Many species engage in it. You didn't know this? Huh.

Because Animals sometimes do something that is unnatural doesn't make it natural.

That it occurs in many species in their natural habitat pretty much makes it natural.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Good for him. We need more men with guts to stand against federal tyranny.

At least you're consistent at being ignorant ridiculous, and wrong.

 

[Slyhunter]

That's an opinion

That a law restricting rights must serve a legitimate state interest, i a valid legislative end, and have a valid reason isn't 'opinion'. Its the finding of Romer v. Evans. That the marriage restrictions must meet constitutional muster isn't opinion. Its the finding of Loving V. Virginia.

No rights are being restricted.

Then same sex marriage is legal in every state? If no, then obviously something is being restricted.

You can pretend otherwise.....but we're not obligated to pretend with you. And the courts certainly won't.

If left up to the voters it wouldn't be.
Don't you believe in Democracy?

So if the voters in your state vote to ban gun ownership- that would be the will of the voters, and you would support that?

If not- don't you believe in Democracy?

The right to bear arms is established in the constitution.
The right to marry isn't.

 

[Iceweasel]

Men can use the men's restroom on government property but they can't use the ladies room. How is that the same opportunity? This isn't rocket science.

*facepalm*

Are you really comparing the institution of marriage to taking a shit while sitting on a cushion of layered toilet paper? And you would have the nerve to turn around and invoke it's sanctity to "protect" it?

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

Marriage is gender blind now in many ways now that it wasn't before.

Marriage used to be very gender defined- women virtually became the property of her husband when she married- she gave up control of her own legal decisions- it was called coverture

Once she married, however, her legal existence as an individual was suspended under “marital unity,” a legal fiction in which the husband and wife were considered a single entity: the husband. The husband exercised almost exclusive power and responsibility and rarely had to consult his wife to make decisions about property matters. Coverture rendered a woman unable to sue or be sued on her own behalf or to execute a will without her husband’s consent and, unless some prior specific provision separating a woman’s property from her husband’s had been made, stripped a woman of control over real and personal property.

Coverture laws no longer exist- women exist in marriages now as equals- in essence within modern marriage there is no gender distinction- there is no 'male role' or 'female role'- spouses are legal partners.

We need to go back to the good old days.
Now that people don't have to stay married our kids are being ruined by being brought up in single parent homes. It's ruining our childrens future getting rid of the nuclear family.

Children brought up by two parents are more intelligent - because they develop more brain cells Daily Mail Online

The good old days? When husbands could beat their wives, blacks could be lynched, and gays were beaten or lost their jobs for who they were?

Yeah, thanks but no thanks.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Slyhunter]

Almost no states have legalized gay marriage It has been imposed on them by an acitivist judiciary undermining the wll of the people. If people actually voted for that crap I could accept it. as legitimate.

So you accept same-sex marriage since it has already passed as a ballot initiative in some states?


BTW - 12 Jurisdictions have passed SSCM based legislative action and/or at the ballot.


>>>>

Only in those states where the majority has ruled it so.
States rights.

When the Civil Rights Act was passed, the majority of many states were against it. Should it have been ignored?

Freedom of association means you should be free to discriminate for whatever reason you want to and no law should say you can't. You'd be stupid not to take their money, but you should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

 

[WinterBorn]

That a law restricting rights must serve a legitimate state interest, i a valid legislative end, and have a valid reason isn't 'opinion'. Its the finding of Romer v. Evans. That the marriage restrictions must meet constitutional muster isn't opinion. Its the finding of Loving V. Virginia.

No rights are being restricted.

Then same sex marriage is legal in every state? If no, then obviously something is being restricted.

You can pretend otherwise.....but we're not obligated to pretend with you. And the courts certainly won't.

If left up to the voters it wouldn't be.
Don't you believe in Democracy?

So if the voters in your state vote to ban gun ownership- that would be the will of the voters, and you would support that?

If not- don't you believe in Democracy?

The right to bear arms is established in the constitution.
The right to marry isn't.

But the right to equal protection under the law is certainly established by the constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

Incorrect, it certainly is a civil right, along with equal protection of the law.

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.

The whole point, the only point, of limiting marriage to opposite sex couples,

is to discriminate against same sex couples. That is purely discrimination by definition.

No the point is to limit it to those who can propagate the species.

Even when they can't.

Now that is some wierd Conservative logic.

And not one recognized by the Supreme Court

To the extent that Griswold leaves any ambiguity, it is resolved by Turner, 482 U.S.
78, which raised the question whether prisoners retain the right to marry while incarcerated.
The Supreme Court concluded that they did, despite the fact that the vast majority of
prisoners cannot procreate with their spouses. The Court stated:

Many important attributes of marriage remain . . . after taking into account
the limitations imposed by prison life. First, inmate marriages, like others, are
expressions of emotional support and public commitment.

These elements are an important and significant aspect of the marital relationship. In addition,
many religions recognize marriage as having spiritual significance; for some
inmates and their spouses, therefore, the commitment of marriage may be an
exercise of religious faith as well as an expression of personal dedication.

Third, most inmates eventually will be released by parole or commutation, and
therefore most inmate marriages are formed in the expectation that they
ultimately will be fully consummated.

Finally, marital status often is a precondition to the receipt of government benefits (e.g., Social Security
benefits), property rights (e.g., tenancy by the entirety, inheritance rights),
and other, less tangible benefits (e.g., legitimation of children born out of
wedlock).

These incidents of marriage, like the religious and personal aspects
of the marriage commitment, are unaffected by the fact of confinement or the
pursuit of legitimate corrections goals.

 

[Slyhunter]

Marriage isn't a civil right.

You're free to believe that all you want.

However what you believe means absolutely nothing.

What means something is our constitution and our supreme court.

The supreme court ruled decades ago that marriage is a right so you can spout all the nonsense you want. You're perfectly free to do that. However intelligent people are just as free to mock you and treat you as the uneducated fool you are.

Show me in the constitution where Marriage is defined as a human right.
Don't wave the 14th amendment that dog has already been disproven.

Funny, the 14th has not been disproven according to the federal courts.

What has been proven is that marriage is not a right therefore the 14th amendment has nothing to do with marriage.

'Proven' by whom and how?

The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that marriage is indeed a right.

Let me 'prove' that to you- though I am confident you will still pretend that there is no 'right' to marriage

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

Any man is free to marry any consenting legal woman. Thus it is equal. Thus the 14th amendment does not apply. Showing what liberal activist judges have stated doesn't disprove that simple cold hearted logic.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

There is no law that requires restrooms seperated by gender. Nor is there any established right for every American to have a restroom.

But Americans do have a right to marriage. And laws that prevent them from marrying the person that they choose must be justified by the state- and so far, State's have not been able to provide any justification that stands up for denying same gender couples the right to marry.

Marriage is not a right. Just like a drivers license is not a right.

I can keep posting this as many times as it takes to shut up your ignorant statements

Marriage is a right- confirmed repeatedly by the Supreme Court

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

 

[WinterBorn]

Almost no states have legalized gay marriage It has been imposed on them by an acitivist judiciary undermining the wll of the people. If people actually voted for that crap I could accept it. as legitimate.

So you accept same-sex marriage since it has already passed as a ballot initiative in some states?


BTW - 12 Jurisdictions have passed SSCM based legislative action and/or at the ballot.


>>>>

Only in those states where the majority has ruled it so.
States rights.

When the Civil Rights Act was passed, the majority of many states were against it. Should it have been ignored?

Freedom of association means you should be free to discriminate for whatever reason you want to and no law should say you can't. You'd be stupid not to take their money, but you should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

Freedom of association does not begin to cover the abuses prior to the Civil Rights Act.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Same argument here: Every man is free to marry any woman (with some restrictions). Vice versa for women. Doesnt matter if youre gay or straight.
If gay marriage passes then even heterosexual men could marry each other.
That is not an example of discrimination. That is wanting to change the law. Gays failed to do it at the ballot box so decided to whine to the courts to get their way.

Human rights are not a ballot box issue. They are a constitutional issue.

It has nothing to do with human rights.

Multiple courts disagree with you- hence the reason this is going to the Supreme Court.

 

[orogenicman]

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?

Nature made it so.

So if a male or female is infertile since birth, they should be banned from ever being married?

Maybe. There is no valid purpose to get married if they are infertile. They can simply cohabitate.

There is no valid reason to not allow same sex couples to get married. You don't get to choose for another who they love or how they express it to each other.

The whole point, the only point, of limiting marriage to opposite sex couples,

is to discriminate against same sex couples. That is purely discrimination by definition.

No the point is to limit it to those who can propagate the species.

That's not marriage in our country. As the infertile are allowed to marry or remain married by the millions. As are those who choose to have no children.

Elegantly establishing that there is a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

It has to do with how biology made things work. Nature.

Speaking of biology, I don't suppose you know that same gender sexual encounters are routine in the natural world. Many species engage in it. You didn't know this? Huh.

Because Animals sometimes do something that is unnatural doesn't make it natural.

That statement makes no sense. Probably because you have a biased sense of what is and what is not natural. Bonobos engage in sex (both heterosexual and homosexual) as a way of reducing conflict. And the females, not the males, are in charge. And they aren't the only species that do this. It is a perfectly natural thing for them to do. They are also the least violent of all anthropoid apes.