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

[Iceweasel]

LOL. You guys are amazing. Only several years ago every major political candidate supported traditional marriage. Same with states, even California. Now you malicious assholes are trying to label everyone that supports traditional marriage as despising gays. You're deranged.

Why else would someone be against same sex marriage? It does not effect anyone else in any way.

And "just a few years ago"? It was "just a few years ago" that gays lost their jobs of someone found out they were gay, and they were often beaten up just for being gay.

Oh shut the **** up. We are talking about marriage, not hanging queers by their balls. So all those Democrats were intolerant homophobes to you huh? I, like the majority of Americans, think we have the right to define marriages. The male/female union has always been the foundation, we reserve the right to recognize genders for what they are and prefer to not pretend genders are irrelevant.

Sorry, I don't shut up just because you have issues.

And if you would like to remove the +/- 1,400 benefits that straight married couples enjoy from federal state and local gov'ts, there would be no lack of equal protection under the law. Try doing that.

Otherwise, get used to same sex marriages. It shouldn't be difficult. They don't change your marriage at all.

I don't have issues, you're the fat turd trying to smear me because I believe in traditional marriage. That makes you the insecure one here, not me. You guys are the ones pushing for radical changes yet you want to pretend everyone else is wrong, evil, cruel, blah blah blah. Like some stupid brat trying to get his way.

Of course gay marriage changes what marriage has always been, you denying it doesn't make it so. The primary objection I have is that it forces government to participate in the lie that genders are irrelevant and the male/female role has no special place in society. I've said that numerous times yet you continue to act like I don't have the right to my opinion.

And here was your response when I posted about traditional male/female roles- the legal concept of Coverture
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.

Your response to Coverture:

We need to go back to the good old days.

Even I was surprised by that reply.

You got your evil homophobes mixed up pal. That wasn't me.

 

[washamericom]

Where in the law is it clear that States can ignore federal court orders?

Roy Moore ignored federal court orders before and it cost him his job. Maybe it will happen again soon.

The federal courts have refused to issue a stay or to reverse their decision. This means the ruling stands, at least until June when the SCOTUS rules on the issue.

Does anyone think Roy Moore will be able to defy a federal court judge for 4 months?

Does anyone think Roy Moore will be able to defy a federal court judge for 4 months?

obama was a no show in one of them, i don't even think his lawyer showed, didn't matter though. the lawyer work for the party... jablonski... election advisor i think

What happened at Obama-no-show trial

“The sovereignty of the state of Georgia does not extend beyond the limits of the State. … Since the sovereignty of the state does not extend beyond its territorial limits, an administrative subpoena has no effect,” the filing argued.
Read more at What happened at Obama-no-show trial

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tradition is often just a case of people being wrong for a very long time.

...which is why you used the qualifier "often". Which means what exactly? Not all traditions are wrong or wrong because they're traditions.

But why limit marriage to two if not for tradition?

Civil marriage is exempt from tradition. That's the point.

 

[Syriusly]

Tradition is often just a case of people being wrong for a very long time.

...which is why you used the qualifier "often". Which means what exactly? Not all traditions are wrong or wrong because they're traditions.

But why limit marriage to two if not for tradition?

If you want to pursue polygamous marriage- that is your right.

The argument is a strawman.

 

[Iceweasel]

Oh don't be coy- quote my entire post

If there is any case at all- the first one will be the first one.

Loving v. Virginia was the first case regarding mixed race marriage the Supreme Court heard.
Zablocki v. Rehail was the first marriage case regarding the right to marry if someone owes child support.

The first case regarding same gender marriage to reach the Supreme Court, they let the ruling stand that it was unconstitutional.

Feel free to show how I claimed that homosexuality is a race- and why you didn't also decide that i meant that 'owing child support' is a race.

I posted the relevant portion I responded to. Do you understand? Your purpose for bring race into it was what if not to tether the gay cause to racism?

 

[Iceweasel]

Tradition is often just a case of people being wrong for a very long time.

...which is why you used the qualifier "often". Which means what exactly? Not all traditions are wrong or wrong because they're traditions.

But why limit marriage to two if not for tradition?

Civil marriage is exempt from tradition. That's the point.

Huh? You lost me there (again). So we have only two people in a marriage because....?

 

[Slyhunter]

A civil marriage contract has nothing to do with who prefers sex with whom. There are no sex act provisions in any civil marriage contract that I know of. Do you know of such contracts?

I said sexual preferences. If you just want to live with another dude then why get married unless it was for some financial benefits? But kudos on trying to blur the issue even more, most folks always understood the sexual union was part of men and women getting married.

The financial benefits of two people entering into a marriage contract must be made available to all people of the same category; you cannot offer those benefits to a man and a women making that contract while denying them to a man and a man making the same contract. That is discriminatory.

Yes you can. Different situations calls for different solutions.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh don't be coy- quote my entire post

If there is any case at all- the first one will be the first one.

Loving v. Virginia was the first case regarding mixed race marriage the Supreme Court heard.
Zablocki v. Rehail was the first marriage case regarding the right to marry if someone owes child support.

The first case regarding same gender marriage to reach the Supreme Court, they let the ruling stand that it was unconstitutional.

Feel free to show how I claimed that homosexuality is a race- and why you didn't also decide that i meant that 'owing child support' is a race.

I posted the relevant portion I responded to. Do you understand? Your purpose for bring race into it was what if not to tether the gay cause to racism?

Since I raised two Supreme Court decisions regarding marriage- Loving and Zablocki- why do you decide that my post was about race, and ignore the second case- Zablocki?

I was responding to a stupid post that whined about the gay marriage case finally having the Constitutionality addressed-

So I pointed out two other Federal marriage decisions that the Supreme Court made that over-ruled State marriage laws because they were unconstitutional.

Yet you saw only race.

 

[Kosh]

Oh don't be coy- quote my entire post

If there is any case at all- the first one will be the first one.

Loving v. Virginia was the first case regarding mixed race marriage the Supreme Court heard.
Zablocki v. Rehail was the first marriage case regarding the right to marry if someone owes child support.

The first case regarding same gender marriage to reach the Supreme Court, they let the ruling stand that it was unconstitutional.

Feel free to show how I claimed that homosexuality is a race- and why you didn't also decide that i meant that 'owing child support' is a race.

I posted the relevant portion I responded to. Do you understand? Your purpose for bring race into it was what if not to tether the gay cause to racism?

Since I raised two Supreme Court decisions regarding marriage- Loving and Zablocki- why do you decide that my post was about race, and ignore the second case- Zablocki?

I was responding to a stupid post that whined about the gay marriage case finally having the Constitutionality addressed-

So I pointed out two other Federal marriage decisions that the Supreme Court made that over-ruled State marriage laws because they were unconstitutional.

Yet you saw only race.

Because that was what the case was about? Do you understand far left drone?

 

[Syriusly]

Oh don't be coy- quote my entire post

If there is any case at all- the first one will be the first one.

Loving v. Virginia was the first case regarding mixed race marriage the Supreme Court heard.
Zablocki v. Rehail was the first marriage case regarding the right to marry if someone owes child support.

The first case regarding same gender marriage to reach the Supreme Court, they let the ruling stand that it was unconstitutional.

Feel free to show how I claimed that homosexuality is a race- and why you didn't also decide that i meant that 'owing child support' is a race.

I posted the relevant portion I responded to. Do you understand? Your purpose for bring race into it was what if not to tether the gay cause to racism?

Since I raised two Supreme Court decisions regarding marriage- Loving and Zablocki- why do you decide that my post was about race, and ignore the second case- Zablocki?

I was responding to a stupid post that whined about the gay marriage case finally having the Constitutionality addressed-

So I pointed out two other Federal marriage decisions that the Supreme Court made that over-ruled State marriage laws because they were unconstitutional.

Yet you saw only race.

Because that was what the case was about? Do you understand far left drone?

Oh don't be coy- quote my entire post

If there is any case at all- the first one will be the first one.

Loving v. Virginia was the first case regarding mixed race marriage the Supreme Court heard.
Zablocki v. Rehail was the first marriage case regarding the right to marry if someone owes child support.

The first case regarding same gender marriage to reach the Supreme Court, they let the ruling stand that it was unconstitutional.

Feel free to show how I claimed that homosexuality is a race- and why you didn't also decide that i meant that 'owing child support' is a race.

 

[Seawytch]

Strawman. No one ever said marriage is a person.

So what else have you got?

You just defeated your argument then. The gays definitely were pretending marriage was a person and needed to be protected Constitutionally like a race. I've said all along it was bunk.

No they weren't. And I defy you to show us any argument argued in any federal court where the 'marriage is a person' idiocy was uttered by anyone.

You'll find you're only quoting yourself. And you don't know what you're talking about.

This isn't a federal court Goofus, I was talking about the arguments here. You're trying to treat a relationship like a person by claiming it was an equal protection issue.

If you deny gays the ability to marry the one they love, but allow straights that ability, you are not affording equal protection under the law. And those individual people can seek redress from the courts.

straights don't have the right to marry the one they love. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex who agrees to marry them. Love isn't a requirement.

Actually, in most states now you can do the same with someone of the same gender. (37 down 13 to go)

 

[Kosh]

Oh don't be coy- quote my entire post

If there is any case at all- the first one will be the first one.

Loving v. Virginia was the first case regarding mixed race marriage the Supreme Court heard.
Zablocki v. Rehail was the first marriage case regarding the right to marry if someone owes child support.

The first case regarding same gender marriage to reach the Supreme Court, they let the ruling stand that it was unconstitutional.

Feel free to show how I claimed that homosexuality is a race- and why you didn't also decide that i meant that 'owing child support' is a race.

I posted the relevant portion I responded to. Do you understand? Your purpose for bring race into it was what if not to tether the gay cause to racism?

Since I raised two Supreme Court decisions regarding marriage- Loving and Zablocki- why do you decide that my post was about race, and ignore the second case- Zablocki?

I was responding to a stupid post that whined about the gay marriage case finally having the Constitutionality addressed-

So I pointed out two other Federal marriage decisions that the Supreme Court made that over-ruled State marriage laws because they were unconstitutional.

Yet you saw only race.

Because that was what the case was about? Do you understand far left drone?

Oh don't be coy- quote my entire post

If there is any case at all- the first one will be the first one.

Loving v. Virginia was the first case regarding mixed race marriage the Supreme Court heard.
Zablocki v. Rehail was the first marriage case regarding the right to marry if someone owes child support.

The first case regarding same gender marriage to reach the Supreme Court, they let the ruling stand that it was unconstitutional.

Feel free to show how I claimed that homosexuality is a race- and why you didn't also decide that i meant that 'owing child support' is a race.

So yes the far left drones believe being "gay" is a race..

 

[Seawytch]

Oh don't be coy- quote my entire post

If there is any case at all- the first one will be the first one.

Loving v. Virginia was the first case regarding mixed race marriage the Supreme Court heard.
Zablocki v. Rehail was the first marriage case regarding the right to marry if someone owes child support.

The first case regarding same gender marriage to reach the Supreme Court, they let the ruling stand that it was unconstitutional.

Feel free to show how I claimed that homosexuality is a race- and why you didn't also decide that i meant that 'owing child support' is a race.

I posted the relevant portion I responded to. Do you understand? Your purpose for bring race into it was what if not to tether the gay cause to racism?

Since I raised two Supreme Court decisions regarding marriage- Loving and Zablocki- why do you decide that my post was about race, and ignore the second case- Zablocki?

I was responding to a stupid post that whined about the gay marriage case finally having the Constitutionality addressed-

So I pointed out two other Federal marriage decisions that the Supreme Court made that over-ruled State marriage laws because they were unconstitutional.

Yet you saw only race.

Because that was what the case was about? Do you understand far left drone?

Zablocki v Wisconsin was not about race. Turner v Safely was not about race. In both cases, NOT ABOUT RACE, the Supreme Court declared marriage a fundamental right....having nothing to do with race.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh don't be coy- quote my entire post

If there is any case at all- the first one will be the first one.

Loving v. Virginia was the first case regarding mixed race marriage the Supreme Court heard.
Zablocki v. Rehail was the first marriage case regarding the right to marry if someone owes child support.

The first case regarding same gender marriage to reach the Supreme Court, they let the ruling stand that it was unconstitutional.

Feel free to show how I claimed that homosexuality is a race- and why you didn't also decide that i meant that 'owing child support' is a race.

I posted the relevant portion I responded to. Do you understand? Your purpose for bring race into it was what if not to tether the gay cause to racism?

Since I raised two Supreme Court decisions regarding marriage- Loving and Zablocki- why do you decide that my post was about race, and ignore the second case- Zablocki?

I was responding to a stupid post that whined about the gay marriage case finally having the Constitutionality addressed-

So I pointed out two other Federal marriage decisions that the Supreme Court made that over-ruled State marriage laws because they were unconstitutional.

Yet you saw only race.

Because that was what the case was about? Do you understand far left drone?

Oh don't be coy- quote my entire post

If there is any case at all- the first one will be the first one.

Loving v. Virginia was the first case regarding mixed race marriage the Supreme Court heard.
Zablocki v. Rehail was the first marriage case regarding the right to marry if someone owes child support.

The first case regarding same gender marriage to reach the Supreme Court, they let the ruling stand that it was unconstitutional.

Feel free to show how I claimed that homosexuality is a race- and why you didn't also decide that i meant that 'owing child support' is a race.

So yes the far left drones believe being "gay" is a race..

Owning a gun is not a race so by your reasoning there shouldn't be gun rights.

 

[Kosh]

Oh don't be coy- quote my entire post

If there is any case at all- the first one will be the first one.

Loving v. Virginia was the first case regarding mixed race marriage the Supreme Court heard.
Zablocki v. Rehail was the first marriage case regarding the right to marry if someone owes child support.

The first case regarding same gender marriage to reach the Supreme Court, they let the ruling stand that it was unconstitutional.

Feel free to show how I claimed that homosexuality is a race- and why you didn't also decide that i meant that 'owing child support' is a race.

I posted the relevant portion I responded to. Do you understand? Your purpose for bring race into it was what if not to tether the gay cause to racism?

Since I raised two Supreme Court decisions regarding marriage- Loving and Zablocki- why do you decide that my post was about race, and ignore the second case- Zablocki?

I was responding to a stupid post that whined about the gay marriage case finally having the Constitutionality addressed-

So I pointed out two other Federal marriage decisions that the Supreme Court made that over-ruled State marriage laws because they were unconstitutional.

Yet you saw only race.

Because that was what the case was about? Do you understand far left drone?

Zablocki v Wisconsin was not about race. Turner v Safely was not about race. In both cases, NOT ABOUT RACE, the Supreme Court declared marriage a fundamental right....having nothing to do with race.

See how the far left will push the idea that being "gay" is a race..

 

[Kosh]

I posted the relevant portion I responded to. Do you understand? Your purpose for bring race into it was what if not to tether the gay cause to racism?

Since I raised two Supreme Court decisions regarding marriage- Loving and Zablocki- why do you decide that my post was about race, and ignore the second case- Zablocki?

I was responding to a stupid post that whined about the gay marriage case finally having the Constitutionality addressed-

So I pointed out two other Federal marriage decisions that the Supreme Court made that over-ruled State marriage laws because they were unconstitutional.

Yet you saw only race.

Because that was what the case was about? Do you understand far left drone?

Oh don't be coy- quote my entire post

If there is any case at all- the first one will be the first one.

Loving v. Virginia was the first case regarding mixed race marriage the Supreme Court heard.
Zablocki v. Rehail was the first marriage case regarding the right to marry if someone owes child support.

The first case regarding same gender marriage to reach the Supreme Court, they let the ruling stand that it was unconstitutional.

Feel free to show how I claimed that homosexuality is a race- and why you didn't also decide that i meant that 'owing child support' is a race.

So yes the far left drones believe being "gay" is a race..

Owning a gun is not a race so by your reasoning there shouldn't be gun rights.

Another failed analogy from the far left drones..

 

[Slyhunter]

You just defeated your argument then. The gays definitely were pretending marriage was a person and needed to be protected Constitutionally like a race. I've said all along it was bunk.

No they weren't. And I defy you to show us any argument argued in any federal court where the 'marriage is a person' idiocy was uttered by anyone.

You'll find you're only quoting yourself. And you don't know what you're talking about.

This isn't a federal court Goofus, I was talking about the arguments here. You're trying to treat a relationship like a person by claiming it was an equal protection issue.

If you deny gays the ability to marry the one they love, but allow straights that ability, you are not affording equal protection under the law. And those individual people can seek redress from the courts.

straights don't have the right to marry the one they love. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex who agrees to marry them. Love isn't a requirement.

Actually, in most states now you can do the same with someone of the same gender. (37 down 13 to go)

Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.

 

[Seawytch]

Oh don't be coy- quote my entire post

If there is any case at all- the first one will be the first one.

Loving v. Virginia was the first case regarding mixed race marriage the Supreme Court heard.
Zablocki v. Rehail was the first marriage case regarding the right to marry if someone owes child support.

The first case regarding same gender marriage to reach the Supreme Court, they let the ruling stand that it was unconstitutional.

Feel free to show how I claimed that homosexuality is a race- and why you didn't also decide that i meant that 'owing child support' is a race.

I posted the relevant portion I responded to. Do you understand? Your purpose for bring race into it was what if not to tether the gay cause to racism?

Since I raised two Supreme Court decisions regarding marriage- Loving and Zablocki- why do you decide that my post was about race, and ignore the second case- Zablocki?

I was responding to a stupid post that whined about the gay marriage case finally having the Constitutionality addressed-

So I pointed out two other Federal marriage decisions that the Supreme Court made that over-ruled State marriage laws because they were unconstitutional.

Yet you saw only race.

Because that was what the case was about? Do you understand far left drone?

Zablocki v Wisconsin was not about race. Turner v Safely was not about race. In both cases, NOT ABOUT RACE, the Supreme Court declared marriage a fundamental right....having nothing to do with race.

See how the far left will push the idea that being "gay" is a race..

See how Kosh the troll doesn't address facts and deflects with SPAM?

 

[Kosh]

I posted the relevant portion I responded to. Do you understand? Your purpose for bring race into it was what if not to tether the gay cause to racism?

Since I raised two Supreme Court decisions regarding marriage- Loving and Zablocki- why do you decide that my post was about race, and ignore the second case- Zablocki?

I was responding to a stupid post that whined about the gay marriage case finally having the Constitutionality addressed-

So I pointed out two other Federal marriage decisions that the Supreme Court made that over-ruled State marriage laws because they were unconstitutional.

Yet you saw only race.

Because that was what the case was about? Do you understand far left drone?

Zablocki v Wisconsin was not about race. Turner v Safely was not about race. In both cases, NOT ABOUT RACE, the Supreme Court declared marriage a fundamental right....having nothing to do with race.

See how the far left will push the idea that being "gay" is a race..

See how Kosh the troll doesn't address facts and deflects with SPAM?

See how the far left propaganda trolls spam the boards and then call other trolls?

Can they not see the irony of their comments?

 

[Syriusly]

No they weren't. And I defy you to show us any argument argued in any federal court where the 'marriage is a person' idiocy was uttered by anyone.

You'll find you're only quoting yourself. And you don't know what you're talking about.

This isn't a federal court Goofus, I was talking about the arguments here. You're trying to treat a relationship like a person by claiming it was an equal protection issue.

If you deny gays the ability to marry the one they love, but allow straights that ability, you are not affording equal protection under the law. And those individual people can seek redress from the courts.

straights don't have the right to marry the one they love. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex who agrees to marry them. Love isn't a requirement.

Actually, in most states now you can do the same with someone of the same gender. (37 down 13 to go)

Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.

If we abided by the wishes of the voters, in Alabama, mixed races couples would not have been getting married from 1967 to 2000.