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

[JakeStarkey]

He is one judge trying to block the law - the definition of an activist judge. It's not his first go 'round with judicial activism either.

He will get slapped down - AGAIN. I just hope he doesn't hurt too many innocent victims in the process.

NO, the law is clear. Defining marriage is a power left to the states. The Federal gov't has no power in this area.

If if has no power then just what exactly is Loving v Virginia, a TV script?

LOL - of course the feds have a well-established role in protecting civil rights.

No civil rights issue. Homosexuals are not a protected class under federal law.
Try again.

Fail.

 

[JakeStarkey]

He is one judge trying to block the law - the definition of an activist judge. It's not his first go 'round with judicial activism either.

He will get slapped down - AGAIN. I just hope he doesn't hurt too many innocent victims in the process.

NO, the law is clear. Defining marriage is a power left to the states. The Federal gov't has no power in this area.

If if has no power then just what exactly is Loving v Virginia, a TV script?

LOL - of course the feds have a well-established role in protecting civil rights.

No civil rights issue. Homosexuals are not a protected class under federal law.
Try again.

Correct. Its not a 14th Amendment issue. Only the 9th and 10th Amendments apply. Moore knows this.

Fail.

 

[nodoginnafight]

He is one judge trying to block the law - the definition of an activist judge. It's not his first go 'round with judicial activism either.

He will get slapped down - AGAIN. I just hope he doesn't hurt too many innocent victims in the process.

The victims are the 80% majority of Alabama people who voted for an amendment to their constitution to prohibit same sex marriage.

They don't get a vote, and never should have been allowed to.

Why not? Be specific.

Because we don't have mob rule here. If we did you nuts would outlaw Islam, and the Catholics more than likely.

So you want to strip the citizens of their right to vote?

What if people vote to ban private ownership of guns?

Yeah, there are Constitutional protections that are not subject to vote.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Now, where is the power to define marriage delegated to the federal government in the Constitution? Post the exact quotation.

 

[The Rabbi]

The victims are the 80% majority of Alabama people who voted for an amendment to their constitution to prohibit same sex marriage.

They don't get a vote, and never should have been allowed to.

Why not? Be specific.

Because we don't have mob rule here. If we did you nuts would outlaw Islam, and the Catholics more than likely.

So you want to strip the citizens of their right to vote?

What if people vote to ban private ownership of guns?

Yeah, there are Constitutional protections that are not subject to vote.

Arms are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Marriage is not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Our constitutional republicanism is how we govern, not Jacksonian democracy. The Rabbi and Steve_M fail because of that alone.

Amendment X has nothing to do with this issue.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

He is one judge trying to block the law - the definition of an activist judge. It's not his first go 'round with judicial activism either.

He will get slapped down - AGAIN. I just hope he doesn't hurt too many innocent victims in the process.

NO, the law is clear. Defining marriage is a power left to the states. The Federal gov't has no power in this area.

If it has no power then just what exactly is Loving v Virginia, a TV script?

Loving vs Virginia was about race only. Chief Justice Earl Warren affirmed it in his ruling.

So what? It told the states that their marriage laws were unconstitutional.

 

[nodoginnafight]

They don't get a vote, and never should have been allowed to.

Why not? Be specific.

Because we don't have mob rule here. If we did you nuts would outlaw Islam, and the Catholics more than likely.

So you want to strip the citizens of their right to vote?

What if people vote to ban private ownership of guns?

Yeah, there are Constitutional protections that are not subject to vote.

Arms are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Marriage is not.

SCOTUS and the majority of Americans disagree with you.

Your lame arguments are no better here than they have been in court.

Try again.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They don't get a vote, and never should have been allowed to.

Why not? Be specific.

Because we don't have mob rule here. If we did you nuts would outlaw Islam, and the Catholics more than likely.

So you want to strip the citizens of their right to vote?

What if people vote to ban private ownership of guns?

Yeah, there are Constitutional protections that are not subject to vote.

Arms are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Marriage is not.

So why are so many types of arms banned, is that just wrong?

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Please read the 9th and 10th Amendment. the federal government doesn't have the right to force States to accept same-sex marriage. Either you believe in the Constitution as written, including the Amendments. or you don't. It's that simple.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Update:


[A federal judge who overruled the will of Alabama voters and decided that same-sex “marriage” must be recognized in the state refuses to impose sanctions on Probate Judges who would not issue licenses to same-sex duos.]

 

[nodoginnafight]

Pretty telling that the only two people defending this judge are easily in the top five in terms of dumbest posters I've encountered on these boards.

Seriously, that says all you need to know.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why not? Be specific.

Because we don't have mob rule here. If we did you nuts would outlaw Islam, and the Catholics more than likely.

So you want to strip the citizens of their right to vote?

What if people vote to ban private ownership of guns?

Yeah, there are Constitutional protections that are not subject to vote.

Arms are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Marriage is not.

SCOTUS and the majority of Americans disagree with you.

Your lame arguments are no better here than they have been in court.

Try again.

Where is the power to regulate marriage given to the federal government in the Constitution? Why can you not answer the question?

 

[The Rabbi]

Pretty telling that the only two people defending this judge are easily in the top five in terms of dumbest posters I've encountered on these boards.

Seriously, that says all you need to know.

You are easily the most incompetent poster here. Your knowledge base and ability to reason are close to nil. A salad bowl is a tougher competitor.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Because we don't have mob rule here. If we did you nuts would outlaw Islam, and the Catholics more than likely.

So you want to strip the citizens of their right to vote?

What if people vote to ban private ownership of guns?

Yeah, there are Constitutional protections that are not subject to vote.

Arms are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Marriage is not.

SCOTUS and the majority of Americans disagree with you.

Your lame arguments are no better here than they have been in court.

Try again.

Where is the power to regulate marriage given to the federal government in the Constitution? Why can you not answer the question?

I have many times brainiac
14th amendment

 

[nodoginnafight]

Pretty telling that the only two people defending this judge are easily in the top five in terms of dumbest posters I've encountered on these boards.

Seriously, that says all you need to know.

You are easily the most incompetent poster here. Your knowledge base and ability to reason are close to nil. A salad bowl is a tougher competitor.

wow, you get your ass kicked by salad bowls too?

Not gonna waste my time - Rabbi, Steve - you guys are gonna have to up your game before you get to debate with me again.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

So you want to strip the citizens of their right to vote?

What if people vote to ban private ownership of guns?

Yeah, there are Constitutional protections that are not subject to vote.

Arms are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Marriage is not.

SCOTUS and the majority of Americans disagree with you.

Your lame arguments are no better here than they have been in court.

Try again.

Where is the power to regulate marriage given to the federal government in the Constitution? Why can you not answer the question?

I have many times brainiac
14th amendment

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

 

[The Rabbi]

So you want to strip the citizens of their right to vote?

What if people vote to ban private ownership of guns?

Yeah, there are Constitutional protections that are not subject to vote.

Arms are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Marriage is not.

SCOTUS and the majority of Americans disagree with you.

Your lame arguments are no better here than they have been in court.

Try again.

Where is the power to regulate marriage given to the federal government in the Constitution? Why can you not answer the question?

I have many times brainiac
14th amendment

The 14th Amendment deals with marriage? Seriously? What are you smoking??
This is way too easy. You are the least informed poster here. You dont even parrot people who know what theyre talking about. You parrot people who dont have a clue.

 

[Hossfly]

I'm surprised this isn't blowing up all over the web. It's such a hot topic, whether you agree or disagree. In Alabama, a same-sex marriage fight is upon us. Last month, a federal judge struck down the state's law against the unions. But Sunday night, "in a dramatic show of defiance toward the federal judiciary, Chief JusticeRoy S. Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the state’s probate judges not to issue marriage licenses to gay couples on Monday, the day same-sex marriages were expected to begin."

The Phantom Diaries Alabama Objects to Gay Marriage

I don't think it's being discussed much because not a single person in the world is surprised that Alabama, the butthole of America, is on the wrong side of history yet again.

And when blacks and Hispanics voted no to gay marriage in California? I mean come on I could see that happening in Alabama but how do you explain that in California the liberal freak show state in the union.

Ignorance isn't exclusive to the deep south. It's just more prevalent.

In the Deep South, we've been taught that mouths and anuses are not reproductive organs.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Because we don't have mob rule here. If we did you nuts would outlaw Islam, and the Catholics more than likely.

So you want to strip the citizens of their right to vote?

What if people vote to ban private ownership of guns?

Yeah, there are Constitutional protections that are not subject to vote.

Arms are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Marriage is not.

SCOTUS and the majority of Americans disagree with you.

Your lame arguments are no better here than they have been in court.

Try again.

Where is the power to regulate marriage given to the federal government in the Constitution? Why can you not answer the question?

The Constitution has the power to enforce equal treatment under the law. That's all the power it needs.