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

[Silhouette]

By that logic two brothers should be able to marry each other. Or two sisters. Or mother/daughter; father/son, etc. Just not any two opposite sex related persons. Is that right?

By what logic?

By any logic. Your entire legal stance is that the majority cannot regulate minority lifestyles and behaviors they find repugnant. Zoom's point is that after you gain special exemption from regulation, precisely how can you reject other repugnant lifestyles?

The answer is: you cannot. In the name of equality then ALL repugnant lifestyles can find freedom from regulation in any venue. What would be your way of regulating them? A vote? Let me guess...a majority vote right?

This (and the damage to children needing mother/father) is one of several ways gay marriage forcing itself federally upon the states is destroying our democratic country.

 

[Silhouette]

This isn't the first time he has defied court orders.

This time he shouldn't just lose his job. He should lose his freedom. He should be prosecuted and put in prison for his crime.

It's a crime to defy a court order.

I don't know about his other times of defying an order. But in this instance he is an American hero. He should receive the Nobel Prize for defending the rights of states to entice an environment for children to have both a mother and father.

 

[dcraelin]

most of these cases are claiming to find precedent in the Windsor case, which stated that marriage has always been a states rights issue.....they are twisting the ruling as a result of an emotional reaction. ...on the same day the SC issued Windsor they issued the California case which...a prime oportunity to legalize gay marriage....they didnt....it is illogical for the lower courts to find precedent when there obviously wasnt any there. ...in fact the Ohio judge does find ruling precedent in a case which denies right to gay marriage.....Let the ruling stand should be applied to the long standing practice of marriage...that is its correct application. Not using it as a twisted excuse to rule based on your idea of fairness, based on an emotional appeal.

A state's right to regulate marriage to incentivize the best formative environment for kids (mother/father) is not some "emotional appeal", pal. That is the core of our democracy and its right to protect children via regulation of the majority. This isn't about race and you and all the Justices on the Supreme Court damn well know it isn't. It's about what states feel is right in the formative environment for kids; the very definition of the structure of the word "marriage" itself.

If the fed defines it for the states, they'd better darn well do a good job the first time and not leave out polygamists or any other bastardization. Equality demands they be thorough.

Windsor affirmed no less than 56 times in 26 pages that states have the ultimate say on gay marriage. Then they vacated the Prop 8 issue on procedural matters. THEY MADE NO DETERMINATION ON PROP 8 ON THE MERITS. The determination they DID make on Prop 8 was in Windsor, it's twin Hearing where they said, again, 56 times that states are the unquestioned authorities on this matter. It was in fact this very hinge point that they used to dismiss the part of DOMA that they did.

I'm being attacked from all sides......I must have the true compromise position.

 

[Syriusly]

And the federal judge ruled logically. She ruled that equal protection under the law means exactly that.

Yep. Not "go ahead and marry anyone you want". Equal means equal. A black man can marry anyone a white man can because the state can't discriminate against his race. It isn't the same as a black man marrying a black man though, that's where the word 'equal' gets abused by activists..

It isn't the same thing- but it is the same issue.
Alabama law until 2000 made it illegal for a person of one race to marry a person of another race.
Alabama law currently makes it illegal for a person of one gender to marry a person of the same gender

Sexual preference is not race- but neither distinction- or discrimination- serves any legitimate State interest- and that is what this judge- and about a dozen other judges have also found.

By that logic two brothers should be able to marry each other. Or two sisters. Or mother/daughter; father/son, etc. Just not any two opposite sex related persons. Is that right?

Do you believe that two brothers should be able to marry each other?

 

[dcraelin]

most of these cases are claiming to find precedent in the Windsor case, which stated that marriage has always been a states rights issue.....they are twisting the ruling as a result of an emotional reaction. ....

No, the way Windsor was written gave the lower courts the guidance.

Scalia even predicted it in his dissent:

“The majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition.”

He was right..

Scalia also went on for 26 snarling pages and even showed just how people who embraced equality could arm themselves with the SCOTUS ruling to expand gay rights.

it gave them permission to twist the ruling to satisfy their emotional reaction....yes....

 

[Syriusly]

By that logic two brothers should be able to marry each other. Or two sisters. Or mother/daughter; father/son, etc. Just not any two opposite sex related persons. Is that right?

By what logic?

By any logic. Your entire legal stance is that the majority cannot regulate minority lifestyles and behaviors they find repugnant. .

Not if they violate the Constitution. For instance, the majority of Americans at one time found the Jewish lifestyle repugnant, but luckily our Constitution protected their rights, so there were few laws that specifically targeted Jews.

 

[Dana7360]

So yes- Kosh lies.

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

And they lie when they get caught.

The far left would much rather see the world burn than admit they were wrong!

so yes Kosh lies.

Don't bother. Kosh thrives on responses. He'll never give you any insight, engage in any meaningful conversation, discuss any evidence.

Just the same droning 'far left' and 'left drone' schtick. Every post. Without change.

There's nothing else to Kosh.

So true.

In other words- a troll.

Yup. Put the troll in the corner where he belongs. And then forget about him. There's simply nothing there.

Exactly. I don't read kosh's posts. That person has nothing substantial to contribute to any conversation and it's pointless to read his blathering hate.

 

[Syriusly]

It isn't the same thing- but it is the same issue.
Alabama law until 2000 made it illegal for a person of one race to marry a person of another race.
Alabama law currently makes it illegal for a person of one gender to marry a person of the same gender

Sexual preference is not race- but neither distinction- or discrimination- serves any legitimate State interest- and that is what this judge- and about a dozen other judges have also found.

The legitimate interest it serves is that children do not do well in homesfe]

Preventing same gender marriage does nothing other than other than to guarantee that children of same gender couples will not have married parents.

 

[dcraelin]

no Democracy = Republic ..... we r set up on a "representative" system...which makes us an impure Republic.
rule of law ultimately means nothing if not based on the will of the majority

One good thing that will come out of this episode is more contempt of the clowns that make up our federal judicial system. They should not rule on emotion but on the law. And with an eye beyond one issue alone.

And the federal judge ruled logically. She ruled that equal protection under the law means exactly that.

no, she ruled on the basis of emotion, and justified her vote with some sophistic BS. The 14th dealt with race not gender issues, as the need later for the womens suffrage amendment proves...

Her conclusion is essentially the same as 43 other federal courts to rule on the topic. Were they all 'emotional' too?

And the 14th isn't limited to racial issues. Its limited to what it says. And what is says is this:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

If a State does any of that, they're in violation of the 14th amendment. And the USSC has already recognized that the 14th applies to issues beyond race. So what the federal judge did was apply precedent.

'

The federal judges are acting like herd animals.....one following the other.....yes based on emotion....without much thought or logic....the one district including Ohio I think actually had a judge put some work into it....and came up with the right answer...let the political process work.

no life liberty or property is being denied without due process of law.
so why did we require another amendment for womens suffrage?

Because the Court, rightly or wrongly, rejected the 14th Amendment argument in 1872.

rightly,...actually I dont think it ever came up....they saw the commonsense meaning of the 14th......and didnt try to twist it to satisfy an emotional appeal.

 

[koshergrl]

It isn't the same thing- but it is the same issue.
Alabama law until 2000 made it illegal for a person of one race to marry a person of another race.
Alabama law currently makes it illegal for a person of one gender to marry a person of the same gender

Sexual preference is not race- but neither distinction- or discrimination- serves any legitimate State interest- and that is what this judge- and about a dozen other judges have also found.

The legitimate interest it serves is that children do not do well in homesfe]

Preventing same gender marriage does nothing other than other than to guarantee that children of same gender couples will not have married parents.

Those kids are already screwed anyway.

 

[dcraelin]

we are a Democracy which means the same damn thing as Republic....see my pictures most of which deal with this subject

Incorrect.

A democracy and a republic are two different things altogether.

Indeed, ours is a Constitutional Republic, where the rule of law is paramount and its democratic component representative, not direct.

no Democracy = Republic ..... we r set up on a "representative" system...which makes us an impure Republic.
rule of law ultimately means nothing if not based on the will of the majority

One good thing that will come out of this episode is more contempt of the clowns that make up our federal judicial system. They should not rule on emotion but on the law. And with an eye beyond one issue alone.

And the federal judge ruled logically. She ruled that equal protection under the law means exactly that.

no, she ruled on the basis of emotion, and justified her vote with some sophistic BS. The 14th dealt with race not gender issues, as the need later for the womens suffrage amendment proves...

And you base that claim entirely upon your emotion- you have no evidence to support that claim. The 14th Amendment doesn't mention race at all.

Note the language in the relevant first part

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

HISTORY is my evidence.....and the plain commonsense understanding of the amendment by the people that passed it......
and by the judges nearest its passage............(the 14th was not legitimately passed in reality, even tho the 13th and 15th were)

most judges and lawyers know that they are corporate whores.....these cases give "meaning" & purpose to their lives....they want to be seen as morally superior, to be on the right side of history......by ignoring history .

 

[Skylar]

It isn't the same thing- but it is the same issue.
Alabama law until 2000 made it illegal for a person of one race to marry a person of another race.
Alabama law currently makes it illegal for a person of one gender to marry a person of the same gender

Sexual preference is not race- but neither distinction- or discrimination- serves any legitimate State interest- and that is what this judge- and about a dozen other judges have also found.

The legitimate interest it serves is that children do not do well in homesfe]

Preventing same gender marriage does nothing other than other than to guarantee that children of same gender couples will not have married parents.

Those kids are already screwed anyway.

The dozen or so studies that measure their health says otherwise. With the overwhelming consensus of such studies that these children are just fine.

 

[dcraelin]

No- that is just your bizarre strawman.

Americans have a right to marriage- even the gay Americans you despise.

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.

It's not just money.

It's being able to see a loved one in a hospital. It's about children and having to spend thousands of dollars on lawyers to protect children and property that straights don't have to spend. It's about inheritance and having to get a lawyer to make sure that their spouse is able to inherit from them or their kids get to stay with their spouse after one has died.

There are so many benefits that we straights take for granted but are denied to gay people. It's disgusting to see that so many people in our nation are still filled with such hate that they can't see what's happening in front of their faces.

all these could be satisfied with a civil union law such as California already had ......but that wasn't good enough......some legal manipulators wanted to screw up the law, AGAINST the wishes of the California gay community BTW......


Scalia was more than pleased with how that one turned out..........despite his public protestations. ...because it undermined democracy.

 

[Skylar]

By that logic two brothers should be able to marry each other. Or two sisters. Or mother/daughter; father/son, etc. Just not any two opposite sex related persons. Is that right?

By what logic?

By any logic. Your entire legal stance is that the majority cannot regulate minority lifestyles and behaviors they find repugnant.

My entire legal stance is that there is no constitutionally valid basis for denying gay marriage. And they're quite specific.

The answer is: you cannot. In the name of equality then ALL repugnant lifestyles can find freedom from regulation in any venue. What would be your way of regulating them? A vote? Let me guess...a majority vote right?

That's a slippery slope fallacy.

 

[dcraelin]

By that logic two brothers should be able to marry each other. Or two sisters. Or mother/daughter; father/son, etc. Just not any two opposite sex related persons. Is that right?

By what logic?

By any logic. Your entire legal stance is that the majority cannot regulate minority lifestyles and behaviors they find repugnant.

My entire legal stance is that there is no constitutionally valid basis for denying gay marriage. And they're quite specific.

The answer is: you cannot. In the name of equality then ALL repugnant lifestyles can find freedom from regulation in any venue. What would be your way of regulating them? A vote? Let me guess...a majority vote right?

That's a slippery slope fallacy.

no that is a slippery slope truth...........logical precedent would lead there..........tho the courts have established that they lack any logic on this issue............. part of the usefulness of precedent is to discipline the court....so that the law is consistent, and so emotional pleas like gay marriage can be ignored....... the federal courts have chosen to ignore this usefulness of precedent.

 

[Skylar]

Windsor affirmed no less than 56 times in 26 pages that states have the ultimate say on gay marriage

Windsor found that in a contest of Federal Marriage law v. State marriage law, State marriage law wins.

They explicitly found that State marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. And every lower court decision overturning gay marriage bans have been on the basis of the violation of those guarantees.

Individual rights trump state powers. You can't get around that.

 

[Silhouette]

Do you believe that two brothers should be able to marry each other?

What would be Zoom's answer to that Syriusly? That two brother's marrying each other is "icky"? "taboo"? "rejected by the morals of the majority"?



You see the situation once the word "equality" gets factored in..

 

[Skylar]

By that logic two brothers should be able to marry each other. Or two sisters. Or mother/daughter; father/son, etc. Just not any two opposite sex related persons. Is that right?

By what logic?

By any logic. Your entire legal stance is that the majority cannot regulate minority lifestyles and behaviors they find repugnant.

My entire legal stance is that there is no constitutionally valid basis for denying gay marriage. And they're quite specific.

The answer is: you cannot. In the name of equality then ALL repugnant lifestyles can find freedom from regulation in any venue. What would be your way of regulating them? A vote? Let me guess...a majority vote right?

That's a slippery slope fallacy.

no that is a slippery slope truth...........logical precedent would lead there..........tho the courts have established that they lack any logic on this issue............. part of the usefulness of precedent is to discipline the court....so that the law is consistent.....

It is a slipper slope fallacy. As there's been no indication from the court that the logic of the Windsor ruling would apply to incest, or bestiality, or pedophilia, or polygamy, or any of the other strawmen that have been raised in opposition to gay marriage.

 

[Skylar]

And the federal judge ruled logically. She ruled that equal protection under the law means exactly that.

no, she ruled on the basis of emotion, and justified her vote with some sophistic BS. The 14th dealt with race not gender issues, as the need later for the womens suffrage amendment proves...

Her conclusion is essentially the same as 43 other federal courts to rule on the topic. Were they all 'emotional' too?

And the 14th isn't limited to racial issues. Its limited to what it says. And what is says is this:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

If a State does any of that, they're in violation of the 14th amendment. And the USSC has already recognized that the 14th applies to issues beyond race. So what the federal judge did was apply precedent.

'

The federal judges are acting like herd animals.....one following the other.....yes based on emotion....without much thought or logic....the one district including Ohio I think actually had a judge put some work into it....and came up with the right answer...let the political process work.

Federal judges do follow precedent, as they should. Stare decisis is one of the cornerstones of our legal system. Can I take it from your post that you don't think it should be? Or am I misinterpreting your position?

If we're applying precedent, then the court clearly recognized the 14th amendment's protections apply to gays in Romer v. Evans. And the Windsor decision laid out in extravagant detail all the harms caused gays and their children by the denial of same sex marriage. The courts take on state same sex marriage bans in Windsor was beyond mistaking.

Which might explain why 44 of 46 federal court rulings on the matter went against gay marriage bans. Including the ruling in Alabama.

most of these cases are claiming to find precedent in the Windsor case, which stated that marriage has always been a states rights issue.....they are twisting the ruling as a result of an emotional reaction

The Windsor ruling never uses the term 'states rights'. The Windsor case was about the applicability of federal law, specifically DOMA. And it explicitly said that state marriage laws were subject to constitutional guarantees. Every federal court ruling overturning such bans did so on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees.

What's 'emotional' about that?

And the Romer v. Evans ruling recognized that the 14th amendment's equal protection clause applied to gays in the protection of their rights. So what would be 'emotional' about recognizing the equal protection clause applied to gays in the protection of the rights related to marriage? Especially when marriage bans fail the three fold requirement that such laws must 1) serve a legitimate state interest 2) serve an valid legislative end 3) have a very good reason.

. ...on the same day the SC issued Windsor they issued the California case which...a prime oportunity to legalize gay marriage....they didnt....it is illogical for the lower courts to find precedent when there obviously wasnt any there

The issue the court ruled on was standing in the California case. The court never ruled on the merits of the case, for or against.

As for 'logic', the court has refused to overturn any of the rulings overturning gay marriage bans in 25 different states. Instead, the court preserved ever such ruling by denying cert. If they believed that overturning such bans was a violation of States rights, then logically they would have taken up the case. Yet they never did. The only case the USSC failed to preserve on the issue was the ONE case where gay marriage bans were affirmed.

That's the case being heard in April.

Logically, the Alabama federal court could conclude that the court found no constitutional conflicts in the overturning of gay marriage bans by the federal courts. Especially given the Windsor ruling's take on state same sex marriage bans was beyond mistaking.

 

[Silhouette]

Skylar...you're slipping..