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

[WorldWatcher]

Polygamy isn't a crime in Utah. So yeah, they'll get marriage there for sure. And after that..well...you know the routine so I don't have to tell you.. Sack a governor here or there...threaten to ruin or set an example of ruining a career here and there....stunned fear...steamroller, a few choreographed lawsuits..

*yawn*

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Wrong, attempting to be legally married to more that one person at the same time is still illegal in Utah.


>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

um yes it is ..............how could they find a distinction?...the burden of proof is on you....

Um, no. Its not. You claimed that the courts wouldn't be able to make a logical distinction. I'm asking you why.

Now you're demanding I 'disprove' a claim you've never been able to even explain. Let alone factually establish.

When you can, I'll be around.

I don't know any judge who doesn't know that polygamy is illegal.

I don't know any judge who doesn't know that being gay or getting married isn't illegal.

your kidding right...this is what were talking about is legality.

Polygamy is recognized as a form of bigamy. Which is illegal. Not simply unrecognized by the law as a valid marriage. But is instead a criminal act.

You're insisting that the courts couldn't draw a logical distinction between gay marriage, which is at worst unrecognized as valid and polygamy, which is a crime. Why would they be unable to draw such a logical distinction?

the burden of proof is on you..............I'm sure they could come up with a distinction.......just not one that made logical sense, "precedencial" sense, that would mesh well with their reasoning to make gay marriage legal ....that is why a prominent attorney on the gay rights issue also got involved in the Hollywood polygamy case. I think they realize they can make no legal distinction.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, their unions are already legal, there is no need to "make" them legal.

What's illegal are state measures seeking to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying; the burden rests solely with the states to justify the prohibition, which they have failed to do.

 

[Silhouette]

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, their unions are already legal, there is no need to "make" them legal.

What's illegal are state measures seeking to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying; the burden rests solely with the states to justify the prohibition, which they have failed to do.

As it turns out...how something becomes "legal" is important. It has to be done properly and cannot be done by shadow-Rulings and judicial activism. Otherwise the USA ceases to exist if that is to be considered "legal gay marraige". It isn't. Not as long as the US holds its integrity.

You wouldn't want to unravel our way of making and upholding law just to forward a deviant-sex cult agenda to the forced-attrition of self-rule in the sovereign states now would you?

 

[Skylar]

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, their unions are already legal, there is no need to "make" them legal.

What's illegal are state measures seeking to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying; the burden rests solely with the states to justify the prohibition, which they have failed to do.

As it turns out...how something becomes "legal" is important. It has to be done properly and cannot be done by shadow-Rulings and judicial activism.

And you call any ruling you don't like 'judicial activism'. Just like you ignore any portion of the Windsor ruling you don't like. Any dissent of the Windsor ruling proving you comically wrong, or any study refuting your claims regarding same sex parents.

Alas, your willful ignorance is irrelevant. As the courts aren't going to ignore precedent or any evidence just because you do.

You wouldn't want to unravel our way of making and upholding law just to forward a deviant-sex cult agenda to the forced-attrition of self-rule in the sovereign states now would you?

More accurately, I'm unwilling to deny anyone remedy to their legal injury because you don't like gay people. And with phrases like 'deviant sex cult', you aren't even attempting to hide your animus toward gays.

And I can't hide my yawn. As no one gives a shit.

 

[Syriusly]

And homosexual men pay taxes, go to war, etc as do heterosexuals. So the government can't discriminate against any race.

By your 'logic'

And I use the word 'logic' ironically.

I asked you a question and you went on a tirade instead. You don't know what the word logic means. If your "logic" were correct then there's no reason to keep 16 people from having a group marriage. I said government can't discriminate against race and I asked where sexual preference was mentioned. Try again Skippy.

Maybe you just haven't seen the 14th Amendment in a while.

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.​

So, can you show me where it explicitly says race?

I didn't say it was in the 14th. All you do is lie. As I told you 1001 times now all men being treated the same is what the word equal means. Your cognitive dissonance and lies don't change it.

But it is the 14th that is being cited in these anti gay marriage rulings.

The Federal Government does not discriminate against sexual orientation in their hiring. No, there are no Federal workplace protections for gays like there are for oh, Christians...but not for lack of trying. Despite the fact that the majority of Americans believe that gays should be included in Federal workplace protections, anti gay Republicans keep blocking it.

Constitutional rights are often cited and they exist beyond the 14th. I'm not trying the Supreme Court case. It would be wrong for the government to not hire someone due to a sexual preference since they are citizens, that isn't the issue. It's the recognition of a same sex union. A union isn't a person or a citizen.

The government recognizes marriage.

Americans have a right to marriage.

I don't know what your 'same sex union' is- but the issue before the court is marriage- something that has repeatedly been recognized as a right.

And now gay Americans in Alabama are marrying the person they want to marry- and that is good.

 

[Iceweasel]

Can you explain how a State Governor Executive Order applicable to State agency hiring and employment practices (and the issuing or revocation of) has anything to do with impacting private citizens choose their employees and customers?

Read my answers and you will have a much better idea of what I think.

 

[Syriusly]

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, their unions are already legal, there is no need to "make" them legal.

What's illegal are state measures seeking to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying; the burden rests solely with the states to justify the prohibition, which they have failed to do.

As it turns out...how something becomes "legal" is important.

If its legal, its legal.

There were once laws against mixed race marriage- when those laws were struck down- it became legal for mixed race couples to marry in Alabama
There were once laws against same gender marriage- when those laws were struck down- it became legal for same gender couples to marry in Alabama.

Progress.

 

[Iceweasel]

The government recognizes marriage.

Americans have a right to marriage.

I don't know what your 'same sex union' is- but the issue before the court is marriage- something that has repeatedly been recognized as a right.

And now gay Americans in Alabama are marrying the person they want to marry- and that is good.

Americans have never had the right to marry anyone they want. It's always been by state definition.

 

[Syriusly]

If you and your wife decide to spice things up by divorcing, and then you decide to marry a black woman- but then you pass laws against mixed race marriage to prevent yourself from marrying- well I would disagree with that.

Those laws never were legal because black men pay taxes, go to war, etc. as do other races. So the government can't discriminate against any race.

Now, where is sexual preferences mentioned?

And homosexual men pay taxes, go to war, etc as do heterosexuals. So the government can't discriminate against any race.

By your 'logic'

And I use the word 'logic' ironically.

I asked you a question and you went on a tirade instead. You don't know what the word logic means. If your "logic" were correct then there's no reason to keep 16 people from having a group marriage. I said government can't discriminate against race and I asked where sexual preference was mentioned. Try again Skippy.

Maybe you just haven't seen the 14th Amendment in a while.

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.​

So, can you show me where it explicitly says race?

I didn't say it was in the 14th. All you do is lie. As I told you 1001 times now all men being treated the same is what the word equal means. Your cognitive dissonance and lies don't change it.

And now gay men and women are being treated equally in Alabama- and its good.

 

[Syriusly]

The government recognizes marriage.

Americans have a right to marriage.

I don't know what your 'same sex union' is- but the issue before the court is marriage- something that has repeatedly been recognized as a right.

And now gay Americans in Alabama are marrying the person they want to marry- and that is good.

Americans have never had the right to marry anyone they want. It's always been by state definition.

The government recognizes marriage.

Americans have a right to marriage.

I don't know what your 'same sex union' is- but the issue before the court is marriage- something that has repeatedly been recognized as a right.

And now gay Americans in Alabama are marrying the person they want to marry- and that is good.

 

[Syriusly]

If you and your wife decide to spice things up by divorcing, and then you decide to marry a black woman- but then you pass laws against mixed race marriage to prevent yourself from marrying- well I would disagree with that.

Those laws never were legal because black men pay taxes, go to war, etc. as do other races. So the government can't discriminate against any race.

Now, where is sexual preferences mentioned?

And homosexual men pay taxes, go to war, etc as do heterosexuals. So the government can't discriminate against any race.

By your 'logic'

And I use the word 'logic' ironically.

I asked you a question and you went on a tirade instead. You don't know what the word logic means. If your "logic" were correct then there's no reason to keep 16 people from having a group marriage. I said government can't discriminate against race and I asked where sexual preference was mentioned. Try again Skippy.

No- you explained very clearly why 'black men' could not be discriminated:

Those laws never were legal because black men pay taxes, go to war, etc. as do other races. So the government can't discriminate against any race.

I pointed out that the exact same thing applies to homosexual men

And homosexual men pay taxes, go to war, etc as do heterosexuals. So the government can't discriminate against any sexual preference.

Why do you think that since 'black men' pay taxes and go to war they can't be discriminated against, but 'homosexual men' who pay taxes and go to war- can be discriminated against?

 

[Syriusly]

No, its not. You've claimed that the judges judges wouldn't be able to make a logical distinction.

Why?

Because there is no logical distinction. Both polygamy and homosexuality are sexual preferences

Polygamy is not a sexual preference
Homosexuality is a sexual preference.

Another Silhouette failure with facts.

 

[Silhouette]

Polygamy is not a sexual preference
Homosexuality is a sexual preference.

Another Silhouette failure with facts.

Facts accordign to whom? APA and affiliate "scientific" conclusions?

Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena [APA/sponsor website link]
Edited by Clara E. Hill, PhD Consensual Qualitative Research A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena
"
This lively and practical text presents a fresh and comprehensive approach to conducting consensual qualitative research (CQR). CQR is an inductive method that is characterized by open-ended interview questions, small samples, a reliance on words over numbers, the importance of context, an integration of multiple viewpoints, and consensus of the research team. It is especially well-suited to research that requires rich descriptions of inner experiences, attitudes, and convictions.

Written to help researchers navigate their way through qualitative techniques and methodology, leading expert Clara E. Hill and her associates provide readers with step-by-step practical guidance during each stage of the research process. Readers learn about adaptive ways of designing studies; collecting, coding, and analyzing data; and reporting findings.

Key aspects of the researcher's craft are addressed, such as establishing the research team, recruiting and interviewing participants, adhering to ethical standards, raising cultural awareness, auditing [editorial oversight] within case analyses and cross analyses, and writing up the study.

Intended as a user-friendly manual for graduate-level research courses and beyond, the text will be a valuable resource for both budding and experienced qualitative researchers for many years to come.

That crap above looks like it's straight out of the Third-Reicht's Handbook.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The government recognizes marriage.

Americans have a right to marriage.

I don't know what your 'same sex union' is- but the issue before the court is marriage- something that has repeatedly been recognized as a right.

And now gay Americans in Alabama are marrying the person they want to marry- and that is good.

Americans have never had the right to marry anyone they want. It's always been by state definition.

Things can be wrong for a very long time.

 

[Syriusly]

Polygamy is not a sexual preference
Homosexuality is a sexual preference.

Another Silhouette failure with facts.

Facts accordign to whom? .

po·lyg·a·my
pəˈliɡəmē/
noun

1. 1.
   the practice or custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time.

Definition of HOMOSEXUALITY
1
: the quality or state of being homosexual
2
: erotic activity with another of the same sex

 

[Seawytch]

But that's exactly what the Governor of Kansas did and you were applauding it. He removed workplace protections for gays. State employees that are gay can now be harassed or fired without recourse and you thought that was great.

That's your interpretation. And we know what that's like. I suspect it has more to do with letting private citizens choose their employees and customers than throwing a homosexual out of a public sector job.

That's not my interpretation, that is fact. The Executive Order that Bigot Brownback rescinded applied ONLY to state employees.

The recognition of our civil marriages happened with Windsor.

The courts have already weighed in on civil marriage being a fundamental right. They have cited marriage as a fundamental right over a dozen times, most notably in Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin and Turner v Safley. Only ONE of those cases was about race.

The courts have the authority and they are exercising it. Tax paying gay American citizens have the right to redress grievances through the courts. You're just pissed 'cause they're winning.

You keep repeating the same goddamn nonsense like it will become fact after the millionth time. There would be no Supreme court case if you were right.

It already IS fact. There are only 13 states left with anti gay laws. That will end in June.

 

[Skylar]

Polygamy is not a sexual preference
Homosexuality is a sexual preference.

Another Silhouette failure with facts.

Facts accordign to whom? APA and affiliate "scientific" conclusions?

Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena [APA/sponsor website link]
Edited by Clara E. Hill, PhD Consensual Qualitative Research A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena
"
This lively and practical text presents a fresh and comprehensive approach to conducting consensual qualitative research (CQR). CQR is an inductive method that is characterized by open-ended interview questions, small samples, a reliance on words over numbers, the importance of context, an integration of multiple viewpoints, and consensus of the research team. It is especially well-suited to research that requires rich descriptions of inner experiences, attitudes, and convictions.

Written to help researchers navigate their way through qualitative techniques and methodology, leading expert Clara E. Hill and her associates provide readers with step-by-step practical guidance during each stage of the research process. Readers learn about adaptive ways of designing studies; collecting, coding, and analyzing data; and reporting findings.

Key aspects of the researcher's craft are addressed, such as establishing the research team, recruiting and interviewing participants, adhering to ethical standards, raising cultural awareness, auditing [editorial oversight] within case analyses and cross analyses, and writing up the study.

Intended as a user-friendly manual for graduate-level research courses and beyond, the text will be a valuable resource for both budding and experienced qualitative researchers for many years to come.

That crap above looks like it's straight out of the Third-Reicht's Handbook.

And who says that the methods you've described were the ones used by the APA studies? Nothing. You imagine it to be so.

And of course, you ignore the University of Melbourne study. Which has nothing to do with the APA.

And you ignore the University of Southern California study. Which has nothing to do with the APA.

And you ignore any American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists. Which isn't APA.

And you ignore any expert that contradicts you.

And you can't explain any of it, save that that you don't like the results of their studies.

 

[Iceweasel]

If you and your wife decide to spice things up by divorcing, and then you decide to marry a black woman- but then you pass laws against mixed race marriage to prevent yourself from marrying- well I would disagree with that.

Those laws never were legal because black men pay taxes, go to war, etc. as do other races. So the government can't discriminate against any race.

Now, where is sexual preferences mentioned?

And homosexual men pay taxes, go to war, etc as do heterosexuals. So the government can't discriminate against any race.

By your 'logic'

And I use the word 'logic' ironically.

I asked you a question and you went on a tirade instead. You don't know what the word logic means. If your "logic" were correct then there's no reason to keep 16 people from having a group marriage. I said government can't discriminate against race and I asked where sexual preference was mentioned. Try again Skippy.

No- you explained very clearly why 'black men' could not be discriminated:

Those laws never were legal because black men pay taxes, go to war, etc. as do other races. So the government can't discriminate against any race.

I pointed out that the exact same thing applies to homosexual men

And homosexual men pay taxes, go to war, etc as do heterosexuals. So the government can't discriminate against any sexual preference.

Why do you think that since 'black men' pay taxes and go to war they can't be discriminated against, but 'homosexual men' who pay taxes and go to war- can be discriminated against?

Jesus H Christ. Marriage defined as one man and one women means just that regardless of race. The state can deny a license to a man because he's black and she isn't. That isn't the same thing as two guys no matter how much you try to massage it.

 

[Seawytch]

If you and your wife decide to spice things up by divorcing, and then you decide to marry a black woman- but then you pass laws against mixed race marriage to prevent yourself from marrying- well I would disagree with that.

Those laws never were legal because black men pay taxes, go to war, etc. as do other races. So the government can't discriminate against any race.

Now, where is sexual preferences mentioned?

And homosexual men pay taxes, go to war, etc as do heterosexuals. So the government can't discriminate against any race.

By your 'logic'

And I use the word 'logic' ironically.

I asked you a question and you went on a tirade instead. You don't know what the word logic means. If your "logic" were correct then there's no reason to keep 16 people from having a group marriage. I said government can't discriminate against race and I asked where sexual preference was mentioned. Try again Skippy.

No- you explained very clearly why 'black men' could not be discriminated:

Those laws never were legal because black men pay taxes, go to war, etc. as do other races. So the government can't discriminate against any race.

I pointed out that the exact same thing applies to homosexual men

And homosexual men pay taxes, go to war, etc as do heterosexuals. So the government can't discriminate against any sexual preference.

Why do you think that since 'black men' pay taxes and go to war they can't be discriminated against, but 'homosexual men' who pay taxes and go to war- can be discriminated against?

Jesus H Christ. Marriage defined as one man and one women means just that regardless of race. The state can deny a license to a man because he's black and she isn't. That isn't the same thing as two guys no matter how much you try to massage it.

So how come Judge after judge is disagreeing with your assessment?

 

[Syriusly]

If you and your wife decide to spice things up by divorcing, and then you decide to marry a black woman- but then you pass laws against mixed race marriage to prevent yourself from marrying- well I would disagree with that.

Those laws never were legal because black men pay taxes, go to war, etc. as do other races. So the government can't discriminate against any race.

Now, where is sexual preferences mentioned?

And homosexual men pay taxes, go to war, etc as do heterosexuals. So the government can't discriminate against any race.

By your 'logic'

And I use the word 'logic' ironically.

I asked you a question and you went on a tirade instead. You don't know what the word logic means. If your "logic" were correct then there's no reason to keep 16 people from having a group marriage. I said government can't discriminate against race and I asked where sexual preference was mentioned. Try again Skippy.

No- you explained very clearly why 'black men' could not be discriminated:

Those laws never were legal because black men pay taxes, go to war, etc. as do other races. So the government can't discriminate against any race.

I pointed out that the exact same thing applies to homosexual men

And homosexual men pay taxes, go to war, etc as do heterosexuals. So the government can't discriminate against any sexual preference.

Why do you think that since 'black men' pay taxes and go to war they can't be discriminated against, but 'homosexual men' who pay taxes and go to war- can be discriminated against?

Jesus H Christ. Marriage defined as one man and one women means just that regardless of race. The state can deny a license to a man because he's black and she isn't. That isn't the same thing as two guys no matter how much you try to massage it.

Hey- don't swear just because I am hoisting you on your own petard.

You were the one who said:

Those laws never were legal because black men pay taxes, go to war, etc. as do other races. So the government can't discriminate against any race.

And I pointed out that the same thing applies to homosexual men

And homosexual men pay taxes, go to war, etc as do heterosexuals. So the government can't discriminate against any sexual preference.

So why is it relevant to you that 'black men' go to war and pay taxes- but not relevant when it is 'homosexual men'?