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

[Skylar]

Even by your standards of gibberish, that post is a beauty. The issue isn't a 'union'. The issue is a right to marry. With that marriage recognized and protected by the State.

As for your 'good and moral' babble, no one has made that argument. Its a strawman.

And as predicted , in in your neurotic state, the only VALID definition of marriage is the one defined by the almighty state.

You're monologue, tearing down arguments no one is making. Back in reality, gays are fighting for legal recognition. For all the rights, protections and obligations that come from legally recognized marriage.

You can imagine whatever version of marriage you wish, involving whatever standards you wish. No one gives a shit. We're discussing the legally recognized version.

Privatize Marriage Now


Reviewed by Ryan McMaken


The state hates it when property changes hands without being taxed and regulated, so the state set its sights on marriage centuries ago. Over time civil governments inserted themselves more and more into the religious institutions of marriage. This was helped along by the Reformation and by defenders of government-controlled marriage like King Henry VIII of England. As nation-states consolidated their monopolies on all law and over all institutions in society, the state finally displaced religious institutions as the final arbiter on marriage.


Many people get "married" in courthouses in totally non-religious ceremonies. Such marriage contracts are in essence no different from run-of-the-mill legal contracts. The fact that we call such unions "marriage" doesn’t make them so. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, marriage is a religious matter. Some government judge can’t make you "married" any more than can your hair dresser. Here, we see that the so-called "traditional" marriage types who nevertheless defend government civil "marriage" (as defined by them) have already sown the seeds of their own defeat. They’ve already removed the institution of marriage from its traditional role and status.

Unfortunately, though, when Conservatives and Christian Right types bemoan the loss of so-called "traditional" marriage yet agitate for more government control of the institution, they really have only themselves to blame since they’re therefore accepting the proposition that government has the legitimate authority to regulate and control marriage. The power to regulate marriage is the power to destroy it. "

.

All that already exists. If you want a private marriage without any government recognition, you can have it. Just have your ceremony and don't involve the government.

What we're discussing is legally recognized marriage and all the rights and obligations it brings.

I see.

Since legally recognized marriage is already CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized, you are merely making a fashion statement.

.

.

As the entire gay marriage debate recognizes elegantly, its not recognized for all gays and lesbians. And thus the legal issues.

If this is news to you, consider this your wake up call.

 

[Skylar]

Even by your standards of gibberish, that post is a beauty. The issue isn't a 'union'. The issue is a right to marry. With that marriage recognized and protected by the State.

As for your 'good and moral' babble, no one has made that argument. Its a strawman.

And as predicted , in in your neurotic state, the only VALID definition of marriage is the one defined by the almighty state.

You're monologue, tearing down arguments no one is making. Back in reality, gays are fighting for legal recognition. For all the rights, protections and obligations that come from legally recognized marriage.

You can imagine whatever version of marriage you wish, involving whatever standards you wish. No one gives a shit. We're discussing the legally recognized version.

Privatize Marriage Now


Reviewed by Ryan McMaken


The state hates it when property changes hands without being taxed and regulated, so the state set its sights on marriage centuries ago. Over time civil governments inserted themselves more and more into the religious institutions of marriage. This was helped along by the Reformation and by defenders of government-controlled marriage like King Henry VIII of England. As nation-states consolidated their monopolies on all law and over all institutions in society, the state finally displaced religious institutions as the final arbiter on marriage.


Many people get "married" in courthouses in totally non-religious ceremonies. Such marriage contracts are in essence no different from run-of-the-mill legal contracts. The fact that we call such unions "marriage" doesn’t make them so. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, marriage is a religious matter. Some government judge can’t make you "married" any more than can your hair dresser. Here, we see that the so-called "traditional" marriage types who nevertheless defend government civil "marriage" (as defined by them) have already sown the seeds of their own defeat. They’ve already removed the institution of marriage from its traditional role and status.

Unfortunately, though, when Conservatives and Christian Right types bemoan the loss of so-called "traditional" marriage yet agitate for more government control of the institution, they really have only themselves to blame since they’re therefore accepting the proposition that government has the legitimate authority to regulate and control marriage. The power to regulate marriage is the power to destroy it. "

.

Isn't it odd how this only comes up because gay couples want to legally marry. Where were these people all along?

Bullshit.


Justin Raimondo , a homosexual, has opposed state defined marriage for a long time.


The Libertarian Case Against Gay Marriage


.

Whereas the gays and lesbians sueing for their rights in court clearly do want government recognized marriage.

Folks like Edith Windsor.

You can disagree with her, but you really have no horse in the race.

 

[Contumacious]

And as predicted , in in your neurotic state, the only VALID definition of marriage is the one defined by the almighty state.

You're monologue, tearing down arguments no one is making. Back in reality, gays are fighting for legal recognition. For all the rights, protections and obligations that come from legally recognized marriage.

You can imagine whatever version of marriage you wish, involving whatever standards you wish. No one gives a shit. We're discussing the legally recognized version.

Privatize Marriage Now


Reviewed by Ryan McMaken


The state hates it when property changes hands without being taxed and regulated, so the state set its sights on marriage centuries ago. Over time civil governments inserted themselves more and more into the religious institutions of marriage. This was helped along by the Reformation and by defenders of government-controlled marriage like King Henry VIII of England. As nation-states consolidated their monopolies on all law and over all institutions in society, the state finally displaced religious institutions as the final arbiter on marriage.


Many people get "married" in courthouses in totally non-religious ceremonies. Such marriage contracts are in essence no different from run-of-the-mill legal contracts. The fact that we call such unions "marriage" doesn’t make them so. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, marriage is a religious matter. Some government judge can’t make you "married" any more than can your hair dresser. Here, we see that the so-called "traditional" marriage types who nevertheless defend government civil "marriage" (as defined by them) have already sown the seeds of their own defeat. They’ve already removed the institution of marriage from its traditional role and status.

Unfortunately, though, when Conservatives and Christian Right types bemoan the loss of so-called "traditional" marriage yet agitate for more government control of the institution, they really have only themselves to blame since they’re therefore accepting the proposition that government has the legitimate authority to regulate and control marriage. The power to regulate marriage is the power to destroy it. "

.

All that already exists. If you want a private marriage without any government recognition, you can have it. Just have your ceremony and don't involve the government.

What we're discussing is legally recognized marriage and all the rights and obligations it brings.

I see.

Since legally recognized marriage is already CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized, you are merely making a fashion statement.

.

.

As the entire gay marriage debate recognizes elegantly, its not recognized for all gays and lesbians. And thus the legal issues.

If this is news to you, consider this your wake up call.

I do not care if my neighbors have a traditional , homosexual or mixed marriage..

.

.

 

[Skylar]

You're monologue, tearing down arguments no one is making. Back in reality, gays are fighting for legal recognition. For all the rights, protections and obligations that come from legally recognized marriage.

You can imagine whatever version of marriage you wish, involving whatever standards you wish. No one gives a shit. We're discussing the legally recognized version.

Privatize Marriage Now


Reviewed by Ryan McMaken


The state hates it when property changes hands without being taxed and regulated, so the state set its sights on marriage centuries ago. Over time civil governments inserted themselves more and more into the religious institutions of marriage. This was helped along by the Reformation and by defenders of government-controlled marriage like King Henry VIII of England. As nation-states consolidated their monopolies on all law and over all institutions in society, the state finally displaced religious institutions as the final arbiter on marriage.


Many people get "married" in courthouses in totally non-religious ceremonies. Such marriage contracts are in essence no different from run-of-the-mill legal contracts. The fact that we call such unions "marriage" doesn’t make them so. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, marriage is a religious matter. Some government judge can’t make you "married" any more than can your hair dresser. Here, we see that the so-called "traditional" marriage types who nevertheless defend government civil "marriage" (as defined by them) have already sown the seeds of their own defeat. They’ve already removed the institution of marriage from its traditional role and status.

Unfortunately, though, when Conservatives and Christian Right types bemoan the loss of so-called "traditional" marriage yet agitate for more government control of the institution, they really have only themselves to blame since they’re therefore accepting the proposition that government has the legitimate authority to regulate and control marriage. The power to regulate marriage is the power to destroy it. "

.

All that already exists. If you want a private marriage without any government recognition, you can have it. Just have your ceremony and don't involve the government.

What we're discussing is legally recognized marriage and all the rights and obligations it brings.

I see.

Since legally recognized marriage is already CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized, you are merely making a fashion statement.

.

.

As the entire gay marriage debate recognizes elegantly, its not recognized for all gays and lesbians. And thus the legal issues.

If this is news to you, consider this your wake up call.

I do not care if my neighbors have a traditional , homosexual or mixed marriage..

.

.

Gays and lesbians do care if their marriages are legally recognized and protected by the government.

And thus all the lawsuits to affirm those rights.

 

[Silhouette]

As the entire gay marriage debate recognizes elegantly, its not recognized for all gays and lesbians. And thus the legal issues.

If this is news to you, consider this your wake up call.

As Windsor recognized elegantly, (marriage) is not recognized for all 13 year olds or close cousins. And thus the legal issues. If this is news to you, consider this your wake up call.

Oh, and that 50% of the kids caught up in "gay marriage" can be predicted to suffer the detrimental effects found in the Prince's Trust study for kids who grow up without their same gender as an adult role model. Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Skylar]

As the entire gay marriage debate recognizes elegantly, its not recognized for all gays and lesbians. And thus the legal issues.

If this is news to you, consider this your wake up call.

As Windsor recognized elegantly, (marriage) is not recognized for all 13 year olds or close cousins. And thus the legal issues. If this is news to you, consider this your wake up call.

And where in Windsor is marriage for 13 year olds even mentioned? Or is this just another on of your hallucinations?

Oh, and that 50% of the kids caught up in "gay marriage" can be predicted to suffer the detrimental effects found in the Prince's Trust study for kids who grow up without their same gender as an adult role model. Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The Prince Trust Study never even mentions children of same sex parents, nor makes any prediction about them.

You're kinda doubling down on hallucinatory batshit today, aren't you?

 

[Silhouette]

And where in Windsor is marriage for 13 year olds even mentioned? Or is this just another on of your hallucinations? ...The Prince Trust Study never even mentions children of same sex parents, nor makes any prediction about them.

You're kinda doubling down on hallucinatory batshit today, aren't you?

(Page 18 of the Opinion) United States v. Windsor
..regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.”
Ohio ex rel. Popovici
v.
Agler
, 280U. S. 379, 383–384 (1930). Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State. For example, the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New Hampshire. Compare Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, §5142 (2012),with N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §457:4 (West Supp. 2012).Likewise the permissible degree of consanguinity can vary (most States permit first cousins to marry, but a handful— such as Iowa and Washington, see Iowa Code §595.19(2009); Wash. Rev. Code §26.04.020 (2012)—prohibit the practice). But these rules are in every event consistent within each State.

*****

The Prince's Trust study is about the deterimental effects of kids growing up without their gender as a role model. That applies to 50% of kids caught up in "gay marriage". So it's fair game for the debate.

 

[Skylar]

The Prince's Trust study is about the deterimental effects of kids growing up without their gender as a role model. That applies to 50% of kids caught up in "gay marriage". So it's fair game for the debate.

That's not what it says. It measures the lack of a GOOD same gender role model. You assume that only parents can be this role model.

Quote where the Prince Trust Study indicates that good same gender role models can only be parents.

You can't. You made it up. And with it, your entire argument regarding children of same sex parents goes right back in the crapper where it belongs.

And of course, there are more than a dozen studies that measure the effects same sex parenting on children. And the overwhelming consensus is that the kids are fine. Yet you ignore every study that measures what you claim to care about. And cite one study that never even mentions same sex parenting, nor measures the effects of ANY kind of parenting.

Shrugs......the SCOTUS won't do either.

 

[Silhouette]

What about the 13 year olds?

 

[Skylar]

What about the 13 year olds?

Can we take it by your rout from your imaginary passages from the Prince Trust study that you finally recognize that nothing you've claimed is actually in it?

Since you've abandoned your topic and will only discuss '13 year olds', feel free to explain the relevance of 13 year olds to gay marriage.

Specifically.

 

[danielpalos]

Studies that don't meet or beat Spartan policies public regarding the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States, have no Standing.

 

[Silhouette]

You mean ones that show that 50% of the kids in "gay marraige" can be predicted to suffer psychologically? Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[danielpalos]

You mean ones that show that 50% of the kids in "gay marraige" can be predicted to suffer psychologically? Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I mean the one that cannot produce at least 300 citizens for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.

 

[Skylar]

You mean ones that show that 50% of the kids in "gay marraige" can be predicted to suffer psychologically? Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The Prince Trust study never makes such a prediction. Nor measures any kind of parenting. Nor even mention same sex marriage or same sex parents.

You hallucinated all of it.

 

[Contumacious]

Privatize Marriage Now


Reviewed by Ryan McMaken


The state hates it when property changes hands without being taxed and regulated, so the state set its sights on marriage centuries ago. Over time civil governments inserted themselves more and more into the religious institutions of marriage. This was helped along by the Reformation and by defenders of government-controlled marriage like King Henry VIII of England. As nation-states consolidated their monopolies on all law and over all institutions in society, the state finally displaced religious institutions as the final arbiter on marriage.


Many people get "married" in courthouses in totally non-religious ceremonies. Such marriage contracts are in essence no different from run-of-the-mill legal contracts. The fact that we call such unions "marriage" doesn’t make them so. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, marriage is a religious matter. Some government judge can’t make you "married" any more than can your hair dresser. Here, we see that the so-called "traditional" marriage types who nevertheless defend government civil "marriage" (as defined by them) have already sown the seeds of their own defeat. They’ve already removed the institution of marriage from its traditional role and status.

Unfortunately, though, when Conservatives and Christian Right types bemoan the loss of so-called "traditional" marriage yet agitate for more government control of the institution, they really have only themselves to blame since they’re therefore accepting the proposition that government has the legitimate authority to regulate and control marriage. The power to regulate marriage is the power to destroy it. "

.

All that already exists. If you want a private marriage without any government recognition, you can have it. Just have your ceremony and don't involve the government.

What we're discussing is legally recognized marriage and all the rights and obligations it brings.

I see.

Since legally recognized marriage is already CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized, you are merely making a fashion statement.

.

.

As the entire gay marriage debate recognizes elegantly, its not recognized for all gays and lesbians. And thus the legal issues.

If this is news to you, consider this your wake up call.

I do not care if my neighbors have a traditional , homosexual or mixed marriage..

.

.

Gays and lesbians do care if their marriages are legally recognized and protected by the government.

And thus all the lawsuits to affirm those rights.

This debate is driven ONLY by the conservative vs Liberal politics.

Some homosexuals want to show the religious right that they intend to suck dick, muff dive and get their asses reamed no matter what they mystics think.

Well knock yourself out. Enjoy in good health.


.


.

 

[Skylar]

All that already exists. If you want a private marriage without any government recognition, you can have it. Just have your ceremony and don't involve the government.

What we're discussing is legally recognized marriage and all the rights and obligations it brings.

I see.

Since legally recognized marriage is already CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized, you are merely making a fashion statement.

.

.

As the entire gay marriage debate recognizes elegantly, its not recognized for all gays and lesbians. And thus the legal issues.

If this is news to you, consider this your wake up call.

I do not care if my neighbors have a traditional , homosexual or mixed marriage..

.

.

Gays and lesbians do care if their marriages are legally recognized and protected by the government.

And thus all the lawsuits to affirm those rights.

This debate is driven ONLY by the conservative vs Liberal politics.

The issue is driven by gays and lesbians who want their right to marriage legally recognized and protected.

 

[Contumacious]

I see.

Since legally recognized marriage is already CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized, you are merely making a fashion statement.

.

.

As the entire gay marriage debate recognizes elegantly, its not recognized for all gays and lesbians. And thus the legal issues.

If this is news to you, consider this your wake up call.

I do not care if my neighbors have a traditional , homosexual or mixed marriage..

.

.

Gays and lesbians do care if their marriages are legally recognized and protected by the government.

And thus all the lawsuits to affirm those rights.

This debate is driven ONLY by the conservative vs Liberal politics.

The issue is driven by gays and lesbians who want their right to marriage legally recognized and protected.

uhum

 

[Syriusly]

All that already exists. If you want a private marriage without any government recognition, you can have it. Just have your ceremony and don't involve the government.

What we're discussing is legally recognized marriage and all the rights and obligations it brings.

I see.

Since legally recognized marriage is already CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized, you are merely making a fashion statement.

.

.

As the entire gay marriage debate recognizes elegantly, its not recognized for all gays and lesbians. And thus the legal issues.

If this is news to you, consider this your wake up call.

I do not care if my neighbors have a traditional , homosexual or mixed marriage..

.

.

Gays and lesbians do care if their marriages are legally recognized and protected by the government.

And thus all the lawsuits to affirm those rights.

This debate is driven ONLY by the conservative vs Liberal politics.

Some homosexuals want to show the religious right that they intend to suck dick, muff dive and get their asses reamed no matter what they mystics think.

Well knock yourself out. Enjoy in good health.


.


.

Like I said- it is rather pathetic that you think marriage is only about sex.

 

[Contumacious]

I see.

Since legally recognized marriage is already CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized, you are merely making a fashion statement.

.

.

As the entire gay marriage debate recognizes elegantly, its not recognized for all gays and lesbians. And thus the legal issues.

If this is news to you, consider this your wake up call.

I do not care if my neighbors have a traditional , homosexual or mixed marriage..

.

.

Gays and lesbians do care if their marriages are legally recognized and protected by the government.

And thus all the lawsuits to affirm those rights.

This debate is driven ONLY by the conservative vs Liberal politics.

Some homosexuals want to show the religious right that they intend to suck dick, muff dive and get their asses reamed no matter what they mystics think.

Well knock yourself out. Enjoy in good health.


.


.

Like I said- it is rather pathetic that you think marriage is only about sex.

What's the matter dude...dudette?


Low T?

Frigid?

Prudish?

Retarded?

What's your major malfunction?

.

 

[danielpalos]

All that already exists. If you want a private marriage without any government recognition, you can have it. Just have your ceremony and don't involve the government.

What we're discussing is legally recognized marriage and all the rights and obligations it brings.

I see.

Since legally recognized marriage is already CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized, you are merely making a fashion statement.

.

.

As the entire gay marriage debate recognizes elegantly, its not recognized for all gays and lesbians. And thus the legal issues.

If this is news to you, consider this your wake up call.

I do not care if my neighbors have a traditional , homosexual or mixed marriage..

.

.

Gays and lesbians do care if their marriages are legally recognized and protected by the government.

And thus all the lawsuits to affirm those rights.

This debate is driven ONLY by the conservative vs Liberal politics.

Some homosexuals want to show the religious right that they intend to suck dick, muff dive and get their asses reamed no matter what they mystics think.

Well knock yourself out. Enjoy in good health.


.


.

Why does the right have more of a problem with human sexuality in modern times, than they seem to have with the timeless, abomination of hypocrisy, in our modern Information Age times?