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

[Silhouette]

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?

Not sure. I'm a democrat. What people do in their bedrooms does not create an identity and a legal class. Moreover that nonexistent class cannot claim rights to parent children as inferiors to children's best formative environment without permission from the state that acts as the ultimate custodian of childrens' legal rights.

Read more about that here: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Who permanently defined marriage as one man one woman?

Nature.

Did you not take Science in grade school? Or 'skewl' as you likely recognize it.

Ya see scamp, human physiology provides for two 'genders'... there the male, which for you edification we'll call the 'Outee' and the female, which you may better understand as the 'inee'.

The Inee she allows the outee 'in'... and that's how babies are made.

Because of babies, the inee gets all bloated and bitchy and because of that she's shut out of most of society... plus she is weakened by her condition and without the help of the outees, she'd likely die along with her baby. And that would be BAD.

So... the natural consequence of that, for people NOT afflicted with perverse reasoning, is that the inee joins with the outee in a union which is sorta like when the inee joins physically with the outee, becoming one body where prior to the union, there were two... and we call thus union: Marriage.

It's a very serious thing, despite the habit of very foolish sub-humans called Leftists, or 'humanists' who like to make light of that very simple principle, much as they made light of the sound actuarial lending principles which they recently disregarded, managing to crash the international financial markets.

So... because we, The 'Americans' are interested in maintaining a viable culture and NOT crashing it on the rocks of Leftist stupidity (pardon the redundancy), we are rejecting you idiots and your demand that we should consider abnormal reasoning to be normal and lower the threshold of marriage, changing it defining standard, so that you ladies can feel legitimate, despite you illegitimacy.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

DCRAELIN SAID:

“The Windsor case itself said that marriage is a states rights issue.”

States do not have the 'right' to violate the rights of American citizens residing in the states, where one is an American citizen first and foremost, a resident of a state subordinate to that, as one's rights are immune from attack by the state.

Gay Americans in Alabama have the right to equal protection of (equal access to) the law, including marriage law they're eligible to participate in. For a state to seek to deny gay Americans access to marriage law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment; and for state officers to defy the ruling of a Federal court violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution – these facts of law are settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

And the states are NOT violating the rights of the homosexual. PERIOD.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... that is an inalterable fact of NATURE. That those who have succumbed to perverse reasoning can't except that is IRRELEVANT!

And you should know, we are prepared to ERASE YOU IDIOTS, to prove it.

We'd PREFER that you just shut the **** up and go about your business infecting one another with deadly viruses... but you seem determined to push it and THAT is something WE have no control over.

We DO however have the means to control you and if you can't find the strength of character to behave yourselves, we'll put ya down.

So... your call.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

Not sure. I'm a democrat. What people do in their bedrooms does not create an identity and a legal class. Moreover that nonexistent class cannot claim rights to parent children as inferiors to children's best formative environment without permission from the state that acts as the ultimate custodian of childrens' legal rights.

Read more about that here: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The citizens in the several States don't need any class, just equality in privileges and immunities.

 

[Silhouette]

What people do in their bedrooms does not create an identity and a legal class. Moreover that nonexistent class cannot claim rights to parent children as inferiors to children's best formative environment without permission from the state that acts as the ultimate custodian of childrens' legal rights.

Read more about that here: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The citizens in the several States don't need any class, just equality in privileges and immunities.

I've got one for you too daniel: Children's rights to the best formative environment trumps any rights or immunities adults might claim that would infringe upon that best formative environment; or rather, the state that is the ultimate custodian of its children to set the best incentive program's (marriage) parameters for that formative environment. Check the link in my quote above for legal details on that.

 

[danielpalos]

What people do in their bedrooms does not create an identity and a legal class. Moreover that nonexistent class cannot claim rights to parent children as inferiors to children's best formative environment without permission from the state that acts as the ultimate custodian of childrens' legal rights.

Read more about that here: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The citizens in the several States don't need any class, just equality in privileges and immunities.

I've got one for you too daniel: Children's rights to the best formative environment trumps any rights or immunities adults might claim that would infringe upon that best formative environment; or rather, the state that is the ultimate custodian of its children to set the best incentive program's (marriage) parameters for that formative environment. Check the link in my quote above for legal details on that.

Dudette, why is the right so disingenuous, they seem to prefer cognitive dissonance to our objective and market based reality? Poverty does the same thing, yet, why no equal emphasis on solving poverty because children have a "right" to the best capital environment money can buy, not just the best social environment for free, through Socialism.

 

[mdk]

DCRAELIN SAID:

“The Windsor case itself said that marriage is a states rights issue.”

States do not have the 'right' to violate the rights of American citizens residing in the states, where one is an American citizen first and foremost, a resident of a state subordinate to that, as one's rights are immune from attack by the state.

Gay Americans in Alabama have the right to equal protection of (equal access to) the law, including marriage law they're eligible to participate in. For a state to seek to deny gay Americans access to marriage law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment; and for state officers to defy the ruling of a Federal court violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution – these facts of law are settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

And the states are NOT violating the rights of the homosexual. PERIOD.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... that is an inalterable fact of NATURE. That those who have succumbed to perverse reasoning can't except that is IRRELEVANT!

And you should know, we are prepared to ERASE YOU IDIOTS, to prove it.

We'd PREFER that you just shut the **** up and go about your business infecting one another with deadly viruses... but you seem determined to push it and THAT is something WE have no control over.

We DO however have the means to control you and if you can't find the strength of character to behave yourselves, we'll put ya down.

So... your call.

Oh dear, not an internet tough guy making threats he'll never follow through with. I am positively terrified. We both know you won't do shit other gnash your teeth. Blowhard.

 

[Seawytch]

What people do in their bedrooms does not create an identity and a legal class. Moreover that nonexistent class cannot claim rights to parent children as inferiors to children's best formative environment without permission from the state that acts as the ultimate custodian of childrens' legal rights.

Read more about that here: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The citizens in the several States don't need any class, just equality in privileges and immunities.

I've got one for you too daniel: Children's rights to the best formative environment trumps any rights or immunities adults might claim that would infringe upon that best formative environment; or rather, the state that is the ultimate custodian of its children to set the best incentive program's (marriage) parameters for that formative environment. Check the link in my quote above for legal details on that.

Dudette, why is the right so disingenuous, they seem to prefer cognitive dissonance to our objective and market based reality? Poverty does the same thing, yet, why no equal emphasis on solving poverty because children have a "right" to the best capital environment money can buy, not just the best social environment for free, through Socialism.

Sil claims to be a Democrat, not right wing. Gay rights isn't a left/right issue anymore. Ted Olsen has been defending marriage equality from the get go. It was Republicans that got marriage equality passed in New York. It's not "the right" that is disingenuous on this issue, it's just anti gay bigots.

 

[Seawytch]

DCRAELIN SAID:

“The Windsor case itself said that marriage is a states rights issue.”

States do not have the 'right' to violate the rights of American citizens residing in the states, where one is an American citizen first and foremost, a resident of a state subordinate to that, as one's rights are immune from attack by the state.

Gay Americans in Alabama have the right to equal protection of (equal access to) the law, including marriage law they're eligible to participate in. For a state to seek to deny gay Americans access to marriage law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment; and for state officers to defy the ruling of a Federal court violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution – these facts of law are settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

And the states are NOT violating the rights of the homosexual. PERIOD.

Well...37 of 'em aren't. 13 still are until June.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... that is an inalterable fact of NATURE. That those who have succumbed to perverse reasoning can't except that is IRRELEVANT!

Your religion is free to say that...fewer people are believing it and a lot of young people are leaving churches that believe that, but this is America and your church can be as anti gay as it wants to (and as poorly attended )

And you should know, we are prepared to ERASE YOU IDIOTS, to prove it.

Erase? Bigots have been trying to erase the gays since the cave days. You can't. You can't pray it away, you can't kill it away. You straight folks keep having us gay folks.

We'd PREFER that you just shut the **** up and go about your business infecting one another with deadly viruses... but you seem determined to push it and THAT is something WE have no control over.

We DO however have the means to control you and if you can't find the strength of character to behave yourselves, we'll put ya down.

So... your call.

Who is "we"? Who is in that basement with you? Is this you trying to "control" us?

You're not concentrating hard enough...

 

[dcraelin]

I suggest you check your kitchen then.

Homosexuals have a right to form a union guaranteed by the

1- US Constitution - no authority was ever granted for preventing homosexuals from living together or having sex

2- First Amendment right of association

3- Ninth Amendment

So my comment is directed at the idea that in order for something to be good or moral is must be recognized by government officials.

As a fascist/socialist , I am certain that it does to you , but not to me.

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?

not odd at all, most people didnt think it was up to judges to redefine basic terms......they thought they should interpret conflicts within the law.......

But federal patronage judges have decided that here is their chance to give meaning to their otherwise mundane tho overpaid job.....even if it does mean ruling on emotion and not logic.

 

[danielpalos]

What people do in their bedrooms does not create an identity and a legal class. Moreover that nonexistent class cannot claim rights to parent children as inferiors to children's best formative environment without permission from the state that acts as the ultimate custodian of childrens' legal rights.

Read more about that here: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The citizens in the several States don't need any class, just equality in privileges and immunities.

I've got one for you too daniel: Children's rights to the best formative environment trumps any rights or immunities adults might claim that would infringe upon that best formative environment; or rather, the state that is the ultimate custodian of its children to set the best incentive program's (marriage) parameters for that formative environment. Check the link in my quote above for legal details on that.

Dudette, why is the right so disingenuous, they seem to prefer cognitive dissonance to our objective and market based reality? Poverty does the same thing, yet, why no equal emphasis on solving poverty because children have a "right" to the best capital environment money can buy, not just the best social environment for free, through Socialism.

Sil claims to be a Democrat, not right wing. Gay rights isn't a left/right issue anymore. Ted Olsen has been defending marriage equality from the get go. It was Republicans that got marriage equality passed in New York. It's not "the right" that is disingenuous on this issue, it's just anti gay bigots.

Yes, most of them are on the right, and propound they are for the "gospel Truth" in public venues.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

not odd at all, most people didnt think it was up to judges to redefine basic terms......they thought they should interpret conflicts within the law.......

But federal patronage judges have decided that here is their chance to give meaning to their otherwise mundane tho overpaid job.....even if it does mean ruling on emotion and not logic.

Yeah right; since when does the right have any problem with judicial activism when it is in their favor.

 

[dcraelin]

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?

not odd at all, most people didnt think it was up to judges to redefine basic terms......they thought they should interpret conflicts within the law.......

But federal patronage judges have decided that here is their chance to give meaning to their otherwise mundane tho overpaid job.....even if it does mean ruling on emotion and not logic.

Yeah right; since when does the right have any problem with judicial activism when it is in their favor.

first its not really a left-right issue.....I consider myself on the left..........I imagine a huge chunk of those voting against gay marriage in California were democrats.......I believe Obama won the election there that year on the same ballot that gay marriage lost.

second.....this isnt really a law issue......it a definitional issue. Judges are redefining terms .........which is really a way to pull the rug out from under the law.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

not odd at all, most people didnt think it was up to judges to redefine basic terms......they thought they should interpret conflicts within the law.......

But federal patronage judges have decided that here is their chance to give meaning to their otherwise mundane tho overpaid job.....even if it does mean ruling on emotion and not logic.

Yeah right; since when does the right have any problem with judicial activism when it is in their favor.

first its not really a left-right issue.....I consider myself on the left..........I imagine a huge chunk of those voting against gay marriage in California were democrats.......I believe Obama won the election there that year on the same ballot that gay marriage lost.

second.....this isnt really a law issue......it a definitional issue. Judges are redefining terms .........which is really a way to pull the rug out from under the law.

Of course it is a law issue.

The concept is not complicated: The United States Constitution and the protections thereof are superior to State Constitutions and Federal law.

Judges- over a dozen- have found that the bans on same gender marriage violate certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

Those decisions have been upheld by the Appeals Courts- all except 1. If it wasn't for that 1 Appeals court- the Supreme Court would have just left the decisions standing- but instead the Supreme Court will hear the case and make a decision.

Like the Supreme Court has done at least 3 other times when it comes to state marriage laws.

 

[Silhouette]

first its not really a left-right issue.....I consider myself on the left..........I imagine a huge chunk of those voting against gay marriage in California were democrats.......I believe Obama won the election there that year on the same ballot that gay marriage lost.

second.....this isnt really a law issue......it a definitional issue. Judges are redefining terms .........which is really a way to pull the rug out from under the law.

That's true, gay marriage did lose the same year Obama was elected. And you're right, Judges are redefining terms which truly is a form of sabotaging duly-enacted law.

They're getting a leg-up too from Supreme Court Justices with shadow-justice issuing refusals to keep stays on interim law pending a final Hearing on the merits: causing attrition to state marriage laws without explanation or redress of the states: Justices Indicate Shadow-Bias Gay Marriage Question Erodes Last Bastion of Impariality US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Syriusly]

first its not really a left-right issue.....I consider myself on the left..........I imagine a huge chunk of those voting against gay marriage in California were democrats.......I believe Obama won the election there that year on the same ballot that gay marriage lost.

second.....this isnt really a law issue......it a definitional issue. Judges are redefining terms .........which is really a way to pull the rug out from under the law.

shadow-justice issuing

Which is just your invention- not a real thing.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

not odd at all, most people didnt think it was up to judges to redefine basic terms......they thought they should interpret conflicts within the law.......

But federal patronage judges have decided that here is their chance to give meaning to their otherwise mundane tho overpaid job.....even if it does mean ruling on emotion and not logic.

Yeah right; since when does the right have any problem with judicial activism when it is in their favor.

first its not really a left-right issue.....I consider myself on the left..........I imagine a huge chunk of those voting against gay marriage in California were democrats.......I believe Obama won the election there that year on the same ballot that gay marriage lost.

second.....this isnt really a law issue......it a definitional issue. Judges are redefining terms .........which is really a way to pull the rug out from under the law.

sorry; i try to keep it simple for propaganda and rhetoric purposes.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

not odd at all, most people didnt think it was up to judges to redefine basic terms......they thought they should interpret conflicts within the law.......

But federal patronage judges have decided that here is their chance to give meaning to their otherwise mundane tho overpaid job.....even if it does mean ruling on emotion and not logic.

Yeah right; since when does the right have any problem with judicial activism when it is in their favor.

first its not really a left-right issue.....I consider myself on the left..........I imagine a huge chunk of those voting against gay marriage in California were democrats.......I believe Obama won the election there that year on the same ballot that gay marriage lost.

second.....this isnt really a law issue......it a definitional issue. Judges are redefining terms .........which is really a way to pull the rug out from under the law.

Of course it is a law issue.

The concept is not complicated: The United States Constitution and the protections thereof are superior to State Constitutions and Federal law.

Judges- over a dozen- have found that the bans on same gender marriage violate certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

Those decisions have been upheld by the Appeals Courts- all except 1. If it wasn't for that 1 Appeals court- the Supreme Court would have just left the decisions standing- but instead the Supreme Court will hear the case and make a decision.

Like the Supreme Court has done at least 3 other times when it comes to state marriage laws.

Only the right is willing to engender the moral turpitude of appealing to ignorance of our own laws, merely to deny and disparage the privileges and immunities of some of the citizens in the several States.

 

[Faun]

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.

Poor, demented, forum jester . Still uneducated on civil matters. Wrong, as usual, silly wabbit. States cannot have laws which violate the Constitution. When that happens, the federal government has the Constitutional authority to remedy such situations. The argument over same-sex marriage is heading to the U.S. Supreme Court. Should that court decide prohibiting same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, that power is stripped away from the states.

 

[Faun]

DCRAELIN SAID:

“The Windsor case itself said that marriage is a states rights issue.”

States do not have the 'right' to violate the rights of American citizens residing in the states, where one is an American citizen first and foremost, a resident of a state subordinate to that, as one's rights are immune from attack by the state.

Gay Americans in Alabama have the right to equal protection of (equal access to) the law, including marriage law they're eligible to participate in. For a state to seek to deny gay Americans access to marriage law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment; and for state officers to defy the ruling of a Federal court violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution – these facts of law are settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

And the states are NOT violating the rights of the homosexual. PERIOD.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... that is an inalterable fact of NATURE. That those who have succumbed to perverse reasoning can't except that is IRRELEVANT!

And you should know, we are prepared to ERASE YOU IDIOTS, to prove it.

We'd PREFER that you just shut the **** up and go about your business infecting one another with deadly viruses... but you seem determined to push it and THAT is something WE have no control over.

We DO however have the means to control you and if you can't find the strength of character to behave yourselves, we'll put ya down.

So... your call.

Acquiring a state issued marriage license is a legal matter; not a condition of nature. And being a legal matter, all people are entitled to equal protection under the law. If a straight person is allowed to marry the person they love and wish to spend the remainder of their life with, then denying that same right to a gay person violates the 14th Amendment.