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

[occupied]

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

The Phantom Diaries Alabama Objects to Gay Marriage

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

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

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

Ahem the number of people who voted to ban gay marriage in California is greater than the entire population of Alabama. Further, in California 70% of blacks and 54% of Hispanics voted to ban gay marriage. So if the left or gay community has some issue with Alabama on gay marriage I think they need to speak to their own Democratic party base down there. KABOOM!!

It's stupid to put civil rights up for a popular vote, the people who organized such unconstitutional initiatives had to know they were eventually doomed.

 

[TheOldSchool]

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

Ahem the number of people who voted to ban gay marriage in California is greater than the entire population of Alabama. Further, in California 70% of blacks and 54% of Hispanics voted to ban gay marriage. So if the left or gay community has some issue with Alabama on gay marriage I think they need to speak to their own Democratic party base down there. KABOOM!!

The number of people who voted to legalize gay marriage in California is also bigger than the population of Alabama you dummy. Blacks and hispanics will come around. Good always wins in the end.

Translation you suck at reading comprehension what an idiot.

I accept your concession

^^^ obviously a Bush voter.

^^^ obviously a huge nerd

 

[WinterBorn]

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

The Phantom Diaries Alabama Objects to Gay Marriage

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

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

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

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

Really? I was born & raised in Tuscaloosa. I have never been attracted to men, but I know quite a few southern belles who love anal sex. And oral sex is as common down here as anywhere else. Maybe you should get out more?

 

[The Rabbi]

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

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

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

Translation: I'm getting my ass kicked because I am posting stupid garbage.
The 14th A is irrelevant here. No one is being denied any rights. The 10th is explicit that states have power over whatever was not delegated to the feds. That includes marriage, which has always been a state issue.

Tell us in your own words what this portion of the 10th Amendment means:

"nor prohibited by it to the States"

The Constitution grants powers to the federal government on an exclusive basis. A state cannot, for example, have its own patent laws.
Next.

Translation: I'm getting my ass kicked because I am posting stupid garbage.
The 14th A is irrelevant here. No one is being denied any rights. The 10th is explicit that states have power over whatever was not delegated to the feds. That includes marriage, which has always been a state issue.

Tell us in your own words what this portion of the 10th Amendment means:

"nor prohibited by it to the States"

The Constitution grants powers to the federal government on an exclusive basis. A state cannot, for example, have its own patent laws.
Next.

roe v wade would be a good example. if it were overturned the poiwer would just revert back to the states.
Google

Roe invented a right that didnt exist and gave it to the federal government. Prior to that states did regulate abortion. They still do, in the context of Roe's strictures.

Privacy is hardly an invented right.

Griswold v Connecticut. The right to privacy didnt exist prior to that.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

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

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

Translation: I'm getting my ass kicked because I am posting stupid garbage.
The 14th A is irrelevant here. No one is being denied any rights. The 10th is explicit that states have power over whatever was not delegated to the feds. That includes marriage, which has always been a state issue.

Tell us in your own words what this portion of the 10th Amendment means:

"nor prohibited by it to the States"

The Constitution grants powers to the federal government on an exclusive basis. A state cannot, for example, have its own patent laws.
Next.

Wrong.

LOL!
How does it feel to be reduced to one word replies?

 

[JFK_USA]

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

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

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


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

As you put the 10th amendment on point, let's break it down:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution"

The 14th amendment guarantees "Equal protection under the law" and applied that right to the states. It is a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Therefore, it's not a "states rights" issue, this is a power in the Constitution for the United States. Pesky Founding Fathers and their Article 5. I guess they aren't true Americans.

"where is the power to define marriage delegated to the federal government in the Constitution?"

The issue isn't "defining marriage" as you put it. The issue is that there are laws on the books in states that grants the right of marriage to citizens of their states. Now, a group is being classified as unworthy of that right.

When that occurs, the courts can apply 3 tests. Strict Scrutiny, Intermediate Scrutiny and Rational Basis tests.

In all gay marriage cases, the Rational basis test is the only one being applied since the court determined (wrongly IYAM) that Gay people do not have a history of "animus" towards that group. All these governments have to prove is that the classification has some "rational basis" to a "legitimate government interest". This is literally the lowest standard that must be met and 95% of the time, the government cannot come up with a legitimate government interest as to why this classification must exist.

That's why this issue is a loser. There is no legitimate government interest in denying two consenting adults the right to marry.

 

[Hossfly]

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

The Phantom Diaries Alabama Objects to Gay Marriage

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

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

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

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

Really? I was born & raised in Tuscaloosa. I have never been attracted to men, but I know quite a few southern belles who love anal sex. And oral sex is as common down here as anywhere else. Maybe you should get out more?

No kiddin'? That gay sex is not my bag either and that's what I was referring to. Although I realize that after a hard days work it's nice to come home to a relaxing blow job and some quiche and brie before dinner.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Just like Virginia stood up to Federal Tyranny when a 'black robed tyrant' said that state marriage laws which made it illegal for the Lovings to be married were unconstitutional.

 

[Syriusly]

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

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

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


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

As you put the 10th amendment on point, let's break it down:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution"

The 14th amendment guarantees "Equal protection under the law" and applied that right to the states. It is a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Therefore, it's not a "states rights" issue, this is a power in the Constitution for the United States. Pesky Founding Fathers and their Article 5. I guess they aren't true Americans.

"where is the power to define marriage delegated to the federal government in the Constitution?"

The issue isn't "defining marriage" as you put it. The issue is that there are laws on the books in states that grants the right of marriage to citizens of their states. Now, a group is being classified as unworthy of that right.

When that occurs, the courts can apply 3 tests. Strict Scrutiny, Intermediate Scrutiny and Rational Basis tests.

In all gay marriage cases, the Rational basis test is the only one being applied since the court determined (wrongly IYAM) that Gay people do not have a history of "animus" towards that group. All these governments have to prove is that the classification has some "rational basis" to a "legitimate government interest". This is literally the lowest standard that must be met and 95% of the time, the government cannot come up with a legitimate government interest as to why this classification must exist.

That's why this issue is a loser. There is no legitimate government interest in denying two consenting adults the right to marry.

Very good analysis.

I look forward to Rabbi ignoring it.

 

[Syriusly]

Doesn't matter - you cannot vote away another person's civil rights.

No one's civil rights were voted away. Gays have exactly the same opportunity to get married as straight people.

Homophobic argument #2

 

[Syriusly]

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

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

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

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

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

I could have sworn that marriage was involved somehow in the Loving v Virginia

Hmmmm

Zablocki v. Rehail

Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

 

[NYcarbineer]

`

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

The Phantom Diaries Alabama Objects to Gay Marriage

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

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

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

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

Inbred crackers trying to buttfuck their stepdaughters aren't trying to make babies.

 

[Syriusly]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal law doesn't trump state constitutions- the U.S. Constitution trumps state constitutions.

And yes- even homosexuals have civil rights- despite your best efforts.

 

[Iceweasel]

I don't need to dispute anything. Marriage is the joining of two people.

That isn't in the Constitution. States have always defined who could get married. There's no reason three or more couldn't marry if we are going to let marriage be defined as people want. Gay marriage activists are hypocritical to reject traditional marriage while staking their claim to the aspects of traditional marriage they want.

Change the Constitution to include sexual orientations of individuals to be protected like race, religion or gender and you'll at least have an honest argument.

 

[Hossfly]

`

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

The Phantom Diaries Alabama Objects to Gay Marriage

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

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

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

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

Inbred crackers trying to buttfuck their stepdaughters aren't trying to make babies.

Don't bother me with your problems, snarf.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I don't need to dispute anything. Marriage is the joining of two people.

That isn't in the Constitution. States have always defined who could get married. There's no reason three or more couldn't marry if we are going to let marriage be defined as people want. Gay marriage activists are hypocritical to reject traditional marriage while staking their claim to the aspects of traditional marriage they want.

Change the Constitution to include sexual orientations of individuals to be protected like race, religion or gender and you'll at least have an honest argument.

Oh yeah? States have always defined who could marry? Like with interracial marriage right?

 

[JFK_USA]

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

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

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


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

As you put the 10th amendment on point, let's break it down:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution"

The 14th amendment guarantees "Equal protection under the law" and applied that right to the states. It is a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Therefore, it's not a "states rights" issue, this is a power in the Constitution for the United States. Pesky Founding Fathers and their Article 5. I guess they aren't true Americans.

"where is the power to define marriage delegated to the federal government in the Constitution?"

The issue isn't "defining marriage" as you put it. The issue is that there are laws on the books in states that grants the right of marriage to citizens of their states. Now, a group is being classified as unworthy of that right.

When that occurs, the courts can apply 3 tests. Strict Scrutiny, Intermediate Scrutiny and Rational Basis tests.

In all gay marriage cases, the Rational basis test is the only one being applied since the court determined (wrongly IYAM) that Gay people do not have a history of "animus" towards that group. All these governments have to prove is that the classification has some "rational basis" to a "legitimate government interest". This is literally the lowest standard that must be met and 95% of the time, the government cannot come up with a legitimate government interest as to why this classification must exist.

That's why this issue is a loser. There is no legitimate government interest in denying two consenting adults the right to marry.

Very good analysis.

I look forward to Rabbi ignoring it.

Oh definietely. Because when it comes to actually following the law, Conservatives have a huge problem with it when it's against their "morals" which is a complete sham. They just state something and that makes it true.

 

[Syriusly]

I don't need to dispute anything. Marriage is the joining of two people.

That isn't in the Constitution. States have always defined who could get married. There's no reason three or more couldn't marry if we are going to let marriage be defined as people want. Gay marriage activists are hypocritical to reject traditional marriage while staking their claim to the aspects of traditional marriage they want.

Change the Constitution to include sexual orientations of individuals to be protected like race, religion or gender and you'll at least have an honest argument.

States have always had the right to define marriage- subject to constitutional guarantees.

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws at least 3 times- all based upon equal treatment claims.

 

[Iceweasel]

I don't need to dispute anything. Marriage is the joining of two people.

That isn't in the Constitution. States have always defined who could get married. There's no reason three or more couldn't marry if we are going to let marriage be defined as people want. Gay marriage activists are hypocritical to reject traditional marriage while staking their claim to the aspects of traditional marriage they want.

Change the Constitution to include sexual orientations of individuals to be protected like race, religion or gender and you'll at least have an honest argument.

Oh yeah? States have always defined who could marry? Like with interracial marriage right?

Yep, they did. Try to keep up. Homosexuality isn't a race though so it can't be overturned that way. If all men are being treated the same you can't say they aren't equal.

 

[Iceweasel]

I don't need to dispute anything. Marriage is the joining of two people.

That isn't in the Constitution. States have always defined who could get married. There's no reason three or more couldn't marry if we are going to let marriage be defined as people want. Gay marriage activists are hypocritical to reject traditional marriage while staking their claim to the aspects of traditional marriage they want.

Change the Constitution to include sexual orientations of individuals to be protected like race, religion or gender and you'll at least have an honest argument.

States have always had the right to define marriage- subject to constitutional guarantees.

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws at least 3 times- all based upon equal treatment claims.

On sexual preferences? I call bull.