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

[Hossfly]

Barack Obama on why he opposes same sex marriage.


Pay attention what he has to say about the Constitution

Hmmm. Musta changed his feeble mind.

 

[orogenicman]

Moore is the epitome of an activist judge.

How is defending the Constitution "activist"? How is upholding the will of the people activist? Please explain this.

He isn't defending the Constitution. He is upholding his own religious convictions - in other words, he is abusing his own position on the court.

 

[Skylar]

There never has been a right to marriage.

That's what you say. This is what the Supreme Court says:

Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man

Loving v. Virginia

You v. the USSC on what is a right has the same winner ever time. And its not you.

The supreme court is wrong.

You're welcome to your personal opinion. It has zero relevance to any legal issue or the outcome of any case we're discussing.

SCOTUS precedent most certainly does.

 

[Skylar]

Moore is the epitome of an activist judge.

How is defending the Constitution "activist"? How is upholding the will of the people activist? Please explain this.

He isn't defending the Constitution. He is upholding his own religious convictions - in other words, he is abusing his own position on the court.

And he'll pay the consequences of course. He was removed from office by Alabama in 2003. And he'll be removed from office again soon.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Moore is the epitome of an activist judge.

How is defending the Constitution "activist"? How is upholding the will of the people activist? Please explain this.

He isn't defending the Constitution. He is upholding his own religious convictions - in other words, he is abusing his own position on the court.

No he isn't He is defending Alabamas state Constitution Amendment banning same sex marriages voted in by 81% approval from Bama voters.

 

[Skylar]

Moore is the epitome of an activist judge.

How is defending the Constitution "activist"? How is upholding the will of the people activist? Please explain this.

He isn't defending the Constitution. He is upholding his own religious convictions - in other words, he is abusing his own position on the court.

No he isn't He is defending Alabamas state Constitution Amendment banning same sex marriages voted in by 81% approval from Bama voters.

Constitutional guarantees of individual citizens trump State law. As the Windsor ruling made ludicrously clear:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

Windsor v. US

And the federal ruling on Alabama's state gay marriage bans found that they violated those constitutional guarantees. Moore is so completely fucked. And I'm gonna laugh my ass of when he's again removed from office.

 

[orogenicman]

Moore is the epitome of an activist judge.

How is defending the Constitution "activist"? How is upholding the will of the people activist? Please explain this.

He isn't defending the Constitution. He is upholding his own religious convictions - in other words, he is abusing his own position on the court.

No he isn't He is defending Alabamas state Constitution Amendment banning same sex marriages voted in by 81% approval from Bama voters.

The U.S. Constitution trumps the Alabama Constitution, I'm afraid. Sorry.

 

[Syriusly]

Moore is the epitome of an activist judge.

How is defending the Constitution "activist"? How is upholding the will of the people activist? Please explain this.

He isn't defending the Constitution. He is upholding his own religious convictions - in other words, he is abusing his own position on the court.

No he isn't He is defending Alabamas state Constitution Amendment banning same sex marriages voted in by 81% approval from Bama voters.

You are still upset that Alabama legalized mixed race marriage only 23 years after the Supreme Court said that Alabama's mixed race marriage ban was unconstitutional- aren't you?

 

[danielpalos]

What does Judge Moore believe regarding the Institutional, moral turpitude of bearing False Witness to our own laws regarding the concept of employment at will, and unemployment compensation on that same basis, in any at-will employment State; if, the Judicature can indulge that moral turpitude, whence any latitude of construction for any Thing else regarding those specific morals.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

I'm kinda partial to a blowjob before having a steak or grilling some pork. But if quiche is your thing, enjoy it.

 

[The Rabbi]

What does Judge Moore believe regarding the Institutional, moral turpitude of bearing False Witness to our own laws regarding the concept of employment at will, and unemployment compensation on that same basis, in any at-will employment State; if, the Judicature can indulge that moral turpitude, whence any latitude of construction for any Thing else regarding those specific morals.

You need to review the holdings in McCulloch v Maryland and the concept of portfolio insurance bfore making such a statement.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

This claim that all things are equal because gays and straights are allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender is simply ridiculous.

Gays are wired to love someone of the same gender. Whether you want to acknowledge that or not does not change the truth. And gays want to marry for the same reason straights do. And that is to commit their life to the one they love. The state has no reason not to recognize it.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

This claim that all things are equal because gays and straights are allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender is simply ridiculous.

Gays are wired to love someone of the same gender. Whether you want to acknowledge that or not does not change the truth. And gays want to marry for the same reason straights do. And that is to commit their life to the one they love. The state has no reason not to recognize it.

Baker v. Nelson made marriage an issue for the states. If the SCOTUS overrules their own ruling in favor of homosexual marriage and claims there is a federal right to marriage, the game is over. The pushback from folks like the Duggars, the Duck Dynasty, F. Graham and tens of millions of other individuals and groups will be enormous. There never has been a right to marriage.

No, there has never been a federal right to marriage.

But the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection. So in order to stop gay marriage, the only thing you have left is to stop all marriage? Ready to do that?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

This claim that all things are equal because gays and straights are allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender is simply ridiculous.

Gays are wired to love someone of the same gender. Whether you want to acknowledge that or not does not change the truth. And gays want to marry for the same reason straights do. And that is to commit their life to the one they love. The state has no reason not to recognize it.

All of that is either irrelevant or untrue.
First, no oen is preventing gays from marrying. I live in one of the few remaining states that does not recognize gay marriage. I can tell you gays get married here every day.
However gays are wired is irrelevant legally. We cannot pretend men are really women and vice versa. That is absurd.
People marry not just because they love someone but because they want to build a family with them. Gays dont have that option, which is why the state should not bestow any special status ont heir relationship.
Gays have equal protection. SHow me one area where gays are not equally protected.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

The law is very clear that Moore is wrong:

• 
  “8. The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." P. 18.
  

• 
  9. No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it. P. 18.”
  

FindLaw Cases and Codes

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Marriage isn't a civil right.

Incorrect, it certainly is a civil right, along with equal protection of the law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Marriage isn't a civil right.

The supreme court has ruled otherwise. So yes it is.

The people ruled otherwise. The people should trump the supreme court.

This is just willfully ignorant and stupid.

 

[Geaux4it]

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

The law is very clear that Moore is wrong:

• 
  “8. The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." P. 18.

• 
  9. No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it. P. 18.”

FindLaw Cases and Codes

The people are expected to follow the constitution but not Obama?

Sorry- That's not how it works

-Geaux

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

The law is very clear that Moore is wrong:

• 
  “8. The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." P. 18.

• 
  9. No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it. P. 18.”

FindLaw Cases and Codes

The people are expected to follow the constitution but not Obama?

Sorry- That's not how it works

-Geaux

This is also willfully ignorant and stupid.

 

[Geaux4it]

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

The law is very clear that Moore is wrong:

• 
  “8. The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." P. 18.

• 
  9. No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it. P. 18.”

FindLaw Cases and Codes

The people are expected to follow the constitution but not Obama?

Sorry- That's not how it works

-Geaux

This is also willfully ignorant and stupid.

Tell us Clayton, how many times has the court ruled against Obama?

I can wait....

-Geaux