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

[NYcarbineer]

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.

No one is being denied equal protection.
Gays have the same opportunities to marry that straight people do.
Straight people lack the same opportunities to marry that gay people do.

A man can marry a woman but a woman can't. How is that the same opportunity?

Men can use the men's restroom on government property but they can't use the ladies room. How is that the same opportunity? This isn't rocket science.

So segregation in the South was constitutional...or should have been ruled so...

...you conservatives show your true colors every day.

 

[AceRothstein]

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.

No one is being denied equal protection.
Gays have the same opportunities to marry that straight people do.
Straight people lack the same opportunities to marry that gay people do.

A man can marry a woman but a woman can't. How is that the same opportunity?

Men can use the men's restroom on government property but they can't use the ladies room. How is that the same opportunity? This isn't rocket science.

Are you really comparing what bathroom someone could use to the right to get married?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What opportunities to marry are gays afforded that straights are not?

Any homosexual is free to marry someone of the opposite gender.
And many of them are, btw.

And what opportunities are straights lacking that gays have?

None. That's my point. There is no discrimination anywhere. Everyone is governed by the same set of rules.

By that reasoning, they were governed by the same set of rules when interracial marriage could be outlawed state by state.

btw, how can everyone be governed by the same set of rules if same sex couples in one state can get married, but in another they can't?

Interracial bans were unConstitutional because men were treated differently depending on their race. Sexual preference isn't covered.

Gender is. If you allow a man to marry a woman but you don't allow a woman to marry a woman,

you have discriminated on the basis of gender.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

No one is being denied equal protection.
Gays have the same opportunities to marry that straight people do.
Straight people lack the same opportunities to marry that gay people do.

What opportunities to marry are gays afforded that straights are not?

Any homosexual is free to marry someone of the opposite gender.
And many of them are, btw.

The whole point, the only point, of limiting marriage to opposite sex couples,

is to discriminate against same sex couples. That is purely discrimination by definition.

 

[SwimExpert]

Men can use the men's restroom on government property but they can't use the ladies room. How is that the same opportunity? This isn't rocket science.

*facepalm*

Are you really comparing the institution of marriage to taking a shit while sitting on a cushion of layered toilet paper? And you would have the nerve to turn around and invoke it's sanctity to "protect" it?

 

[Skylar]

Men can use the men's restroom on government property but they can't use the ladies room. How is that the same opportunity? This isn't rocket science.

*facepalm*

Are you really comparing the institution of marriage to taking a shit while sitting on a cushion of layered toilet paper? And you would have the nerve to turn around and invoke it's sanctity to "protect" it?

LMAO!

 

[JFK_USA]

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.

Call whatever you want.

You are obsessed about sexual preferences- the Supreme Court was focusing on equal treatment before the law, and that marriage is an individual right that can only be denied when the State can demonstrate a specific State interest that is accomplished by denying that right.

States have an interest in maintaining the nuclear family.

Okay so if a heterosexual couple can't have kids, the government should nullify their marriage?

What if they decide not to have kids?

What about when the woman in a relationship goes through menopause, is it now the state's job to nullify the marriage? I mean they can't have kids so they can't marry according to you.

Or are you trying to make a relationship between two consenting adults unequal by arbitrary means?

 

[WinterBorn]

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

No one is being denied equal protection.
Gays have the same opportunities to marry that straight people do.
Straight people lack the same opportunities to marry that gay people do.

What opportunities to marry are gays afforded that straights are not?

Any homosexual is free to marry someone of the opposite gender.
And many of them are, btw.

And what opportunities are straights lacking that gays have?

None. That's my point. There is no discrimination anywhere. Everyone is governed by the same set of rules.

But that is not what you said.

You said:
"Gays have the same opportunities to marry that straight people do.
Straight people lack the same opportunities to marry that gay people do."

You claimed that straight people lack the same opportunities to marry that gay people do.

That is why I have asked twice what opportunities straight people lack.

 

[danielpalos]

What opportunities to marry are gays afforded that straights are not?

Any homosexual is free to marry someone of the opposite gender.
And many of them are, btw.

And what opportunities are straights lacking that gays have?

None. That's my point. There is no discrimination anywhere. Everyone is governed by the same set of rules.

By that reasoning, they were governed by the same set of rules when interracial marriage could be outlawed state by state.

btw, how can everyone be governed by the same set of rules if same sex couples in one state can get married, but in another they can't?

Interracial bans were unConstitutional because men were treated differently depending on their race. Sexual preference isn't covered.

Why do you believe that appeal to ignorance of the law? Persons and citizens in the several States are what are covered by State Constitutions and the general government.

 

[AceRothstein]

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.

Call whatever you want.

You are obsessed about sexual preferences- the Supreme Court was focusing on equal treatment before the law, and that marriage is an individual right that can only be denied when the State can demonstrate a specific State interest that is accomplished by denying that right.

States have an interest in maintaining the nuclear family.

Okay so if a heterosexual couple can't have kids, the government should nullify their marriage?

What if they decide not to have kids?

What about when the woman in a relationship goes through menopause, is it now the state's job to nullify the marriage? I mean they can't have kids so they can't marry according to you.

Or are you trying to make a relationship between two consenting adults unequal by arbitrary means?

Government mandated medical checkups are in order to make sure all couples are fit to bear children.

 

[WinterBorn]

What opportunities to marry are gays afforded that straights are not?

Any homosexual is free to marry someone of the opposite gender.
And many of them are, btw.

And what opportunities are straights lacking that gays have?

None. That's my point. There is no discrimination anywhere. Everyone is governed by the same set of rules.

By that reasoning, they were governed by the same set of rules when interracial marriage could be outlawed state by state.

btw, how can everyone be governed by the same set of rules if same sex couples in one state can get married, but in another they can't?

Interracial bans were unConstitutional because men were treated differently depending on their race. Sexual preference isn't covered.

No they weren't. To use the same logic used by anti-homosexuals, black men were free to marry within their race, just like white men were free to marry within their race. Everyone was equal, right? Isn't that the same as the "gays are free to marry someone of the opposite gender" argument?

 

[Iceweasel]

Men can use the men's restroom on government property but they can't use the ladies room. How is that the same opportunity? This isn't rocket science.

*facepalm*

Are you really comparing the institution of marriage to taking a shit while sitting on a cushion of layered toilet paper? And you would have the nerve to turn around and invoke it's sanctity to "protect" it?

LOL, it wasn't a complicated point. That's the basic problem here, you guys can't see past your genitals. The point was that yes, the government does see genders differently and it does so for a reason. You are essentially asking the state to be gender blind and for some reason limit marriage to traditional numbers. It's inconsistent.

 

[paperview]

Whenever I hear that stupid canard along the lines of :: Gay folks have every right that we all have, and they can marry the opposite sex, just as the rest of us can...

I think this

 

[Iceweasel]

Any homosexual is free to marry someone of the opposite gender.
And many of them are, btw.

And what opportunities are straights lacking that gays have?

None. That's my point. There is no discrimination anywhere. Everyone is governed by the same set of rules.

By that reasoning, they were governed by the same set of rules when interracial marriage could be outlawed state by state.

btw, how can everyone be governed by the same set of rules if same sex couples in one state can get married, but in another they can't?

Interracial bans were unConstitutional because men were treated differently depending on their race. Sexual preference isn't covered.

No they weren't. To use the same logic used by anti-homosexuals, black men were free to marry within their race, just like white men were free to marry within their race. Everyone was equal, right? Isn't that the same as the "gays are free to marry someone of the opposite gender" argument?

Anti-homosexuals? Are you that fucking stupid? The point, Poindexter, is that all men have the same rights if the state is race neutral. Sexual preference has nothing to do with race.

 

[JFK_USA]

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.

Call whatever you want.

You are obsessed about sexual preferences- the Supreme Court was focusing on equal treatment before the law, and that marriage is an individual right that can only be denied when the State can demonstrate a specific State interest that is accomplished by denying that right.

States have an interest in maintaining the nuclear family.

Okay so if a heterosexual couple can't have kids, the government should nullify their marriage?

What if they decide not to have kids?

What about when the woman in a relationship goes through menopause, is it now the state's job to nullify the marriage? I mean they can't have kids so they can't marry according to you.

Or are you trying to make a relationship between two consenting adults unequal by arbitrary means?

Government mandated medical checkups are in order to make sure all couples are fit to bear children.

I am sure that Conservatives want to stay intellectually consistent on this issue. If you can't bear children, you can't be married. If you don't bear children, you aren't married.

 

[Iceweasel]

Whenever I hear that stupid canard along the lines of :: Gay folks have every right that we all have, and they can marry the opposite sex, just as the rest of us can...

I think this

They do have the same rights. If all men have the same right that's what normal people call equal. Gays see the world through gay filters and equality to them means a right extended to include their sexual preferences. Where is that right in the Constitution?

 

[Iceweasel]

I am sure that Conservatives want to stay intellectually consistent on this issue. If you can't bear children, you can't be married. If you don't bear children, you aren't married.

Conservatives are consistent because they recognize the two different genders. Homosexuals live a lie and pretend gender has no meaning of consequence.

 

[WinterBorn]

And what opportunities are straights lacking that gays have?

None. That's my point. There is no discrimination anywhere. Everyone is governed by the same set of rules.

By that reasoning, they were governed by the same set of rules when interracial marriage could be outlawed state by state.

btw, how can everyone be governed by the same set of rules if same sex couples in one state can get married, but in another they can't?

Interracial bans were unConstitutional because men were treated differently depending on their race. Sexual preference isn't covered.

No they weren't. To use the same logic used by anti-homosexuals, black men were free to marry within their race, just like white men were free to marry within their race. Everyone was equal, right? Isn't that the same as the "gays are free to marry someone of the opposite gender" argument?

Anti-homosexuals? Are you that fucking stupid? The point, Poindexter, is that all men have the same rights if the state is race neutral. Sexual preference has nothing to do with race.

I am not stupid at all. I am applying the exact same logic to interracial marriages that you and your ilk want to apply to same-sex marriages.

And I have never claimed that sexual preference has anything to do with race. If you cannot comprehend my legitimate comparison of the claims you make, that is not my problem.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And what opportunities are straights lacking that gays have?

None. That's my point. There is no discrimination anywhere. Everyone is governed by the same set of rules.

By that reasoning, they were governed by the same set of rules when interracial marriage could be outlawed state by state.

btw, how can everyone be governed by the same set of rules if same sex couples in one state can get married, but in another they can't?

Interracial bans were unConstitutional because men were treated differently depending on their race. Sexual preference isn't covered.

No they weren't. To use the same logic used by anti-homosexuals, black men were free to marry within their race, just like white men were free to marry within their race. Everyone was equal, right? Isn't that the same as the "gays are free to marry someone of the opposite gender" argument?

Anti-homosexuals? Are you that fucking stupid? The point, Poindexter, is that all men have the same rights if the state is race neutral. Sexual preference has nothing to do with race.

If you deny a black man the right to marry a white woman but would allow a white man to marry that same woman,

you have discriminated against the black man.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marriage isn't a civil right.

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

No one is being denied equal protection.
Gays have the same opportunities to marry that straight people do.
Straight people lack the same opportunities to marry that gay people do.

A man can marry a woman but a woman can't. How is that the same opportunity?

Men can use the men's restroom on government property but they can't use the ladies room. How is that the same opportunity? This isn't rocket science.

Are you really comparing what bathroom someone could use to the right to get married?

I seem to recall the argument against gays in the military was partly over the scary idea that gay men would be using the men's toilets and showers.