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

[Syriusly]

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.

They lack the opportunity to marry someone of the same sex. Just like gay people.

Which brings me back to point out that similar arguments were made when justifying miscegenation laws

Thus the Oregon Supreme Court declared that Oregon's miscegenation law did not discriminate (in this case, against Indians) because, as the judge explained, it ""applied alike to all persons, either white, negroes, Chinese, Kanaka, or Indians." - See more at: History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

 

[NYcarbineer]

A politician lied in order to get elected?? Say it ain't so!!! I mean, what is the world coming to when a politician would actually LIE to win an election???

*the above statement is sarcasm*

That low life progressive liberal pukes think lying is okay doesn't make it okay. Its not okay with most Americans hence the lying scum Democratic party got bitch slapped by voters these past 6 years, historic losses, why? Because they LIE!

That perfectly explains why the lying scum Republican party got bitch slapped by voters the previous 2 elections......because they LIE...


LOL.....

Actually 5 out of the last 6, if you go by the vote of the People.

 

[The Rabbi]

14th Amendment doesn't apply. Only the 9th anf 10th Amendments.

Romer v. Evans already found that the withholding rights from gays is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. 15 years ago.

Not when it comes to marriage specifically.

Why would marriage be any different than any other right? You keep making up these imaginary exclusions, caveats and restrictions that are complete bullshit.

You started by insisting that 14th amendment only applied to issues of race and citizenship. That was bullshit.

You then insisted that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to gays. That was bullshit.

And now you're insisting that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to marriage. The courts already applied it to marriage. So bullshit cubed.

Damn. If you'd been offering us answers at random the law of averages would have mandated you get something right by now. But astonishingly, you've managed to be perfectly wrong.

Equal protection my ass then why isn't group marriages legal? Why isn't polygamy legal? your argument doesn't hold water.

I can't believe you're so obtuse.

Because it's illegal for everyone to not marry a group of people. No one is getting something that some other person has been prevented for getting.

Everyone is free to marry the person, not people, they love.

It's very simple and logical but then you're a conservative and logic is evil to a conservative.

Same argument here: Every man is free to marry any woman (with some restrictions). Vice versa for women. Doesnt matter if youre gay or straight.
If gay marriage passes then even heterosexual men could marry each other.
That is not an example of discrimination. That is wanting to change the law. Gays failed to do it at the ballot box so decided to whine to the courts to get their way.

 

[Dana7360]

Romer v. Evans already found that the withholding rights from gays is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. 15 years ago.

Not when it comes to marriage specifically.

Why would marriage be any different than any other right? You keep making up these imaginary exclusions, caveats and restrictions that are complete bullshit.

You started by insisting that 14th amendment only applied to issues of race and citizenship. That was bullshit.

You then insisted that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to gays. That was bullshit.

And now you're insisting that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to marriage. The courts already applied it to marriage. So bullshit cubed.

Damn. If you'd been offering us answers at random the law of averages would have mandated you get something right by now. But astonishingly, you've managed to be perfectly wrong.

Equal protection my ass then why isn't group marriages legal? Why isn't polygamy legal? your argument doesn't hold water.

If you want group marriage, make your argument before the court. The issue they're ruling on now is gay marriage. And there's no valid reason to exclude gays. As the gender restrictions serve no valid legislative ends, no legitimate state interest or even have a good reason.

And a State needs all three. Which might explain the near perfect record of failure in gay marriage bans.

valid reason is butt sex is disgusting, unhealthy, and spreads disease.

Anal sex is neither illegal nor only in the gay community. Many heretosexual couples engage in anal sex.

On top of that, sodomy laws were struck down years ago. They were struck down as being unconstitutional. So the courts have ruled that anal sex is a constitutional right. It's not illegal to have anal or oral sex with your partner.

So trying to make anal sex depraved or illegal is against our constitution.

If you don't like anal sex no one is forcing you to engage in it. Nor is anyone engaging in it in public so no one has to see it.

Meanwhile straight couples freely walk around showing their affection and love to each other all the time. But I guess only straight couples have the right to hold their partner's hand or kiss them in public.

 

[Skylar]

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.

They lack the opportunity to marry someone of the same sex. Just like gay people.

Gays lack the right to marry someone they want to marry. Heterosexuals do not.

That is discrimination.

Wrong.
Just plain wrong. I wont even go into it, it's all over these stupid discussion.s

Ugh. You're just trolling the thread at this point. You have nothing to actually say.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If all men have the same right that's what normal people call equal.

Actually, that's what "normal" people call sexism.

Maybe you meant to say all people. Even then, your claim is demonstrably false, as seen in the example of racial segregation of marriage in times past. All people did not have the same right, despite the fact that all people had a right to marry a person of their own race. If the Congress passed a law that required all people to become members of an Islamic Mosque of their choosing, that would be a violation of people's rights. It would not be equality, despite the fact that all people who have the same "right" to be a member of an Islamic Mosque. It would, in fact, infringe upon those people who are not Muslim.

blahblahblahgaysarereallynegroesblahblahblah
Your originality here is stunning. Stunning in its lack.

Should segregated school systems be legal if states want them?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

They lack the opportunity to marry someone of the same sex. Just like gay people.

Gays lack the right to marry someone they want to marry. Heterosexuals do not.

That is discrimination.

Wrong.
Just plain wrong. I wont even go into it, it's all over these stupid discussion.s

Of course you won't- because you have only the losing argument that has been losing in almost every court that your argument has been made.

 

[dcraelin]

What's really sad here is that liberals, leftists are being sucked into support of law cases that
really could do long term damage to Democracy......because of an emotional reaction on one issue. An issue that they would likely win at the ballot box eventually anyway.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/data/photos/l/2/2480-1378315917-ae01c96fbc1d7f92f67d6e6e2e04c65b.jpg

 

[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?

Gay is not a race.
Fail.

I did not say that gay is a race. In fact, I did not connect race and sexual orientation at all. I simply compared the way discrimination against both would be the same if your rules were applied across the board.

Your fail is great.

 

[Skylar]

Romer v. Evans already found that the withholding rights from gays is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. 15 years ago.

Not when it comes to marriage specifically.

Why would marriage be any different than any other right? You keep making up these imaginary exclusions, caveats and restrictions that are complete bullshit.

You started by insisting that 14th amendment only applied to issues of race and citizenship. That was bullshit.

You then insisted that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to gays. That was bullshit.

And now you're insisting that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to marriage. The courts already applied it to marriage. So bullshit cubed.

Damn. If you'd been offering us answers at random the law of averages would have mandated you get something right by now. But astonishingly, you've managed to be perfectly wrong.

Equal protection my ass then why isn't group marriages legal? Why isn't polygamy legal? your argument doesn't hold water.

I can't believe you're so obtuse.

Because it's illegal for everyone to not marry a group of people. No one is getting something that some other person has been prevented for getting.

Everyone is free to marry the person, not people, they love.

It's very simple and logical but then you're a conservative and logic is evil to a conservative.

Same argument here: Every man is free to marry any woman (with some restrictions). Vice versa for women. Doesnt matter if youre gay or straight.
If gay marriage passes then even heterosexual men could marry each other.
That is not an example of discrimination. That is wanting to change the law. Gays failed to do it at the ballot box so decided to whine to the courts to get their way.

And as you know, the restrictions applied to same sex couples must meet constitutional muster. And it doesn't. It doesn't serve a legitimate state interest, it doesn't serve a valid legislative end, and it has no logical purpose.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

To those with an agenda it is a hot topic...To the majority of Americans, it is "please...Can we move on. We have things to do"...

 

[thereisnospoon]

Not when it comes to marriage specifically.

Why would marriage be any different than any other right? You keep making up these imaginary exclusions, caveats and restrictions that are complete bullshit.

You started by insisting that 14th amendment only applied to issues of race and citizenship. That was bullshit.

You then insisted that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to gays. That was bullshit.

And now you're insisting that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to marriage. The courts already applied it to marriage. So bullshit cubed.

Damn. If you'd been offering us answers at random the law of averages would have mandated you get something right by now. But astonishingly, you've managed to be perfectly wrong.

Equal protection my ass then why isn't group marriages legal? Why isn't polygamy legal? your argument doesn't hold water.

I can't believe you're so obtuse.

Because it's illegal for everyone to not marry a group of people. No one is getting something that some other person has been prevented for getting.

Everyone is free to marry the person, not people, they love.

It's very simple and logical but then you're a conservative and logic is evil to a conservative.

Same argument here: Every man is free to marry any woman (with some restrictions). Vice versa for women. Doesnt matter if youre gay or straight.
If gay marriage passes then even heterosexual men could marry each other.
That is not an example of discrimination. That is wanting to change the law. Gays failed to do it at the ballot box so decided to whine to the courts to get their way.

And as you know, the restrictions applied to same sex couples must meet constitutional muster. And it doesn't. It doesn't serve a legitimate state interest, it doesn't serve a valid legislative end, and it has no logical purpose.

That's an opinion

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

The people don't get a vote in this case, and never should have been allowed to.

You did not answer the questions

 

[Syriusly]

If all men have the same right that's what normal people call equal.

Actually, that's what "normal" people call sexism.

Maybe you meant to say all people. Even then, your claim is demonstrably false, as seen in the example of racial segregation of marriage in times past. All people did not have the same right, despite the fact that all people had a right to marry a person of their own race. If the Congress passed a law that required all people to become members of an Islamic Mosque of their choosing, that would be a violation of people's rights. It would not be equality, despite the fact that all people who have the same "right" to be a member of an Islamic Mosque. It would, in fact, infringe upon those people who are not Muslim.

I provided an example of how you're wrong. It is not sexism to recognize genders, that's not what the word means. It isn't sexist to have men's and women's restrooms, it's how society wants it and there's nothing in the Constitution to limit government from it. The rest of your post makes no sense for reasons already discussed, i.e. religion being protected as a right.

There is no law that requires restrooms seperated by gender. Nor is there any established right for every American to have a restroom.

But Americans do have a right to marriage. And laws that prevent them from marrying the person that they choose must be justified by the state- and so far, State's have not been able to provide any justification that stands up for denying same gender couples the right to marry.

 

[Skylar]

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?

Gay is not a race.
Fail.

I did not say that gay is a race. In fact, I did not connect race and sexual orientation at all. I simply compared the way discrimination against both would be the same if your rules were applied across the board.

Your fail is great.

Exactly as the courts did over and over between Romer and Windsor. With 4 cases involving racial discrimination being used to describe why certain discrimination against gays is unconstitutional.

Yet our local geniuses insist that any mention of race based cases is irrelevant to any issue of gay rights. The court obviously disagrees.

You can actually watch the gay marriage opponent's arguments dissolving into a bubbling puddle of stupid.

 

[thereisnospoon]

They can object, but just like their fight to keep Segregation alive, Alabama will be on the wrong side of history.

If gay people were fighting for the chance to go to school, Justice Moore would jump at the chance to stand in the doorway and block their entrance.

Yes...On planet liberal, of course he would....
Facepalm

 

[orogenicman]

Romer v. Evans already found that the withholding rights from gays is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. 15 years ago.

Not when it comes to marriage specifically.

Why would marriage be any different than any other right? You keep making up these imaginary exclusions, caveats and restrictions that are complete bullshit.

You started by insisting that 14th amendment only applied to issues of race and citizenship. That was bullshit.

You then insisted that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to gays. That was bullshit.

And now you're insisting that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to marriage. The courts already applied it to marriage. So bullshit cubed.

Damn. If you'd been offering us answers at random the law of averages would have mandated you get something right by now. But astonishingly, you've managed to be perfectly wrong.

Equal protection my ass then why isn't group marriages legal? Why isn't polygamy legal? your argument doesn't hold water.

I can't believe you're so obtuse.

Because it's illegal for everyone to not marry a group of people. No one is getting something that some other person has been prevented for getting.

Everyone is free to marry the person, not people, they love.

It's very simple and logical but then you're a conservative and logic is evil to a conservative.

Same argument here: Every man is free to marry any woman (with some restrictions). Vice versa for women. Doesnt matter if youre gay or straight.
If gay marriage passes then even heterosexual men could marry each other.
That is not an example of discrimination. That is wanting to change the law. Gays failed to do it at the ballot box so decided to whine to the courts to get their way.

Human rights are not a ballot box issue. They are a constitutional issue.

 

[Dana7360]

Because we don't have mob rule here. If we did you nuts would outlaw Islam, and the Catholics more than likely.

So you want to strip the citizens of their right to vote?

What if people vote to ban private ownership of guns?

Yeah, there are Constitutional protections that are not subject to vote.

Arms are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Marriage is not.

So why are so many types of arms banned, is that just wrong?

we don't have any gun laws in vermont. best/lowest crime rate too.

And you're wrong again.

You should have posted that Vermont has very few gun laws.

Vermont does have gun laws, just not as many as other states.

Gun laws in Vermont - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Gay is not a race.
Fail.

Note how Rabbi is unable to address the logic of the argument- so he evades it.

The language of homophobes like Rabbi is almost identical to the racists who fought against mixed race marriage. Rabbi desperately doesn't want to be equated with racists- but his argument is the same.

The arguments white supremacists used to justify for miscegenation laws--that interracial marriages were contrary to God's will or somehow unnatural--are echoed today by the most conservative opponents of same-sex marriage. And supporters of same-sex marriage base their cases on the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, echoing the position the U.S. Supreme Court took when it declared miscegenation laws unconstitutional in the case of Loving v. Virginia. Both sides confront the structures of marriage law exclusion that were also forged during the history of miscegenation, - See more at: History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

 

[Skylar]

Why would marriage be any different than any other right? You keep making up these imaginary exclusions, caveats and restrictions that are complete bullshit.

You started by insisting that 14th amendment only applied to issues of race and citizenship. That was bullshit.

You then insisted that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to gays. That was bullshit.

And now you're insisting that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to marriage. The courts already applied it to marriage. So bullshit cubed.

Damn. If you'd been offering us answers at random the law of averages would have mandated you get something right by now. But astonishingly, you've managed to be perfectly wrong.

Equal protection my ass then why isn't group marriages legal? Why isn't polygamy legal? your argument doesn't hold water.

I can't believe you're so obtuse.

Because it's illegal for everyone to not marry a group of people. No one is getting something that some other person has been prevented for getting.

Everyone is free to marry the person, not people, they love.

It's very simple and logical but then you're a conservative and logic is evil to a conservative.

Same argument here: Every man is free to marry any woman (with some restrictions). Vice versa for women. Doesnt matter if youre gay or straight.
If gay marriage passes then even heterosexual men could marry each other.
That is not an example of discrimination. That is wanting to change the law. Gays failed to do it at the ballot box so decided to whine to the courts to get their way.

And as you know, the restrictions applied to same sex couples must meet constitutional muster. And it doesn't. It doesn't serve a legitimate state interest, it doesn't serve a valid legislative end, and it has no logical purpose.

That's an opinion

That a law restricting rights must serve a legitimate state interest, i a valid legislative end, and have a valid reason isn't 'opinion'. Its the finding of Romer v. Evans. That the marriage restrictions must meet constitutional muster isn't opinion. Its the finding of Loving V. Virginia.