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

[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.

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.

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 every opportunity to 'build' a family except for getting married to each other.

They can have children the exact same ways that millions of straight couples have children. And they can not have children in the exact same way that millions of straight married couples do not.

What they want is what the Supreme Court has recognized:

Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

 

[Syriusly]

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

Two dudes being a family is quite a stretch of the imagination, they didn't say that, you are pretending it's applicable. If it's going to have a loosey goosey interpretation to be whatever the individuals want where are the boundaries? That's the fundamental problem with the gay marriage argument, they want the goal posts moved to include like genders, when no state had it defined that way, but yet, limit it to two people because it's traditional. It makes no sense.

Yet none of the Supreme Court decisions on marriage are gender specific at all.

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

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.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

In Meyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

In Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Just like any white man was free to marry someone of the same race.
And many of them were.

The same argument- the only difference is that in one case the restriction is on race, and the other is based upon gender/sexual preference.

 

[TheOldSchool]

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

Oh yeah because it's so out of the question. That would never happen

 

[Syriusly]

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.

View attachment 36700

Conservatives argue using facts and logic.
Libs use cartoons and snark.

I have yet to see you use facts or logic.

Here are facts- marriage is a right, recognized by the Supreme Court:

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose 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.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

 

[Dana7360]

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.

You're free to believe that all you want.

However what you believe means absolutely nothing.

What means something is our constitution and our supreme court.

The supreme court ruled decades ago that marriage is a right so you can spout all the nonsense you want. You're perfectly free to do that. However intelligent people are just as free to mock you and treat you as the uneducated fool you are.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

No the point is to limit it to those who can propagate the species.

 

[Slyhunter]

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?

Nature made it so.

 

[Slyhunter]

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?

No, mother nature made it so races could commingle and still produce offspring. She did not make it so same gender could do so.

 

[Skylar]

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.

No the point is to limit it to those who can propagate the species.

That's not marriage in our country. As the infertile are allowed to marry or remain married by the millions. As are those who choose to have no children.

Elegantly establishing that there is a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

 

[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.

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?

No, mother nature made it so races could commingle and still produce offspring. She did not make it so same gender could do so.

What you're describing is just fucking. Marriage is our invention. And it is whatever we say it is.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

It's legal for all men to marry women whether they are gay or not.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

Marriage is not a right. Just like a drivers license is not a right.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

It has nothing to do with human rights.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Marriage is not a right. Just like a drivers license is not a right.

Says you. The courts clearly disagree. And in a discussion of what constitutes a right under our system of law, the courts are authoritative. Your opinion isn't.

 

[Slyhunter]

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

Fuck God, not part of my argument.
Plug two male plugs together and see how that works. It doesn't. How about two female sockets together, again doesn't transport electricity when you try it. Thus it isn't natural.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

No rights are being restricted.

 

[Skylar]

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

Fuck God, not part of my argument.
Plug two male plugs together and see how that works. It doesn't. How about two female sockets together, again doesn't transport electricity when you try it. Thus it isn't natural.

Who cares? Blow jobs aren't 'natural' by that standards. Neither are hand jobs. Neither is sex after menopause. Or any form of sexual intercourse for the infertile. Or masturbation.

What does that have to do with marriage?

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

Just like any white man was free to marry someone of the same race.
And many of them were.

The same argument- the only difference is that in one case the restriction is on race, and the other is based upon gender/sexual preference.

The difference is, is that nature has made possible races to commingle and produce offspring but has not made it possible for same sex's to do so. Thus unnatural.

 

[orogenicman]

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?

No, mother nature made it so races could commingle and still produce offspring. She did not make it so same gender could do so.

Erm, what? Same gender sexual encounters happen all the time in nature. There is nothing unusual or abnormal about it.