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

[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.

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.

Since there is no mention of children in any marriage laws I have seen, and since gays can propagate the species with help from technology, your point is inaccurate.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Then same sex marriage is legal in every state? If no, then obviously something is being restricted.

You can pretend otherwise.....but we're not obligated to pretend with you. And the courts certainly won't.

 

[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?

Nature made it so.

So if a male or female is infertile since birth, they should be banned from ever being married?

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

Show me in the constitution where Marriage is defined as a human right.
Don't wave the 14th amendment that dog has already been disproven.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

You are using electrical plugs and outlets to determine what is natural? lmao

 

[orogenicman]

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.

It has everything to do with human rights.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Show me in the constitution where Marriage is defined as a human right.
Don't wave the 14th amendment that dog has already been disproven.

Funny, the 14th has not been disproven according to the federal courts.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

It has to do with how biology made things work. Nature.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Almost no states have legalized gay marriage It has been imposed on them by an acitivist judiciary undermining the wll of the people. If people actually voted for that crap I could accept it. as legitimate.

So you accept same-sex marriage since it has already passed as a ballot initiative in some states?


BTW - 12 Jurisdictions have passed SSCM based on legislative action and/or at the ballot.


>>>>

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

Then same sex marriage is legal in every state? If no, then obviously something is being restricted.

You can pretend otherwise.....but we're not obligated to pretend with you. And the courts certainly won't.

If left up to the voters it wouldn't be.
Don't you believe in Democracy?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Marriage is gender blind now in many ways now that it wasn't before.

Marriage used to be very gender defined- women virtually became the property of her husband when she married- she gave up control of her own legal decisions- it was called coverture

Once she married, however, her legal existence as an individual was suspended under “marital unity,” a legal fiction in which the husband and wife were considered a single entity: the husband. The husband exercised almost exclusive power and responsibility and rarely had to consult his wife to make decisions about property matters. Coverture rendered a woman unable to sue or be sued on her own behalf or to execute a will without her husband’s consent and, unless some prior specific provision separating a woman’s property from her husband’s had been made, stripped a woman of control over real and personal property.

Coverture laws no longer exist- women exist in marriages now as equals- in essence within modern marriage there is no gender distinction- there is no 'male role' or 'female role'- spouses are legal partners.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

So if a male or female is infertile since birth, they should be banned from ever being married?

Maybe. There is no valid purpose to get married if they are infertile. They can simply cohabitate.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

It has to do with how biology made things work. Nature.

Speaking of biology, I don't suppose you know that same gender sexual encounters are routine in the natural world. Many species engage in it. You didn't know this? Huh.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

Show me in the constitution where Marriage is defined as a human right.
Don't wave the 14th amendment that dog has already been disproven.

Funny, the 14th has not been disproven according to the federal courts.

It is clearly a 14th Amendment issue. That was a preemptive attempt to cover up one of his/her weak links.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

Show me in the constitution where Marriage is defined as a human right.
Don't wave the 14th amendment that dog has already been disproven.

Funny, the 14th has not been disproven according to the federal courts.

What has been proven is that marriage is not a right therefore the 14th amendment has nothing to do with marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

In 1967 your argument would be:

Conservatives are consistent because they recognize the two different races. Blacks live a lie and pretend race has no meaning of consequence.

 

[Slyhunter]

Almost no states have legalized gay marriage It has been imposed on them by an acitivist judiciary undermining the wll of the people. If people actually voted for that crap I could accept it. as legitimate.

So you accept same-sex marriage since it has already passed as a ballot initiative in some states?


BTW - 12 Jurisdictions have passed SSCM based legislative action and/or at the ballot.


>>>>

Only in those states where the majority has ruled it so.
States rights.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Show me in the constitution where Marriage is defined as a human right.
Don't wave the 14th amendment that dog has already been disproven.

Funny, the 14th has not been disproven according to the federal courts.

What has been proven is that marriage is not a right therefore the 14th amendment has nothing to do with marriage.

It has everything to do with marriage. The Equal Protection Clause is the basis for the federal courts ruling against the laws banning same-sex marriages.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

So if a male or female is infertile since birth, they should be banned from ever being married?

Maybe. There is no valid purpose to get married if they are infertile. They can simply cohabitate.

And that denies them the opportunity to file joint income taxes, make end of life decisions, be the beneficiary on many financial instruments , etc ... - sorry - that's NOT equal.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Then same sex marriage is legal in every state? If no, then obviously something is being restricted.

You can pretend otherwise.....but we're not obligated to pretend with you. And the courts certainly won't.

If left up to the voters it wouldn't be.
Don't you believe in Democracy?

So if the voters in your state vote to ban gun ownership- that would be the will of the voters, and you would support that?

If not- don't you believe in Democracy?