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

[WinterBorn]

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.

'Proven' by whom and how?

The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that marriage is indeed a right.

Let me 'prove' that to you- though I am confident you will still pretend that there is no 'right' to marriage

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"

Any man is free to marry any consenting legal woman. Thus it is equal. Thus the 14th amendment does not apply. Showing what liberal activist judges have stated doesn't disprove that simple cold hearted logic.

By that logic, the ruling against interracial marriage was wrong as well. Since every race was prevented from marrying a member of another race. Obviously you are mistaken.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

Because Animals sometimes do something that is unnatural doesn't make it natural.

That it occurs in many species in their natural habitat pretty much makes it natural.

no it doesn't.
If they are born with two heads it doesn't automatically make being born with two heads natural.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

So you think electrical sockets were designed by nature?

 

[Slyhunter]

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?

The right to bear arms is established in the constitution.
The right to marry isn't.

But the right to equal protection under the law is certainly established by the constitution.

Right any legal man can marry any consenting legal woman. thus they are equal.

 

[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.

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.

That not only has nothing to do with my statement

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

Racists used your same argument to argue against mixed race marriages- 'unnatural'

The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.

- See more at: History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

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.

 

[SwimExpert]

Because Animals sometimes do something that is unnatural doesn't make it natural.

So if animals don't do it....it's unnatural.
But if animals do do it.....it's unnatural unless you give it your stamp of approval.

Four legs good, two legs better!

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Because Animals sometimes do something that is unnatural doesn't make it natural.

It is perfectly natural for a mother to abandon her offspring if they are defective in any way. It is natural for a father to kill any newborn offspring that are not his. It is unnatural to shave your face or legs, color your hair, wear makeup, wear clothing, or have any surgery. Shall we outlaw those things as well?

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

There is no valid reason to not allow same sex couples to get married. You don't get to choose for another who they love or how they express it to each other.

There is no valid reason to allow them to get married. Simply being in love is not a valid reason for marriage.

 

[Dana7360]

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?

The thing is it was up to the voters of my state.

It was on the ballot in 2012. The majority of the people voted to make gay marriage legal so it's been legal in Washington state since 2012.

Obviously you don't believe in democracy.

Wanna try another lie?

 

[orogenicman]

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.

Multiple courts disagree with you- hence the reason this is going to the Supreme Court.

Actually, the courts agree with me. It is the plaintiffs (in this case, the sate of Ala that are appealing it to the Supreme Court.

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.

Because Animals sometimes do something that is unnatural doesn't make it natural.

That it occurs in many species in their natural habitat pretty much makes it natural.

no it doesn't.
If they are born with two heads it doesn't automatically make being born with two heads natural.

That is a poor analogy. care to try again?

 

[WinterBorn]

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?

The right to bear arms is established in the constitution.
The right to marry isn't.

The right of equal protection under the law is established by the constitution as well.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

There is no valid reason to not allow same sex couples to get married. You don't get to choose for another who they love or how they express it to each other.

There is no valid reason to allow them to get married. Simply being in love is not a valid reason for marriage.

And you get to make that call, because?

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

'Proven' by whom and how?

The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that marriage is indeed a right.

Let me 'prove' that to you- though I am confident you will still pretend that there is no 'right' to marriage

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"

Any man is free to marry any consenting legal woman. Thus it is equal. Thus the 14th amendment does not apply. Showing what liberal activist judges have stated doesn't disprove that simple cold hearted logic.

By that logic, the ruling against interracial marriage was wrong as well. Since every race was prevented from marrying a member of another race. Obviously you are mistaken.

No, because it ignores the fact that blacks can impregnate whites and visa versa.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

So you think electrical sockets were designed by nature?

I think the laws that make electricity work and that went into the design of plugs and sockets that controlled the requirement and the need for plugs and sockets as being natural.

 

[WinterBorn]

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?

The right to bear arms is established in the constitution.
The right to marry isn't.

But the right to equal protection under the law is certainly established by the constitution.

Right any legal man can marry any consenting legal woman. thus they are equal.

So not allowing interracial marriage, since no one was allowed to marry another race, is equal?

 

[Syriusly]

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?

The right to bear arms is established in the constitution.
The right to marry isn't.

.

So you don't believe in Democracy- when it comes to guns.

But you do believe in Democracy when it comes to other rights.

 

[Slyhunter]

Because Animals sometimes do something that is unnatural doesn't make it natural.

So if animals don't do it....it's unnatural.
But if animals do do it.....it's unnatural unless you give it your stamp of approval.

Four legs good, two legs better!

If it doesn't propagate the species it is not natural.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

Because Animals sometimes do something that is unnatural doesn't make it natural.

It is perfectly natural for a mother to abandon her offspring if they are defective in any way. It is natural for a father to kill any newborn offspring that are not his. It is unnatural to shave your face or legs, color your hair, wear makeup, wear clothing, or have any surgery. Shall we outlaw those things as well?

No, but neither should we specifically make laws that make them required because none of those things are rights.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

'Proven' by whom and how?

The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that marriage is indeed a right.

Let me 'prove' that to you- though I am confident you will still pretend that there is no 'right' to marriage

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"

Any man is free to marry any consenting legal woman. Thus it is equal. Thus the 14th amendment does not apply. Showing what liberal activist judges have stated doesn't disprove that simple cold hearted logic.

By that logic, the ruling against interracial marriage was wrong as well. Since every race was prevented from marrying a member of another race. Obviously you are mistaken.

No, because it ignores the fact that blacks can impregnate whites and visa versa.

No, that is not what you said. Your claim is that since any man can marry any consenting woman, it is equal. So, by that logic, if no man is allowed to marry any woman of another race, laws against interracial marriages are all about equality.

 

[Slyhunter]

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?

The right to bear arms is established in the constitution.
The right to marry isn't.

The right of equal protection under the law is established by the constitution as well.

They are equally allowed to propagate the species.