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

[Slyhunter]

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?

No where in the constitution does it state love as a requirement for marriage.

 

[SwimExpert]

When husbands could beat their wives

Just as long as the stick isn't bigger than his thumb.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

No one is making laws requiring same sex marriages. We are simply allowing same sex marriages.

And if we are do not allow same sex marriage because, as you suggest, they are unnatural, then we should not allow shaving, coloring hair, makeup, clothing or any surgeries either.

 

[Slyhunter]

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?

No because it ignores the fact that they can impregnate one another.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

No its all about propagating the species.

 

[WinterBorn]

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?

No where in the constitution does it state love as a requirement for marriage.

No where in any law does it state that procreation is a requirement or reason for marriage. But you insist it is the reason.

People get married because they love each other.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

No one is making laws requiring same sex marriages. We are simply allowing same sex marriages.

And if we are do not allow same sex marriage because, as you suggest, they are unnatural, then we should not allow shaving, coloring hair, makeup, clothing or any surgeries either.

I'm just saying it isn't a right. If individual states wish to make it legal they are free to do so. They should also be free to make it illegal since it doesn't involve anyones rights.

 

[WinterBorn]

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?

No because it ignores the fact that they can impregnate one another.

Impregnating is never mentioned in any of the reasons why the courts struck down laws against interracial marriages. That is something you invented to hold on to your prejudices.

 

[Slyhunter]

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?

No where in the constitution does it state love as a requirement for marriage.

No where in any law does it state that procreation is a requirement or reason for marriage. But you insist it is the reason.

People get married because they love each other.

The law doesn't care why they get married.
Nature cares about propagating the species and trumps law.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

No one is making laws requiring same sex marriages. We are simply allowing same sex marriages.

And if we are do not allow same sex marriage because, as you suggest, they are unnatural, then we should not allow shaving, coloring hair, makeup, clothing or any surgeries either.

I'm just saying it isn't a right. If individual states wish to make it legal they are free to do so. They should also be free to make it illegal since it doesn't involve anyones rights.

And they are required to abide by the US Constitution, which includes the 14th amendment and the Equal Protection Clause.

 

[SwimExpert]

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

So, when monkeys pick the lice of each other, that's not natural behavior?

 

[WinterBorn]

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?

No where in the constitution does it state love as a requirement for marriage.

No where in any law does it state that procreation is a requirement or reason for marriage. But you insist it is the reason.

People get married because they love each other.

The law doesn't care why they get married.
Nature cares about propagating the species and trumps law.

No, nature does not trump the law where marriage is concerned. Marriage is a man-made institution. And as long as the federal, state and local gov'ts bestow +/- 1,400 benefits on married couples, they are required to do so in an equal manner.

 

[orogenicman]

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?

No where in the constitution does it state love as a requirement for marriage.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

No one is making laws requiring same sex marriages. We are simply allowing same sex marriages.

And if we are do not allow same sex marriage because, as you suggest, they are unnatural, then we should not allow shaving, coloring hair, makeup, clothing or any surgeries either.

I'm just saying it isn't a right. If individual states wish to make it legal they are free to do so. They should also be free to make it illegal since it doesn't involve anyones rights.

And they are required to abide by the US Constitution, which includes the 14th amendment and the Equal Protection Clause.

They are equally protected.
They just can't have same sex marriages in some states. It doesn't mean they aren't equally protected.

 

[WinterBorn]

'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.

No its all about propagating the species.

No it is not. No where in any marriage laws I have seen is there any mention of propagating the species.

 

[orogenicman]

'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.

No its all about propagating the species.

You don't have to be married to propagate the species. You didn't know this? Huh.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

No one is making laws requiring same sex marriages. We are simply allowing same sex marriages.

And if we are do not allow same sex marriage because, as you suggest, they are unnatural, then we should not allow shaving, coloring hair, makeup, clothing or any surgeries either.

I'm just saying it isn't a right. If individual states wish to make it legal they are free to do so. They should also be free to make it illegal since it doesn't involve anyones rights.

And they are required to abide by the US Constitution, which includes the 14th amendment and the Equal Protection Clause.

They are equally protected.
They just can't have same sex marriages in some states. It doesn't mean they aren't equally protected.

It absolutely does. That is why the laws against same sex marriages are being struck down.

 

[Slyhunter]

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?

No where in the constitution does it state love as a requirement for marriage.

No where in any law does it state that procreation is a requirement or reason for marriage. But you insist it is the reason.

People get married because they love each other.

The law doesn't care why they get married.
Nature cares about propagating the species and trumps law.

No, nature does not trump the law where marriage is concerned. Marriage is a man-made institution. And as long as the federal, state and local gov'ts bestow +/- 1,400 benefits on married couples, they are required to do so in an equal manner.

They should abolish those 1400 benefits because they are violating the equal rights and protection of single people.

 

[Slyhunter]

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?

No where in the constitution does it state love as a requirement for marriage.

You didn't answer my question.

I'm not the one making the call, the constitution is.

 

[AceRothstein]

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.

Dumbest thing posted in this thread and you've said a lot of other stupid shit.