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

[Syriusly]

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.

LOL.....I don't even know how to begin to point out ignorant that statement is.

Or maybe you think that humans work like electricity- that we pass positive and negative charges through each other?

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

No they are being struck down by activist judges ignoring both the will of the people and the constitution.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

I have no problem with that. But until those laws ARE abolished, the equal protection clause means same sex marriages should be legal. And the reason the federal courts are ruling on it is that someone challenged the laws in court.

You go right ahead and challenge the laws on behalf of single people.

 

[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.

No because blacks can and do impregnate whites.
Men can't impregnate men.

So marriage should only be allowed if pregnancy is possible?

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

No they are being struck down by activist judges ignoring both the will of the people and the constitution.

The US Constitution is in favor of equal protection. The will of the people cannot over-ride that.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

Ever hear of the 14th amendment, or the equal protection clause?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

No they are being struck down by activist judges ignoring both the will of the people and the constitution.

Well we all know what Conservatives mean when they say 'activist judges'- judges they disagree with.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

LOL.....I don't even know how to begin to point out ignorant that statement is.

Or maybe you think that humans work like electricity- that we pass positive and negative charges through each other?

yes I do. Men are half, they struggle to find their other half, woman before they are whole. Nothing to do with religion. Everything to do with nature.

 

[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.

You didn't answer my question.

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

Ever hear of the 14th amendment, or the equal protection clause?

They are equally allowed to marry the opposite sex. Thus the 14th amendment doesn't apply.

 

[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.

We need to go back to the good old days.

So you want to go back to the 'good old days' of Coverture- where the wife becomes the property of the husband.

This doesn't shock me at all.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

So you don't believe in Democracy?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Ever hear of the 14th amendment, or the equal protection clause?

They are equally allowed to marry the opposite sex. Thus the 14th amendment doesn't apply.

Yes it does.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

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

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

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.

So you think states could get away with denying drivers licenses to homosexuals.

You're mental.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

I look forward to the Conservative push to do away with marriage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Your posts are an excellent example of why it's been a good decision for the American people not to turn over our judicial system to anonymous armchair judges on the internet.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

Ever hear of the 14th amendment, or the equal protection clause?

They are equally allowed to marry the opposite sex. Thus the 14th amendment doesn't apply.

Absolutely, it does.

the 14th amendment forbids states from denying any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Iceweasel]

the 14th amendment forbids states from denying any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Marriage isn't a person.

 

[Dana7360]

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

Not when it comes to marriage specifically.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

It's legal for a man to marry ONE woman. Not a group.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Poor Rabbi...such a stale, stale argument. I didn't work in 1967 and its not working now.

There are only 13 states left that do not have marriage equality, but that ends in June (Just ask Thomas and Scalia, they'll tell you).

Many gays are marrying people of the opposite gender? Yeah, how many is many? Cite your source.

Argument 2. Again.
You are so tiresome.

Do you really think there are no homosexual men married to women? Leonard Bernstein is a great example.

Of course there were and still are a few, but it's hardly "many". Gays used to marry people to hide or deny their orientation. It's the 21st century, they don't have to. Hope that causes you much consternation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

the 14th amendment forbids states from denying any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Marriage isn't a person.

Equal protection means that you cannot deny one group of persons something that you offer to others, provided the conditions are sufficiently similar.

Same sex marriage is sufficiently similar to opposite sex marriage, therefore same sex couples are are entitled to equal protection under those marriage laws.

Marriage is a legal contract between two adults.