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

[Iceweasel]

Marriage isn't a person.

Strawman. No one ever said marriage is a person.

So what else have you got?

You just defeated your argument then. The gays definitely were pretending marriage was a person and needed to be protected Constitutionally like a race. I've said all along it was bunk.

No they weren't. And I defy you to show us any argument argued in any federal court where the 'marriage is a person' idiocy was uttered by anyone.

You'll find you're only quoting yourself. And you don't know what you're talking about.

This isn't a federal court Goofus, I was talking about the arguments here. You're trying to treat a relationship like a person by claiming it was an equal protection issue.

And who here has argued that a marriage is a person, Goofus?

So far there is you.....and you. And you have done a great job of kicking the stuffing out of that strawman. As nobody but you is making that argument.

Wrong, you guys are pretending it's about equality. All men being treated the same is equality. That's what the word means. Sexual preferences are not racial or religious in nature so there is not unequal treatment if a state doesn't recognize your relationship.

 

[Syriusly]

...Also I notice you said 2 people, why is that? Why not 3 or 4 or more? Why can't their marriage be a valid to them as it is with 2 women? Just admit it, it's all about changing marriage to what gays want, it's got zip to do with the constitution.

And zip to do with "marriage equality". If it did, the LGBT cult wouldn't be pretending so hard not to notice their legal first cousins, the polygamists. They'll embrace them with wide open arms the minute any federal-mandate ink is dry. But for now they're keeping a conspicuous distance from them.

Not to mention that we wouldn't be here in the year 2015 yet to be heard in the high court if it really was a Constitutional issue. That ship would have sailed long ago.

It's all about political pressure, they're just too fucking morally corrupt to admit it.

Yeah....because of course its not a Constitutional issue until the Supreme Court makes a final decision.....

 

[Syriusly]

Strawman. No one ever said marriage is a person.

So what else have you got?

You just defeated your argument then. The gays definitely were pretending marriage was a person and needed to be protected Constitutionally like a race. I've said all along it was bunk.

No they weren't. And I defy you to show us any argument argued in any federal court where the 'marriage is a person' idiocy was uttered by anyone.

You'll find you're only quoting yourself. And you don't know what you're talking about.

This isn't a federal court Goofus, I was talking about the arguments here. You're trying to treat a relationship like a person by claiming it was an equal protection issue.

And who here has argued that a marriage is a person, Goofus?

So far there is you.....and you. And you have done a great job of kicking the stuffing out of that strawman. As nobody but you is making that argument.

Wrong, you guys are pretending it's about equality. All men being treated the same is equality. That's what the word means. Sexual preferences are not racial or religious in nature so there is not unequal treatment if a state doesn't recognize your relationship.

Sexual preferences are not race and race is not religion and religion is not a sexual preference.

But it is unequal treatment to treat someone different based upon their sexual orientation, or religion, or race.

It is by definition.

 

[Iceweasel]

Marriage isn't a person.

Strawman. No one ever said marriage is a person.

So what else have you got?

You just defeated your argument then. The gays definitely were pretending marriage was a person and needed to be protected Constitutionally like a race. I've said all along it was bunk.

No- that is just your bizarre strawman.

Americans have a right to marriage- even the gay Americans you despise.

LOL. You guys are amazing. Only several years ago every major political candidate supported traditional marriage. Same with states, even California. Now you malicious assholes are trying to label everyone that supports traditional marriage as despising gays. You're deranged.

Why else would someone be against same sex marriage? It does not effect anyone else in any way.

And "just a few years ago"? It was "just a few years ago" that gays lost their jobs of someone found out they were gay, and they were often beaten up just for being gay.

Oh shut the fuck up. We are talking about marriage, not hanging queers by their balls. So all those Democrats were intolerant homophobes to you huh? I, like the majority of Americans, think we have the right to define marriages. The male/female union has always been the foundation, we reserve the right to recognize genders for what they are and prefer to not pretend genders are irrelevant.

 

[Iceweasel]

...Also I notice you said 2 people, why is that? Why not 3 or 4 or more? Why can't their marriage be a valid to them as it is with 2 women? Just admit it, it's all about changing marriage to what gays want, it's got zip to do with the constitution.

And zip to do with "marriage equality". If it did, the LGBT cult wouldn't be pretending so hard not to notice their legal first cousins, the polygamists. They'll embrace them with wide open arms the minute any federal-mandate ink is dry. But for now they're keeping a conspicuous distance from them.

Not to mention that we wouldn't be here in the year 2015 yet to be heard in the high court if it really was a Constitutional issue. That ship would have sailed long ago.

It's all about political pressure, they're just too fucking morally corrupt to admit it.

Yeah....because of course its not a Constitutional issue until the Supreme Court makes a final decision.....

So no one thought to bring it up before?

 

[Seawytch]

Marriage isn't a person.

Strawman. No one ever said marriage is a person.

So what else have you got?

You just defeated your argument then. The gays definitely were pretending marriage was a person and needed to be protected Constitutionally like a race. I've said all along it was bunk.

No- that is just your bizarre strawman.

Americans have a right to marriage- even the gay Americans you despise.

LOL. You guys are amazing. Only several years ago every major political candidate supported traditional marriage. Same with states, even California. Now you malicious assholes are trying to label everyone that supports traditional marriage as despising gays. You're deranged.

Why else would someone be against same sex marriage? It does not effect anyone else in any way.

And "just a few years ago"? It was "just a few years ago" that gays lost their jobs of someone found out they were gay, and they were often beaten up just for being gay.

It was just a few years ago that blacks could not marry whites.

 

[Skylar]

Strawman. No one ever said marriage is a person.

So what else have you got?

You just defeated your argument then. The gays definitely were pretending marriage was a person and needed to be protected Constitutionally like a race. I've said all along it was bunk.

No they weren't. And I defy you to show us any argument argued in any federal court where the 'marriage is a person' idiocy was uttered by anyone.

You'll find you're only quoting yourself. And you don't know what you're talking about.

This isn't a federal court Goofus, I was talking about the arguments here. You're trying to treat a relationship like a person by claiming it was an equal protection issue.

And who here has argued that a marriage is a person, Goofus?

So far there is you.....and you. And you have done a great job of kicking the stuffing out of that strawman. As nobody but you is making that argument.

Wrong, you guys are pretending it's about equality. All men being treated the same is equality. That's what the word means. Sexual preferences are not racial or religious in nature so there is not unequal treatment if a state doesn't recognize your relationship.

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to quote anyone arguing that marriage is a person.

Unless you're completely talking out of your ass. In which cases you'll continue to give us excuses why you can't cite anyone making such a brain dead argument but yourself.

 

[Seawytch]

You just defeated your argument then. The gays definitely were pretending marriage was a person and needed to be protected Constitutionally like a race. I've said all along it was bunk.

No they weren't. And I defy you to show us any argument argued in any federal court where the 'marriage is a person' idiocy was uttered by anyone.

You'll find you're only quoting yourself. And you don't know what you're talking about.

This isn't a federal court Goofus, I was talking about the arguments here. You're trying to treat a relationship like a person by claiming it was an equal protection issue.

And who here has argued that a marriage is a person, Goofus?

So far there is you.....and you. And you have done a great job of kicking the stuffing out of that strawman. As nobody but you is making that argument.

Wrong, you guys are pretending it's about equality. All men being treated the same is equality. That's what the word means. Sexual preferences are not racial or religious in nature so there is not unequal treatment if a state doesn't recognize your relationship.

Sexual preferences are not race and race is not religion and religion is not a sexual preference.

But it is unequal treatment to treat someone different based upon their sexual orientation, or religion, or race.

It is by definition.

Discrimination based on animus with no rational basis is the same regardless of the target.

 

[WinterBorn]

Strawman. No one ever said marriage is a person.

So what else have you got?

You just defeated your argument then. The gays definitely were pretending marriage was a person and needed to be protected Constitutionally like a race. I've said all along it was bunk.

No- that is just your bizarre strawman.

Americans have a right to marriage- even the gay Americans you despise.

LOL. You guys are amazing. Only several years ago every major political candidate supported traditional marriage. Same with states, even California. Now you malicious assholes are trying to label everyone that supports traditional marriage as despising gays. You're deranged.

Why else would someone be against same sex marriage? It does not effect anyone else in any way.

And "just a few years ago"? It was "just a few years ago" that gays lost their jobs of someone found out they were gay, and they were often beaten up just for being gay.

Oh shut the fuck up. We are talking about marriage, not hanging queers by their balls. So all those Democrats were intolerant homophobes to you huh? I, like the majority of Americans, think we have the right to define marriages. The male/female union has always been the foundation, we reserve the right to recognize genders for what they are and prefer to not pretend genders are irrelevant.

Sorry, I don't shut up just because you have issues.

And if you would like to remove the +/- 1,400 benefits that straight married couples enjoy from federal state and local gov'ts, there would be no lack of equal protection under the law. Try doing that.

Otherwise, get used to same sex marriages. It shouldn't be difficult. They don't change your marriage at all.

 

[Syriusly]

Strawman. No one ever said marriage is a person.

So what else have you got?

You just defeated your argument then. The gays definitely were pretending marriage was a person and needed to be protected Constitutionally like a race. I've said all along it was bunk.

No- that is just your bizarre strawman.

Americans have a right to marriage- even the gay Americans you despise.

LOL. You guys are amazing. Only several years ago every major political candidate supported traditional marriage. Same with states, even California. Now you malicious assholes are trying to label everyone that supports traditional marriage as despising gays. You're deranged.

Why else would someone be against same sex marriage? It does not effect anyone else in any way.

And "just a few years ago"? It was "just a few years ago" that gays lost their jobs of someone found out they were gay, and they were often beaten up just for being gay.

It was just a few years ago that blacks could not marry whites.

Up until 15 years ago Alabama law still said that blacks could not marry whites.

 

[Syriusly]

...Also I notice you said 2 people, why is that? Why not 3 or 4 or more? Why can't their marriage be a valid to them as it is with 2 women? Just admit it, it's all about changing marriage to what gays want, it's got zip to do with the constitution.

And zip to do with "marriage equality". If it did, the LGBT cult wouldn't be pretending so hard not to notice their legal first cousins, the polygamists. They'll embrace them with wide open arms the minute any federal-mandate ink is dry. But for now they're keeping a conspicuous distance from them.

Not to mention that we wouldn't be here in the year 2015 yet to be heard in the high court if it really was a Constitutional issue. That ship would have sailed long ago.

It's all about political pressure, they're just too fucking morally corrupt to admit it.

Yeah....because of course its not a Constitutional issue until the Supreme Court makes a final decision.....

So no one thought to bring it up before?

If there is any case at all- the first one will be the first one.

Loving v. Virginia was the first case regarding mixed race marriage the Supreme Court heard.
Zablocki v. Rehail was the first marriage case regarding the right to marry if someone owes child support.

The first case regarding same gender marriage to reach the Supreme Court, they let the ruling stand that it was unconstitutional.
As they have for every case that has ruled that same gender marriage bans are unconstitutional that has reached them.

Now one Appellate Court has said that same gender marriage bans are okay- the Supreme Court will now review the issue- but every opportunity before that- the Supreme Court didn't think that there was any Constitutional issue the court needed to address-they left the lower courts ruling stand- and that is why same gender marriage is legal in most of the United States.

 

[WinterBorn]

You just defeated your argument then. The gays definitely were pretending marriage was a person and needed to be protected Constitutionally like a race. I've said all along it was bunk.

No- that is just your bizarre strawman.

Americans have a right to marriage- even the gay Americans you despise.

LOL. You guys are amazing. Only several years ago every major political candidate supported traditional marriage. Same with states, even California. Now you malicious assholes are trying to label everyone that supports traditional marriage as despising gays. You're deranged.

Why else would someone be against same sex marriage? It does not effect anyone else in any way.

And "just a few years ago"? It was "just a few years ago" that gays lost their jobs of someone found out they were gay, and they were often beaten up just for being gay.

It was just a few years ago that blacks could not marry whites.

Up until 15 years ago Alabama law still said that blacks could not marry whites.

And when they voted to remove the laws against interracial marriage, 40% voted against it.

 

[washamericom]

++++++++

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.

man.. i gotta say... you are right out of central casting.... awesome
the darwin guy,,, just what this board needed

 

[Silhouette]

Now one Appellate Court has said that same gender marriage bans are okay- the Supreme Court will now review the issue- but every opportunity before that- the Supreme Court didn't think that there was any Constitutional issue the court needed to address-they left the lower courts ruling stand- and that is why same gender marriage is legal in most of the United States.

No, since there was no Decision on the merits of the cases they let stand, they could not have possibly made a constitutional Ruling on them. However, you are correct in that they are undermining state laws and their own Findings in Windsor via attrition by this little "procedural trick". And hence the reason Judge Roy Moore is standing his ground.

Shadow-Rulings aren't allowed by SCOTUS. Interim law says states get to Decide. Windsor said that 56 times.

 

[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.

It's a legal transaction between 2 adults. If you deny that to two adults of the same sex, you have committed discrimination.

At that point you have to prove there is a compelling state interest in perpetrating such a discrimination that justifies it.

Exactly! Marriage is a transaction between individuals, it's not a person so it can't have the protections of a person. Also I notice you said 2 people, why is that? Why not 3 or 4 or more? Why can't their marriage be a valid to them as it is with 2 women? Just admit it, it's all about changing marriage to what gays want, it's got zip to do with the constitution.

Can you refuse to rent your properties to a woman? to a black couple? to a gay couple?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Strawman. No one ever said marriage is a person.

So what else have you got?

You just defeated your argument then. The gays definitely were pretending marriage was a person and needed to be protected Constitutionally like a race. I've said all along it was bunk.

No they weren't. And I defy you to show us any argument argued in any federal court where the 'marriage is a person' idiocy was uttered by anyone.

You'll find you're only quoting yourself. And you don't know what you're talking about.

This isn't a federal court Goofus, I was talking about the arguments here. You're trying to treat a relationship like a person by claiming it was an equal protection issue.

And who here has argued that a marriage is a person, Goofus?

So far there is you.....and you. And you have done a great job of kicking the stuffing out of that strawman. As nobody but you is making that argument.

Wrong, you guys are pretending it's about equality. All men being treated the same is equality. That's what the word means. Sexual preferences are not racial or religious in nature so there is not unequal treatment if a state doesn't recognize your relationship.

A civil marriage contract has nothing to do with who prefers sex with whom. There are no sex act provisions in any civil marriage contract that I know of. Do you know of such contracts?

 

[Kosh]

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.

It's a legal transaction between 2 adults. If you deny that to two adults of the same sex, you have committed discrimination.

At that point you have to prove there is a compelling state interest in perpetrating such a discrimination that justifies it.

Exactly! Marriage is a transaction between individuals, it's not a person so it can't have the protections of a person. Also I notice you said 2 people, why is that? Why not 3 or 4 or more? Why can't their marriage be a valid to them as it is with 2 women? Just admit it, it's all about changing marriage to what gays want, it's got zip to do with the constitution.

Can you refuse to rent your properties to a woman? to a black couple? to a gay couple?

Yes, but you do not have to tell them that is the reason..

 

[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.

It's a legal transaction between 2 adults. If you deny that to two adults of the same sex, you have committed discrimination.

At that point you have to prove there is a compelling state interest in perpetrating such a discrimination that justifies it.

Exactly! Marriage is a transaction between individuals, it's not a person so it can't have the protections of a person. Also I notice you said 2 people, why is that? Why not 3 or 4 or more? Why can't their marriage be a valid to them as it is with 2 women? Just admit it, it's all about changing marriage to what gays want, it's got zip to do with the constitution.

Can you refuse to rent your properties to a woman? to a black couple? to a gay couple?

Yes, but you do not have to tell them that is the reason..

lol. Stick to trolling.

 

[Kosh]

...Also I notice you said 2 people, why is that? Why not 3 or 4 or more? Why can't their marriage be a valid to them as it is with 2 women? Just admit it, it's all about changing marriage to what gays want, it's got zip to do with the constitution.

And zip to do with "marriage equality". If it did, the LGBT cult wouldn't be pretending so hard not to notice their legal first cousins, the polygamists. They'll embrace them with wide open arms the minute any federal-mandate ink is dry. But for now they're keeping a conspicuous distance from them.

Not to mention that we wouldn't be here in the year 2015 yet to be heard in the high court if it really was a Constitutional issue. That ship would have sailed long ago.

It's all about political pressure, they're just too fucking morally corrupt to admit it.

Yeah....because of course its not a Constitutional issue until the Supreme Court makes a final decision.....

So no one thought to bring it up before?

If there is any case at all- the first one will be the first one.

Loving v. Virginia was the first case regarding mixed race marriage the Supreme Court heard.
Zablocki v. Rehail was the first marriage case regarding the right to marry if someone owes child support.

The first case regarding same gender marriage to reach the Supreme Court, they let the ruling stand that it was unconstitutional.
As they have for every case that has ruled that same gender marriage bans are unconstitutional that has reached them.

Now one Appellate Court has said that same gender marriage bans are okay- the Supreme Court will now review the issue- but every opportunity before that- the Supreme Court didn't think that there was any Constitutional issue the court needed to address-they left the lower courts ruling stand- and that is why same gender marriage is legal in most of the United States.

Here we are again with the far left narrative that being "gay" is a race..

 

[Kosh]

Marriage isn't a person.

It's a legal transaction between 2 adults. If you deny that to two adults of the same sex, you have committed discrimination.

At that point you have to prove there is a compelling state interest in perpetrating such a discrimination that justifies it.

Exactly! Marriage is a transaction between individuals, it's not a person so it can't have the protections of a person. Also I notice you said 2 people, why is that? Why not 3 or 4 or more? Why can't their marriage be a valid to them as it is with 2 women? Just admit it, it's all about changing marriage to what gays want, it's got zip to do with the constitution.

Can you refuse to rent your properties to a woman? to a black couple? to a gay couple?

Yes, but you do not have to tell them that is the reason..

lol. Stick to trolling.

The irony of those comments!