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

[NYcarbineer]

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..

Is being Catholic a race?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where in the law is it clear that States can ignore federal court orders?

 

[Syriusly]

[Interim law says states get to Decide. Windsor said that 56 times.

There is no 'interim law'

Just another Silly invention.

 

[WinterBorn]

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..

Really? You read that post and see a claim that homosexuality is a race? Wow. Just wow.

 

[Kosh]

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..

Is being Catholic a race?

Is being "gay" a race?

 

[Kosh]

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..

Really? You read that post and see a claim that homosexuality is a race? Wow. Just wow.

Did not claim such a thing, that is the claim being presented. Comparing "gay" marriage to an interracial marriage is just stupid..

 

[Syriusly]

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..

Here we go again with Kosh's lies and trolling/

 

[Kosh]

Where in the law is it clear that States can ignore federal court orders?

Just ask Obama!

 

[WinterBorn]

Where in the law is it clear that States can ignore federal court orders?

Roy Moore ignored federal court orders before and it cost him his job. Maybe it will happen again soon.

The federal courts have refused to issue a stay or to reverse their decision. This means the ruling stands, at least until June when the SCOTUS rules on the issue.

Does anyone think Roy Moore will be able to defy a federal court judge for 4 months?

 

[Iceweasel]

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?

I said sexual preferences. If you just want to live with another dude then why get married unless it was for some financial benefits? But kudos on trying to blur the issue even more, most folks always understood the sexual union was part of men and women getting married.

 

[Syriusly]

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..

Really? You read that post and see a claim that homosexuality is a race? Wow. Just wow.

Did not claim such a thing, that is the claim being presented. Comparing "gay" marriage to an interracial marriage is just stupid..

No- your lack of reading skills is what is stupid.

 

[Kosh]

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..

Here we go again with Kosh's lies and trolling/

Wrong! But since when have you held the far left drones to the same standard.

So yes you believe being "gay" is a race..

 

[Skylar]

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.

Wrong. A lower court can absolutely find a violation of rights based on their interpretations of previous rulings. If, for example, the lower courts found that the States laws were motivated by a desire to harm, or violated the standards of valid legislative ends or a compelling State interest in Romer, then overturning such bans would be completely within the power of a federal court.

Your first clue that you have no idea what you're talking about would be all the federal courts doing what you insist could never be done. 44 times at last count. For a rational person, that would be a powerful indication that there was a portion of the process they didn't understand.

For you, its just another batshit conspiracy theory.

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

Subject to constitutional guarantees. With every federal court ruling overturning gay marriage bans being based on the violation of constitutional guarantees.

Rights trump powers, Sil.

Again, why bother ignoring this fact. Its not like we don't already know the ruling. And its not like your creative editing of the Windsor decision is going to trick a federal court into ignoring individual rights.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

I said sexual preferences. If you just want to live with another dude then why get married unless it was for some financial benefits?.

I didn't marry my wife for financial benefits or for sex- nor did I just want to live with her.

I married the person I wanted to be my partner for my entire life. And I assume every person marries for similar reasons.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

I said sexual preferences. If you just want to live with another dude then why get married unless it was for some financial benefits? But kudos on trying to blur the issue even more, most folks always understood the sexual union was part of men and women getting married.

The financial benefits of two people entering into a marriage contract must be made available to all people of the same category; you cannot offer those benefits to a man and a women making that contract while denying them to a man and a man making the same contract. That is discriminatory.

 

[WinterBorn]

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..

Really? You read that post and see a claim that homosexuality is a race? Wow. Just wow.

Did not claim such a thing, that is the claim being presented. Comparing "gay" marriage to an interracial marriage is just stupid..

You know, it WOULD be stupid if that is what had happened. But it isn't what happened. The post compared the actions of the federal courts and SCOTUS is cases involving marriage. Perhaps your reading comprehension could use some work.

 

[Syriusly]

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..

Here we go again with Kosh's lies and trolling/

Wrong! But since when have you held the far left drones to the same standard.

So yes you believe being "gay" is a race..

Here we go again with Kosh's lies and trolling

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where in the law is it clear that States can ignore federal court orders?

Roy Moore ignored federal court orders before and it cost him his job. Maybe it will happen again soon.

The federal courts have refused to issue a stay or to reverse their decision. This means the ruling stands, at least until June when the SCOTUS rules on the issue.

Does anyone think Roy Moore will be able to defy a federal court judge for 4 months?

There are lawsuits cropping up against the judges who are siding with Moore. They will pay.

 

[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.

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?

I should be able to. The constitution limits what government can discriminate against. Activists have bastardized it to include whatever they want. Gender, religion and race are pretty well protected in all 50 states as far as I know. Sexual orientation probably depends on state law, otherwise we would not be having this discussion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

ICEWEASEL SAID:

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.

Incorrect.

No one is 'pretending' about anything, as a fact of Constitutional law the issue concerns equality.

With regard to same-sex couples the issue concerns the protected liberty to make decisions about one's personal life absent unwarranted interference from the state:

“When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Race and religion are not the only human conditions entitled to Constitutional protections, the right to make personal decisions and choices is just as much a fundamental element of liberty as one's color or what religion one decides to follow, or follow no religion at all.