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

[Seawytch]

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.

That's the only reason you straight folks get civilly married...for the benefits?

 

[Kosh]

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.

The irony in those comments from a far left drone..

So is being "gay" a race?

 

[Kosh]

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.

That's the only reason you straight folks get civilly married...for the benefits?

Sure just ask any gold digger that question..

 

[Kosh]

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.

Equality does not exist in nature, but yet the far continues to prove they do not care what happens in nature..

 

[Seawytch]

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.

That's the only reason you straight folks get civilly married...for the benefits?

Sure just ask any gold digger that question..

So all straight people are gold diggers?

I'm finding out such interesting things about you hets....

 

[Skylar]

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

All Kosh says is 'fringe left said'. Once you've got that message, there's really no point in reading anything else he posts. As its more of the same.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

I doubt it- they are pretty well covered by being able to claim they are following Moore's orders.

I doubt a judge can even be held liable for anything like this.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Equality does not exist in nature, but yet the far continues to prove they do not care what happens in nature..

In nature the less fortunate are slaughtered. Is that your ideal vision of civilized society?

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

I don't have issues, you're the fat turd trying to smear me because I believe in traditional marriage. That makes you the insecure one here, not me. You guys are the ones pushing for radical changes yet you want to pretend everyone else is wrong, evil, cruel, blah blah blah. Like some stupid brat trying to get his way.

Of course gay marriage changes what marriage has always been, you denying it doesn't make it so. The primary objection I have is that it forces government to participate in the lie that genders are irrelevant and the male/female role has no special place in society. I've said that numerous times yet you continue to act like I don't have the right to my opinion.

 

[Syriusly]

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

All Kosh says is 'fringe left said'. Once you've got that message, there's really no point in reading anything else he posts. As its more of the same.

Yep- just pure 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.

I doubt it- they are pretty well covered by being able to claim they are following Moore's orders.

I doubt a judge can even be held liable for anything like this.

They hanged people in Nuremburg who were following orders.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I don't have issues, you're the fat turd trying to smear me because I believe in traditional marriage. That makes you the insecure one here, not me. You guys are the ones pushing for radical changes yet you want to pretend everyone else is wrong, evil, cruel, blah blah blah. Like some stupid brat trying to get his way.

Of course gay marriage changes what marriage has always been, you denying it doesn't make it so. The primary objection I have is that it forces government to participate in the lie that genders are irrelevant and the male/female role has no special place in society. I've said that numerous times yet you continue to act like I don't have the right to my opinion.

You can believe in traditional marriage. Get 10 wives and you'll be all sorts of traditional.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tradition is often just a case of people being wrong for a very long time.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

Yeah just wow.

"Loving v. Virginia was the first case regarding mixed race marriage the Supreme Court heard."

 

[washamericom]

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.

tmi man,

 

[Syriusly]

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.

I don't have issues, you're the fat turd trying to smear me because I believe in traditional marriage. That makes you the insecure one here, not me. You guys are the ones pushing for radical changes yet you want to pretend everyone else is wrong, evil, cruel, blah blah blah. Like some stupid brat trying to get his way.

Of course gay marriage changes what marriage has always been, you denying it doesn't make it so. The primary objection I have is that it forces government to participate in the lie that genders are irrelevant and the male/female role has no special place in society. I've said that numerous times yet you continue to act like I don't have the right to my opinion.

And here was your response when I posted about traditional male/female roles- the legal concept of Coverture
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.

Your response to Coverture:

We need to go back to the good old days.

Even I was surprised by that reply.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

If you deny gays the ability to marry the one they love, but allow straights that ability, you are not affording equal protection under the law. And those individual people can seek redress from the courts.

straights don't have the right to marry the one they love. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex who agrees to marry them. Love isn't a requirement.

 

[Iceweasel]

Tradition is often just a case of people being wrong for a very long time.

...which is why you used the qualifier "often". Which means what exactly? Not all traditions are wrong or wrong because they're traditions.

But why limit marriage to two if not for tradition?

 

[Slyhunter]

...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.

Actually its exactly about marriage equality. As gays and lesbians are seeking the same rights that straights have.

And can we take it from your bizarre rout to 'polygamy' that your arguments against gay marriage aren't working?

Gays and lesbians have the same rights as straights they can marry someone of the opposite sex too.

 

[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.

Yeah just wow.

"Loving v. Virginia was the first case regarding mixed race marriage the Supreme Court heard."

Oh don't be coy- quote my entire post

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.

Feel free to show how I claimed that homosexuality is a race- and why you didn't also decide that i meant that 'owing child support' is a race.