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

[Seawytch]

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.

Actually, in most states now you can do the same with someone of the same gender. (37 down 13 to go)

Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.

Loving v Virginia was decided in 1967.

So your opinion is that the SCOTUS should not have overturned the "will of the people"?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Actually, in most states now you can do the same with someone of the same gender. (37 down 13 to go)

Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.

If we abided by the wishes of the voters, in Alabama, mixed races couples would not have been getting married from 1967 to 2000.

And in 2000, 40% voted NO!

 

[Kosh]

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.

Actually, in most states now you can do the same with someone of the same gender. (37 down 13 to go)

Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.

If we abided by the wishes of the voters, in Alabama, mixed races couples would not have been getting married from 1967 to 2000.

Once again the far left drones try and prove that being "gay" is a race..

 

[Kosh]

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.

Actually, in most states now you can do the same with someone of the same gender. (37 down 13 to go)

Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.

If we abided by the wishes of the voters, in Alabama, mixed races couples would not have been getting married from 1967 to 2000.

And in 2000, 40% voted NO!

40% is not the majority and the far left propaganda trolls keep marching on..

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

ICEWEASEL SAID:

“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.”

Something perceived to be 'traditional' is not lawful grounds upon which to deny citizens their civil rights:

“[T]hat the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice[.]” ibid

You're at liberty to 'recognize' genders however you see fit in the context of your personal, private life; in the context of current 14th Amendment jurisprudence, however, you are not – you do not have the right to seek to deny same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law motivated solely by your unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Actually, in most states now you can do the same with someone of the same gender. (37 down 13 to go)

Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.

If we abided by the wishes of the voters, in Alabama, mixed races couples would not have been getting married from 1967 to 2000.

Once again the far left drones try and prove that being "gay" is a race..

Ah, I see how you could be confused....see, it's not race and orientation being compared, it's discrimination and bigotry. Bigots don't change, just their targets. Hell, their lame arguments are even the same.

Bet You Can 8217 t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite

 

[mikegriffith1]

Moore happens to be correct. Nobody with ninth-grade reading skills can read the supporting documents of the Constitution, such as the Federalist Papers, and conclude that the federal government has any right to order a state to issue gay marriage licenses. That's just ridiculous.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Actually, in most states now you can do the same with someone of the same gender. (37 down 13 to go)

Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.

If we abided by the wishes of the voters, in Alabama, mixed races couples would not have been getting married from 1967 to 2000.

And in 2000, 40% voted NO!

40% is not the majority and the far left propaganda trolls keep marching on..

Well no shit, Sherlock...but you don't find it at all disturbing that 40% of the voters would keep interracial marriage bans in place in the year 2000?

 

[Kosh]

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.

Actually, in most states now you can do the same with someone of the same gender. (37 down 13 to go)

Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.

If we abided by the wishes of the voters, in Alabama, mixed races couples would not have been getting married from 1967 to 2000.

Once again the far left drones try and prove that being "gay" is a race..

Ah, I see how you could be confused....see, it's not race and orientation being compared, it's discrimination and bigotry. Bigots don't change, just their targets. Hell, their lame arguments are even the same.

Bet You Can 8217 t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite

And they use a far left propaganda site...

Yet they still push that being "gay" is a race..

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

Actually, in most states now you can do the same with someone of the same gender. (37 down 13 to go)

Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.

If we abided by the wishes of the voters, in Alabama, mixed races couples would not have been getting married from 1967 to 2000.

So.

 

[Kosh]

Actually, in most states now you can do the same with someone of the same gender. (37 down 13 to go)

Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.

If we abided by the wishes of the voters, in Alabama, mixed races couples would not have been getting married from 1967 to 2000.

And in 2000, 40% voted NO!

40% is not the majority and the far left propaganda trolls keep marching on..

Well no shit, Sherlock...but you don't find it at all disturbing that 40% of the voters would keep interracial marriage bans in place in the year 2000?

Once again showing that being "gay" is a race to the far left drones, as they peddle their propaganda..

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Actually, in most states now you can do the same with someone of the same gender. (37 down 13 to go)

Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.

If we abided by the wishes of the voters, in Alabama, mixed races couples would not have been getting married from 1967 to 2000.

Once again the far left drones try and prove that being "gay" is a race..

Once again you exhibit your ignorance and inability to comprehend.

No one is arguing homosexuality is a 'race,' the notion is idiocy.

It is a fact of law that homosexuals exist as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment; they have the right to due process and equal protection of the law, where denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in is un-Constitutional – this is why measures seeking to do so have been appropriately invalidated by the courts.

 

[Seawytch]

Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.

If we abided by the wishes of the voters, in Alabama, mixed races couples would not have been getting married from 1967 to 2000.

And in 2000, 40% voted NO!

40% is not the majority and the far left propaganda trolls keep marching on..

Well no shit, Sherlock...but you don't find it at all disturbing that 40% of the voters would keep interracial marriage bans in place in the year 2000?

Once again showing that being "gay" is a race to the far left drones, as they peddle their propaganda..

You really just completely ignore anything not fitting your narrative don't you? Let me guess...you failed the gay/interracial marriage quiz didn't you?

 

[Kosh]

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.

Actually, in most states now you can do the same with someone of the same gender. (37 down 13 to go)

Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.

If we abided by the wishes of the voters, in Alabama, mixed races couples would not have been getting married from 1967 to 2000.

Once again the far left drones try and prove that being "gay" is a race..

Once again you exhibit your ignorance and inability to comprehend.

No one is arguing homosexuality is a 'race,' the notion is idiocy.

It is a fact of law that homosexuals exist as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment; they have the right to due process and equal protection of the law, where denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in is un-Constitutional – this is why measures seeking to do so have been appropriately invalidated by the courts.

And the far left continues to pedal their propaganda as they push for being "gay" is a race..

Yet the same cases of "race" are used to justify being "gay"..

 

[Kosh]

If we abided by the wishes of the voters, in Alabama, mixed races couples would not have been getting married from 1967 to 2000.

And in 2000, 40% voted NO!

40% is not the majority and the far left propaganda trolls keep marching on..

Well no shit, Sherlock...but you don't find it at all disturbing that 40% of the voters would keep interracial marriage bans in place in the year 2000?

Once again showing that being "gay" is a race to the far left drones, as they peddle their propaganda..

You really just completely ignore anything not fitting your narrative don't you? Let me guess...you failed the gay/interracial marriage quiz didn't you?

Once again proving that the far left narrative and religious dogma are being peddled to show that being "gay" is a race..

 

[Slyhunter]

What I find funny is that Democrats are arguing against Democratic rule and for Republican theology in their arguments in this thread. If you're a Democrat you believe in the will of the people trumps a piece of living paper. Believing that a piece of paper trumps the will of the people is a Republican ideal.

 

[Skylar]

I posted the relevant portion I responded to. Do you understand? Your purpose for bring race into it was what if not to tether the gay cause to racism?

Since I raised two Supreme Court decisions regarding marriage- Loving and Zablocki- why do you decide that my post was about race, and ignore the second case- Zablocki?

I was responding to a stupid post that whined about the gay marriage case finally having the Constitutionality addressed-

So I pointed out two other Federal marriage decisions that the Supreme Court made that over-ruled State marriage laws because they were unconstitutional.

Yet you saw only race.

Because that was what the case was about? Do you understand far left drone?

Zablocki v Wisconsin was not about race. Turner v Safely was not about race. In both cases, NOT ABOUT RACE, the Supreme Court declared marriage a fundamental right....having nothing to do with race.

See how the far left will push the idea that being "gay" is a race..

See how Kosh the troll doesn't address facts and deflects with SPAM?

Yup. Take a long, hard look at one of his posts. Then the rest are pointless, as its the exact same 'fringe left' screed. There are no changes, no insight, no discussion.

Just spam.

 

[Skylar]

Moore happens to be correct. Nobody with ninth-grade reading skills can read the supporting documents of the Constitution, such as the Federalist Papers, and conclude that the federal government has any right to order a state to issue gay marriage licenses. That's just ridiculous.

Nobody with 9th grade reading skills can miss the fact that the federal rulings overturning same sex marriage bans were made on the basis of the 14th amendment. Which didn't exist when the Federalist Papers were written.

 

[Kosh]

Since I raised two Supreme Court decisions regarding marriage- Loving and Zablocki- why do you decide that my post was about race, and ignore the second case- Zablocki?

I was responding to a stupid post that whined about the gay marriage case finally having the Constitutionality addressed-

So I pointed out two other Federal marriage decisions that the Supreme Court made that over-ruled State marriage laws because they were unconstitutional.

Yet you saw only race.

Because that was what the case was about? Do you understand far left drone?

Zablocki v Wisconsin was not about race. Turner v Safely was not about race. In both cases, NOT ABOUT RACE, the Supreme Court declared marriage a fundamental right....having nothing to do with race.

See how the far left will push the idea that being "gay" is a race..

See how Kosh the troll doesn't address facts and deflects with SPAM?

Yup. Take a long, hard look at one of his posts. Then the rest are pointless, as its the exact same 'fringe left' screed. There are no changes, no insight, no discussion.

Just spam.

Says another irony impaired far left drone that spams far left propaganda at will without question or hesitation.

 

[Syriusly]

Since I raised two Supreme Court decisions regarding marriage- Loving and Zablocki- why do you decide that my post was about race, and ignore the second case- Zablocki?

I was responding to a stupid post that whined about the gay marriage case finally having the Constitutionality addressed-

So I pointed out two other Federal marriage decisions that the Supreme Court made that over-ruled State marriage laws because they were unconstitutional.

Yet you saw only race.

Because that was what the case was about? Do you understand far left drone?

Zablocki v Wisconsin was not about race. Turner v Safely was not about race. In both cases, NOT ABOUT RACE, the Supreme Court declared marriage a fundamental right....having nothing to do with race.

See how the far left will push the idea that being "gay" is a race..

See how Kosh the troll doesn't address facts and deflects with SPAM?

See how the far left propaganda trolls spam the boards and then call other trolls?

Can they not see the irony of their comments?

Troll.