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

[Silhouette]

It is a slipper slope fallacy. As there's been no indication from the court that the logic of the Windsor ruling would apply to incest, or bestiality, or pedophilia, or polygamy, or any of the other strawmen that have been raised in opposition to gay marriage.

Why would there NEED to be any indication from the Court? What is the Court doing indicating ANYTHING about this fundamental change to the bedrock of American society before BOTH sides are Heard???

If a precedent is set where the majority can no longer reject a lifestyle mainstreaming itself using the vehicle of marriage, how on EARTH would you forbid any other lifestyle if not using the majority rule? Surely you understand what "equality" means?

 

[NYcarbineer]

And the federal judge ruled logically. She ruled that equal protection under the law means exactly that.

no, she ruled on the basis of emotion, and justified her vote with some sophistic BS. The 14th dealt with race not gender issues, as the need later for the womens suffrage amendment proves...

Her conclusion is essentially the same as 43 other federal courts to rule on the topic. Were they all 'emotional' too?

And the 14th isn't limited to racial issues. Its limited to what it says. And what is says is this:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

If a State does any of that, they're in violation of the 14th amendment. And the USSC has already recognized that the 14th applies to issues beyond race. So what the federal judge did was apply precedent.

'

The federal judges are acting like herd animals.....one following the other.....yes based on emotion....without much thought or logic....the one district including Ohio I think actually had a judge put some work into it....and came up with the right answer...let the political process work.

no life liberty or property is being denied without due process of law.
so why did we require another amendment for womens suffrage?

Because the Court, rightly or wrongly, rejected the 14th Amendment argument in 1872.

rightly,...actually I dont think it ever came up....they saw the commonsense meaning of the 14th......and didnt try to twist it to satisfy an emotional appeal.

They managed to ignore the obvious, that the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

It's not just money.

It's being able to see a loved one in a hospital. It's about children and having to spend thousands of dollars on lawyers to protect children and property that straights don't have to spend. It's about inheritance and having to get a lawyer to make sure that their spouse is able to inherit from them or their kids get to stay with their spouse after one has died.

There are so many benefits that we straights take for granted but are denied to gay people. It's disgusting to see that so many people in our nation are still filled with such hate that they can't see what's happening in front of their faces.

all these could be satisfied with a civil union law such as California already had ......but that wasn't good enough......some legal manipulators wanted to screw up the law, AGAINST the wishes of the California gay community BTW......


Scalia was more than pleased with how that one turned out..........despite his public protestations. ...because it undermined democracy.

Civil Unions never were the legal equivalent to marriage- they were the modern version of 'seperate but equal'

 

[dcraelin]

By that logic two brothers should be able to marry each other. Or two sisters. Or mother/daughter; father/son, etc. Just not any two opposite sex related persons. Is that right?

By what logic?

By any logic. Your entire legal stance is that the majority cannot regulate minority lifestyles and behaviors they find repugnant.

My entire legal stance is that there is no constitutionally valid basis for denying gay marriage. And they're quite specific.

The answer is: you cannot. In the name of equality then ALL repugnant lifestyles can find freedom from regulation in any venue. What would be your way of regulating them? A vote? Let me guess...a majority vote right?

That's a slippery slope fallacy.

no that is a slippery slope truth...........logical precedent would lead there..........tho the courts have established that they lack any logic on this issue............. part of the usefulness of precedent is to discipline the court....so that the law is consistent.....

It is a slipper slope fallacy. As there's been no indication from the court that the logic of the Windsor ruling would apply to incest, or bestiality, or pedophilia, or polygamy, or any of the other strawmen that have been raised in opposition to gay marriage.

"no indication form the court" ?---of course not ....but they can make no logical distinction between these as they are basing it on "rights" .......

 

[Syriusly]

By that logic two brothers should be able to marry each other. Or two sisters. Or mother/daughter; father/son, etc. Just not any two opposite sex related persons. Is that right?

By what logic?

By any logic. Your entire legal stance is that the majority cannot regulate minority lifestyles and behaviors they find repugnant.

My entire legal stance is that there is no constitutionally valid basis for denying gay marriage. And they're quite specific.

The answer is: you cannot. In the name of equality then ALL repugnant lifestyles can find freedom from regulation in any venue. What would be your way of regulating them? A vote? Let me guess...a majority vote right?

That's a slippery slope fallacy.

....tho the courts have established that they lack any logic on this issue............

Says you.

Because you disagree with them.

 

[Skylar]

By what logic?

By any logic. Your entire legal stance is that the majority cannot regulate minority lifestyles and behaviors they find repugnant.

My entire legal stance is that there is no constitutionally valid basis for denying gay marriage. And they're quite specific.

The answer is: you cannot. In the name of equality then ALL repugnant lifestyles can find freedom from regulation in any venue. What would be your way of regulating them? A vote? Let me guess...a majority vote right?

That's a slippery slope fallacy.

no that is a slippery slope truth...........logical precedent would lead there..........tho the courts have established that they lack any logic on this issue............. part of the usefulness of precedent is to discipline the court....so that the law is consistent.....

It is a slipper slope fallacy. As there's been no indication from the court that the logic of the Windsor ruling would apply to incest, or bestiality, or pedophilia, or polygamy, or any of the other strawmen that have been raised in opposition to gay marriage.

"no indication form the court" ?---of course not ....but they can make no logical distinction between these as they are basing it on "rights" .......

Why not?

 

[dcraelin]

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.

It's not just money.

It's being able to see a loved one in a hospital. It's about children and having to spend thousands of dollars on lawyers to protect children and property that straights don't have to spend. It's about inheritance and having to get a lawyer to make sure that their spouse is able to inherit from them or their kids get to stay with their spouse after one has died.

There are so many benefits that we straights take for granted but are denied to gay people. It's disgusting to see that so many people in our nation are still filled with such hate that they can't see what's happening in front of their faces.

all these could be satisfied with a civil union law such as California already had ......but that wasn't good enough......some legal manipulators wanted to screw up the law, AGAINST the wishes of the California gay community BTW......


Scalia was more than pleased with how that one turned out..........despite his public protestations. ...because it undermined democracy.

Civil Unions never were the legal equivalent to marriage- they were the modern version of 'seperate but equal'

for most practical purposes they were good enough....... get over the comparison to racial based civil rights.....the black community...the black community in California even has rejected this false analogy.

 

[dcraelin]

By that logic two brothers should be able to marry each other. Or two sisters. Or mother/daughter; father/son, etc. Just not any two opposite sex related persons. Is that right?

By what logic?

By any logic. Your entire legal stance is that the majority cannot regulate minority lifestyles and behaviors they find repugnant.

My entire legal stance is that there is no constitutionally valid basis for denying gay marriage. And they're quite specific.

The answer is: you cannot. In the name of equality then ALL repugnant lifestyles can find freedom from regulation in any venue. What would be your way of regulating them? A vote? Let me guess...a majority vote right?

That's a slippery slope fallacy.

....tho the courts have established that they lack any logic on this issue............

Says you.

Because you disagree with them.

thats why its called a forum.....

 

[dcraelin]

By any logic. Your entire legal stance is that the majority cannot regulate minority lifestyles and behaviors they find repugnant.

My entire legal stance is that there is no constitutionally valid basis for denying gay marriage. And they're quite specific.

The answer is: you cannot. In the name of equality then ALL repugnant lifestyles can find freedom from regulation in any venue. What would be your way of regulating them? A vote? Let me guess...a majority vote right?

That's a slippery slope fallacy.

no that is a slippery slope truth...........logical precedent would lead there..........tho the courts have established that they lack any logic on this issue............. part of the usefulness of precedent is to discipline the court....so that the law is consistent.....

It is a slipper slope fallacy. As there's been no indication from the court that the logic of the Windsor ruling would apply to incest, or bestiality, or pedophilia, or polygamy, or any of the other strawmen that have been raised in opposition to gay marriage.

"no indication form the court" ?---of course not ....but they can make no logical distinction between these as they are basing it on "rights" .......

Why not?

you tell me how they can.....

I think its outlined well in the posts above by me and others

 

[Skylar]

It is a slipper slope fallacy. As there's been no indication from the court that the logic of the Windsor ruling would apply to incest, or bestiality, or pedophilia, or polygamy, or any of the other strawmen that have been raised in opposition to gay marriage.

Why would there NEED to be any indication from the Court? What is the Court doing indicating ANYTHING about this fundamental change to the bedrock of American society before BOTH sides are Heard???

Ask Scalia:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.

Justice Scalia in dissent of Windsor v. US

You say there's no indication. Scalia says that the court's position is 'beyond mistaking'. And the court's application of the rationale of Windsor to state gay marriage bans is 'inevitable'. Which is way, way past an 'indication'.

Why would I ignore Scalia and instead believe you on what the Windsor ruling indicates?

 

[Skylar]

My entire legal stance is that there is no constitutionally valid basis for denying gay marriage. And they're quite specific.

That's a slippery slope fallacy.

no that is a slippery slope truth...........logical precedent would lead there..........tho the courts have established that they lack any logic on this issue............. part of the usefulness of precedent is to discipline the court....so that the law is consistent.....

It is a slipper slope fallacy. As there's been no indication from the court that the logic of the Windsor ruling would apply to incest, or bestiality, or pedophilia, or polygamy, or any of the other strawmen that have been raised in opposition to gay marriage.

"no indication form the court" ?---of course not ....but they can make no logical distinction between these as they are basing it on "rights" .......

Why not?

you tell me how they can.....

Its your argument. You seem to be under the impression I'm obligated to make it for you. I'm not.

Why wouldn't the court be able to make any logical distinction between same sex marriage and say...polygamy?

 

[bodecea]

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.

It's not just money.

It's being able to see a loved one in a hospital. It's about children and having to spend thousands of dollars on lawyers to protect children and property that straights don't have to spend. It's about inheritance and having to get a lawyer to make sure that their spouse is able to inherit from them or their kids get to stay with their spouse after one has died.

There are so many benefits that we straights take for granted but are denied to gay people. It's disgusting to see that so many people in our nation are still filled with such hate that they can't see what's happening in front of their faces.

all these could be satisfied with a civil union law such as California already had ......but that wasn't good enough......some legal manipulators wanted to screw up the law, AGAINST the wishes of the California gay community BTW......


Scalia was more than pleased with how that one turned out..........despite his public protestations. ...because it undermined democracy.

Civil Unions never were the legal equivalent to marriage- they were the modern version of 'seperate but equal'

....and were rejected by the RWrs in almost every state it was brought up.

 

[dcraelin]

no, she ruled on the basis of emotion, and justified her vote with some sophistic BS. The 14th dealt with race not gender issues, as the need later for the womens suffrage amendment proves...

Her conclusion is essentially the same as 43 other federal courts to rule on the topic. Were they all 'emotional' too?

And the 14th isn't limited to racial issues. Its limited to what it says. And what is says is this:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

If a State does any of that, they're in violation of the 14th amendment. And the USSC has already recognized that the 14th applies to issues beyond race. So what the federal judge did was apply precedent.

'

The federal judges are acting like herd animals.....one following the other.....yes based on emotion....without much thought or logic....the one district including Ohio I think actually had a judge put some work into it....and came up with the right answer...let the political process work.

no life liberty or property is being denied without due process of law.
so why did we require another amendment for womens suffrage?

Because the Court, rightly or wrongly, rejected the 14th Amendment argument in 1872.

rightly,...actually I dont think it ever came up....they saw the commonsense meaning of the 14th......and didnt try to twist it to satisfy an emotional appeal.

They managed to ignore the obvious, that the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law.

it certainly is not obvious....it was never intended to be be read as you read it.....or it would have given women the right to vote......

ask yourself this....if the legislators had know it would legalize gay marriage...would these protections for blacks ever have been passed?...the answer is no.....

 

[dcraelin]

no that is a slippery slope truth...........logical precedent would lead there..........tho the courts have established that they lack any logic on this issue............. part of the usefulness of precedent is to discipline the court....so that the law is consistent.....

It is a slipper slope fallacy. As there's been no indication from the court that the logic of the Windsor ruling would apply to incest, or bestiality, or pedophilia, or polygamy, or any of the other strawmen that have been raised in opposition to gay marriage.

"no indication form the court" ?---of course not ....but they can make no logical distinction between these as they are basing it on "rights" .......

Why not?

you tell me how they can.....

Its your argument. You seem to be under the impression I'm obligated to make it for you. I'm not.

Why wouldn't the court be able to make any logical distinction between same sex marriage and say...polygamy?

what is your distinction.....the courts have twisted burden of proof up in these cases also.....the burden of proof lies with you.

I have answered this to you before I am sure

 

[Syriusly]

Her conclusion is essentially the same as 43 other federal courts to rule on the topic. Were they all 'emotional' too?

And the 14th isn't limited to racial issues. Its limited to what it says. And what is says is this:

If a State does any of that, they're in violation of the 14th amendment. And the USSC has already recognized that the 14th applies to issues beyond race. So what the federal judge did was apply precedent.

'

The federal judges are acting like herd animals.....one following the other.....yes based on emotion....without much thought or logic....the one district including Ohio I think actually had a judge put some work into it....and came up with the right answer...let the political process work.

no life liberty or property is being denied without due process of law.
so why did we require another amendment for womens suffrage?

Because the Court, rightly or wrongly, rejected the 14th Amendment argument in 1872.

rightly,...actually I dont think it ever came up....they saw the commonsense meaning of the 14th......and didnt try to twist it to satisfy an emotional appeal.

They managed to ignore the obvious, that the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law.

it certainly is not obvious....it was never intended to be be read as you read it.....or it would have given women the right to vote......

ask yourself this....if the legislators had know it would legalize gay marriage...would these protections for blacks ever have been passed?...the answer is no.....

If those legislators had known it would legalize mixed race marriage, they would not have voted for it.

Not the first time that legislators make better law than they even intended.

 

[Skylar]

It is a slipper slope fallacy. As there's been no indication from the court that the logic of the Windsor ruling would apply to incest, or bestiality, or pedophilia, or polygamy, or any of the other strawmen that have been raised in opposition to gay marriage.

"no indication form the court" ?---of course not ....but they can make no logical distinction between these as they are basing it on "rights" .......

Why not?

you tell me how they can.....

Its your argument. You seem to be under the impression I'm obligated to make it for you. I'm not.

Why wouldn't the court be able to make any logical distinction between same sex marriage and say...polygamy?

what is your distinction.....the courts have twisted burden of proof up in these cases also.....the burden of proof lies with you.

I have answered this to you before I am sure

Then direct me to the post where you've answered it. Because you're not answering this now.

Why wouldn't the court be able to make any logical distinction between same sex marriage and say...polygamy?

 

[dcraelin]

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.

It's not just money.

It's being able to see a loved one in a hospital. It's about children and having to spend thousands of dollars on lawyers to protect children and property that straights don't have to spend. It's about inheritance and having to get a lawyer to make sure that their spouse is able to inherit from them or their kids get to stay with their spouse after one has died.

There are so many benefits that we straights take for granted but are denied to gay people. It's disgusting to see that so many people in our nation are still filled with such hate that they can't see what's happening in front of their faces.

all these could be satisfied with a civil union law such as California already had ......but that wasn't good enough......some legal manipulators wanted to screw up the law, AGAINST the wishes of the California gay community BTW......


Scalia was more than pleased with how that one turned out..........despite his public protestations. ...because it undermined democracy.

Civil Unions never were the legal equivalent to marriage- they were the modern version of 'seperate but equal'

....and were rejected by the RWrs in almost every state it was brought up.

the courts could come up with a compromise in a way by applying some of these as a mater of right......IN fact if they find on the basis of right....they should break it down and justify all these rights...(hospital visits,etc. like I believe you or someone else mentioned.)

 

[dcraelin]

'

The federal judges are acting like herd animals.....one following the other.....yes based on emotion....without much thought or logic....the one district including Ohio I think actually had a judge put some work into it....and came up with the right answer...let the political process work.

no life liberty or property is being denied without due process of law.
so why did we require another amendment for womens suffrage?

Because the Court, rightly or wrongly, rejected the 14th Amendment argument in 1872.

rightly,...actually I dont think it ever came up....they saw the commonsense meaning of the 14th......and didnt try to twist it to satisfy an emotional appeal.

They managed to ignore the obvious, that the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law.

it certainly is not obvious....it was never intended to be be read as you read it.....or it would have given women the right to vote......

ask yourself this....if the legislators had know it would legalize gay marriage...would these protections for blacks ever have been passed?...the answer is no.....

If those legislators had known it would legalize mixed race marriage, they would not have voted for it.

Not the first time that legislators make better law than they even intended.

Oh I dont think thats ever happened.....legislators always make as bad of laws as intended or worse.
That issue was brought up....I am sure....and the law passed despite.

 

[Skylar]

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.

It's not just money.

It's being able to see a loved one in a hospital. It's about children and having to spend thousands of dollars on lawyers to protect children and property that straights don't have to spend. It's about inheritance and having to get a lawyer to make sure that their spouse is able to inherit from them or their kids get to stay with their spouse after one has died.

There are so many benefits that we straights take for granted but are denied to gay people. It's disgusting to see that so many people in our nation are still filled with such hate that they can't see what's happening in front of their faces.

all these could be satisfied with a civil union law such as California already had ......but that wasn't good enough......some legal manipulators wanted to screw up the law, AGAINST the wishes of the California gay community BTW......


Scalia was more than pleased with how that one turned out..........despite his public protestations. ...because it undermined democracy.

Civil Unions never were the legal equivalent to marriage- they were the modern version of 'seperate but equal'

....and were rejected by the RWrs in almost every state it was brought up.

the courts could come up with a compromise in a way by applying some of these as a mater of right......IN fact if they find on the basis of right....they should break it down and justify all these rights...(hospital visits,etc. like I believe you or someone else mentioned.)

Why go to all the trouble of creating an elaborate 'separate but equal' system when you can simply recognize the validity of gay marriage and do the same thing in one step?

 

[dcraelin]

"no indication form the court" ?---of course not ....but they can make no logical distinction between these as they are basing it on "rights" .......

Why not?

you tell me how they can.....

Its your argument. You seem to be under the impression I'm obligated to make it for you. I'm not.

Why wouldn't the court be able to make any logical distinction between same sex marriage and say...polygamy?

what is your distinction.....the courts have twisted burden of proof up in these cases also.....the burden of proof lies with you.

I have answered this to you before I am sure

Then direct me to the post where you've answered it. Because you're not answering this now.

Why wouldn't the court be able to make any logical distinction between same sex marriage and say...polygamy?

like I said the burden of proof is on you......