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

[Syriusly]

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.)

The courts have come up with a compromise- treat same gender couples the same as opposite gender couples.

Solves the problem very simply.

 

[Skylar]

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......

The burden of proof is on me to prove YOUR claim?

Um, no it isn't.

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

 

[dcraelin]

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.)

The courts have come up with a compromise- treat same gender couples the same as opposite gender couples.

Solves the problem very simply.

simply ....lol...yes.......it shows the laziness of the courts......someone has mentioned all the things marriage gives that Gay couples dont get.....the court...if it were to do this right...........should justify all of these separately.....you can bet they won't because they ruling on the basis of emotion not logic and the law.

Why should any tax break be based on marriage?....why should single people not have a tax break where a couple does? That doesnt seem like equality under the law.

 

[dcraelin]

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......

The burden of proof is on me to prove YOUR claim?

Um, no it isn't.

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

um yes it is ..............how could they find a distinction?...the burden of proof is on you....

 

[Skylar]

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.)

The courts have come up with a compromise- treat same gender couples the same as opposite gender couples.

Solves the problem very simply.

simply ....lol...yes.......it shows the laziness of the courts

Why 'should justify all of these separately'? What's the value in an elaborate 'separate but equal' system for marriage? Why bother?

 

[Skylar]

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......

The burden of proof is on me to prove YOUR claim?

Um, no it isn't.

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

um yes it is ..............how could they find a distinction?...the burden of proof is on you....

Um, no. Its not. You claimed that the courts wouldn't be able to make a logical distinction. I'm asking you why.

Now you're demanding I 'disprove' a claim you've never been able to even explain. Let alone factually establish.

When you can, I'll be around.

 

[dcraelin]

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......

The burden of proof is on me to prove YOUR claim?

Um, no it isn't.

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

um yes it is ..............how could they find a distinction?...the burden of proof is on you....

Um, no. Its not. You claimed that the courts wouldn't be able to make a logical distinction. I'm asking you why.

Now you're demanding I 'disprove' a claim you've never been able to even explain. Let alone factually establish.

When you can, I'll be around.

You are very practiced at the art of sophistry..you should be able to show me how the court would create such distinctions.
When you can I'll be around

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SLYHUNTER SAID:

“Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.”

The voters have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights; citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – this is why we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

we are a Democracy which means the same damn thing as Republic....see my pictures most of which deal with this subject

Incorrect.

A democracy and a republic are two different things altogether.

Indeed, ours is a Constitutional Republic, where the rule of law is paramount and its democratic component representative, not direct.

no Democracy = Republic ..... we r set up on a "representative" system...which makes us an impure Republic.
rule of law ultimately means nothing if not based on the will of the majority

One good thing that will come out of this episode is more contempt of the clowns that make up our federal judicial system. They should not rule on emotion but on the law. And with an eye beyond one issue alone.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Of course for you and most on the right the "will of the people" goes out the window when they decide to ban ARs.

 

[dcraelin]

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.)

The courts have come up with a compromise- treat same gender couples the same as opposite gender couples.

Solves the problem very simply.

simply ....lol...yes.......it shows the laziness of the courts

Why 'should justify all of these separately'? What's the value in an elaborate 'separate but equal' system for marriage? Why bother?

because they each are separate aspects of the law

 

[dcraelin]

SLYHUNTER SAID:

“Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.”

The voters have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights; citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – this is why we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

we are a Democracy which means the same damn thing as Republic....see my pictures most of which deal with this subject

Incorrect.

A democracy and a republic are two different things altogether.

Indeed, ours is a Constitutional Republic, where the rule of law is paramount and its democratic component representative, not direct.

no Democracy = Republic ..... we r set up on a "representative" system...which makes us an impure Republic.
rule of law ultimately means nothing if not based on the will of the majority

One good thing that will come out of this episode is more contempt of the clowns that make up our federal judicial system. They should not rule on emotion but on the law. And with an eye beyond one issue alone.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Of course for you and most on the right the "will of the people" goes out the window when they decide to ban ARs.

I consider myself on the left...... It is part of the reason I oppose gay marriage being decided in the courts....That undermines Democracy/republicanism....which do indeed indicate the same thing....sovereignty of WE the People.....not the supremacy of the courts...no matter how emotional the issue.

 

[Skylar]

....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.)

The courts have come up with a compromise- treat same gender couples the same as opposite gender couples.

Solves the problem very simply.

simply ....lol...yes.......it shows the laziness of the courts

Why 'should justify all of these separately'? What's the value in an elaborate 'separate but equal' system for marriage? Why bother?

because they each are separate aspects of the law

Why would they be 'separate aspsects of the law'? Why wouldn't simply recognizing gay marriage as marriage work just as well?

The separation you're advocating seems both elaborate and unnecessary.

 

[Skylar]

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......

The burden of proof is on me to prove YOUR claim?

Um, no it isn't.

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

um yes it is ..............how could they find a distinction?...the burden of proof is on you....

Um, no. Its not. You claimed that the courts wouldn't be able to make a logical distinction. I'm asking you why.

Now you're demanding I 'disprove' a claim you've never been able to even explain. Let alone factually establish.

When you can, I'll be around.

You are very practiced at the art of sophistry..you should be able to show me how the court would create such distinctions.
When you can I'll be around

Not at all. I'm asking you to explain your position. You've insisted this:

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

I'm asking you why. Explain it to us.

 

[Syriusly]

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.)

The courts have come up with a compromise- treat same gender couples the same as opposite gender couples.

Solves the problem very simply.

simply ....lol...yes.......it shows the laziness of the courts......someone has mentioned all the things marriage gives that Gay couples dont get.....the court...if it were to do this right...........should justify all of these separately.....you can bet they won't because they ruling on the basis of emotion not logic and the law.

Why should any tax break be based on marriage?....why should single people not have a tax break where a couple does? That doesnt seem like equality under the law.

The courts don't make law- they interpret the law. What the courts are doing is applying the Constitution to the rights of couples denied the right to marry.

Tax breaks based on marriage- that is a legislative issue- though if a single person wants to challenge that under the law- judges are there to respond to that legal challenge.

And so far- the judges have shown more logic and law, and less emotion in their arguments, than you do. Your entire argument is based upon your emotion.

 

[dcraelin]

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.)

The courts have come up with a compromise- treat same gender couples the same as opposite gender couples.

Solves the problem very simply.

simply ....lol...yes.......it shows the laziness of the courts......someone has mentioned all the things marriage gives that Gay couples dont get.....the court...if it were to do this right...........should justify all of these separately.....you can bet they won't because they ruling on the basis of emotion not logic and the law.

Why should any tax break be based on marriage?....why should single people not have a tax break where a couple does? That doesnt seem like equality under the law.

The courts don't make law- they interpret the law. What the courts are doing is applying the Constitution to the rights of couples denied the right to marry.

Tax breaks based on marriage- that is a legislative issue- though if a single person wants to challenge that under the law- judges are there to respond to that legal challenge.

And so far- the judges have shown more logic and law, and less emotion in their arguments, than you do. Your entire argument is based upon your emotion.

they should interpret the law....I agree....law made by WE the People.......they are creating a right...ergo they are creating law.

Why is that a legislative issue...it is part of the reason gays say they aren't treated equally? It is a part of this issue....it should be decided if the courts decide on gay marriage.

my argument is based on the plain commonsense meaning of the Constitution....And admittedly I do get a bit emotional over it because I see it as an underhanded way to gain favor on the left to undermine our democratic/republican system. LIve by the courts...die by the courts...this same court you appeal to now..has thought it logical to pass citizens united.....and you trust them????????...they are making it easier for folks like the kochs to gain power by monetary influence.....to buy a new court which may just see gay marriage differently somewhere down the road......but because it sides with you , now, on this one issue.....you will beg for courts over the people.....very short sighted.

 

[Silhouette]

The courts don't make law- they interpret the law. What the courts are doing is applying the Constitution to the rights of couples denied the right to marry....And so far- the judges have shown more logic and law, and less emotion in their arguments, than you do. Your entire argument is based upon your emotion.

I'm glad you're such a strong proponent of logic and no emotion in this Hearing coming up. Because, logically, any judge would deduce from the studies below that even single parents would be better for the psychological welfare of children than gay ones, since single parents still try to see and date members of the opposite gender that the child may be. Gays' daily implied message to those unfortunate kids is "your gender NEVER matters"..

Logically, for the sake of kids, the Justices must find for states rights to incentivize that best environment for kids.

Page 8 (the left side on the green background) http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.

Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)

Young people without a role model of the same gender in their lives

The Daily Mail article from the Prince's Trust study... Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.....

The Court was faced with provisions of the Constitution that contradicted each other and they chose one over the other.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The courts don't make law- they interpret the law. What the courts are doing is applying the Constitution to the rights of couples denied the right to marry....And so far- the judges have shown more logic and law, and less emotion in their arguments, than you do. Your entire argument is based upon your emotion.

I'm glad you're such a strong proponent of logic and no emotion in this Hearing coming up. Because, logically, any judge would deduce from the studies below that even single parents would be better for the psychological welfare of children than gay ones, since single parents still try to see and date members of the opposite gender that the child may be. Gays' daily implied message to those unfortunate kids is "your gender NEVER matters"..

Logically, for the sake of kids, the Justices must find for states rights to incentivize that best environment for kids.

Page 8 (the left side on the green background) http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.

Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)

Young people without a role model of the same gender in their lives

The Daily Mail article from the Prince's Trust study... Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

It is not the role of the Court to deny rights on the basis of a sliding scale of what alleged value the right has. There is no objective reasoned opinion supported by evidence that same sex parenting is so inferior to or more detrimental than opposite sex parenting

that can justify denying the right of marriage to same sex couples.

The bad parental environment argument is just more of the anti-gay propaganda against same sex marriage,

and also an excellent indication of how devoid of good arguments the anti-gay side is.

 

[Silhouette]

It is not the role of the Court to deny rights on the basis of a sliding scale of what alleged value the right has....

It is PRECISELY the role of the Court to weigh the welfare of children above each and every other thing in this question. Children are the only ones in this equation that cannot vote to affect their fate so the Court takes their needs into account FIRST. All those with more dominant rights and avenues for redress come naturally, second to kids.

Therefore, the "alleged value" of the detriment FOUND AS FACT in the Prince's Trust study: that kids need their specific gender as a role model to grow up sane and well balanced, will weigh heavily on the mind of the Court.

That you don't even want to discuss the most important people in the marriage contract (children: doubt me? Check family law courts for details..) is telling in itself on how your position should be weighed in this question..

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is not the role of the Court to deny rights on the basis of a sliding scale of what alleged value the right has....

It is PRECISELY the role of the Court to weigh the welfare of children above each and every other thing in this question. Children are the only ones in this equation that cannot vote to affect their fate so the Court takes their needs into account FIRST. All those with more dominant rights and avenues for redress come naturally, second to kids.

Therefore, the "alleged value" of the detriment FOUND AS FACT in the Prince's Trust study: that kids need their specific gender as a role model to grow up sane and well balanced, will weigh heavily on the mind of the Court.

That you don't even want to discuss the most important people in the marriage contract (children: doubt me? Check family law courts for details..) is telling in itself on how your position should be weighed in this question..

They can weigh it all they want but they're fucking idiots if they come to the conclusion that gay marriage rights even, in the first place, hinge on parenting skills, or parental environments,

and in the second place they're fucking idiots if they come to the conclusion that same sex parents are so likely to be so detrimental to child's wellbeing that they can justify barring gays from the institution of civil marriage altogether.

We have laws dealing with bad parenting. We don't have assumed-guilty laws predicting that certain individuals or pairs of individuals might someday be bad parents,

laws that deny marriage before the fact.

 

[Silhouette]

Your reverence for the Supremes is oozing out of your post