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

[Silhouette]

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.

Can I quote you in my signature saying you think SCOTUS are "fucking idiots" for weighing the rights and needs of children in the marriage debate? Seriously?

Meanwhile, we cannot assume a brother/brother or sister/sister marriage or even wolves would be bad for kids as parents (even though we have studies that would lend huge weight to say they would be).

You are familiar with child-protective laws I assume? They're different from regular laws. They are the only set of laws, except I believe now elder-abuse laws, where a person only has to have minimal knowledge or even just reasonable suspicion that a child might be (doesn't have to be "is") in danger and if that person fails to act to protect that child, s/he is guilty of a criminal offense for not acting to prevent. I think it's called "negligent accessory" or something close to that.

So if the "fucking idiots" on the Supreme Court examine any evidence that would cause them to suspect that children might be placed in a toxic situation (like ...I don't know...maybe the Prince's Trust survey...the "largest of its kind" that kids need their same gender as a role model or terrible things happen to them) and ignore it, then they could be guilty of a criminal offense against children.

And I think that's grounds for impeachment if memory serves?

 

[Syriusly]

....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.
.

Nope- the court interprets the law- not creates law-

When the Supreme Court ruled in Zablocki that a person has a right to marriage even when he owes child support, they were not creating law- they were interpreting law.

Same is happening with same gender couples.

 

[Syriusly]

And I think that's grounds for impeachment if memory serves?

No one should rely upon your memory for anything.

No- not grounds for impeachment.

I still remember you claiming that officials from the State of California were liable for criminal prosecution for enacting "Harvey Milk Day".....you were wrong then, you are wrong now.

 

[Syriusly]

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..

Justice Kennedy has expressed his concern for the welfare of children.

During Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, Justice Anthony Kennedy--who is widely considered the swing vote in the case--suggested that California's gay marriage ban causes "immediate legal injury" to children of same-sex parents.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

 

[Zoom-boing]

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

Yep. Not "go ahead and marry anyone you want". Equal means equal. A black man can marry anyone a white man can because the state can't discriminate against his race. It isn't the same as a black man marrying a black man though, that's where the word 'equal' gets abused by activists..

It isn't the same thing- but it is the same issue.
Alabama law until 2000 made it illegal for a person of one race to marry a person of another race.
Alabama law currently makes it illegal for a person of one gender to marry a person of the same gender

Sexual preference is not race- but neither distinction- or discrimination- serves any legitimate State interest- and that is what this judge- and about a dozen other judges have also found.

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?

Do you believe that two brothers should be able to marry each other?

I don't know. What harm, if any, does this cause society? Should they be allowed to take advantage of the benefits (financial) of marriage? If not, why not? Aren't they being discriminated against by not being able to marry? What if they wanted to raise a kid together? What if they had to raise a kid together (legal guardians of a sibling who died or something) and being legally married was financially more advantageous and beneficial for them ... is it ok then? It's just a piece of paper affording them tax breaks, no worries as far as an incest-born child, so it does beg the question ... should related persons be allowed to marry to take advantage of married benefits? What is the purpose of the ssm ... isn't it so that ss couples can reap the benefits (financial) of being married? That's what I thought was the basic point of ssm. Why is this restricted to non-related persons?

 

[Skylar]

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.

Can I quote you in my signature saying you think SCOTUS are "fucking idiots" for weighing the rights and needs of children in the marriage debate? Seriously?

The words he used were 'come to the conclusion'. Not 'weight'.

Dear god, you suck at paraphrasing.

 

[Skylar]

Do you believe that two brothers should be able to marry each other?

I don't know.

Well, when you have a point or an opinion, feel free to share it with us.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Do you believe that two brothers should be able to marry each other?

I don't know.

Well, when you have a point or an opinion, feel free to share it with us.

Let me know when you improve your reading comprehension skills so you can attempt to answer some of my questions. At this point it's obvious your only response is being obtuse and dodging. You can't even quote them, you snipped them all away. lol have fun with that.

 

[Skylar]

Do you believe that two brothers should be able to marry each other?

I don't know.

Well, when you have a point or an opinion, feel free to share it with us.

Let me know when you improve your reading comprehension skills so you can attempt to answer some of my questions. At this point it's obvious your only response is being obtuse and dodging. You can't even quote them, you snipped them all away. lol have fun with that.

You clearly have a point you want to make with all your questions.

What is it?

 

[Syriusly]

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

Yep. Not "go ahead and marry anyone you want". Equal means equal. A black man can marry anyone a white man can because the state can't discriminate against his race. It isn't the same as a black man marrying a black man though, that's where the word 'equal' gets abused by activists..

It isn't the same thing- but it is the same issue.
Alabama law until 2000 made it illegal for a person of one race to marry a person of another race.
Alabama law currently makes it illegal for a person of one gender to marry a person of the same gender

Sexual preference is not race- but neither distinction- or discrimination- serves any legitimate State interest- and that is what this judge- and about a dozen other judges have also found.

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?

Do you believe that two brothers should be able to marry each other?

I don't know. What harm, if any, does this cause society?

If you have no opinion- why are you asking us to tell you?

 

[Syriusly]

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

Yep. Not "go ahead and marry anyone you want". Equal means equal. A black man can marry anyone a white man can because the state can't discriminate against his race. It isn't the same as a black man marrying a black man though, that's where the word 'equal' gets abused by activists..

It isn't the same thing- but it is the same issue.
Alabama law until 2000 made it illegal for a person of one race to marry a person of another race.
Alabama law currently makes it illegal for a person of one gender to marry a person of the same gender

Sexual preference is not race- but neither distinction- or discrimination- serves any legitimate State interest- and that is what this judge- and about a dozen other judges have also found.

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?

Do you believe that two brothers should be able to marry each other?

What is the purpose of the ssm ... isn't it so that ss couples can reap the benefits (financial) of being married? That's what I thought was the basic point of ssm.

SS couples want to be married for the exact same reasons that OS couples want to get married.

As a man who has been married for over 20 years, I can say I neither married for financial benefits(negligible if any in our case) or for sex(anyone who is married knows this.....). I married because I wanted a partner, legally, emotionally and in every way for the rest of my life.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Yep. Not "go ahead and marry anyone you want". Equal means equal. A black man can marry anyone a white man can because the state can't discriminate against his race. It isn't the same as a black man marrying a black man though, that's where the word 'equal' gets abused by activists..

It isn't the same thing- but it is the same issue.
Alabama law until 2000 made it illegal for a person of one race to marry a person of another race.
Alabama law currently makes it illegal for a person of one gender to marry a person of the same gender

Sexual preference is not race- but neither distinction- or discrimination- serves any legitimate State interest- and that is what this judge- and about a dozen other judges have also found.

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?

Do you believe that two brothers should be able to marry each other?

What is the purpose of the ssm ... isn't it so that ss couples can reap the benefits (financial) of being married? That's what I thought was the basic point of ssm.

SS couples want to be married for the exact same reasons that OS couples want to get married.

As a man who has been married for over 20 years, I can say I neither married for financial benefits(negligible if any in our case) or for sex(anyone who is married knows this.....). I married because I wanted a partner, legally, emotionally and in every way for the rest of my life.

Okay. Don't civil unions provide this?

 

[Iceweasel]

SS couples want to be married for the exact same reasons that OS couples want to get married.

Bullshit. Most couples get married and want to start a family. You guys are all about lies.

 

[Syriusly]

SS couples want to be married for the exact same reasons that OS couples want to get married.

Bullshit. Most couples get married and want to start a family. You guys are all about lies.

Well that is bullsit also.

Most couples get married to be partners in life- matter of fact its usually right in the marriage vows

Here is a rather typical one

I, (name), take you (name), to be my (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part.

Not one word about 'and having children'

 

[Syriusly]

It isn't the same thing- but it is the same issue.
Alabama law until 2000 made it illegal for a person of one race to marry a person of another race.
Alabama law currently makes it illegal for a person of one gender to marry a person of the same gender

Sexual preference is not race- but neither distinction- or discrimination- serves any legitimate State interest- and that is what this judge- and about a dozen other judges have also found.

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?

Do you believe that two brothers should be able to marry each other?

What is the purpose of the ssm ... isn't it so that ss couples can reap the benefits (financial) of being married? That's what I thought was the basic point of ssm.

SS couples want to be married for the exact same reasons that OS couples want to get married.

As a man who has been married for over 20 years, I can say I neither married for financial benefits(negligible if any in our case) or for sex(anyone who is married knows this.....). I married because I wanted a partner, legally, emotionally and in every way for the rest of my life.

Okay. Don't civil unions provide this?

My wife and I do not have a civil union- we are married. Why would anyone accept an incomplete substitute for what my wife and I enjoy?

 

[Dana7360]

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?

I would like to point out that being gay isn't a crime. Getting married isn't a crime.

Polygamy is.

 

[Dana7360]

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.

I don't know any judge who doesn't know that polygamy is illegal.

I don't know any judge who doesn't know that being gay or getting married isn't illegal.

 

[Dana7360]

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.

I would also point out that his position of creating separate but equal was ruled unconstitutional decades ago.

So that person wants to further violate our constitution.

How American of her/him.

 

[Dana7360]

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.

I've been skipping over most of that person's posts in this thread so I only see what it posts when I read a reply.

I sure would like to know when committing a crime and violating the constitution became a right.

Some right wingers are advocating that it's ok to commit the crime of polygamy.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

I would like to point out that being gay isn't a crime. Getting married isn't a crime.

Polygamy is.

Only the right has a problem with practicing abstinence and just saying "no"; and resorts to the coercive use of force of the State, like the Good communists they really are.