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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What disturbs me is the Supremes practicing forced shadow-attrition to state laws in violation of their own constitutional findings in Windsor 2013 in order to render a judgment in her favor by citing the supremacy of state laws on marriage to strike down that part of DOMA.
By refusing the stays, are they saying Edith Windsor needs to return the money they awarded her?

What should disturb you is the fact you're ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

 

[Iceweasel]

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore Totally Destroys CNN Anchor Chris Cuomo Alternative News Commentary

Wow, that CNN guy is a supreme ass, no wonder their ratings are in the tank. Might as well be watching MSNBC.

 

[Iceweasel]

How American is it to overthrow state rights? That violates the Constitution but it doesn't seem to matter to the tyrannical leftists.

Yeah...you guys like to say that...until a state tries to ban handguns. (Or legalize pot)

The second Amendment protects our rights. Where's the gay marriage Amendment? Who said states couldn't legalize pot? most know it's been near that for a long time in most places.

The 14th Amendment protects all of our rights also- no matter how much you want to deny them to homosexuals.

It does, you just think it means homosexuals are special and can redefine state marriage laws for everybody to suit themselves.

Special as in being treated exactly the same as my wife and I are treated- yes- special as in equal- yes I do believe that homosexuals are special that way.

Special the way I said, not the way you maliciously twisted it. Homosexuals should not have the right to define marriage for the entire rest of the state. Extending the definition to include them to pretend gender is irrelevant would be making them special.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Federal Constitution and its case law are supreme, as are the rulings of Federal courts, trumping any and all measures enacted by states and local jurisdictions – this is fundamental, accepted, and settled:

'[M]any...judges refused after Moore ordered them to continue following the rejected state ban. One judge said he was caught between the federal court order and Moore's dictate: "I want to uphold my oath, but what law do I follow?"

The answer is easy. A federal court order supported by the U.S. Supreme Court trumps Moore's personal opinion.

Not only is Moore's stance wrong, it recalls a shameful history of Southern resistance to civil rights for African Americans in the name of states' rights.'

Alabama judge again puts himself above law Our view

 

[Iceweasel]

LOL....I was speaking to Silhouette- but I am cool with saying you are a bigoted asshole too.

You bigots are just obsessed with how everyone else has sex and think that because that is all marriage is to you, that that is all it is for everyone else.

I called the purpose of the genders getting together special, in the animal kingdom as well, and said it's why marriage is what is has been throughout man's existence, regardless of culture. That men and women bring different aspects together for a family structure and you saw "sex".

Special as in being treated exactly the same as my wife and I are treated- yes- special as in equal- yes I do believe that homosexuals are special that way.

So if you and your wife decide to spice things up a bit and bring in another guy for marriage (good for the ole income too!) then you're OK with redefining marriage for the rest of the state to make it legal. Well, I disagree.

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah...you guys like to say that...until a state tries to ban handguns. (Or legalize pot)

The second Amendment protects our rights. Where's the gay marriage Amendment? Who said states couldn't legalize pot? most know it's been near that for a long time in most places.

The 14th Amendment protects all of our rights also- no matter how much you want to deny them to homosexuals.

It does, you just think it means homosexuals are special and can redefine state marriage laws for everybody to suit themselves.

Special as in being treated exactly the same as my wife and I are treated- yes- special as in equal- yes I do believe that homosexuals are special that way.

Special the way I said, not the way you maliciously twisted it. Homosexuals should not have the right to define marriage for the entire rest of the state. Extending the definition to include them to pretend gender is irrelevant would be making them special.

Homosexuals are not defining or changing anything- homosexuals went to court to protect their constitutional rights- just the same as any gun owner has done, the same as any person who believes their constitutional rights are being violated.

The judges find their arguments persuasive- and so do I.

Treating a same gender couple the exact same way my wife and I are treated is not special treatment- it is equal treatment.

 

[Silhouette]

Special as in being treated exactly the same as my wife and I are treated- yes- special as in equal- yes I do believe that homosexuals are special that way.

Special the way I said, not the way you maliciously twisted it. Homosexuals should not have the right to define marriage for the entire rest of the state. Extending the definition to include them to pretend gender is irrelevant would be making them special.

Especially where children are involved...

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.

 

[Syriusly]

LOL....I was speaking to Silhouette- but I am cool with saying you are a bigoted asshole too.

You bigots are just obsessed with how everyone else has sex and think that because that is all marriage is to you, that that is all it is for everyone else.

I called the purpose of the genders getting together special, in the animal kingdom as well, and said it's why marriage is what is has been throughout man's existence, regardless of culture. That men and women bring different aspects together for a family structure and you saw "sex"..

No I saw your obsession with sex when you said:
You stupid fucks think with your genitals, which makes you unsuitable for public office or critical jobs.

 

[Syriusly]

[So if you and your wife decide to spice things up a bit and bring in another guy for marriage (good for the ole income too!) then you're OK with redefining marriage for the rest of the state to make it legal. Well, I disagree.

Well that is mighty white of you to tell me what I might do- and how you disagree with what I might do- even though I never said I would do it.

Let me try that with you- shall we?

If you and your wife decide to spice things up by divorcing, and then you decide to marry a black woman- but then you pass laws against mixed race marriage to prevent yourself from marrying- well I would disagree with that.

 

[Syriusly]

Special as in being treated exactly the same as my wife and I are treated- yes- special as in equal- yes I do believe that homosexuals are special that way.

Special the way I said, not the way you maliciously twisted it. Homosexuals should not have the right to define marriage for the entire rest of the state. Extending the definition to include them to pretend gender is irrelevant would be making them special.

Especially where children are involved...e]

Especially when children are involved

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?"

Justice Sonia Sotomayor reportedly also asked the lawyer defending P

 

[Iceweasel]

No I saw your obsession with sex when you said:
You stupid fucks think with your genitals, which makes you unsuitable for public office or critical jobs.

That was me talking about you loons. You're the one thinking the Constitution gives sexual preferences the same protection as race or religion.

If you and your wife decide to spice things up by divorcing, and then you decide to marry a black woman- but then you pass laws against mixed race marriage to prevent yourself from marrying- well I would disagree with that.

Those laws never were legal because black men pay taxes, go to war, etc. as do other races. So the government can't discriminate against any race.

Now, where is sexual preferences mentioned?

 

[Zoom-boing]

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?

How is a civil union a substitute for marriage? What's the difference?

The Difference Between Marriage and Civil Unions - LawInfo

Thanks.

So homosexuals want to marry so they can also take advantage of the benefits afforded to married people. That's the whole crux of all of this?

I know you don't care, but humor me. Is there a reason why related persons of the same-sex shouldn't also be allowed to do same?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“So homosexuals want to marry so they can also take advantage of the benefits afforded to married people. That's the whole crux of all of this?”

No, it is not.

It has to do with the dignity inherent in the protected liberty to make choices about one's life free from unwarranted interference by the state.

“Is there a reason why related persons of the same-sex shouldn't also be allowed to do same?”

Yes. Because unlike same-sex couples, there are no laws that currently exist written to accommodate such unions.

The issue before the courts concerns only existing marriage contract law and the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts – contract law unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

 

[dcraelin]

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.

your kidding right...this is what were talking about is legality.

 

[Skylar]

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.

your kidding right...this is what were talking about is legality.

Polygamy is recognized as a form of bigamy. Which is illegal. Not simply unrecognized by the law as a valid marriage. But is instead a criminal act.

You're insisting that the courts couldn't draw a logical distinction between gay marriage, which is at worst unrecognized as valid and polygamy, which is a crime. Why would they be unable to draw such a logical distinction?

 

[danielpalos]

You appeal to ignorance by claiming States retain that former, sovereign States right since the ratification of our federal Constitution.

Your keyboard is stuck on stupid.

you don't have a clue or a Cause, and nothing but diversion which is usually considered a fallacy.

Article 4, Section 2 was ratified by the several States and limits their sovereignty, in the manner expressed in our supreme law of the land in Any conflict of laws arising in the several States.

 

[Syriusly]

If you and your wife decide to spice things up by divorcing, and then you decide to marry a black woman- but then you pass laws against mixed race marriage to prevent yourself from marrying- well I would disagree with that.

Those laws never were legal because black men pay taxes, go to war, etc. as do other races. So the government can't discriminate against any race.

Now, where is sexual preferences mentioned?

And homosexual men pay taxes, go to war, etc as do heterosexuals. So the government can't discriminate against any race.

By your 'logic'

And I use the word 'logic' ironically.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

How is a civil union a substitute for marriage? What's the difference?

The Difference Between Marriage and Civil Unions - LawInfo

Thanks.

So homosexuals want to marry so they can also take advantage of the benefits afforded to married people. That's the whole crux of all of this?

Do you think that the Loving's just wanted to get married to take advantages of the 'benefits' afforded to married people?

You aren't married are you? There is simply no way you have any actual experience with marriage.

I will state it very clearly:

Same gender couples want to marry for the exact same reasons why opposite gender couples want to marry- and same gender couples want equal treatment before the law with my wife and I- and I think that they should.

Do you think that they should be treated equally- or not?

 

[Silhouette]

Polygamy is recognized as a form of bigamy. Which is illegal. Not simply unrecognized by the law as a valid marriage. But is instead a criminal act.

You're insisting that the courts couldn't draw a logical distinction between gay marriage, which is at worst unrecognized as valid and polygamy, which is a crime. Why would they be unable to draw such a logical distinction?

Polygamy was just decriminalized in Utah as I understand it. And the Brown family is waiting with their attorney Jonathan Turley to file for the next petition to the US Supreme Court (after appeals) to make polygamy marriage legal on the precedent (if any) of gay marriage.

Sodomy was illegal until fairly recently too. Times change. And homosexuals were warned at the time that the decriminalization didn't mean they had marriage claims that were valid.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Polygamy was just decriminalized in Utah as I understand it.

Then you don't understand it.

Polygamy was not just decriminalized in Utah. It is still illegal to be legally married to to more than one person at a time. The provision of the law that was struck down was that it was illegal for a legally married couple to have another person co-habitate with them.


>>>>