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

[Seawytch]

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?

No. The "whole crux of all of this" is gays wanting to be treated equally and homophobes not wanting them treated equally. If you were to take away the over 1,000 rights, benefits and privileges that straight people gave themselves, gays will still want to be married for all the exact same reasons you hets marry.

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?

You seem to think there is no reason they should not. I think you should pursue it. You have as much right to challenge prohibitions on you marrying a sibling as gays did on marrying each other. Good luck.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

I asked you a question and you went on a tirade instead. You don't know what the word logic means. If your "logic" were correct then there's no reason to keep 16 people from having a group marriage. I said government can't discriminate against race and I asked where sexual preference was mentioned. Try again Skippy.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

I asked you a question and you went on a tirade instead. You don't know what the word logic means. If your "logic" were correct then there's no reason to keep 16 people from having a group marriage. I said government can't discriminate against race and I asked where sexual preference was mentioned. Try again Skippy.

Maybe you just haven't seen the 14th Amendment in a while.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.​

So, can you show me where it explicitly says race?

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

I asked you a question and you went on a tirade instead. You don't know what the word logic means. If your "logic" were correct then there's no reason to keep 16 people from having a group marriage. I said government can't discriminate against race and I asked where sexual preference was mentioned. Try again Skippy.

Maybe you just haven't seen the 14th Amendment in a while.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.​

So, can you show me where it explicitly says race?

I didn't say it was in the 14th. All you do is lie. As I told you 1001 times now all men being treated the same is what the word equal means. Your cognitive dissonance and lies don't change it.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

I asked you a question and you went on a tirade instead. You don't know what the word logic means. If your "logic" were correct then there's no reason to keep 16 people from having a group marriage. I said government can't discriminate against race and I asked where sexual preference was mentioned. Try again Skippy.

Maybe you just haven't seen the 14th Amendment in a while.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.​

So, can you show me where it explicitly says race?

I didn't say it was in the 14th. All you do is lie. As I told you 1001 times now all men being treated the same is what the word equal means. Your cognitive dissonance and lies don't change it.

But it is the 14th that is being cited in these anti gay marriage rulings.

The Federal Government does not discriminate against sexual orientation in their hiring. No, there are no Federal workplace protections for gays like there are for oh, Christians...but not for lack of trying. Despite the fact that the majority of Americans believe that gays should be included in Federal workplace protections, anti gay Republicans keep blocking it.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

I asked you a question and you went on a tirade instead. You don't know what the word logic means. If your "logic" were correct then there's no reason to keep 16 people from having a group marriage. I said government can't discriminate against race and I asked where sexual preference was mentioned. Try again Skippy.

Maybe you just haven't seen the 14th Amendment in a while.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.​

So, can you show me where it explicitly says race?

I didn't say it was in the 14th. All you do is lie. As I told you 1001 times now all men being treated the same is what the word equal means. Your cognitive dissonance and lies don't change it.

But it is the 14th that is being cited in these anti gay marriage rulings.

The Federal Government does not discriminate against sexual orientation in their hiring. No, there are no Federal workplace protections for gays like there are for oh, Christians...but not for lack of trying. Despite the fact that the majority of Americans believe that gays should be included in Federal workplace protections, anti gay Republicans keep blocking it.

Constitutional rights are often cited and they exist beyond the 14th. I'm not trying the Supreme Court case. It would be wrong for the government to not hire someone due to a sexual preference since they are citizens, that isn't the issue. It's the recognition of a same sex union. A union isn't a person or a citizen.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

I asked you a question and you went on a tirade instead. You don't know what the word logic means. If your "logic" were correct then there's no reason to keep 16 people from having a group marriage. I said government can't discriminate against race and I asked where sexual preference was mentioned. Try again Skippy.

Maybe you just haven't seen the 14th Amendment in a while.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.​

So, can you show me where it explicitly says race?

I didn't say it was in the 14th. All you do is lie. As I told you 1001 times now all men being treated the same is what the word equal means. Your cognitive dissonance and lies don't change it.

But it is the 14th that is being cited in these anti gay marriage rulings.

The Federal Government does not discriminate against sexual orientation in their hiring. No, there are no Federal workplace protections for gays like there are for oh, Christians...but not for lack of trying. Despite the fact that the majority of Americans believe that gays should be included in Federal workplace protections, anti gay Republicans keep blocking it.

Constitutional rights are often cited and they exist beyond the 14th. I'm not trying the Supreme Court case. It would be wrong for the government to not hire someone due to a sexual preference since they are citizens, that isn't the issue. It's the recognition of a same sex union. A union isn't a person or a citizen.

But that's exactly what the Governor of Kansas did and you were applauding it. He removed workplace protections for gays. State employees that are gay can now be harassed or fired without recourse and you thought that was great.

The recognition of our civil marriages happened with Windsor.

The courts have already weighed in on civil marriage being a fundamental right. They have cited marriage as a fundamental right over a dozen times, most notably in Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin and Turner v Safley. Only ONE of those cases was about race.

The courts have the authority and they are exercising it. Tax paying gay American citizens have the right to redress grievances through the courts. You're just pissed 'cause they're winning.

 

[mdk]

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.

What does The Prince's Trust study this have to do with gay marriage? It no way mentions/studies gays and gay parents. Can you point to the exact part of the study that states they are studying gays or gay parents? I won't hold my breath since we both know it doesn't exist. You have this hysterical habit of chiding others you feel are not on topic and yet you continue to spam a study that literally has nothing to do with gay marriage.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

What does The Prince's Trust study this have to do with gay marriage? It no way mentions/studies gays and gay parents. Can you point to the exact part of the study that states they are studying gays or gay parents? I won't hold my breath since we both know it doesn't exist. You have this hysterical habit of chiding others you feel are not on topic and yet you continue to spam a study that literally has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Spartan public policy trumps any study.

 

[Iceweasel]

But that's exactly what the Governor of Kansas did and you were applauding it. He removed workplace protections for gays. State employees that are gay can now be harassed or fired without recourse and you thought that was great.

That's your interpretation. And we know what that's like. I suspect it has more to do with letting private citizens choose their employees and customers than throwing a homosexual out of a public sector job.

The recognition of our civil marriages happened with Windsor.

The courts have already weighed in on civil marriage being a fundamental right. They have cited marriage as a fundamental right over a dozen times, most notably in Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin and Turner v Safley. Only ONE of those cases was about race.

The courts have the authority and they are exercising it. Tax paying gay American citizens have the right to redress grievances through the courts. You're just pissed 'cause they're winning.

You keep repeating the same goddamn nonsense like it will become fact after the millionth time. There would be no Supreme court case if you were right.

 

[Iceweasel]

Spartan public policy trumps any study.

The Spartans are fierce warriors indeedy.

 

[dcraelin]

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?

the burden of proof is on you..............I'm sure they could come up with a distinction.......just not one that made logical sense, "precedencial" sense, that would mesh well with their reasoning to make gay marriage legal ....that is why a prominent attorney on the gay rights issue also got involved in the Hollywood polygamy case. I think they realize they can make no legal distinction.

 

[WorldWatcher]

But that's exactly what the Governor of Kansas did and you were applauding it. He removed workplace protections for gays. State employees that are gay can now be harassed or fired without recourse and you thought that was great.

That's your interpretation. And we know what that's like. I suspect it has more to do with letting private citizens choose their employees and customers than throwing a homosexual out of a public sector job.

Can you explain how a State Governor Executive Order applicable to State agency hiring and employment practices (and the issuing or revocation of) has anything to do with impacting private citizens choose their employees and customers?


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

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?

the burden of proof is on you..............I'm sure they could come up with a distinction.......just not one that made logical sense, "precedencial" sense, that would mesh well with their reasoning to make gay marriage legal ....that is why a prominent attorney on the gay rights issue also got involved in the Hollywood polygamy case. I think they realize they can make no legal distinction.

No, its not. You've claimed that the judges judges wouldn't be able to make a logical distinction.

Why?

 

[Silhouette]

No, its not. You've claimed that the judges judges wouldn't be able to make a logical distinction.

Why?

Because there is no logical distinction. Both polygamy and homosexuality are sexual preferences currently excluded from marriage. Your cause "marriage equality". Just for some sexual kinks? No! The word "equality" demands that the Justices consider all "same or similar anticipated near-future pleadings". The Browns of Utah have retained Jonathan Turley as their attorney and through him have gotten polygamy decriminalized in Utah.

Next step, SCOTUS for marriage, to enjoy any precedent you folks set.

This isn't rocket science.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Rabbi and Steve can email SCOTUS they have it all wrong on the 9th and 10th Amendment.

We did not take JBS freaks seriously thrity years ago, and we do not take them seriously now, and neither does any of same America.

 

[Skylar]

No, its not. You've claimed that the judges judges wouldn't be able to make a logical distinction.

Why?

Because there is no logical distinction.

There's no logical distinction between same sex marriage.....which at worst, is simply unrecognized by the law and polygamy which is a crime?

Huh. How much headway has that particular argument actually made in court?

 

[Silhouette]

There's no logical distinction between same sex marriage.....which at worst, is simply unrecognized by the law and polygamy which is a crime?

Huh. How much headway has that particular argument actually made in court?

Polygamy isn't a crime in Utah. So yeah, they'll get marriage there for sure. And after that..well...you know the routine so I don't have to tell you.. Sack a governor here or there...threaten to ruin or set an example of ruining a career here and there....stunned fear...steamroller, a few choreographed lawsuits..

*yawn*

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Skylar]

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.

It wasn't. Cohabitation was simply removed as a proof of polygamy. Making the cases much harder to prove.

Polygamy is still a crime in all 50 States.

So how has your 'there is no logical distinction between something the law doesn't recognize and a crime' argument gone over in court?

 

[Skylar]

There's no logical distinction between same sex marriage.....which at worst, is simply unrecognized by the law and polygamy which is a crime?

Huh. How much headway has that particular argument actually made in court?

Polygamy isn't a crime in Utah.

Says you. Show us Utah saying this. Or any other State.

So yeah, they'll get marriage there for sure.

Again, says you. And your source sucks. Your record for predicting USSC action and interpreting USSC cases has been wretchedly abysmal.

I mean, you interpreted the Windsor ruling as an affirmation of gay marriage bans. When even Scalia recognized it as a blue print for the dismantling of state gay marriage bans.

But this time you citing yourself, pretending to the USSC is supposed to amount to something? Um, no