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

[NYcarbineer]

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.

No- you explained very clearly why 'black men' could not be discriminated:

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.

I pointed out that the exact same thing applies to homosexual men

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

Why do you think that since 'black men' pay taxes and go to war they can't be discriminated against, but 'homosexual men' who pay taxes and go to war- can be discriminated against?

Jesus H Christ. Marriage defined as one man and one women means just that regardless of race. The state can deny a license to a man because he's black and she isn't. That isn't the same thing as two guys no matter how much you try to massage it.

Who permanently defined marriage as one man one woman?

 

[Dana7360]

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?

Because it's illegal for two people who are directly related to get married.

However if it's a 3rd cousin, which isn't two people who are related, that marriage is allowed.

 

[Dana7360]

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.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, their unions are already legal, there is no need to "make" them legal.

What's illegal are state measures seeking to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying; the burden rests solely with the states to justify the prohibition, which they have failed to do.

If gay marriage was already illegal then why did states pass new laws and state constitutional amendments banning it?

It's because our constitution and state constitution allow for gay marriage. If they didn't those states would never have passed those laws or amendments.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Because it's illegal for two people who are directly related to get married.

However if it's a 3rd cousin, which isn't two people who are related, that marriage is allowed.

For now.

Say that changes --- then there would be no reason why two brothers or two sisters couldn't marry. Right?

 

[Skylar]

Alabama's stand against gay marriage crumbles

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's stand against gay marriage crumbled Friday as judges in most counties sided with federal courts rather than their own chief justice, a Republican who once called homosexuality an inherent evil.

Alabama s stand against gay marriage crumbles - Yahoo News

Down goes Frazier!

Next, Moore's removal from office.

 

[Skylar]

Because it's illegal for two people who are directly related to get married.

However if it's a 3rd cousin, which isn't two people who are related, that marriage is allowed.

For now.

Say that changes --- then there would be no reason why two brothers or two sisters couldn't marry. Right?

If you believe so, tell us why.

 

[Silhouette]

Down goes Frazier!

Next, Moore's removal from office.

Let me guess...next there will be a financial investigation of Moore... The Falling Governors Disease.. Get Immunized Today US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Syriusly]

Down goes Frazier!

Next, Moore's removal from office.

Let me guess.

can we stop you?

That describes each and every of your posts.

 

[Skylar]

Down goes Frazier!

Next, Moore's removal from office.

Let me guess...next there will be a financial investigation of Moore... The Falling Governors Disease.. Get Immunized Today US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Wow. Even by your standard of hapless non-sequiters, that's random.

Um, Silo......Moore isn't a governor. He's a judge. And the last time he pulled this bullshit, he was removed from office by the state of Alabama. He not only defied a lawful federal court order, he compelled others to defy it. All to serve his ego and personal religion.

He's so completely fucked. And frankly, should be.

 

[Silhouette]

Makes nice diversion though to not answer Zoom's question. Which I notice you two or three aren't doing...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Alabama's stand against gay marriage crumbles

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's stand against gay marriage crumbled Friday as judges in most counties sided with federal courts rather than their own chief justice, a Republican who once called homosexuality an inherent evil.

Alabama s stand against gay marriage crumbles - Yahoo News

Down goes Frazier!

Next, Moore's removal from office.

If Moore his indeed removed from office he has only himself to blame.

And of course his removal from office is in fact warranted – the consequence of his contempt for the Constitution and its case law, for the rule of law, and the fundamental principle of the supremacy of the Federal judiciary.

Although it's encouraging that state judges are obeying the Constitution and rule of law, this should never have been an 'issue' to start with.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

Because it's illegal for two people who are directly related to get married.

However if it's a 3rd cousin, which isn't two people who are related, that marriage is allowed.

Actually, 1st cousin marriages are allowed in some states:

State Laws Regarding Marriages Between First Cousins
Twenty-five states prohibit marriages between first cousins. Six states allow first cousin marriage under certain circumstances, and North Carolina allows first cousin marriage but prohibits double-cousin marriage.

First cousin marriage is allowed in these states under the following circumstances:

Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Illinois- if both are 50 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Indiana- if both are at least 65.

Maine- if couple obtains a physician's certificate of genetic counseling.

Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.

Wisconsin- if the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

 

[Dana7360]

Because it's illegal for two people who are directly related to get married.

However if it's a 3rd cousin, which isn't two people who are related, that marriage is allowed.

For now.

Say that changes --- then there would be no reason why two brothers or two sisters couldn't marry. Right?

Then brothers and sisters will get married.

Will I have a hissy fit because of it? No. Because it's really none of my business what 2 consenting adults do. America is supposed to be a free nation and it's not up to me to tell other people what they can do with their lives.

 

[dcraelin]

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?

The very fact that you cant make a logical distinction in this context,.....but they can probably talk in circles as well or better than you.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, their unions are already legal, there is no need to "make" them legal.

What's illegal are state measures seeking to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying; the burden rests solely with the states to justify the prohibition, which they have failed to do.

If gay marriage was already illegal then why did states pass new laws and state constitutional amendments banning it?

It's because our constitution and state constitution allow for gay marriage. If they didn't those states would never have passed those laws or amendments.

They did that to defend their systems from a judicial ego trip.................
These judges and lawyers know that in most cases they are merely corporate whores......this gives them the chance to pose as morally superior in the eyes of their peers.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, their unions are already legal, there is no need to "make" them legal.

What's illegal are state measures seeking to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying; the burden rests solely with the states to justify the prohibition, which they have failed to do.

the law....rightly made by we the people,.... should never face the burden of judicial overreach.

 

[dcraelin]

Alabama's stand against gay marriage crumbles

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's stand against gay marriage crumbled Friday as judges in most counties sided with federal courts rather than their own chief justice, a Republican who once called homosexuality an inherent evil.

Alabama s stand against gay marriage crumbles - Yahoo News

Down goes Frazier!

Next, Moore's removal from office.

If Moore his indeed removed from office he has only himself to blame.

And of course his removal from office is in fact warranted – the consequence of his contempt for the Constitution and its case law, for the rule of law, and the fundamental principle of the supremacy of the Federal judiciary.

Although it's encouraging that state judges are obeying the Constitution and rule of law, this should never have been an 'issue' to start with.

actually Judge Moore is in this case the only one upholding the Constitution.....The emotion based power grab by federal judges should warrant impeachment.

 

[dcraelin]

Because it's illegal for two people who are directly related to get married.

However if it's a 3rd cousin, which isn't two people who are related, that marriage is allowed.

For now.

Say that changes --- then there would be no reason why two brothers or two sisters couldn't marry. Right?

Then brothers and sisters will get married.

Will I have a hissy fit because of it? No. Because it's really none of my business what 2 consenting adults do. America is supposed to be a free nation and it's not up to me to tell other people what they can do with their lives.

no one is ripping these people apart....this "what business is it of mine" line is sad. Marriage affects society.....and it affects children...............but beyond that these cases can do damage beyond this issue......they can undermine the peoples ability to make law....The California case has already possibly done major harm in this area......and it was brought AGAINST the wishes of leaders of the gay community in California.......

the gay marriage movement should make their case to the public at large.....and keep this out of the courts

 

[mdk]

Alabama's stand against gay marriage crumbles

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's stand against gay marriage crumbled Friday as judges in most counties sided with federal courts rather than their own chief justice, a Republican who once called homosexuality an inherent evil.

Alabama s stand against gay marriage crumbles - Yahoo News

Down goes Frazier!

Next, Moore's removal from office.

If Moore his indeed removed from office he has only himself to blame.

And of course his removal from office is in fact warranted – the consequence of his contempt for the Constitution and its case law, for the rule of law, and the fundamental principle of the supremacy of the Federal judiciary.

Although it's encouraging that state judges are obeying the Constitution and rule of law, this should never have been an 'issue' to start with.

actually Judge Moore is in this case the only one upholding the Constitution.....The emotion based power grab by federal judges should warrant impeachment.

Evidently not.

Moore is turning this thing into a circus in a lame attempt to climb into the governor's chair. It is a good possibility that he will be tossed out on his ears again so at least it will give him the time he ends to run his campaign.

 

[dcraelin]

Alabama's stand against gay marriage crumbles

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's stand against gay marriage crumbled Friday as judges in most counties sided with federal courts rather than their own chief justice, a Republican who once called homosexuality an inherent evil.

Alabama s stand against gay marriage crumbles - Yahoo News

Down goes Frazier!

Next, Moore's removal from office.

If Moore his indeed removed from office he has only himself to blame.

And of course his removal from office is in fact warranted – the consequence of his contempt for the Constitution and its case law, for the rule of law, and the fundamental principle of the supremacy of the Federal judiciary.

Although it's encouraging that state judges are obeying the Constitution and rule of law, this should never have been an 'issue' to start with.

actually Judge Moore is in this case the only one upholding the Constitution.....The emotion based power grab by federal judges should warrant impeachment.

Evidently not.

Moore is turning this thing into a circus in a lame attempt to climb into the governor's chair. It is a good possibility that he will be tossed out on his ears again so at least it will give him the time he ends to run his campaign.

The Windsor case itself said that marriage is a states rights issue. Judge Moore did the right thing ...despite an emotional tide on the issue on the part of pathetic federal patronage recipients.

there is actually a law expert on MSNBC right now that is defending Moore.....an expert that believes in gay marriage.