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

[mdk]

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

No, gay people have every to right to seek legal action against discriminatory laws, just like every other American. You just do not like the way the courts are ruling so I can see why you want to keep this out of the court.

 

[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.

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.

The Windsor ruling also made it abundantly that state marriage laws are subject to certain constitutional guarantees. I am not too concerned about Moore's stunt b/c gays will still be getting be married in Alabama and they'll be serving sno-cones in hell first before he ever gets elected governor.

 

[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.

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.

This post is completely ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

This post is completely ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

LOL! Brilliant rebuttal. (They're losing the means to convince themselves kids... keep it up coming.)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

The "supremacy of the Federal judiciary" rests entirely upon that body being OBJECTIVE... and worthy of the trust ON WHICH THAT POWER RESTS.

Declaring itself SUPREME above state legislatures, overturning the will of the people in matters of morality is NOT objective and violates that trust.

Moore is correct and the Federal Government as it is presently comprised is crippling the trust on which its power rests, and there is nothing good that will come from that inferno, except the sprout of new, healthy, viable governance, which follows:

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

DCRAELIN SAID:

“The Windsor case itself said that marriage is a states rights issue.”

States do not have the 'right' to violate the rights of American citizens residing in the states, where one is an American citizen first and foremost, a resident of a state subordinate to that, as one's rights are immune from attack by the state.

Gay Americans in Alabama have the right to equal protection of (equal access to) the law, including marriage law they're eligible to participate in. For a state to seek to deny gay Americans access to marriage law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment; and for state officers to defy the ruling of a Federal court violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution – these facts of law are settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

 

[Silhouette]

The "supremacy of the Federal judiciary" rests entirely upon that body being OBJECTIVE... and worthy of the trust ON WHICH THAT POWER RESTS.

Declaring itself SUPREME above state legislatures, overturning the will of the people in matters of morality is NOT objective and violates that trust.

Moore is correct and the Federal Government as it is presently comprised is crippling the trust on which its power rests, and there is nothing good that will come from that inferno, except the sprout of new, healthy, viable governance, which follows

That is exactly correct. Only you hope there is no inferno. You hope the Justices realize what a circus they are making of the Supreme Court. One of them, Ginsburg, is going to be aired in an interview on Monday on MSNBC. I saw a clip I think where the Justice is telling the world "hey, I already know how I'm going to vote on the gay marriage thing"!!

The Justices must not ever display bias in such a public way, nor must they ever BE biased before hearing BOTH sides of a hotly polarized debate! It is as if Ginsburg has said to the world" I could care less what the arguments are before me, I've made up my mind before I hear them."

That is precisely the type of tyranny that berthed the Magna Charta from the tyranny of King George..and was the guiding doctrine of how the concept of the US Supreme Court was formed.

This behavior and the can-can dance Sotomayor did on New Year's Eve in Times Square last year or the one before, I forget, following Miley Cyrus' "twerking" act on stage was her public display of "I'm casting my vote towards the lewd sex crowd too"... I think Congress should act. I really do.

Congress is partially to blame for the erosion in the confidence of the American Public in the last bastion of judicial impartiality (and I use the word loosely with regard to SCOTUS in the present day). Congress has the tools to correct the problem given to it by the US Constitution.

Imagine if Thomas, or Scalia were due to sit on a Hearing about oh, say, the proposed Canadian oil pipeline...and just weeks before, one of them was interviewed saying "oh yes, I really don't care what the majority thinks, it's high time the people wanting to make money off the pipeline got to realize their civil rights to turn a profit"..

Or.. Roberts posing publicly for a media photo op, sitting straddling an oil derrick with the president of Haliburton standing below him smiling, both waving cowboy hats in the air. The liberal media would go freakin' berserk over that and call for their heads on a platter.

 

[Iceweasel]

Who permanently defined marriage as one man one woman?

The USofA and any other country that banned polygamy.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

We aren't discussing sex. Nobody is telling adults what they can or cannot do in private. When anyone can marry, marriage won't mean much and the state should just step out of it. Which I predict is where we are going. Sign any contract with anyone you want.

 

[Silhouette]

We aren't discussing sex. Nobody is telling adults what they can or cannot do in private. When anyone can marry, marriage won't mean much and the state should just step out of it. Which I predict is where we are going. Sign any contract with anyone you want.

You're on a roll today Iceweasel! That is also completely correct. That is exactly where this is heading. Marriage is not about sex only in that sex results in kids and kids are why the states are involved in marriage in the first and only place. If children are going to be used as guinea pigs to defy the Prince's Trust survey results in "gay marriage" using "equality" as the vehicle to pull that off, one deviant pairing of adults is no more superior than any other if they are all in the category "repugnant to the majority"...

..Once you take majority rule out of the definition states make for marriage, you cannot bar any repugnant combination at all from "being married". And so, correct, the entire meaning and import of the word "marriage" dissolves. The biggest losers in that game? Children, of course. People should know this legally even if everyone intuits it instinctively as well.

The French majority knew it and hence the reason why they held this rally last year:

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The gay marriage debate is over, long over kiddos, so why are you still debating it?

 

[Silhouette]

The gay marriage debate is over, long over kiddos, so why are you still debating it?

Hey buddy, the debate is just getting warmed up.. You're not going to be allowed to dismiss the interests of children in this debate. That topic is just beginning to be hashed out.. We're not talking about "immediate legal harm" to some poor kids caught up in deviant lifestyles. We're talking about generations of children yet to be born into a society without a clear definition of what marriage means, and into situations where the states incentivize homes where one of the vital genders will not only be missing 100% of the time as role models, but also homes where the parent has long ago made a manifest declaration that that missing gender isn't vital at all. That's a terrible psychological message to send to children in that home who happen to be of that same missing gender..

We aren't discussing sex. Nobody is telling adults what they can or cannot do in private. When anyone can marry, marriage won't mean much and the state should just step out of it. Which I predict is where we are going. Sign any contract with anyone you want.

You're on a roll today Iceweasel! That is also completely correct. That is exactly where this is heading. Marriage is not about sex only in that sex results in kids and kids are why the states are involved in marriage in the first and only place. If children are going to be used as guinea pigs to defy the Prince's Trust survey results in "gay marriage" using "equality" as the vehicle to pull that off, one deviant pairing of adults is no more superior than any other if they are all in the category "repugnant to the majority"...

..Once you take majority rule out of the definition states make for marriage, you cannot bar any repugnant combination at all from "being married". And so, correct, the entire meaning and import of the word "marriage" dissolves. The biggest losers in that game? Children, of course. People should know this legally even if everyone intuits it instinctively as well.

The French majority knew it and hence the reason why they held this rally last year:

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Hey buddy, the debate is just getting warmed up..

LOL. No Sweetheart, it's long over. We have much bigger fish to fry, even you.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

I hear that a lot from people who disagree with judges.

And they are oddly quiet about 'power grab by federal judges' when they rule in favor of one of their pet peeves.

I am fairly confident that you and your fellow travellers will be crying impeachment after the Supreme Court rules this summer.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

..

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

Why?

Why should homosexuals not use their right to seek redress from the courts?

gun owners do?
the Lovings did?

Why do you think homosexuals should act legally like millions of other Americans do each year?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

We aren't discussing sex. Nobody is telling adults what they can or cannot do in private. When anyone can marry, marriage won't mean much and the state should just step out of it. Which I predict is where we are going. Sign any contract with anyone you want.

Oh how quickly we forget.

It is only because the Supreme Court told States that they cannot tell adults what they can or cannot do in public- a short 12 years ago- that 'we the people' are no longer telling men that they cannot have sex in private.

Same gender marriage will not hurt my marriage- and anyone's marriage it would must be a pretty shaky marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

The "supremacy of the Federal judiciary" rests entirely upon that body being OBJECTIVE... and worthy of the trust ON WHICH THAT POWER RESTS.

Declaring itself SUPREME above state legislatures, overturning the will of the people in matters of morality is NOT objective and violates that trust.

Moore is correct and the Federal Government as it is presently comprised is crippling the trust on which its power rests, and there is nothing good that will come from that inferno, except the sprout of new, healthy, viable governance, which follows

That is exactly correct. Only you hope there is no inferno. .

there will be no 'inferno'.

Just as in Alabama, people will adjust- and in a few years, same gender marriage will seem no more shocking to Alabamans than mixed race marriages seemed in 1967.

 

[Silhouette]

4 posts in a row,...you're almost there...hurry up...I want to repost #872 on the next page..

 

[Syriusly]

4 posts in a row,...you're almost there...hurry up...I want to repost #872 on the next page..

Glad to to help out

You are delusional

 

[Silhouette]

See, there we go... and now...