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

[Silhouette]

Here we are again so Syriusly et al can spam this off the page again..

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.. 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.

They are not a part of this debate. Never have been, and never will be. It's not about them, it's about the rights of their parents.

 

[danielpalos]

States do not have more interest in children than parents do unless the parents abdicate that responsibility.

“As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.”
― George Washington

Since when can a State interfere via the law, in the subjective value of morals of even Religion?

Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

In any case, if it is not Spartan public policy, how Good can it really be for the common Defense.

 

[Contumacious]

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..

"the interests of the children" ....very interesting concept. which is relevant only when the state decides it is.

When the almighty state wants to invade Iraq or Waco, sullenly children don't matter.

But when the state wants to control the internet, , women, and homosexuality children matter.


What a load.

.

 

[danielpalos]

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..

"the interests of the children" ....very interesting concept. which is relevant only when the state decides it is.

When the almighty state wants to invade Iraq or Waco, sullenly children don't matter.

But when the state wants to control the internet, , women, and homosexuality children matter.


What a load.

.

Only the right is that cognitively dissonant, in the legal venue of the general government:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

The Federalist Number 41

 

[Contumacious]

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..

"the interests of the children" ....very interesting concept. which is relevant only when the state decides it is.

When the almighty state wants to invade Iraq or Waco, sullenly children don't matter.

But when the state wants to control the internet, , women, and homosexuality children matter.


What a load.

.

Only the right is that cognitively dissonant, in the legal venue of the general government:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

The Federalist Number 41

If James Madison was alive today , he would be classified as an enemy of the state and incarcerate at Gitmo..

 

[Syriusly]

Here we are again so Syriusly et al can spam this off the page again..

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.

What about the interests of children? The only children affected by gay marriage bans are the children of gay parents.

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?"

 

[Syriusly]

We're not talking about "immediate legal harm" to some poor kids caught up in deviant lifestyles.

Of course not- you want to ignore the only children actually affected by same gender marriage- the children of homosexual couples.

Homosexuals have children with or without marriage- just like heterosexuals- just the homosexual children are planned.

Preventing homosexuals from marriage only ensure that the children that they have will not have married parents.

 

[Contumacious]

Here we are again so Syriusly et al can spam this off the page again..

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.

What about the interests of children? The only children affected by gay marriage bans are the children of gay parents.

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?"

HUH?

That is fucked up

To claim that a homosexual union is moral and proper only if recognized by the almighty state is fucked up.


.

 

[Syriusly]

Here we are again so Syriusly et al can spam this off the page again..

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.

What about the interests of children? The only children affected by gay marriage bans are the children of gay parents.

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?"

HUH?

That is fucked up

To claim that a homosexual union is moral and proper only if recognized by the almighty state is fucked up.


.

I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that you did- once again- here is what Justice Kennedy said


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?"

 

[Contumacious]

Here we are again so Syriusly et al can spam this off the page again..

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.

What about the interests of children? The only children affected by gay marriage bans are the children of gay parents.

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?"

HUH?

That is fucked up

To claim that a homosexual union is moral and proper only if recognized by the almighty state is fucked up.


.

I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that you did- once again- here is what Justice Kennedy said


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?"

"to have full recognition and full status. "


What the fuck do that means?

Recognized by whom?

What the fuck is "full status"


.

 

[Syriusly]

Here we are again so Syriusly et al can spam this off the page again..

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.

What about the interests of children? The only children affected by gay marriage bans are the children of gay parents.

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?"

HUH?

That is fucked up

To claim that a homosexual union is moral and proper only if recognized by the almighty state is fucked up.


.

I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that you did- once again- here is what Justice Kennedy said


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?"

"to have full recognition and full status. "


What the fuck do that means?

Recognized by whom?

What the fuck is "full status"


.

I read it as 'having the full recognition and full status' as every other married couple- like my wife and I have.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

If we permit a lower rank judge to ignore what higher courts rule, when do we say no? If he tries to resume school segregation how is that any different than his rejecting higher court decisions on gay marriage? Or what about interracial marriage? What if he says homosexuality is illegal again?

Fire, impeach, or otherwise remove him from his office. He broke the chain-of-command.

 

[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

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.

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.

so there wasnt a law expert on MSNBC?

 

[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

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.

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.

seriously???..

 

[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

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.

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?

I've told you why in previous posts.....but folks like you cant get beyond one issue......but again...it has implications beyond gay marriage

 

[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.

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.

so there wasnt a law expert on MSNBC?

I wouldn't know. Was there a law expert on MSNBC?

 

[dcraelin]

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.

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.

so there wasnt a law expert on MSNBC?

I wouldn't know. Was there a law expert on MSNBC?

yes, though I wasn't replying to you. The expert, tho a supporter of gay marriage...nevertheless was defending Moore's actions.....to the surprise of the host and other knee-jerk party cheerleaders.

 

[danielpalos]

The point is; that any form of segregation via legal machinations are null and void from Inception; upon appeal to Article 4, Section 2 since the several States are subject to the supremacy clause upon that choice of law.

 

[Silhouette]

The point is; that any form of segregation via legal machinations are null and void from Inception; upon appeal to Article 4, Section 2 since the several States are subject to the supremacy clause upon that choice of law.

Not when the protection of children is at stake:

http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online