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

[paperview]

Guess who is coming to the rescue of Judge Moore and the anti-gay bigots?




Yup.

"KKK issues “call to arms” over Alabama same-sex marriage ruling
The hate group melts down after a federal court rules an amendment banning same-sex marriage unconstitutional
...
"We as White Christians intend to see that no outside agitators bully or intimidate the White Christian majority in the State of Alabama...We salute those like the chief justice for standing against the Immoral, Ungodly and activist Federal Judges.”

KKK issues 8220 call to arms 8221 over Alabama same-sex marriage ruling - Salon.com

You've got some good buds there, anti-gay bigots.

 

[Syriusly]

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:

We do need to protect the children.

As Chief Justice Kennedy pointed out


"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]

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

Meanwhile speaking of lawsuits.....

Christians activists are now suing the judges in Alabama who are issuing marriage licences to gay couples

Judge tangled up over tying the knot - The Washington Post

 

[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.

Not when the protection of children is at stake:

We do need to protect the children.

As Chief Justice Kennedy pointed out


"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?"

Protection from what? Marriage is a private Act and purely natural right, that is commuted public only for full faith and credit purposes; not, the communism of the right, who may not be satisfied to only practicing their communism, in Cuba.

 

[Silhouette]

You've got some good buds there, anti-gay bigots.

The KKK also believes in the right to bear arms and free speech. As repugnant as the KKK is and how unfortunate for children that their voices have joined the fray, are you going to say now that people shouldn't have the right to bear arms or free speech because the KKK endorses that also?

And speaking of declaring someone guilty by association, shouldn't we be discussing the LGBT appointment of pedophile Harvey Milk as their collective sexual icon? At least the vast majority of people supporting traditional marriage and childrens' voices in marriage simply detest the KKK. Whenever I bring up Harvey Milk's name, all I hear are apologies and defense for his actions sodomizing minor boys. Even cries that the age of consent should be lowered so that what Harvey did "would no longer be a crime". I have yet to hear an LGBT advocate denounce Harvey Milk as representative of their movement.

And I've discussed him a LOT with LGBTers...

 

[Skylar]

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

And where does the Prince Trust Study even mention same sex parents, let alone measure anything about them?

 

[Skylar]

You've got some good buds there, anti-gay bigots.

The KKK also believes in the right to bear arms and free speech. As repugnant as the KKK is and how unfortunate for children that their voices have joined the fray, are you going to say now that people shouldn't have the right to bear arms or free speech because the KKK endorses that also?

And speaking of declaring someone guilty by association, shouldn't we be discussing the LGBT appointment of pedophile Harvey Milk as their collective sexual icon?

So let me get this right. You reject guilt by association when applied to you. Then bring up an argument you've made before about Harvey Milk, arguing guilt by association.

You can't reject a fallacy while using it.

And of course, none of it has the slightest thing to do with gay marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

So let me get this right. You reject guilt by association when applied to you. Then bring up an argument you've made before about Harvey Milk, arguing guilt by association.

You can't reject a fallacy while using it.

And of course, none of it has the slightest thing to do with gay marriage.

Hey dipweed. Nobody on my side of the debate is defending, standing by or happy about the KKK joining our side. I'd bitch slap them all in a minute. However the DIFFERENCE between the KKK and Harvey Milk is that your side DEFENDS Harvey Milk and has elevated him to icon status. The equivalent would be everyone at chic fil a wearing pointed white hoods, which of course you didn't see.

Someone else rejects the takeover of gay marraige over state laws too...guess who they are?

The Coalition of African-American Pastors (CAAP) has an almighty bone to pick with President Barack Obama...The Tenneesee-based clergy group is calling on black pastors from around the country to join them in rejecting the president for his stance on same-sex marriage...."We were once proud of President Obama, but our pride has turned to shame," Rev. William Owens, president of CAAP, said in a press release E-mailed to Whispers. "The man holding the most powerful position in the world is stooping to lead the country down an immoral path." Black Pastors Reject Obama Over Gay Marriage Support - US News

 

[Skylar]

So let me get this right. You reject guilt by association when applied to you. Then bring up an argument you've made before about Harvey Milk, arguing guilt by association.

You can't reject a fallacy while using it.

And of course, none of it has the slightest thing to do with gay marriage.

Hey dipweed. Nobody on my side of the debate is defending, standing by or happy about the KKK joining our side.

Strawman. I never said you were.

Instead I found it amusing that you reject 'guilt by association' fallacies when applied to you. And then bizarrely offer us your oldest guilt by association fallacy. Its clearly not the fallacy you have a problem with. As you use it constantly.

Its the application of the fallacy to your argument.

And of course, none of this has the slightest thing to do with gay marriage.

 

[Contumacious]

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

And they don't have full recognition and full status' as every other married couple- like you and your wife and you have a manifested by ? Specifically, what right are they being deprived of?!?!?!?!?!?


.

 

[Skylar]

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.

And they don't have full recognition and full status' as every other married couple- like you and your wife and you have a manifested by ? Specifically, what right are they being deprived of?!?!?!?!?!?


.

The right to marry.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

And they don't have full recognition and full status' as every other married couple- like you and your wife and you have a manifested by ? Specifically, what right are they being deprived of?!?!?!?!?!?


.

The right to marry.

Amazing.


Firstly, let me inform you that STATE recognized marriage is a dying institution:


The Marriage Crisis

How marriage has changed in the last 50 years and why it continues to decline


So it makes me wonder why homosexuals would want to partake of dying venture.

So asking the state to recognize their union will force homosexuals to avoid marriage in order to avoid massive legal entanglements.


.

.

 

[Skylar]

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.

And they don't have full recognition and full status' as every other married couple- like you and your wife and you have a manifested by ? Specifically, what right are they being deprived of?!?!?!?!?!?


.

The right to marry.

Amazing.


Firstly, let me inform you that STATE recognized marriage is a dying institution:


The Marriage Crisis

How marriage has changed in the last 50 years and why it continues to decline


So it makes me wonder why homosexuals would want to partake of dying venture.

So asking the state to recognize their union will force homosexuals to avoid marriage in order to avoid massive legal entanglements.


.

.

And your claim that its a 'dying institution' has what relevance to gays and lesbians having their rights recognized? That smells like a steaming heap of red herrings to me.

 

[Contumacious]

"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.

And they don't have full recognition and full status' as every other married couple- like you and your wife and you have a manifested by ? Specifically, what right are they being deprived of?!?!?!?!?!?


.

The right to marry.

Amazing.


Firstly, let me inform you that STATE recognized marriage is a dying institution:


The Marriage Crisis

How marriage has changed in the last 50 years and why it continues to decline


So it makes me wonder why homosexuals would want to partake of dying venture.

So asking the state to recognize their union will force homosexuals to avoid marriage in order to avoid massive legal entanglements.


.

.

And your claim that its a 'dying institution' has what relevance to gays and lesbians having their rights recognized? That smells like a steaming heap of red herrings to me.

I suggest you check your kitchen then.

Homosexuals have a right to form a union guaranteed by the

1- US Constitution - no authority was ever granted for preventing homosexuals from living together or having sex

2- First Amendment right of association

3- Ninth Amendment

So my comment is directed at the idea that in order for something to be good or moral is must be recognized by government officials.

As a fascist/socialist , I am certain that it does to you , but not to me.


.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

And they don't have full recognition and full status' as every other married couple- like you and your wife and you have a manifested by ? Specifically, what right are they being deprived of?!?!?!?!?!?


.

The right to marry.

Amazing.


Firstly, let me inform you that STATE recognized marriage is a dying institution:



.

Predictions of the death of legal marriage are premature.

As long as legal marriage does exist, then same gender couples should be treated legally the same as my wife and I are treated when it comes to marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

And they don't have full recognition and full status' as every other married couple- like you and your wife and you have a manifested by ? Specifically, what right are they being deprived of?!?!?!?!?!?


.

the right of legal marriage- the right that my wife and I enjoy.

 

[Syriusly]

So let me get this right. You reject guilt by association when applied to you. Then bring up an argument you've made before about Harvey Milk, arguing guilt by association.

You can't reject a fallacy while using it.

And of course, none of it has the slightest thing to do with gay marriage.

and Harvey Milk is that your side DEFENDS Harvey Milk and has elevated him to icon status.

No more than 'your side' has elevated Elvis Presley to an icon status.

And unlike Harvey Milk, someone actually has told us that Elvis has sex with her as an underage minor/

 

[Skylar]

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

And they don't have full recognition and full status' as every other married couple- like you and your wife and you have a manifested by ? Specifically, what right are they being deprived of?!?!?!?!?!?


.

The right to marry.

Amazing.


Firstly, let me inform you that STATE recognized marriage is a dying institution:


The Marriage Crisis

How marriage has changed in the last 50 years and why it continues to decline


So it makes me wonder why homosexuals would want to partake of dying venture.

So asking the state to recognize their union will force homosexuals to avoid marriage in order to avoid massive legal entanglements.


.

.

And your claim that its a 'dying institution' has what relevance to gays and lesbians having their rights recognized? That smells like a steaming heap of red herrings to me.

I suggest you check your kitchen then.

Homosexuals have a right to form a union guaranteed by the

1- US Constitution - no authority was ever granted for preventing homosexuals from living together or having sex

2- First Amendment right of association

3- Ninth Amendment

So my comment is directed at the idea that in order for something to be good or moral is must be recognized by government officials.

As a fascist/socialist , I am certain that it does to you , but not to me.

Even by your standards of gibberish, that post is a beauty. The issue isn't a 'union'. The issue is a right to marry. With that marriage recognized and protected by the State.

As for your 'good and moral' babble, no one has made that argument. Its a strawman.

 

[Syriusly]

You've got some good buds there, anti-gay bigots.

The KKK also believes in the right to bear arms and free speech. As repugnant as the KKK is and how unfortunate for children that their voices have joined the fray, are you going to say now that people shouldn't have the right to bear arms or free speech because the KKK endorses that also?

And speaking of declaring someone guilty by association, shouldn't we be discussing the LGBT appointment of pedophile Harvey Milk as their collective sexual icon? At least the vast majority of people supporting traditional marriage and childrens' voices in marriage simply detest the KKK. Whenever I bring up Harvey Milk's name, all I hear..

All you hear are the facts.

Which you object to.

the fact is that no one has ever accused Harvey Milk of having illegal sex with them.

Entirely your own invention.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

And they don't have full recognition and full status' as every other married couple- like you and your wife and you have a manifested by ? Specifically, what right are they being deprived of?!?!?!?!?!?


.

the right of legal marriage- the right that my wife and I enjoy.

Again, why if "A" decides to live CONSENSUALLY , and have sex , with , "B" the union is "illegal"?


/