Roy Moore suspended... again.

[MennoSota]

Unlike this opinion, the one issued by the court is meaningful.



Says the guy who thinks his religiously motivated beliefs trump the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with homosexual choices. The ideology of 5 progressive judges clouds their minds from comprehending the Constitution.

 

[Vylo]

The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with homosexual choices. The ideology of 5 progressive judges clouds their minds from comprehending the Constitution.

Actually it does if you read it:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

First thing to note is it makes it so the states can't override privileges or immunities granted by the federal government. So you can ban something all you want, if the feds say its protected, your ban isn't worth the paper its written on.

The equal protection clause in the 14th amendment is the basis for the ruling, stating that being able to marry the one you love is a fundamental right.

 

[lasthero]

The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with homosexual choices. The ideology of 5 progressive judges clouds their minds from comprehending the Constitution.

You're free to think that. Fortunately for us, it doesn't matter what you think, and it doesn't matter what Moore thinks. You're both wrong, and neither of you are getting your way.

You can whine about it all day long, but the Supreme Court ruled how they ruled. That you disagree with the 5 judges and think they're a bunch of stupid doo-doo heads doesn't change that.

You lost this fight. Gays have the right to marry in the US. That's a fact. Roy Moore, nor anyone, has the legal authority to deny them that right. Maybe you don't like that, but that's the way it's gonna be. With it, you should learn to deal.

 

[MennoSota]

"Equal protection of the law"

What law was broken in Alabama?

The 14th Amendment was put in place in regards freed slaves and the laws that exist.

What law did the judge break?

 

[MennoSota]

You're free to think that. Fortunately for us, it doesn't matter what you think, and it doesn't matter what Moore thinks. You're both wrong, and neither of you are getting your way.

You can whine about it all day long, but the Supreme Court ruled how they ruled. That you disagree with the 5 judges and think they're a bunch of stupid doo-doo heads doesn't change that.

You lost this fight. Gays have the right to marry in the US. That's a fact. Roy Moore, nor anyone, has the legal authority to deny them that right. Maybe you don't like that, but that's the way it's gonna be. With it, you should learn to deal.

As a progressive you desire ideologues as judges rather than judges who follow the Constitution. What will you do when the ideologue judges choose a different ideology than your own. Will you still applaud their judgments?
Justice Scalia called them out with scathing language, but you applaud their failure to uphold the Constitution. You should be ashamed of yourself for profanity our Constitution and spitting on the graves of the writers of our Constitution.

 

[MennoSota]

You're free to think that. Fortunately for us, it doesn't matter what you think, and it doesn't matter what Moore thinks. You're both wrong, and neither of you are getting your way.

You can whine about it all day long, but the Supreme Court ruled how they ruled. That you disagree with the 5 judges and think they're a bunch of stupid doo-doo heads doesn't change that.

You lost this fight. Gays have the right to marry in the US. That's a fact. Roy Moore, nor anyone, has the legal authority to deny them that right. Maybe you don't like that, but that's the way it's gonna be. With it, you should learn to deal.

Not in Alabama. There is no law supporting gay marriage, only an ideological ruling on a different law.

 

[lasthero]

Not in Alabama. There is no law supporting gay marriage.

And there doesn't need to be. If you don't understand why that is, I have a book for you.

http://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Court-Dummies-Lisa-Paddock-ebook/dp/B004Y1N0V

Not in Alabama.

They clearly do, as evidenced by the gay couples who have married in Alabama.

 

[USincognito]

The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with homosexual choices.

And "homosexual choices" have nothing to do with whether Roy Moore is violating the 14th Amendment or abusing his power.

The ideology of 5 progressive judges clouds their minds from comprehending the Constitution.

That's nice.

 

[lasthero]

As a progressive you desire ideologues as judges rather than judges who follow the Constitution. What will you do when the ideologue judges choose a different ideology than your own. Will you still applaud their judgments?
Justice Scalia called them out with scathing language, but you applaud their failure to uphold the Constitution. You should be ashamed of yourself for profanity our Constitution and spitting on the graves of the writers of our Constitution.

Oh, cry me a river.

 

[TLK Valentine]

5 judges misinterpreted the 14th Amendment due to their ideology. They should be reprimanded, just as Scalia rightfully chose to do.

So now you're admitting that it was the 14th... good for you. Admitting errors is the first step towards learning.

There comes a time when people must show civil disobedience to an unjust ruling of the court. This is certainly a time to tell the 5 judges that they are woefully wrong in their ideology and in their bizarre interpretation of the Constitution.

Civil disobedience involves breaking laws -- albeit laws that they believe to be unjust...


Are you now admitting that Roy Moore was, indeed, breaking the law? Again... good for you!

And, once again, the judge we are speaking of has not broke any law or the 14th Ammendment.

Once again, since you missed it the first time:

The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always coextensive, yet each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other. This dynamic is reflected in Loving, where the Court invoked both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause;and in Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374, where the Court invalidated a law barring fathers delinquent on child-support payments frommarrying. Indeed, recognizing that new insights and societal understandings can reveal unjustified inequality within fundamental institutions that once passed unnoticed and unchallenged, this Court hasinvoked equal protection principles to invalidate laws imposing sex-based inequality on marriage, see, e.g., Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U. S. 455, 460–461, and confirmed the relation between liberty and equality, see, e.g., M. L. B. v. S. L. J., 519 U. S. 102, 120–121.
The Court has acknowledged the interlocking nature of these constitutional safeguards in the context of the legal treatment of gays and lesbians. See Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 575. This dynamic also applies to same-sex marriage. The challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and they abridge central precepts of equality. The marriage laws at issue are in essence unequal: Same-sex couple sare denied benefits afforded opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right. Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial works a grave and continuing harm, serving to disrespect and subordinate gays and lesbians. Pp. 18–22.

All he has done is point out the ideology of progressive judges who fail to comprehend the Constitution.

And you think Roy Moore should be the one interpreting the Constitution instead? I'm sure he thinks so, too.

 

[TLK Valentine]

"Equal protection of the law"

What law was broken in Alabama?

The law that you just recently refused to acknowledge.

The 14th Amendment was put in place in regards freed slaves and the laws that exist.

And surprise, surprise... it applies to all citizens, not just freed slaves.

What law did the judge break?

The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always coextensive, yet each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other. This dynamic is reflected in Loving, where the Court invoked both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause;and in Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374, where the Court invalidated a law barring fathers delinquent on child-support payments frommarrying. Indeed, recognizing that new insights and societal understandings can reveal unjustified inequality within fundamental institutions that once passed unnoticed and unchallenged, this Court hasinvoked equal protection principles to invalidate laws imposing sex-based inequality on marriage, see, e.g., Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U. S. 455, 460–461, and confirmed the relation between liberty and equality, see, e.g., M. L. B. v. S. L. J., 519 U. S. 102, 120–121.
The Court has acknowledged the interlocking nature of these constitutional safeguards in the context of the legal treatment of gays and lesbians. See Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 575. This dynamic also applies to same-sex marriage. The challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and they abridge central precepts of equality. The marriage laws at issue are in essence unequal: Same-sex couple sare denied benefits afforded opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right. Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial works a grave and continuing harm, serving to disrespect and subordinate gays and lesbians. Pp. 18–22.

 

[MennoSota]

The law that you just recently refused to acknowledge.



And surprise, surprise... it applies to all citizens, not just freed slaves.



The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always coextensive, yet each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other. This dynamic is reflected in Loving, where the Court invoked both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause;and in Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374, where the Court invalidated a law barring fathers delinquent on child-support payments frommarrying. Indeed, recognizing that new insights and societal understandings can reveal unjustified inequality within fundamental institutions that once passed unnoticed and unchallenged, this Court hasinvoked equal protection principles to invalidate laws imposing sex-based inequality on marriage, see, e.g., Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U. S. 455, 460–461, and confirmed the relation between liberty and equality, see, e.g., M. L. B. v. S. L. J., 519 U. S. 102, 120–121.
The Court has acknowledged the interlocking nature of these constitutional safeguards in the context of the legal treatment of gays and lesbians. See Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 575. This dynamic also applies to same-sex marriage. The challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and they abridge central precepts of equality. The marriage laws at issue are in essence unequal: Same-sex couple sare denied benefits afforded opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right. Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial works a grave and continuing harm, serving to disrespect and subordinate gays and lesbians. Pp. 18–22.

It's not a law. It's the Constitution, which guides our laws. The Constitution has nothing to say about personal sexual choices and certainly the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with personal sexual choices we choose to make.
The 5 judges made an ideological ruling to tell society what morality is in their eyes. They spit on the Constitution in so doing. Yet, you applaud them.

 

[lasthero]

It's not a law. It's the Constitution, which guides our laws. The Constitution has nothing to say about personal sexual choices and certainly the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with personal sexual choices we choose to make.

The Supreme Court says it does. Deal with it.

The 5 judges made an ideological ruling to tell society what morality is in their eyes. They spit on the Constitution in so doing

You're entitled to your completely irrelevant opinion.

 

[Arcangl86]

Two things about these kinds of threads amuse me. One is the characterization of Justice Kennedy as a progressive. The second is the implication that progressive judges are never guided by the law and conversely that conservative judges are never effected by ideology.

 

[smaneck]

Does Alabama have a law that acknowledges same-sex unions? If not, there is no requirement that the judge allow them. The federal government is subservient to the States in regard to marriage license. The judge would be within his legal rights.

No one is subservient to the US Supreme Court. They are the ones who decide what is in the purview of the States or not according to the Constitution.

 

[Vylo]

T

It's not a law. It's the Constitution, which guides our laws. The Constitution has nothing to say about personal sexual choices and certainly the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with personal sexual choices we choose to make.
The 5 judges made an ideological ruling to tell society what morality is in their eyes. They spit on the Constitution in so doing. Yet, you applaud them.

The Constitution is literally the supreme law of the United States. You can't be anymore of a law. It is the paragon from which all other laws are derived.

 

[smaneck]

You are advocating that people follow a court ruling as though it is law, which it isn't. The SCOTUS legislated morality from the bench and you are applauding it. Determining morality is an act of religion. If the SCOTUS can tell us what is moral or not, then they have become religious priests and thus have thrown down the 1st Amendment.
Since you applaud their religious ruling, you are advocating for a theocracy.
All hail the church of humanism.

You got it backwards. It was this Alabama judge that was attempting to legislate morality.

 

[smaneck]

It's not a law. It's the Constitution, which guides our laws. The Constitution has nothing to say about personal sexual choices and certainly the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with personal sexual choices we choose to make.
The 5 judges made an ideological ruling to tell society what morality is in their eyes.

No, they made a decision as to what is the implications of the Constitution in this case. If it has nothing to do with personal sexual choices then neither do state legislatures who had no right imposing their own morality by telling gay people they can't get married.

 

[smaneck]

Not in Alabama. There is no law supporting gay marriage, only an ideological ruling on a different law.

One that made the Alabama law prohibiting it illegal.

 

[smaneck]

There comes a time when people must show civil disobedience to an unjust ruling of the court

Who were they being unjust to?

All he has done is point out the ideology of progressive judges who fail to comprehend the Constitution.

No, what he did was order probate judges to ignore the court's ruling and not issue licenses to gay couples. That is why he should be not only removed from the bench but disbarred.