Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Of course it sounds like a victory to someone who is intolerant of Godly morality and Christian virtues. It's the progressive way.
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.
The SCOTUS is not the law making body of our government. Why do you want a theocracy where the SCOTUS acts as the high priests of morality?
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.
LOL, the ignorance of the spiritually dead leads to the foolish belief that humanism has won.
Keep worshipping your human gods.
Roy Moore didn't break any laws. He just followed the laws that are already established in Alabama.
No, those were stupid laws and the states backed down.
If you read the bill of rights, the states overrule the feds,
not the other way around.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Contrary to Obama's actions, Administrators or the Executive
branch do not make law. They may determine how to carry out
laws made by the legislature only. They do not have the power
to decide which laws to follow, either. Obama is not the only
President to have failed his oath regarding that.
Oh look, someone thinks CF rules against flaming don't apply to them just like Moore thinks the Constitution doesn't apply to him.
Did he break a law? Yes or no?Supreme Court decisions are not legislation, but they are the law of the land. The same way that treaties are not legislation, but they are the law of the land.
Nice emotional screed. Stamping your feet about a SCOTUS decision you don't like however is not a reasoned or legally grounded argument against it nor does it change the fact that Roy Moore is the one going rogue in this case.
Did he break a law? Yes or no?
No he didn't. Certainly he never violated the 14th Amendment, so tell us which Amendment he broke.He violated the Constitution.
Did he break a law? Yes or no?
No he didn't. Certainly he never violated the 14th Amendment, so tell us which Amendment he broke.
It doesn't apply. There is no law being violated.Telling subordinates to ignore the Equal Protection clause is a violation of the 14th Amendment.
No he didn't. Certainly he never violated the 14th Amendment, so tell us which Amendment he broke.
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.
5 judges misinterpreted the 14th Amendment due to their ideology. They should be reprimanded, just as Scalia rightfully chose to do.The 14th -- your inaccurate declaration notwithstanding.
In Obergfell v Hodges, The Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage is protected under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution -- see for yourself:
Now comes the point where you put your fingers in your ears, shout "nuh-uh!" as loud as you can, and repeat the same mistaken belief that the fourteenth amendment isn't the one.
Go ahead, we'll wait...
5 judges misinterpreted the 14th Amendment due to their ideology.
And, once again, the judge we are speaking of has not broke any law or the 14th Ammendment. All he has done is point out the ideology of progressive judges who fail to comprehend the Constitution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?