The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with homosexual choices. The ideology of 5 progressive judges clouds their minds from comprehending the Constitution.
Upvote
0
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.
The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with homosexual choices. The ideology of 5 progressive judges clouds their minds from comprehending the Constitution.Unlike this opinion, the one issued by the court is meaningful.
Says the guy who thinks his religiously motivated beliefs trump the Constitution.
Actually it does if you read it:The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with homosexual choices. The ideology of 5 progressive judges clouds their minds from comprehending 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.
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?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.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.
Not in Alabama.
The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with homosexual choices.
The ideology of 5 progressive judges clouds their minds from comprehending the Constitution.
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.
5 judges misinterpreted the 14th Amendment due to their ideology. They should be reprimanded, just as Scalia rightfully chose to do.
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.
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.
"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?
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 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
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 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.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.
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.
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.
There comes a time when people must show civil disobedience to an unjust ruling of the court
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?