Roy Moore suspended... again.

[TLK Valentine]

That would be the supreme court. Perhaps you should look up what supreme means. They ruled, this is the meaning, this is the law.

Of course, he'd be praising them if even one of those "ideologues" voted the other way.

He knows what it means, but he disagrees, so he thinks its invalid.

 

[AirPo]

Where on earth did you come up with the delusion that I wanted this?

It's called projection.

 

[smaneck]

I can't help but notice that those supporting Moore are ignoring the question as to whether Loving vs. Virginia was valid decision. So let me ask again. Did the Supreme Court have the right to strike down laws prohibiting interracial marriage?

 

[KCfromNC]

There is no law in Alabama giving sanction to same-sex unions.

Sure there is. All of Section 30-1 does, excluding the parts ruled illegal of course.

 

[The Cadet]

It does not apply in this situation, even though 5 ideologues used that argument to push their ideological agenda.

Except it does. See, because the supreme court ruled that it does, it does. You can disagree, you can flap your arms and hold your breath until you go blue in the face, you can stay in denial, but the fact remains that the supreme court's interpretation of the law is binding. If you don't like their interpretation, appeal. But if you try to ignore rulings you just don't like, you can expect to get the pants sued off of you.

 

[Belk]

They overstepped there too. Where in the Constitution
is the stated power of the feds to control marriage or
decide what medications are legal or illegal for that
matter?

ANYTHING not written in the Constitution as a power of
the feds is a power belonging to the states and/or the people.

No where. Since this ruling is not about that but about the constitutionality of laws I fail to see why you are asking this question.

 

[cow451]

Can't you guys send him, Trump and Arpaio (sp?) off to an island somewhere where they can be an arm each of their own government and leave normal people alone?

Actually Trump doesn't care about SSM or where one goes to the bathroom. As an aside, the governor ofAlabama is about to be impeached.

Instead of building a wall between the US and Mexico, we probably would be better off with one between the US and Alabama.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I can't help but notice that those supporting Moore are ignoring the question as to whether Loving vs. Virginia was valid decision. So let me ask again. Did the Supreme Court have the right to strike down laws prohibiting interracial marriage?

Of course not! Of course, since it was a unanimous decision, that means we had nine ideologues trying to legislate morality who needed to be booted off the bench!

 

[TLK Valentine]

I have, many times. If you think you know part of it
that I'm missing, feel free to show me up on here. I
can take it. What is the enumerated power of the
federal government to control marriage or the Supreme
Court to pass laws in place of the legislature?

The courts don't need pass laws, they interpret existing laws and decide how those laws apply to specific cases.

So it was the Supreme Court's decision that the actions of lower courts were actually in violation of already existing laws -- specifically, the 14th Amendment of the Constitution

Really, this is civics 101.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Actually Trump doesn't care about SSM or where one goes to the bathroom. As an aside, the governor ofAlabama is about to be impeached.

Which would explain why Moore's pulling this stunt -- he wants to be elected governor.

Instead of building a wall between the US and Mexico, we probably would be better off with one between the US and Alabama.

As long as we make Alabama pay for it.

 

[smaneck]

Of course not! Of course, since it was a unanimous decision, that means we had nine ideologues trying to legislate morality who needed to be booted off the bench!

I'm still waiting to hear from those supporting this Alabama judge. Was loving vs. Virginia constitutional or not? I want to hear from their own mouths.

 

[MennoSota]

I can't help but notice that those supporting Moore are ignoring the question as to whether Loving vs. Virginia was valid decision. So let me ask again. Did the Supreme Court have the right to strike down laws prohibiting interracial marriage?

Two very different issues.
Skin pigmentation is genetic. Sexual behavior is a choice.

You cannot make an equal comparison between an apple and a rock.

 

[smaneck]

Two very different issues.
Skin pigmentation is genetic. Sexual behavior is a choice.

I don't believe either one is mentioned in the Constitution and remember, the Supreme Court isn't supposed to legislate morality. So the question remains if the federal government cannot rule on the constitutionality of state marriage laws isn't Loving vs. Virginia a wrong decision? If they can't rule on the constitutionality of state marriage laws then obviously it is.
But it looks like to me your argument is they can't rule on those state marriage laws you don't want them to rule on.

 

[MennoSota]

I don't believe either one is mentioned in the Constitution and remember, the Supreme Court isn't supposed to legislate morality. So the question remains if the federal government cannot rule on the constitutionality of state marriage laws isn't Loving vs. Virginia a wrong decision? If they can't rule on the constitutionality of state marriage laws then obviously it is.
But it looks like to me your argument is they can't rule on those state marriage laws you don't want them to rule on.

Skin pigmentation is not a moral issue. Sexual choices are.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Two very different issues.
Skin pigmentation is genetic. Sexual behavior is a choice.

Is being male or female a choice or genetic?

Is getting married a choice or is it genetic?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Skin pigmentation is not a moral issue. Sexual choices are.

Including the choice to get married.

 

[MennoSota]

Including the choice to get married.

Yes, marriage is a choice, but the issue of mixed marriage is skin pigmentation, not whether a man wanted to have sex with another man.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes, marriage is a choice, but the issue of mixed marriage is skin pigmentation, not whether a man wanted to have sex with another man.

Who said anything about sex? We're talking about marriage...

Let me assure you, those are very different subjects...

 

[TLK Valentine]

But on that topic, menno... If two people who didn't want to have sex with each other wished to get married, would their genders be an issue then?

 

[smaneck]

Skin pigmentation is not a moral issue. Sexual choices are.

Denying the right of people to marry based on their skin pigmentation is certainly a moral issue. But that's not what the Court ruled on. They ruled on the Constitutionality of denying people of the different races the right to intermarry. Likewise the Court did not rule on the morality of same-sex marriage, they ruled on the narrow issue of its constitutionality. So we are not comparing apples to oranges as the same constitutional principles apply.
Personally, I happen to believe that homosexual activity is morally wrong. I also recognize that my morality grows out of my religious beliefs which according to the Constitution I don't have the right to impose on others. As an American citizen I am loyal to the Constitution. I would no more prohibit a gay couple from marrying than I would prohibit you from drinking wine, although both things are against my religion. It's my religion, not yours. Why should you have to follow it?