America desperately needs a legion of men like Judge Moore.

Ok, I'll take the bait....

So, you're suggesting that America needs 3,000 or so men like judge moore....

You can travel the nation recruiting, and when you reach 3,000.....then what?

The majority of Americans believe in equality, sorry if you don't agree, but it is a fact. Society has changed.

Moore is a West Point graduate who loves to recite from memory long passages of the Bible and many U.S. historical documents that defend the Bible.

---

That right there is plenty of reason for the sodomite muzzie whore in the oval office to hate him.

Equality has nothing to do with you faggots. Aids is your friend.

There is no equality in men marrying men, or women marrying women.

On the other hand, the USSC ruled that the Federal DOMA infringed on the rights of the States to set marriage laws. Then a short two years later, the exact same Justices ruled that codifying same sex marriage was a Federal matter.

Not only was the twisted logic of these two decisions enough to fry the brain of a Vulcan, but there is no law written requiring gay marriages to be performed. In short, the USSC didn't rule on a Constitutional matter, they wrote law without putting it to paper. No punishment, no citing of the statute or clarification of an existing one.. That is as un-Constitutional as it gets. Congress has the sole authority to write a law.

I guess it doesn't matter, things are no different than Brown v Board of Education. The Supreme Court deviates from logic and a clear line of reasoning, to bend to the will of society. Screw the "rule of law", we 5 unelected Justices know better than the majority of voters.

Plain to see from where you come from.....stay there!

On the other hand, the USSC ruled that the Federal DOMA infringed on the rights of the States to set marriage laws. Then a short two years later, the exact same Justices ruled that codifying same sex marriage was a Federal matter.

Not only was the twisted logic of these two decisions enough to fry the brain of a Vulcan, but there is no law written requiring gay marriages to be performed. In short, the USSC didn't rule on a Constitutional matter, they wrote law without putting it to paper. No punishment, no citing of the statute or clarification of an existing one.. That is as un-Constitutional as it gets. Congress has the sole authority to write a law.

I guess it doesn't matter, things are no different than Brown v Board of Education. The Supreme Court deviates from logic and a clear line of reasoning, to bend to the will of society. Screw the "rule of law", we 5 unelected Justices know better than the majority of voters.

Indeed.

ok....

The majority of Americans believe in equality it is none of their business what consenting adults do - especially with regard to entering into a contract......., sorry if you don't agree, but it is a fact. Society has changed.

So, you're suggesting that America needs 3,000 or so men like judge moore....

You can travel the nation recruiting, and when you reach 3,000.....then what?

So what's your plan?

You are a true imbecile! You post your own comments as text you wish to quote and then comment on them.

Anything you post isn't worth reading or commenting upon.

You are a true imbecile! You post your own comments as text you wish to quote and then comment on them.

Anything you post isn't worth reading or commenting upon.

LOL. That guy is one dumb faggot, when he doesn't have meguro's junk stuck up his rear his got his own head stuck in it.

You post your own comments as text

You didn't answer the question.

You have no answer, do you?

You didn't answer the question.

You have no answer, do you?

You clueless fool. You just don't get it do you?

What does the majority of peoples opinions have to do with a definition under the law? If a State wants to change the definition of marriage, they are free to do so by an act of law. The Federal Courts cannot change it just because they THINK the majority want it so. We may as well poll the populace on whether OJ killed his Nicole and her friend, and have a jury abide by that. A society is bound by a set of rules, laws and honestly unbiased Judges of that law. The Judge or Judges can't just change the laws because they think they are wrong. If they can, what is to stop a "white cracker racist" majority from ruling "separate but equal" is the way to go? OH RIGHT, nothing and they did it, leading to decades of discrimination and segregation. How about getting 5 USSC Justices to agree that the US Constitution is Un-Constitutional? Or 5 of them to allow those that practice Christianity to have their own laws, courts and Judges? Or more realistically, those that practice Islam to set up Sharia courts?

Courts are there to make sure that laws are enforced equally and within the bounds of the contract the States signed, called the US Constitution. It doesn't gift power to the States, it draws its power from the States. The States have within their power regulations on marriage. If you don't like the marriage regs in Alabama, move to Washington. Marry the boy of your choice, but don't expect the sane people of the South to recognize it except for the abomination that it is. THAT is freedom.

The Federal Courts cannot change it just because they THINK the majority want it so.

Obergefell v. Hodges, is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held in a 5–4 decision that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

So the SCOTUS decision was not based on what the majority desires. However, because our culture has certainly changed with regard to tolerance and acceptance of same-sex marriage, it is unlikely that there will be a groundswell of support for the likes of (used to be) Judge Moore.

In simplest terms - We all might as well get comfortable with same-sex marriage, it's probably here to stay.

You skip directly past the same USSC decision in the Defense of Marriage Act. They ruled that it was un-Constitutional for the Federal Government to regulate marriage and the definition of marriage. Two years later, the exact same court ruled that it was un-Constitutional for States to regulate marriage and the definition of. The Court contradicted what they hold most high, precedent. There still is not definition of marriage by the government or the punishment or rule on who can be denied the made up "right" to marry.

Time to rename it.

United States Supreme Culture Court (USSCC)

On the other hand, the USSC ruled that the Federal DOMA infringed on the rights of the States to set marriage laws.

No, the USSC ruled that Federal DOMA was "unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment." It was a case contesting the duty of the surviving same-sex spouse to pay an inheritance tax. New York recognized the marriage which took place in Ontario, Canada. The surviving spouse sought a refund of the tax.

The power the Constitution grants it also restrains. And though Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

What has been explained to this point should more than suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

The Executive chose to not defend the constitutionality of DOMA § 3 and the AG so notified the Speaker of the House. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the House of Representatives defended the constitutionality of DOMA § 3 as an intervenor.