Federal judge strikes down AL marriage ban :) (weapons, cost, troops)

[jjrose]

Old Roy Moore is on CNN babbling about how he is right and all other judges are wrong.

[jjrose]

Roy Moore " I will follow the law as I interpret it"

This guy is a hoot.

[swbtoo]

Originally Posted by jjrose

Roy Moore " I will follow the law as I interpret it"

This guy is a hoot.

Gee, sounds like something Obama would do (and has!)

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by southward bound

Gee, sounds like something Obama would do (and has!)

Probably, but Obama is not the chief justice of Alabama that was given an order by a higher court and has decided to ignore both the circuit judge AND the supreme court when given a direct order.

If you would like to discuss Obamas failures, there are plenty of threads about that topic, but Obama is not involved in the Alabama case in any way.

[Natural510]

Well done, Alabama....history has almost forgotten George Wallace and Bull Conner.

[Mwahfromtheheart]

It's gonna be fun watching Obama send in Alabama's national guard to enforce this. The reaction from the GOP will be epic and will probably lose them the election. All over something that doesn't effect the economy or anything for that matter.

[jjrose]

Mississippi KKK 'salutes' Alabama chief justice Roy Moore for gay marriage stance | AL.com

The Mississippi Klan salutes Alabama's chief justice Roy Moore, for refusing to bow to the yoke of Federal tyranny," Brent Waller, the United Dixie White Knights' imperial wizard

At least old Roy has some support.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by southward bound

This caught my eye: the fact is that the indicators imply that legal gay marriage helps strengthen and build up "the fabric of ... civilized society" "indicators imply?" I see no grounds for the conclusion.

Because to admit that the example I provided actually did indicate what I said it indicated you would have to admit your perspective was flawed, and you don't seem inclined to do that. That shouldn't be surprising: People generally refuse to allow themselves to accept the positive aspects of things they hate and the negative aspects of things they like, much less publicly admit those things, so your response is not especially strange.

Originally Posted by southward bound

Nevertheless, this entire gay marriage debate has an erroneous focus. I don't care what adults do or how they join their lives with a partner whether legally or otherwise, but I do not believe the gay community has a right to redefine the word "marriage".

Explicitly: They're not saying that. They are saying that what you define as marriage, with regard to the nature of the relationships, their worth, and the inherent rights and obligations, is what their marriages are.

Even if you cannot accept that.

Originally Posted by southward bound

Most of them are intelligent and creative -- they ought to come up with another word if they don't like "civil unions".

You know that such rhetoric is vacuous evasion. This isn't about the word - it is about the thousand-plus provisions in the laws of hundreds of jurisdictions. Marriage is the word in those laws, and you cannot wish that reality away or do a simple "find and replace". To believe such would be incredibly naive.

That, and the fact that their marriages are effectively what you define as marriage, demonstrates the inanely frivolous nature of your comment quoted above.

Originally Posted by southward bound

If you say that "civil union" doesn't grant the same rights that marriage does, then work to get legislation passed that does.

In other words, you are trying to rationalize obstruction of justice, for effectively childish reasons. If you feel so strongly that a different phrase should be used - for all marriages including yours (since the point is to provide equal protection under the law, not separate but equal protection) - then you waste your time and effort on that.

Originally Posted by southward bound

If gays had put as much energy and effort into that as they have into getting their relationships accepted as "marriage" they would have had far less opposition.

This comment indicates that you either have no concept of what you're saying, or you know what you're saying and know that it is categorically false. So which is it? Did you not realize the time and effort required to change the thousand-plus provisions in the laws of hundreds of jurisdictions, or are you just prevaricating to try to make your offensive perspective sound less corrupt?

[~HecateWhisperCat~]

Originally Posted by Mwahfromtheheart

It's gonna be fun watching Obama send in Alabama's national guard to enforce this. The reaction from the GOP will be epic and will probably lose them the election. All over something that doesn't effect the economy or anything for that matter.

I doubt it will come to that. The courts are slowly beginning to issue licenses as they gain clarification. I imagine that if the Judge who struck it down puts out an order that most of the judges will comply.

[Smash255]

Originally Posted by Mwahfromtheheart

It's gonna be fun watching Obama send in Alabama's national guard to enforce this. The reaction from the GOP will be epic and will probably lose them the election. All over something that doesn't effect the economy or anything for that matter.

Some more counties are starting to come along, also even if certain courts stop issuing licenses couples can go to a different county and get a legal marriage verified by the state and federal government. They might go kicking and screaming, but there isn't much they can do to stop this.