Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Religious Bigotry

wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 9:48:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I just read an interesting comment on another website regarding Judge Moore of Alabama's idiocy over marriage equality.
I
Could it be that these bigots are actually doing more harm to themselves than they realize?

Society is evolving rapidly, especially with the advent of the internet where people are exposed to more differing views and opinions. Especially younger people are learning to think more critically, and as a result are rejecting the antiquated superstitions of the past. Religiosity has been on the decline since Galelio. The "authority" of the "church" has been on the decline since Martin Luther.

Will this blatant bigotry actually backfire on them?

Thoughts?
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 12:03:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/16/2015 9:48:57 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
I just read an interesting comment on another website regarding Judge Moore of Alabama's idiocy over marriage equality.
I
Could it be that these bigots are actually doing more harm to themselves than they realize?

Society is evolving rapidly, especially with the advent of the internet where people are exposed to more differing views and opinions. Especially younger people are learning to think more critically, and as a result are rejecting the antiquated superstitions of the past. Religiosity has been on the decline since Galelio. The "authority" of the "church" has been on the decline since Martin Luther.

Will this blatant bigotry actually backfire on them?

Thoughts?

Atheist circle jerk time! All in?
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 12:09:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/16/2015 9:48:57 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
I just read an interesting comment on another website regarding Judge Moore of Alabama's idiocy over marriage equality.
I
Could it be that these bigots are actually doing more harm to themselves than they realize?

Society is evolving rapidly, especially with the advent of the internet where people are exposed to more differing views and opinions. Especially younger people are learning to think more critically, and as a result are rejecting the antiquated superstitions of the past. Religiosity has been on the decline since Galelio. The "authority" of the "church" has been on the decline since Martin Luther.

Will this blatant bigotry actually backfire on them?

Thoughts?

Judge Moore and others of his ilk are so desperate to cling to the authority that they think their religion gives them that they will act against the law to try and keep things the way they are. They demonstrate their own insecurity and need to control the lives of others and in so doing make their beliefs seem less and less relevant to the modern world. The wide dissemination of the news of these acts serves to further erode the respectability and the viability of those same beliefs across a much wider territory and a much greater rate. These acts are the greatest weapon against the bigotry and totalitarian thought systems of the overly religious and the wounds are completely self-inflicted.
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 12:17:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 12:09:16 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/16/2015 9:48:57 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
I just read an interesting comment on another website regarding Judge Moore of Alabama's idiocy over marriage equality.
I
Could it be that these bigots are actually doing more harm to themselves than they realize?

Society is evolving rapidly, especially with the advent of the internet where people are exposed to more differing views and opinions. Especially younger people are learning to think more critically, and as a result are rejecting the antiquated superstitions of the past. Religiosity has been on the decline since Galelio. The "authority" of the "church" has been on the decline since Martin Luther.

Will this blatant bigotry actually backfire on them?

Thoughts?

Judge Moore and others of his ilk are so desperate to cling to the authority that they think their religion gives them that they will act against the law

What law? Whether one agrees or not with Judge Moore's beliefs and actions, the fact is that the court system does not make law. other than case law (i. e. the law for that case). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 12:21:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 12:17:39 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:09:16 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/16/2015 9:48:57 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
I just read an interesting comment on another website regarding Judge Moore of Alabama's idiocy over marriage equality.
I
Could it be that these bigots are actually doing more harm to themselves than they realize?

Society is evolving rapidly, especially with the advent of the internet where people are exposed to more differing views and opinions. Especially younger people are learning to think more critically, and as a result are rejecting the antiquated superstitions of the past. Religiosity has been on the decline since Galelio. The "authority" of the "church" has been on the decline since Martin Luther.

Will this blatant bigotry actually backfire on them?

Thoughts?

Judge Moore and others of his ilk are so desperate to cling to the authority that they think their religion gives them that they will act against the law

What law? Whether one agrees or not with Judge Moore's beliefs and actions, the fact is that the court system does not make law. other than case law (i. e. the law for that case). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much.

When the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional (as is one of its functions in our system of checks and balances) then enforcing that law is in violation of Federal Law. If you are referring to the laws that discriminated against blacks and the 'force' used to keep them from being enforced, I wholeheartedly support that as well. If you somehow see discriminating against anyone as a good thing then your belief system is abhorrent and sick.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 12:22:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/16/2015 9:48:57 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
I just read an interesting comment on another website regarding Judge Moore of Alabama's idiocy over marriage equality.
I
Could it be that these bigots are actually doing more harm to themselves than they realize?

Society is evolving rapidly, especially with the advent of the internet where people are exposed to more differing views and opinions. Especially younger people are learning to think more critically, and as a result are rejecting the antiquated superstitions of the past. Religiosity has been on the decline since Galelio. The "authority" of the "church" has been on the decline since Martin Luther.

Will this blatant bigotry actually backfire on them?

Thoughts?

God plans on destroying all religions and religious people besides everything else that man has been observing since he woke up in this make-believe world.

Daniel 2
44: And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand for ever;
45: just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be hereafter. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure."
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 12:24:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 12:21:09 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:17:39 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:09:16 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/16/2015 9:48:57 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
I just read an interesting comment on another website regarding Judge Moore of Alabama's idiocy over marriage equality.
I
Could it be that these bigots are actually doing more harm to themselves than they realize?

Society is evolving rapidly, especially with the advent of the internet where people are exposed to more differing views and opinions. Especially younger people are learning to think more critically, and as a result are rejecting the antiquated superstitions of the past. Religiosity has been on the decline since Galelio. The "authority" of the "church" has been on the decline since Martin Luther.

Will this blatant bigotry actually backfire on them?

Thoughts?

Judge Moore and others of his ilk are so desperate to cling to the authority that they think their religion gives them that they will act against the law

What law? Whether one agrees or not with Judge Moore's beliefs and actions, the fact is that the court system does not make law. other than case law (i. e. the law for that case). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much.

When the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional (as is one of its functions in our system of checks and balances) then enforcing that law is in violation of Federal Law.

Yes, in that particular case. But I asked, "What law?" You stated that Judge Moore acted "against the law." Evidently that means that the old boy violated a law. Which one?

If you somehow see discriminating against anyone as a good thing then your belief system is abhorrent and sick.

Save the social commentary until you are asked about it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 12:30:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 12:21:09 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:17:39 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:09:16 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/16/2015 9:48:57 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
I just read an interesting comment on another website regarding Judge Moore of Alabama's idiocy over marriage equality.
I
Could it be that these bigots are actually doing more harm to themselves than they realize?

Society is evolving rapidly, especially with the advent of the internet where people are exposed to more differing views and opinions. Especially younger people are learning to think more critically, and as a result are rejecting the antiquated superstitions of the past. Religiosity has been on the decline since Galelio. The "authority" of the "church" has been on the decline since Martin Luther.

Will this blatant bigotry actually backfire on them?

Thoughts?

Judge Moore and others of his ilk are so desperate to cling to the authority that they think their religion gives them that they will act against the law

What law? Whether one agrees or not with Judge Moore's beliefs and actions, the fact is that the court system does not make law. other than case law (i. e. the law for that case). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much.

When the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional ....

I'm not worried in the least about what the Supreme Court does when it gets into the legislating business, or when its decrees have the net effect of legislating. It's an old trick: "It's easier to get a 5-4 majority on the Court than it is to get elected officials to pass a law." My suggestion is that if the legislative branch - not the president, not the court system - wants to legalize homosexual marriage, then go for it. There is an accepted procedure in place for passing laws. At present, there is no such law that I know of, unless you can find it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 12:39:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 12:24:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:21:09 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:17:39 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:09:16 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/16/2015 9:48:57 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
I just read an interesting comment on another website regarding Judge Moore of Alabama's idiocy over marriage equality.
I
Could it be that these bigots are actually doing more harm to themselves than they realize?

Society is evolving rapidly, especially with the advent of the internet where people are exposed to more differing views and opinions. Especially younger people are learning to think more critically, and as a result are rejecting the antiquated superstitions of the past. Religiosity has been on the decline since Galelio. The "authority" of the "church" has been on the decline since Martin Luther.

Will this blatant bigotry actually backfire on them?

Thoughts?

Judge Moore and others of his ilk are so desperate to cling to the authority that they think their religion gives them that they will act against the law

What law? Whether one agrees or not with Judge Moore's beliefs and actions, the fact is that the court system does not make law. other than case law (i. e. the law for that case). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much.

When the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional (as is one of its functions in our system of checks and balances) then enforcing that law is in violation of Federal Law.

Yes, in that particular case. But I asked, "What law?" You stated that Judge Moore acted "against the law." Evidently that means that the old boy violated a law. Which one?

If you somehow see discriminating against anyone as a good thing then your belief system is abhorrent and sick.

Save the social commentary until you are asked about it.

Well, eat dirt and die. You chose to make your commentary and I chose mine. Too bad you can't just defend what you said instead of making a bratty little comment.
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 12:42:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 12:39:05 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:24:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:21:09 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:17:39 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:09:16 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/16/2015 9:48:57 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
I just read an interesting comment on another website regarding Judge Moore of Alabama's idiocy over marriage equality.
I
Could it be that these bigots are actually doing more harm to themselves than they realize?

Society is evolving rapidly, especially with the advent of the internet where people are exposed to more differing views and opinions. Especially younger people are learning to think more critically, and as a result are rejecting the antiquated superstitions of the past. Religiosity has been on the decline since Galelio. The "authority" of the "church" has been on the decline since Martin Luther.

Will this blatant bigotry actually backfire on them?

Thoughts?

Judge Moore and others of his ilk are so desperate to cling to the authority that they think their religion gives them that they will act against the law

What law? Whether one agrees or not with Judge Moore's beliefs and actions, the fact is that the court system does not make law. other than case law (i. e. the law for that case). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much.

When the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional (as is one of its functions in our system of checks and balances) then enforcing that law is in violation of Federal Law.

Yes, in that particular case. But I asked, "What law?" You stated that Judge Moore acted "against the law." Evidently that means that the old boy violated a law. Which one?

If you somehow see discriminating against anyone as a good thing then your belief system is abhorrent and sick.

Save the social commentary until you are asked about it.

Well, eat dirt and die. You chose to make your commentary and I chose mine. Too bad you can't just defend what you said instead of making a bratty little comment.

Oh, I didn't make any social commentary at all.

I simply asked which law Judge Moore violated? You do not have to quote it: just refer me to it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 12:45:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 12:42:56 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:39:05 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:24:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:21:09 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:17:39 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:09:16 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/16/2015 9:48:57 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
I just read an interesting comment on another website regarding Judge Moore of Alabama's idiocy over marriage equality.
I
Could it be that these bigots are actually doing more harm to themselves than they realize?

Society is evolving rapidly, especially with the advent of the internet where people are exposed to more differing views and opinions. Especially younger people are learning to think more critically, and as a result are rejecting the antiquated superstitions of the past. Religiosity has been on the decline since Galelio. The "authority" of the "church" has been on the decline since Martin Luther.

Will this blatant bigotry actually backfire on them?

Thoughts?

Judge Moore and others of his ilk are so desperate to cling to the authority that they think their religion gives them that they will act against the law

What law? Whether one agrees or not with Judge Moore's beliefs and actions, the fact is that the court system does not make law. other than case law (i. e. the law for that case). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much.

When the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional (as is one of its functions in our system of checks and balances) then enforcing that law is in violation of Federal Law.

Yes, in that particular case. But I asked, "What law?" You stated that Judge Moore acted "against the law." Evidently that means that the old boy violated a law. Which one?

If you somehow see discriminating against anyone as a good thing then your belief system is abhorrent and sick.

Save the social commentary until you are asked about it.

Well, eat dirt and die. You chose to make your commentary and I chose mine. Too bad you can't just defend what you said instead of making a bratty little comment.

Oh, I didn't make any social commentary at all.

I simply asked which law Judge Moore violated? You do not have to quote it: just refer me to it.

"). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much"

Tell me again, what were these laws you spoke of that you seem to admire so greatly? Please elucidate so that I might understand your commentary more fully.
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 12:49:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 12:45:21 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:42:56 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:39:05 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:24:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:21:09 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:17:39 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:09:16 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/16/2015 9:48:57 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
I just read an interesting comment on another website regarding Judge Moore of Alabama's idiocy over marriage equality.
I
Could it be that these bigots are actually doing more harm to themselves than they realize?

Society is evolving rapidly, especially with the advent of the internet where people are exposed to more differing views and opinions. Especially younger people are learning to think more critically, and as a result are rejecting the antiquated superstitions of the past. Religiosity has been on the decline since Galelio. The "authority" of the "church" has been on the decline since Martin Luther.

Will this blatant bigotry actually backfire on them?

Thoughts?

Judge Moore and others of his ilk are so desperate to cling to the authority that they think their religion gives them that they will act against the law

What law? Whether one agrees or not with Judge Moore's beliefs and actions, the fact is that the court system does not make law. other than case law (i. e. the law for that case). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much.

When the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional (as is one of its functions in our system of checks and balances) then enforcing that law is in violation of Federal Law.

Yes, in that particular case. But I asked, "What law?" You stated that Judge Moore acted "against the law." Evidently that means that the old boy violated a law. Which one?

If you somehow see discriminating against anyone as a good thing then your belief system is abhorrent and sick.

Save the social commentary until you are asked about it.

Well, eat dirt and die. You chose to make your commentary and I chose mine. Too bad you can't just defend what you said instead of making a bratty little comment.

Oh, I didn't make any social commentary at all.

I simply asked which law Judge Moore violated? You do not have to quote it: just refer me to it.

"). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much"

Tell me again, what were these laws you spoke of that you seem to admire so greatly? Please elucidate so that I might understand your commentary more fully.

Where did I state or imply that I "admired" any laws? I said exactly the same situation exists, legally. Gay rights advocates have said the same thing and pointed out all the similarities. BTW, this isn't about what I may believe, or you may be believe.

I'd still like to know which law we have on the books that Judge Moore violated or is violating. You said, "Judge Moore and others of his ilk are so desperate to cling to the authority that they think their religion gives them that they will act against the law." Apparently that means he's breaking some law, doesn't it. Which one?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 12:57:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 12:49:49 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:45:21 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:42:56 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:39:05 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:24:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:21:09 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:17:39 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:09:16 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/16/2015 9:48:57 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
I just read an interesting comment on another website regarding Judge Moore of Alabama's idiocy over marriage equality.
I
Could it be that these bigots are actually doing more harm to themselves than they realize?

Society is evolving rapidly, especially with the advent of the internet where people are exposed to more differing views and opinions. Especially younger people are learning to think more critically, and as a result are rejecting the antiquated superstitions of the past. Religiosity has been on the decline since Galelio. The "authority" of the "church" has been on the decline since Martin Luther.

Will this blatant bigotry actually backfire on them?

Thoughts?

Judge Moore and others of his ilk are so desperate to cling to the authority that they think their religion gives them that they will act against the law

What law? Whether one agrees or not with Judge Moore's beliefs and actions, the fact is that the court system does not make law. other than case law (i. e. the law for that case). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much.

When the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional (as is one of its functions in our system of checks and balances) then enforcing that law is in violation of Federal Law.

Yes, in that particular case. But I asked, "What law?" You stated that Judge Moore acted "against the law." Evidently that means that the old boy violated a law. Which one?

If you somehow see discriminating against anyone as a good thing then your belief system is abhorrent and sick.

Save the social commentary until you are asked about it.

Well, eat dirt and die. You chose to make your commentary and I chose mine. Too bad you can't just defend what you said instead of making a bratty little comment.

Oh, I didn't make any social commentary at all.

I simply asked which law Judge Moore violated? You do not have to quote it: just refer me to it.

"). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much"

Tell me again, what were these laws you spoke of that you seem to admire so greatly? Please elucidate so that I might understand your commentary more fully.

Where did I state or imply that I "admired" any laws? I said exactly the same situation exists, legally. Gay rights advocates have said the same thing and pointed out all the similarities. BTW, this isn't about what I may believe, or you may be believe.

Is there some reason you don't want to explain your comment in more detail? I should like to understand your comparison more completely if you would be so kind as to be specific about the laws that were, in your view, improperly nullified by action of the courts.

I'd still like to know which law we have on the books that Judge Moore violated or is violating. You said, "Judge Moore and others of his ilk are so desperate to cling to the authority that they think their religion gives them that they will act against the law." Apparently that means he's breaking some law, doesn't it. Which one?

If I understand correctly, the Title VII of the Civl Rights Act of 1969.
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 1:03:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 12:57:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:49:49 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:45:21 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:42:56 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:39:05 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:24:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:21:09 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:17:39 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:09:16 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/16/2015 9:48:57 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
I just read an interesting comment on another website regarding Judge Moore of Alabama's idiocy over marriage equality.
I
Could it be that these bigots are actually doing more harm to themselves than they realize?

Society is evolving rapidly, especially with the advent of the internet where people are exposed to more differing views and opinions. Especially younger people are learning to think more critically, and as a result are rejecting the antiquated superstitions of the past. Religiosity has been on the decline since Galelio. The "authority" of the "church" has been on the decline since Martin Luther.

Will this blatant bigotry actually backfire on them?

Thoughts?

Judge Moore and others of his ilk are so desperate to cling to the authority that they think their religion gives them that they will act against the law

What law? Whether one agrees or not with Judge Moore's beliefs and actions, the fact is that the court system does not make law. other than case law (i. e. the law for that case). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much.

When the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional (as is one of its functions in our system of checks and balances) then enforcing that law is in violation of Federal Law.

Yes, in that particular case. But I asked, "What law?" You stated that Judge Moore acted "against the law." Evidently that means that the old boy violated a law. Which one?

If you somehow see discriminating against anyone as a good thing then your belief system is abhorrent and sick.

Save the social commentary until you are asked about it.

Well, eat dirt and die. You chose to make your commentary and I chose mine. Too bad you can't just defend what you said instead of making a bratty little comment.

Oh, I didn't make any social commentary at all.

I simply asked which law Judge Moore violated? You do not have to quote it: just refer me to it.

"). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much"

Tell me again, what were these laws you spoke of that you seem to admire so greatly? Please elucidate so that I might understand your commentary more fully.

Where did I state or imply that I "admired" any laws? I said exactly the same situation exists, legally. Gay rights advocates have said the same thing and pointed out all the similarities. BTW, this isn't about what I may believe, or you may be believe.

Is there some reason you don't want to explain your comment in more detail? I should like to understand your comparison more completely if you would be so kind as to be specific about the laws that were, in your view, improperly nullified by action of the courts.

I'd still like to know which law we have on the books that Judge Moore violated or is violating. You said, "Judge Moore and others of his ilk are so desperate to cling to the authority that they think their religion gives them that they will act against the law." Apparently that means he's breaking some law, doesn't it. Which one?

If I understand correctly, the Title VII of the Civl Rights Act of 1969.

I see no mention in there regarding homosexuals at all, including even sexual preference. Also, as far as I know, the original intent of the framers of that Act had no intentions of it being used in such a manner.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 1:08:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 12:57:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:49:49 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:45:21 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:42:56 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:39:05 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:24:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:21:09 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:17:39 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:09:16 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/16/2015 9:48:57 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
I just read an interesting comment on another website regarding Judge Moore of Alabama's idiocy over marriage equality.
I
Could it be that these bigots are actually doing more harm to themselves than they realize?

Society is evolving rapidly, especially with the advent of the internet where people are exposed to more differing views and opinions. Especially younger people are learning to think more critically, and as a result are rejecting the antiquated superstitions of the past. Religiosity has been on the decline since Galelio. The "authority" of the "church" has been on the decline since Martin Luther.

Will this blatant bigotry actually backfire on them?

Thoughts?

Judge Moore and others of his ilk are so desperate to cling to the authority that they think their religion gives them that they will act against the law

What law? Whether one agrees or not with Judge Moore's beliefs and actions, the fact is that the court system does not make law. other than case law (i. e. the law for that case). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much.

When the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional (as is one of its functions in our system of checks and balances) then enforcing that law is in violation of Federal Law.

Yes, in that particular case. But I asked, "What law?" You stated that Judge Moore acted "against the law." Evidently that means that the old boy violated a law. Which one?

If you somehow see discriminating against anyone as a good thing then your belief system is abhorrent and sick.

Save the social commentary until you are asked about it.

Well, eat dirt and die. You chose to make your commentary and I chose mine. Too bad you can't just defend what you said instead of making a bratty little comment.

Oh, I didn't make any social commentary at all.

I simply asked which law Judge Moore violated? You do not have to quote it: just refer me to it.

"). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much"

Tell me again, what were these laws you spoke of that you seem to admire so greatly? Please elucidate so that I might understand your commentary more fully.

Where did I state or imply that I "admired" any laws? I said exactly the same situation exists, legally. Gay rights advocates have said the same thing and pointed out all the similarities. BTW, this isn't about what I may believe, or you may be believe.

Is there some reason you don't want to explain your comment in more detail?

I DID explain it in detail. "Rulings" of the Supreme Court are not intended to have the effect of legislating new law. Such is not even its purview. In this case, one judge ruled that the Alabama Voter Initiative resulted in an unconstitutional outcome by a 4 to 1 margin. That's a little different than saying, "Homosexuals can get married now in Alabama. It's the law." There IS no law permitting homosexual marriage in Alabama, and everyone knows it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 1:11:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 1:03:51 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:57:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:49:49 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:45:21 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:42:56 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:39:05 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:24:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:21:09 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:17:39 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:09:16 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/16/2015 9:48:57 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
I just read an interesting comment on another website regarding Judge Moore of Alabama's idiocy over marriage equality.
I
Could it be that these bigots are actually doing more harm to themselves than they realize?

Society is evolving rapidly, especially with the advent of the internet where people are exposed to more differing views and opinions. Especially younger people are learning to think more critically, and as a result are rejecting the antiquated superstitions of the past. Religiosity has been on the decline since Galelio. The "authority" of the "church" has been on the decline since Martin Luther.

Will this blatant bigotry actually backfire on them?

Thoughts?

Judge Moore and others of his ilk are so desperate to cling to the authority that they think their religion gives them that they will act against the law

What law? Whether one agrees or not with Judge Moore's beliefs and actions, the fact is that the court system does not make law. other than case law (i. e. the law for that case). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much.

When the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional (as is one of its functions in our system of checks and balances) then enforcing that law is in violation of Federal Law.

Yes, in that particular case. But I asked, "What law?" You stated that Judge Moore acted "against the law." Evidently that means that the old boy violated a law. Which one?

If you somehow see discriminating against anyone as a good thing then your belief system is abhorrent and sick.

Save the social commentary until you are asked about it.

Well, eat dirt and die. You chose to make your commentary and I chose mine. Too bad you can't just defend what you said instead of making a bratty little comment.

Oh, I didn't make any social commentary at all.

I simply asked which law Judge Moore violated? You do not have to quote it: just refer me to it.

"). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much"

Tell me again, what were these laws you spoke of that you seem to admire so greatly? Please elucidate so that I might understand your commentary more fully.

Where did I state or imply that I "admired" any laws? I said exactly the same situation exists, legally. Gay rights advocates have said the same thing and pointed out all the similarities. BTW, this isn't about what I may believe, or you may be believe.

Is there some reason you don't want to explain your comment in more detail? I should like to understand your comparison more completely if you would be so kind as to be specific about the laws that were, in your view, improperly nullified by action of the courts.

I'd still like to know which law we have on the books that Judge Moore violated or is violating. You said, "Judge Moore and others of his ilk are so desperate to cling to the authority that they think their religion gives them that they will act against the law." Apparently that means he's breaking some law, doesn't it. Which one?

If I understand correctly, the Title VII of the Civl Rights Act of 1969.

I see no mention in there regarding homosexuals at all, including even sexual preference. Also, as far as I know, the original intent of the framers of that Act had no intentions of it being used in such a manner.

I could be wrong, and he could have not violated any law per se. Attempting to enforce a law that violates the U.S. Constitution is still not an act worthy of a judge.

I still note that you have not addressed my question, What laws are you specifically referring to in your original post "What law? Whether one agrees or not with Judge Moore's beliefs and actions, the fact is that the court system does not make law. other than case law (i. e. the law for that case). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much."

I would very much like for you to give me the same courtesy I gave you in providing my answer by providing at least the same level of information regarding those laws.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 1:17:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 1:08:03 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:57:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:49:49 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:45:21 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:42:56 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:39:05 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:24:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:21:09 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:17:39 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:09:16 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/16/2015 9:48:57 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
I just read an interesting comment on another website regarding Judge Moore of Alabama's idiocy over marriage equality.
I
Could it be that these bigots are actually doing more harm to themselves than they realize?

Society is evolving rapidly, especially with the advent of the internet where people are exposed to more differing views and opinions. Especially younger people are learning to think more critically, and as a result are rejecting the antiquated superstitions of the past. Religiosity has been on the decline since Galelio. The "authority" of the "church" has been on the decline since Martin Luther.

Will this blatant bigotry actually backfire on them?

Thoughts?

Judge Moore and others of his ilk are so desperate to cling to the authority that they think their religion gives them that they will act against the law

What law? Whether one agrees or not with Judge Moore's beliefs and actions, the fact is that the court system does not make law. other than case law (i. e. the law for that case). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much.

When the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional (as is one of its functions in our system of checks and balances) then enforcing that law is in violation of Federal Law.

Yes, in that particular case. But I asked, "What law?" You stated that Judge Moore acted "against the law." Evidently that means that the old boy violated a law. Which one?

If you somehow see discriminating against anyone as a good thing then your belief system is abhorrent and sick.

Save the social commentary until you are asked about it.

Well, eat dirt and die. You chose to make your commentary and I chose mine. Too bad you can't just defend what you said instead of making a bratty little comment.

Oh, I didn't make any social commentary at all.

I simply asked which law Judge Moore violated? You do not have to quote it: just refer me to it.

"). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much"

Tell me again, what were these laws you spoke of that you seem to admire so greatly? Please elucidate so that I might understand your commentary more fully.

Where did I state or imply that I "admired" any laws? I said exactly the same situation exists, legally. Gay rights advocates have said the same thing and pointed out all the similarities. BTW, this isn't about what I may believe, or you may be believe.

Is there some reason you don't want to explain your comment in more detail?

I DID explain it in detail. "Rulings" of the Supreme Court are not intended to have the effect of legislating new law. Such is not even its purview. In this case, one judge ruled that the Alabama Voter Initiative resulted in an unconstitutional outcome by a 4 to 1 margin. That's a little different than saying, "Homosexuals can get married now in Alabama. It's the law." There IS no law permitting homosexual marriage in Alabama, and everyone knows it.

And now there's no law prohibiting it so it is therefore permissible. It's that simple.
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 1:17:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 1:11:01 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:03:51 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:57:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:49:49 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:45:21 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:42:56 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:39:05 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:24:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:21:09 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:17:39 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:09:16 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/16/2015 9:48:57 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
I just read an interesting comment on another website regarding Judge Moore of Alabama's idiocy over marriage equality.
I
Could it be that these bigots are actually doing more harm to themselves than they realize?

Society is evolving rapidly, especially with the advent of the internet where people are exposed to more differing views and opinions. Especially younger people are learning to think more critically, and as a result are rejecting the antiquated superstitions of the past. Religiosity has been on the decline since Galelio. The "authority" of the "church" has been on the decline since Martin Luther.

Will this blatant bigotry actually backfire on them?

Thoughts?

Judge Moore and others of his ilk are so desperate to cling to the authority that they think their religion gives them that they will act against the law

What law? Whether one agrees or not with Judge Moore's beliefs and actions, the fact is that the court system does not make law. other than case law (i. e. the law for that case). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much.

When the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional (as is one of its functions in our system of checks and balances) then enforcing that law is in violation of Federal Law.

Yes, in that particular case. But I asked, "What law?" You stated that Judge Moore acted "against the law." Evidently that means that the old boy violated a law. Which one?

If you somehow see discriminating against anyone as a good thing then your belief system is abhorrent and sick.

Save the social commentary until you are asked about it.

Well, eat dirt and die. You chose to make your commentary and I chose mine. Too bad you can't just defend what you said instead of making a bratty little comment.

Oh, I didn't make any social commentary at all.

I simply asked which law Judge Moore violated? You do not have to quote it: just refer me to it.

"). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much"

Tell me again, what were these laws you spoke of that you seem to admire so greatly? Please elucidate so that I might understand your commentary more fully.

Where did I state or imply that I "admired" any laws? I said exactly the same situation exists, legally. Gay rights advocates have said the same thing and pointed out all the similarities. BTW, this isn't about what I may believe, or you may be believe.

Is there some reason you don't want to explain your comment in more detail? I should like to understand your comparison more completely if you would be so kind as to be specific about the laws that were, in your view, improperly nullified by action of the courts.

I'd still like to know which law we have on the books that Judge Moore violated or is violating. You said, "Judge Moore and others of his ilk are so desperate to cling to the authority that they think their religion gives them that they will act against the law." Apparently that means he's breaking some law, doesn't it. Which one?

If I understand correctly, the Title VII of the Civl Rights Act of 1969.

I see no mention in there regarding homosexuals at all, including even sexual preference. Also, as far as I know, the original intent of the framers of that Act had no intentions of it being used in such a manner.

I could be wrong, and he could have not violated any law per se. Attempting to enforce a law that violates the U.S. Constitution is still not an act worthy of a judge.

I still note that you have not addressed my question, What laws are you specifically referring to in your original post "What law? Whether one agrees or not with Judge Moore's beliefs and actions, the fact is that the court system does not make law. other than case law (i. e. the law for that case). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much."

I would very much like for you to give me the same courtesy I gave you in providing my answer by providing at least the same level of information regarding those laws.

Well, you didn't really provide much of an answer. Judge Moore hasn't violated any laws, and if Title VII of the Civil Rights act allowed for gay marriage, it's funny that nobody noticed it back then.

I was referring to the laws on the books in Southern states during the 1950's and 1960's. The way to get them off the books would have been for Congress to pass laws which superseded them. However, the legislative branch simply would not do it. So the federal system had no such laws at the time.

The Supreme Court came along and struck down state laws as "unconstitutional" not based upon the law itself (for the laws were very constitutional and had been for 60 years) but solely upon societal concerns. THAT is the problem I have with such an agenda. The same constitution was employed to demand integration as had been similarly employed to demand segregation. Heck, it can't allow both.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 1:21:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 1:17:45 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:08:03 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:57:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:49:49 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:45:21 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:42:56 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:39:05 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:24:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:21:09 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:17:39 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:09:16 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/16/2015 9:48:57 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
I just read an interesting comment on another website regarding Judge Moore of Alabama's idiocy over marriage equality.
I
Could it be that these bigots are actually doing more harm to themselves than they realize?

Society is evolving rapidly, especially with the advent of the internet where people are exposed to more differing views and opinions. Especially younger people are learning to think more critically, and as a result are rejecting the antiquated superstitions of the past. Religiosity has been on the decline since Galelio. The "authority" of the "church" has been on the decline since Martin Luther.

Will this blatant bigotry actually backfire on them?

Thoughts?

Judge Moore and others of his ilk are so desperate to cling to the authority that they think their religion gives them that they will act against the law

What law? Whether one agrees or not with Judge Moore's beliefs and actions, the fact is that the court system does not make law. other than case law (i. e. the law for that case). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much.

When the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional (as is one of its functions in our system of checks and balances) then enforcing that law is in violation of Federal Law.

Yes, in that particular case. But I asked, "What law?" You stated that Judge Moore acted "against the law." Evidently that means that the old boy violated a law. Which one?

If you somehow see discriminating against anyone as a good thing then your belief system is abhorrent and sick.

Save the social commentary until you are asked about it.

Well, eat dirt and die. You chose to make your commentary and I chose mine. Too bad you can't just defend what you said instead of making a bratty little comment.

Oh, I didn't make any social commentary at all.

I simply asked which law Judge Moore violated? You do not have to quote it: just refer me to it.

"). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much"

Tell me again, what were these laws you spoke of that you seem to admire so greatly? Please elucidate so that I might understand your commentary more fully.

Where did I state or imply that I "admired" any laws? I said exactly the same situation exists, legally. Gay rights advocates have said the same thing and pointed out all the similarities. BTW, this isn't about what I may believe, or you may be believe.

Is there some reason you don't want to explain your comment in more detail?

I DID explain it in detail. "Rulings" of the Supreme Court are not intended to have the effect of legislating new law. Such is not even its purview. In this case, one judge ruled that the Alabama Voter Initiative resulted in an unconstitutional outcome by a 4 to 1 margin. That's a little different than saying, "Homosexuals can get married now in Alabama. It's the law." There IS no law permitting homosexual marriage in Alabama, and everyone knows it.

And now there's no law prohibiting it so it is therefore permissible. It's that simple.

LMAO. That's not true. There is no law prohibiting you from "marrying" your dog or cat. Heck, there was no law "forbidding" it until recently. Therefore, by your reasoning, gays could have gotten married in Alabama all along. It's the same with your citation of TItle VII. If it REALLY allowed for gay marriage, then why did nobody ever mention it for 40 years?

And the bottom line is: Judge Moore violated no law, but the Supreme Court once again over-stepped and injected its own social commentary.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 1:21:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 12:22:43 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 2/16/2015 9:48:57 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
I just read an interesting comment on another website regarding Judge Moore of Alabama's idiocy over marriage equality.
I
Could it be that these bigots are actually doing more harm to themselves than they realize?

Society is evolving rapidly, especially with the advent of the internet where people are exposed to more differing views and opinions. Especially younger people are learning to think more critically, and as a result are rejecting the antiquated superstitions of the past. Religiosity has been on the decline since Galelio. The "authority" of the "church" has been on the decline since Martin Luther.

Will this blatant bigotry actually backfire on them?

Thoughts?

God plans on destroying all religions and religious people besides everything else that man has been observing since he woke up in this make-believe world.

Daniel 2
44: And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand for ever;
45: just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be hereafter. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure."

Mr fried brain. The days of the kings and kingdoms have long been over. Kings are just token figure heads. Trying to apply ancient biblical revelations without updating your knowledge of the modern world can be hazardous. Staying drunk had to be easier.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 1:24:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

When the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional (as is one of its functions in our system of checks and balances) then enforcing that law is in violation of Federal Law.

Yes, in that particular case. But I asked, "What law?" You stated that Judge Moore acted "against the law." Evidently that means that the old boy violated a law. Which one?

If you somehow see discriminating against anyone as a good thing then your belief system is abhorrent and sick.

Save the social commentary until you are asked about it.

Well, eat dirt and die. You chose to make your commentary and I chose mine. Too bad you can't just defend what you said instead of making a bratty little comment.

Oh, I didn't make any social commentary at all.

I simply asked which law Judge Moore violated? You do not have to quote it: just refer me to it.

"). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much"

Tell me again, what were these laws you spoke of that you seem to admire so greatly? Please elucidate so that I might understand your commentary more fully.

Where did I state or imply that I "admired" any laws? I said exactly the same situation exists, legally. Gay rights advocates have said the same thing and pointed out all the similarities. BTW, this isn't about what I may believe, or you may be believe.

Is there some reason you don't want to explain your comment in more detail? I should like to understand your comparison more completely if you would be so kind as to be specific about the laws that were, in your view, improperly nullified by action of the courts.

I'd still like to know which law we have on the books that Judge Moore violated or is violating. You said, "Judge Moore and others of his ilk are so desperate to cling to the authority that they think their religion gives them that they will act against the law." Apparently that means he's breaking some law, doesn't it. Which one?

If I understand correctly, the Title VII of the Civl Rights Act of 1969.

I see no mention in there regarding homosexuals at all, including even sexual preference. Also, as far as I know, the original intent of the framers of that Act had no intentions of it being used in such a manner.

I could be wrong, and he could have not violated any law per se. Attempting to enforce a law that violates the U.S. Constitution is still not an act worthy of a judge.

I still note that you have not addressed my question, What laws are you specifically referring to in your original post "What law? Whether one agrees or not with Judge Moore's beliefs and actions, the fact is that the court system does not make law. other than case law (i. e. the law for that case). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much."

I would very much like for you to give me the same courtesy I gave you in providing my answer by providing at least the same level of information regarding those laws.

Well, you didn't really provide much of an answer. Judge Moore hasn't violated any laws, and if Title VII of the Civil Rights act allowed for gay marriage, it's funny that nobody noticed it back then.

I was referring to the laws on the books in Southern states during the 1950's and 1960's. The way to get them off the books would have been for Congress to pass laws which superseded them. However, the legislative branch simply would not do it. So the federal system had no such laws at the time.

The Supreme Court came along and struck down state laws as "unconstitutional" not based upon the law itself (for the laws were very constitutional and had been for 60 years) but solely upon societal concerns. THAT is the problem I have with such an agenda. The same constitution was employed to demand integration as had been similarly employed to demand segregation. Heck, it can't allow both.

Brown vs the Board of Education struck down those laws because it proved that separate was never equal, no matter how much lip service was given to it. The separate but equal doctrine was a last ditch attempt to prevent blacks from getting the same education as whites, to preserve the privileged position of whites in society and the court finally recognized it for what it was. Many states fought the ruling and yes, federal troops moved in so they could attend the schools they were wrongly barred from. If that's the crux of your argument, that it was ok because a lot of people were bigoted and prejudiced, well, that speaks for itself.
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 1:32:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 1:24:00 PM, dhardage wrote:

When the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional (as is one of its functions in our system of checks and balances) then enforcing that law is in violation of Federal Law.

Yes, in that particular case. But I asked, "What law?" You stated that Judge Moore acted "against the law." Evidently that means that the old boy violated a law. Which one?

If you somehow see discriminating against anyone as a good thing then your belief system is abhorrent and sick.

Save the social commentary until you are asked about it.

Well, eat dirt and die. You chose to make your commentary and I chose mine. Too bad you can't just defend what you said instead of making a bratty little comment.

Oh, I didn't make any social commentary at all.

I simply asked which law Judge Moore violated? You do not have to quote it: just refer me to it.

"). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much"

Tell me again, what were these laws you spoke of that you seem to admire so greatly? Please elucidate so that I might understand your commentary more fully.

Where did I state or imply that I "admired" any laws? I said exactly the same situation exists, legally. Gay rights advocates have said the same thing and pointed out all the similarities. BTW, this isn't about what I may believe, or you may be believe.

Is there some reason you don't want to explain your comment in more detail? I should like to understand your comparison more completely if you would be so kind as to be specific about the laws that were, in your view, improperly nullified by action of the courts.

I'd still like to know which law we have on the books that Judge Moore violated or is violating. You said, "Judge Moore and others of his ilk are so desperate to cling to the authority that they think their religion gives them that they will act against the law." Apparently that means he's breaking some law, doesn't it. Which one?

If I understand correctly, the Title VII of the Civl Rights Act of 1969.

I see no mention in there regarding homosexuals at all, including even sexual preference. Also, as far as I know, the original intent of the framers of that Act had no intentions of it being used in such a manner.

I could be wrong, and he could have not violated any law per se. Attempting to enforce a law that violates the U.S. Constitution is still not an act worthy of a judge.

I still note that you have not addressed my question, What laws are you specifically referring to in your original post "What law? Whether one agrees or not with Judge Moore's beliefs and actions, the fact is that the court system does not make law. other than case law (i. e. the law for that case). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much."

I would very much like for you to give me the same courtesy I gave you in providing my answer by providing at least the same level of information regarding those laws.

Well, you didn't really provide much of an answer. Judge Moore hasn't violated any laws, and if Title VII of the Civil Rights act allowed for gay marriage, it's funny that nobody noticed it back then.

I was referring to the laws on the books in Southern states during the 1950's and 1960's. The way to get them off the books would have been for Congress to pass laws which superseded them. However, the legislative branch simply would not do it. So the federal system had no such laws at the time.

The Supreme Court came along and struck down state laws as "unconstitutional" not based upon the law itself (for the laws were very constitutional and had been for 60 years) but solely upon societal concerns. THAT is the problem I have with such an agenda. The same constitution was employed to demand integration as had been similarly employed to demand segregation. Heck, it can't allow both.

Brown vs the Board of Education struck down those laws because it proved that separate was never equal, no matter how much lip service was given to it.
The separate but equal doctrine was a last ditch attempt to prevent blacks from getting the same education as whites, to preserve the privileged position of whites in society and the court finally recognized it for what it was.

That's a pretty shallow explanation of the situation, but I won't dispute it since you've been itching to type it for ten posts. I never criticized nor endorsed segregation nor integration. I criticized the manner in which segregation was dismantled.

Why didn't the legislative branch simply make a law requiring integration of the schools. In other words, the legislative branch legislates.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 1:37:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 1:32:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:24:00 PM, dhardage wrote:

When the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional (as is one of its functions in our system of checks and balances) then enforcing that law is in violation of Federal Law.

Yes, in that particular case. But I asked, "What law?" You stated that Judge Moore acted "against the law." Evidently that means that the old boy violated a law. Which one?

If you somehow see discriminating against anyone as a good thing then your belief system is abhorrent and sick.

Save the social commentary until you are asked about it.

Well, eat dirt and die. You chose to make your commentary and I chose mine. Too bad you can't just defend what you said instead of making a bratty little comment.

Oh, I didn't make any social commentary at all.

I simply asked which law Judge Moore violated? You do not have to quote it: just refer me to it.

"). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much"

Tell me again, what were these laws you spoke of that you seem to admire so greatly? Please elucidate so that I might understand your commentary more fully.

Where did I state or imply that I "admired" any laws? I said exactly the same situation exists, legally. Gay rights advocates have said the same thing and pointed out all the similarities. BTW, this isn't about what I may believe, or you may be believe.

Is there some reason you don't want to explain your comment in more detail? I should like to understand your comparison more completely if you would be so kind as to be specific about the laws that were, in your view, improperly nullified by action of the courts.

I'd still like to know which law we have on the books that Judge Moore violated or is violating. You said, "Judge Moore and others of his ilk are so desperate to cling to the authority that they think their religion gives them that they will act against the law." Apparently that means he's breaking some law, doesn't it. Which one?

If I understand correctly, the Title VII of the Civl Rights Act of 1969.

I see no mention in there regarding homosexuals at all, including even sexual preference. Also, as far as I know, the original intent of the framers of that Act had no intentions of it being used in such a manner.

I could be wrong, and he could have not violated any law per se. Attempting to enforce a law that violates the U.S. Constitution is still not an act worthy of a judge.

I still note that you have not addressed my question, What laws are you specifically referring to in your original post "What law? Whether one agrees or not with Judge Moore's beliefs and actions, the fact is that the court system does not make law. other than case law (i. e. the law for that case). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much."

I would very much like for you to give me the same courtesy I gave you in providing my answer by providing at least the same level of information regarding those laws.

Well, you didn't really provide much of an answer. Judge Moore hasn't violated any laws, and if Title VII of the Civil Rights act allowed for gay marriage, it's funny that nobody noticed it back then.

I was referring to the laws on the books in Southern states during the 1950's and 1960's. The way to get them off the books would have been for Congress to pass laws which superseded them. However, the legislative branch simply would not do it. So the federal system had no such laws at the time.

The Supreme Court came along and struck down state laws as "unconstitutional" not based upon the law itself (for the laws were very constitutional and had been for 60 years) but solely upon societal concerns. THAT is the problem I have with such an agenda. The same constitution was employed to demand integration as had been similarly employed to demand segregation. Heck, it can't allow both.

Brown vs the Board of Education struck down those laws because it proved that separate was never equal, no matter how much lip service was given to it.
The separate but equal doctrine was a last ditch attempt to prevent blacks from getting the same education as whites, to preserve the privileged position of whites in society and the court finally recognized it for what it was.

That's a pretty shallow explanation of the situation, but I won't dispute it since you've been itching to type it for ten posts. I never criticized nor endorsed segregation nor integration. I criticized the manner in which segregation was dismantled.

Why didn't the legislative branch simply make a law requiring integration of the schools. In other words, the legislative branch legislates.

Because the majority of the population was white and thought separate but equal was ok, that repression of blacks was ok. It's the court's job to prevent the tyranny of the majority when the majority is doing something wrong. That's the crux of the Civil Rights Act and why it was enacted in the first place. Since then numerous other protected classes have been added and many states have enacted laws to protect LGBT people from similar discrimination. This is exactly the same situation where the majority is trying to force people to follow primarily religious beliefs when it comes to their personal lives and loves. It's up to the court to once more prevent the tyranny of the majority from repressing and discriminating against these people.
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 1:47:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 1:37:49 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:32:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:24:00 PM, dhardage wrote:

When the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional (as is one of its functions in our system of checks and balances) then enforcing that law is in violation of Federal Law.

Yes, in that particular case. But I asked, "What law?" You stated that Judge Moore acted "against the law." Evidently that means that the old boy violated a law. Which one?

If you somehow see discriminating against anyone as a good thing then your belief system is abhorrent and sick.

Save the social commentary until you are asked about it.

Well, eat dirt and die. You chose to make your commentary and I chose mine. Too bad you can't just defend what you said instead of making a bratty little comment.

Oh, I didn't make any social commentary at all.

I simply asked which law Judge Moore violated? You do not have to quote it: just refer me to it.

"). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much"

Tell me again, what were these laws you spoke of that you seem to admire so greatly? Please elucidate so that I might understand your commentary more fully.

Where did I state or imply that I "admired" any laws? I said exactly the same situation exists, legally. Gay rights advocates have said the same thing and pointed out all the similarities. BTW, this isn't about what I may believe, or you may be believe.

Is there some reason you don't want to explain your comment in more detail? I should like to understand your comparison more completely if you would be so kind as to be specific about the laws that were, in your view, improperly nullified by action of the courts.

I'd still like to know which law we have on the books that Judge Moore violated or is violating. You said, "Judge Moore and others of his ilk are so desperate to cling to the authority that they think their religion gives them that they will act against the law." Apparently that means he's breaking some law, doesn't it. Which one?

If I understand correctly, the Title VII of the Civl Rights Act of 1969.

I see no mention in there regarding homosexuals at all, including even sexual preference. Also, as far as I know, the original intent of the framers of that Act had no intentions of it being used in such a manner.

I could be wrong, and he could have not violated any law per se. Attempting to enforce a law that violates the U.S. Constitution is still not an act worthy of a judge.

I still note that you have not addressed my question, What laws are you specifically referring to in your original post "What law? Whether one agrees or not with Judge Moore's beliefs and actions, the fact is that the court system does not make law. other than case law (i. e. the law for that case). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much."

I would very much like for you to give me the same courtesy I gave you in providing my answer by providing at least the same level of information regarding those laws.

Well, you didn't really provide much of an answer. Judge Moore hasn't violated any laws, and if Title VII of the Civil Rights act allowed for gay marriage, it's funny that nobody noticed it back then.

I was referring to the laws on the books in Southern states during the 1950's and 1960's. The way to get them off the books would have been for Congress to pass laws which superseded them. However, the legislative branch simply would not do it. So the federal system had no such laws at the time.

The Supreme Court came along and struck down state laws as "unconstitutional" not based upon the law itself (for the laws were very constitutional and had been for 60 years) but solely upon societal concerns. THAT is the problem I have with such an agenda. The same constitution was employed to demand integration as had been similarly employed to demand segregation. Heck, it can't allow both.

Brown vs the Board of Education struck down those laws because it proved that separate was never equal, no matter how much lip service was given to it.
The separate but equal doctrine was a last ditch attempt to prevent blacks from getting the same education as whites, to preserve the privileged position of whites in society and the court finally recognized it for what it was.

That's a pretty shallow explanation of the situation, but I won't dispute it since you've been itching to type it for ten posts. I never criticized nor endorsed segregation nor integration. I criticized the manner in which segregation was dismantled.

Why didn't the legislative branch simply make a law requiring integration of the schools. In other words, the legislative branch legislates.

Because the majority of the population was white and thought separate but equal was ok, that repression of blacks was ok. It's the court's job to prevent the tyranny of the majority when the majority is doing something wrong.

LMAO @ that explanation. "It is the purpose of the court system to effect what-it-deems-to be 'needed social change' when the (1) vast majority of American oppose such change and (2) the elected legislative branch refused to enact such change." Boy, that's a dandy, isn't it?

If that's your explanation, when we need to examine the "unconstitutionality" of recent judicial behavior. Heck, I've already said that the problem here is the court system legislating. You AGREE that they do exactly that, but that it's ok, especially if you agree with the court's legislation.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 1:59:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 1:37:49 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:32:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:24:00 PM, dhardage wrote:

Because the majority of the population was white and thought separate but equal was ok, that repression of blacks was ok. It's the court's job to prevent the tyranny of the majority when the majority is doing something wrong.

Repeat: contrary to your little beliefs, it is not the judiciary's purpose to determine what is morally right or wrong, then make rulings based upon its ever-changing concept of right or wrong. Nor is it the court's job to assign new and unheard-of meanings to common words in legislation. Nor is it the court's job to have the net effect of legislating new laws for us.

THAT is what Judge Moore is saying - and he's right. Perhaps is not right morally. I never said he was. Legally, however, the Southern states actually had the law on their side back in the 1950's and 1960's. Society just wouldn't have it! And the same situation exists today with homosexual marriage.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 2:00:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 1:47:52 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:37:49 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:32:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:24:00 PM, dhardage wrote:

When the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional (as is one of its functions in our system of checks and balances) then enforcing that law is in violation of Federal Law.

Yes, in that particular case. But I asked, "What law?" You stated that Judge Moore acted "against the law." Evidently that means that the old boy violated a law. Which one?

If you somehow see discriminating against anyone as a good thing then your belief system is abhorrent and sick.

Save the social commentary until you are asked about it.

Well, eat dirt and die. You chose to make your commentary and I chose mine. Too bad you can't just defend what you said instead of making a bratty little comment.

Oh, I didn't make any social commentary at all.

I simply asked which law Judge Moore violated? You do not have to quote it: just refer me to it.

"). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much"

Tell me again, what were these laws you spoke of that you seem to admire so greatly? Please elucidate so that I might understand your commentary more fully.

Where did I state or imply that I "admired" any laws? I said exactly the same situation exists, legally. Gay rights advocates have said the same thing and pointed out all the similarities. BTW, this isn't about what I may believe, or you may be believe.

Is there some reason you don't want to explain your comment in more detail? I should like to understand your comparison more completely if you would be so kind as to be specific about the laws that were, in your view, improperly nullified by action of the courts.

I'd still like to know which law we have on the books that Judge Moore violated or is violating. You said, "Judge Moore and others of his ilk are so desperate to cling to the authority that they think their religion gives them that they will act against the law." Apparently that means he's breaking some law, doesn't it. Which one?

If I understand correctly, the Title VII of the Civl Rights Act of 1969.

I see no mention in there regarding homosexuals at all, including even sexual preference. Also, as far as I know, the original intent of the framers of that Act had no intentions of it being used in such a manner.

I could be wrong, and he could have not violated any law per se. Attempting to enforce a law that violates the U.S. Constitution is still not an act worthy of a judge.

I still note that you have not addressed my question, What laws are you specifically referring to in your original post "What law? Whether one agrees or not with Judge Moore's beliefs and actions, the fact is that the court system does not make law. other than case law (i. e. the law for that case). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much."

I would very much like for you to give me the same courtesy I gave you in providing my answer by providing at least the same level of information regarding those laws.

Well, you didn't really provide much of an answer. Judge Moore hasn't violated any laws, and if Title VII of the Civil Rights act allowed for gay marriage, it's funny that nobody noticed it back then.

I was referring to the laws on the books in Southern states during the 1950's and 1960's. The way to get them off the books would have been for Congress to pass laws which superseded them. However, the legislative branch simply would not do it. So the federal system had no such laws at the time.

The Supreme Court came along and struck down state laws as "unconstitutional" not based upon the law itself (for the laws were very constitutional and had been for 60 years) but solely upon societal concerns. THAT is the problem I have with such an agenda. The same constitution was employed to demand integration as had been similarly employed to demand segregation. Heck, it can't allow both.

Brown vs the Board of Education struck down those laws because it proved that separate was never equal, no matter how much lip service was given to it.
The separate but equal doctrine was a last ditch attempt to prevent blacks from getting the same education as whites, to preserve the privileged position of whites in society and the court finally recognized it for what it was.

That's a pretty shallow explanation of the situation, but I won't dispute it since you've been itching to type it for ten posts. I never criticized nor endorsed segregation nor integration. I criticized the manner in which segregation was dismantled.

Why didn't the legislative branch simply make a law requiring integration of the schools. In other words, the legislative branch legislates.

Because the majority of the population was white and thought separate but equal was ok, that repression of blacks was ok. It's the court's job to prevent the tyranny of the majority when the majority is doing something wrong.

LMAO @ that explanation. "It is the purpose of the court system to effect what-it-deems-to be 'needed social change' when the (1) vast majority of American oppose such change and (2) the elected legislative branch refused to enact such change." Boy, that's a dandy, isn't it?

If that's your explanation, when we need to examine the "unconstitutionality" of recent judicial behavior. Heck, I've already said that the problem here is the court system legislating. You AGREE that they do exactly that, but that it's ok, especially if you agree with the court's legislation.

I did not say the court was legislating, I said it was preventing legislation that wrongly deprived citizens of their rights under the constitution. That's quite a different thing so please at least quote or paraphrase correctly. I further firmly believe you would see it differently if you were the one affected by the laws we are discussing.
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 2:06:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 2:00:26 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:47:52 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:37:49 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:32:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:24:00 PM, dhardage wrote:

When the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional (as is one of its functions in our system of checks and balances) then enforcing that law is in violation of Federal Law.

Yes, in that particular case. But I asked, "What law?" You stated that Judge Moore acted "against the law." Evidently that means that the old boy violated a law. Which one?

If you somehow see discriminating against anyone as a good thing then your belief system is abhorrent and sick.

Save the social commentary until you are asked about it.

Well, eat dirt and die. You chose to make your commentary and I chose mine. Too bad you can't just defend what you said instead of making a bratty little comment.

Oh, I didn't make any social commentary at all.

I simply asked which law Judge Moore violated? You do not have to quote it: just refer me to it.

"

I'd still like to know which law we have on the books that Judge Moore violated or is violating. You said, "Judge Moore and others of his ilk are so desperate to cling to the authority that they think their religion gives them that they will act against the law." Apparently that means he's breaking some law, doesn't it. Which one?

If I understand correctly, the Title VII of the Civl Rights Act of 1969.

I see no mention in there regarding homosexuals at all, including even sexual preference. Also, as far as I know, the original intent of the framers of that Act had no intentions of it being used in such a manner.

I could be wrong, and he could have not violated any law per se. Attempting to enforce a law that violates the U.S. Constitution is still not an act worthy of a judge.

I still note that you have not addressed my question, What laws are you specifically referring to in your original post "What law? Whether one agrees or not with Judge Moore's beliefs and actions, the fact is that the court system does not make law. other than case law (i. e. the law for that case). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much."

I would very much like for you to give me the same courtesy I gave you in providing my answer by providing at least the same level of information regarding those laws.

Well, you didn't really provide much of an answer. Judge Moore hasn't violated any laws, and if Title VII of the Civil Rights act allowed for gay marriage, it's funny that nobody noticed it back then.

I was referring to the laws on the books in Southern states during the 1950's and 1960's. The way to get them off the books would have been for Congress to pass laws which superseded them. However, the legislative branch simply would not do it. So the federal system had no such laws at the time.

The Supreme Court came along and struck down state laws as "unconstitutional" not based upon the law itself (for the laws were very constitutional and had been for 60 years) but solely upon societal concerns. THAT is the problem I have with such an agenda. The same constitution was employed to demand integration as had been similarly employed to demand segregation. Heck, it can't allow both.

Brown vs the Board of Education struck down those laws because it proved that separate was never equal, no matter how much lip service was given to it.
The separate but equal doctrine was a last ditch attempt to prevent blacks from getting the same education as whites, to preserve the privileged position of whites in society and the court finally recognized it for what it was.

That's a pretty shallow explanation of the situation, but I won't dispute it since you've been itching to type it for ten posts. I never criticized nor endorsed segregation nor integration. I criticized the manner in which segregation was dismantled.

Why didn't the legislative branch simply make a law requiring integration of the schools. In other words, the legislative branch legislates.

Because the majority of the population was white and thought separate but equal was ok, that repression of blacks was ok. It's the court's job to prevent the tyranny of the majority when the majority is doing something wrong.

LMAO @ that explanation. "It is the purpose of the court system to effect what-it-deems-to be 'needed social change' when the (1) vast majority of American oppose such change and (2) the elected legislative branch refused to enact such change." Boy, that's a dandy, isn't it?

If that's your explanation, when we need to examine the "unconstitutionality" of recent judicial behavior. Heck, I've already said that the problem here is the court system legislating. You AGREE that they do exactly that, but that it's ok, especially if you agree with the court's legislation.

I did not say the court was legislating, I said it was preventing legislation that wrongly deprived citizens of their rights under the constitution. That's quite a different thing so please at least quote or paraphrase correctly.

Why, sir, to YOU (not to me) the Court and court system indeed has the effect of legislating. According to YOU (not to me), striking down a ban in the state of Alabama against gay marriage has the net effect of legislating the legality of gay marriage! Then you say, "But they aren't legislating!" Which is it?

I further firmly believe you would see it differently if you were the one affected by the laws we are discussing.

No, the opposite is true. You would see how that from a legal standpoint your arguments are self-contradictory and circular, if not for the fact the your emotions were invested. The truth is, as in the days of civil rights, it's "the end justifies the means" - even if we have to ... ummm ... ignore a few little technicalities.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 2:16:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 2:06:51 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:00:26 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:47:52 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:37:49 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:32:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:24:00 PM, dhardage wrote:

When the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional (as is one of its functions in our system of checks and balances) then enforcing that law is in violation of Federal Law.

Yes, in that particular case. But I asked, "What law?" You stated that Judge Moore acted "against the law." Evidently that means that the old boy violated a law. Which one?

If you somehow see discriminating against anyone as a good thing then your belief system is abhorrent and sick.

Save the social commentary until you are asked about it.

Well, eat dirt and die. You chose to make your commentary and I chose mine. Too bad you can't just defend what you said instead of making a bratty little comment.

Oh, I didn't make any social commentary at all.

I simply asked which law Judge Moore violated? You do not have to quote it: just refer me to it.

"

I'd still like to know which law we have on the books that Judge Moore violated or is violating. You said, "Judge Moore and others of his ilk are so desperate to cling to the authority that they think their religion gives them that they will act against the law." Apparently that means he's breaking some law, doesn't it. Which one?

If I understand correctly, the Title VII of the Civl Rights Act of 1969.

I see no mention in there regarding homosexuals at all, including even sexual preference. Also, as far as I know, the original intent of the framers of that Act had no intentions of it being used in such a manner.

I could be wrong, and he could have not violated any law per se. Attempting to enforce a law that violates the U.S. Constitution is still not an act worthy of a judge.

I still note that you have not addressed my question, What laws are you specifically referring to in your original post "What law? Whether one agrees or not with Judge Moore's beliefs and actions, the fact is that the court system does not make law. other than case law (i. e. the law for that case). It is EXACTLY the same situation as existed in the South 50-60 years ago when the legislative branch did not/would not enact the laws that certain people desired, so the non-elected judiciary usurped the power and simply declared hundreds of state laws "unconstitutional." The same thing is happening here. Last time, federal troops invaded in order to force federal laws upon unwilling states. This time, however, I doubt such will happen because nobody cares that much."

I would very much like for you to give me the same courtesy I gave you in providing my answer by providing at least the same level of information regarding those laws.

Well, you didn't really provide much of an answer. Judge Moore hasn't violated any laws, and if Title VII of the Civil Rights act allowed for gay marriage, it's funny that nobody noticed it back then.

I was referring to the laws on the books in Southern states during the 1950's and 1960's. The way to get them off the books would have been for Congress to pass laws which superseded them. However, the legislative branch simply would not do it. So the federal system had no such laws at the time.

The Supreme Court came along and struck down state laws as "unconstitutional" not based upon the law itself (for the laws were very constitutional and had been for 60 years) but solely upon societal concerns. THAT is the problem I have with such an agenda. The same constitution was employed to demand integration as had been similarly employed to demand segregation. Heck, it can't allow both.

Brown vs the Board of Education struck down those laws because it proved that separate was never equal, no matter how much lip service was given to it.
The separate but equal doctrine was a last ditch attempt to prevent blacks from getting the same education as whites, to preserve the privileged position of whites in society and the court finally recognized it for what it was.

That's a pretty shallow explanation of the situation, but I won't dispute it since you've been itching to type it for ten posts. I never criticized nor endorsed segregation nor integration. I criticized the manner in which segregation was dismantled.

Why didn't the legislative branch simply make a law requiring integration of the schools. In other words, the legislative branch legislates.

Because the majority of the population was white and thought separate but equal was ok, that repression of blacks was ok. It's the court's job to prevent the tyranny of the majority when the majority is doing something wrong.

LMAO @ that explanation. "It is the purpose of the court system to effect what-it-deems-to be 'needed social change' when the (1) vast majority of American oppose such change and (2) the elected legislative branch refused to enact such change." Boy, that's a dandy, isn't it?

If that's your explanation, when we need to examine the "unconstitutionality" of recent judicial behavior. Heck, I've already said that the problem here is the court system legislating. You AGREE that they do exactly that, but that it's ok, especially if you agree with the court's legislation.

I did not say the court was legislating, I said it was preventing legislation that wrongly deprived citizens of their rights under the constitution. That's quite a different thing so please at least quote or paraphrase correctly.

Why, sir, to YOU (not to me) the Court and court system indeed has the effect of legislating. According to YOU (not to me), striking down a ban in the state of Alabama against gay marriage has the net effect of legislating the legality of gay marriage! Then you say, "But they aren't legislating!" Which is it?

I further firmly believe you would see it differently if you were the one affected by the laws we are discussing.

No, the opposite is true. You would see how that from a legal standpoint your arguments are self-contradictory and circular, if not for the fact the your emotions were invested. The truth is, as in the days of civil rights, it's "the end justifies the means" - even if we have to ... ummm ... ignore a few little technicalities.

Since it is the legal system that is making the changes I don't see how you can claim it's illegal. Several legislators have been appealing to the Court to strike down laws they deem 'wrong', so why are they doing that instead of just using the system they are part of?

PS. what is your legal background? WHat law school did you attend?
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 2:36:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 2:16:37 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:06:51 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:00:26 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:47:52 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:37:49 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:32:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:24:00 PM, dhardage wrote:

When the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional (as is one of its functions in our system of checks and balances) then enforcing that law is in violation of Federal Law.

Yes, in that particular case. But I asked, "What law?" You stated that Judge Moore acted "against the law." Evidently that means that the old boy violated a law. Which one?

If you somehow see discriminating against anyone as a good thing then your belief system is abhorrent and sick.

Save the social commentary until you are asked about it.

Well, eat dirt and die. You chose to make your commentary and I chose mine. Too bad you can't just defend what you said instead of making a bratty little comment.

Oh, I didn't make any social commentary at all.

I simply asked which law Judge Moore violated? You do not have to quote it: just refer me to it.

"

I'd still like to know which law we have on the books that Judge Moore violated or is violating. You said, "Judge Moore and others of his ilk are so desperate to cling to the authority that they think their religion gives them that they will act against the law." Apparently that means he's breaking some law, doesn't it. Which one?

If I understand correctly, the Title VII of the Civl Rights Act of 1969.

I see no mention in there regarding homosexuals at all, including even sexual preference. Also, as far as I know, the original intent of the framers of that Act had no intentions of it being used in such a manner.

I could be wrong, and he could have not violated any law per se. Attempting to enforce a law that violates the U.S. Constitution is still not an act worthy of a judge.



The Supreme Court came along and struck down state laws as "unconstitutional" not based upon the law itself (for the laws were very constitutional and had been for 60 years) but solely upon societal concerns. THAT is the problem I have with such an agenda. The same constitution was employed to demand integration as had been similarly employed to demand segregation. Heck, it can't allow both.

Brown vs the Board of Education struck down those laws because it proved that separate was never equal, no matter how much lip service was given to it.
The separate but equal doctrine was a last ditch attempt to prevent blacks from getting the same education as whites, to preserve the privileged position of whites in society and the court finally recognized it for what it was.

That's a pretty shallow explanation of the situation, but I won't dispute it since you've been itching to type it for ten posts. I never criticized nor endorsed segregation nor integration. I criticized the manner in which segregation was dismantled.

Why didn't the legislative branch simply make a law requiring integration of the schools. In other words, the legislative branch legislates.

Because the majority of the population was white and thought separate but equal was ok, that repression of blacks was ok. It's the court's job to prevent the tyranny of the majority when the majority is doing something wrong.

LMAO @ that explanation. "It is the purpose of the court system to effect what-it-deems-to be 'needed social change' when the (1) vast majority of American oppose such change and (2) the elected legislative branch refused to enact such change." Boy, that's a dandy, isn't it?

If that's your explanation, when we need to examine the "unconstitutionality" of recent judicial behavior. Heck, I've already said that the problem here is the court system legislating. You AGREE that they do exactly that, but that it's ok, especially if you agree with the court's legislation.

I did not say the court was legislating, I said it was preventing legislation that wrongly deprived citizens of their rights under the constitution. That's quite a different thing so please at least quote or paraphrase correctly.

Why, sir, to YOU (not to me) the Court and court system indeed has the effect of legislating. According to YOU (not to me), striking down a ban in the state of Alabama against gay marriage has the net effect of legislating the legality of gay marriage! Then you say, "But they aren't legislating!" Which is it?

I further firmly believe you would see it differently if you were the one affected by the laws we are discussing.

No, the opposite is true. You would see how that from a legal standpoint your arguments are self-contradictory and circular, if not for the fact the your emotions were invested. The truth is, as in the days of civil rights, it's "the end justifies the means" - even if we have to ... ummm ... ignore a few little technicalities.

Since it is the legal system that is making the changes I don't see how you can claim it's illegal. Several legislators have been appealing to the Court to strike down laws they deem 'wrong',

OF course they are! They also did that back in civil rights days. They seek to work in reverse: "Lord knows we can't pass the laws that we would like to pass, so we'll just beg the court to 'strike down' laws that we don't like." They'd rather have no law at all than one with which they disagree.

I repeat: it is constitutionally WRONG for the court system to legislate social change based mainly upon societal considerations - or to issue rulings which have that effect. Now ... the fact that it is wrong does not stop them from doing it again and again.

Say the court system strikes down Roe v Wade. Say it does it tomorrow. Does that make legal abortion automatically illegal? Of course not! Same with homosexual marriage.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 2:48:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 2:36:16 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:16:37 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:06:51 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:00:26 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:47:52 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:37:49 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:32:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:24:00 PM, dhardage wrote:

When the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional (as is one of its functions in our system of checks and balances) then enforcing that law is in violation of Federal Law.

Yes, in that particular case. But I asked, "What law?" You stated that Judge Moore acted "against the law." Evidently that means that the old boy violated a law. Which one?

If you somehow see discriminating against anyone as a good thing then your belief system is abhorrent and sick.

Save the social commentary until you are asked about it.

Well, eat dirt and die. You chose to make your commentary and I chose mine. Too bad you can't just defend what you said instead of making a bratty little comment.

Oh, I didn't make any social commentary at all.

I simply asked which law Judge Moore violated? You do not have to quote it: just refer me to it.

"

I'd still like to know which law we have on the books that Judge Moore violated or is violating. You said, "Judge Moore and others of his ilk are so desperate to cling to the authority that they think their religion gives them that they will act against the law." Apparently that means he's breaking some law, doesn't it. Which one?

If I understand correctly, the Title VII of the Civl Rights Act of 1969.

I see no mention in there regarding homosexuals at all, including even sexual preference. Also, as far as I know, the original intent of the framers of that Act had no intentions of it being used in such a manner.

I could be wrong, and he could have not violated any law per se. Attempting to enforce a law that violates the U.S. Constitution is still not an act worthy of a judge.



The Supreme Court came along and struck down state laws as "unconstitutional" not based upon the law itself (for the laws were very constitutional and had been for 60 years) but solely upon societal concerns. THAT is the problem I have with such an agenda. The same constitution was employed to demand integration as had been similarly employed to demand segregation. Heck, it can't allow both.

Brown vs the Board of Education struck down those laws because it proved that separate was never equal, no matter how much lip service was given to it.
The separate but equal doctrine was a last ditch attempt to prevent blacks from getting the same education as whites, to preserve the privileged position of whites in society and the court finally recognized it for what it was.

That's a pretty shallow explanation of the situation, but I won't dispute it since you've been itching to type it for ten posts. I never criticized nor endorsed segregation nor integration. I criticized the manner in which segregation was dismantled.

Why didn't the legislative branch simply make a law requiring integration of the schools. In other words, the legislative branch legislates.

Because the majority of the population was white and thought separate but equal was ok, that repression of blacks was ok. It's the court's job to prevent the tyranny of the majority when the majority is doing something wrong.

LMAO @ that explanation. "It is the purpose of the court system to effect what-it-deems-to be 'needed social change' when the (1) vast majority of American oppose such change and (2) the elected legislative branch refused to enact such change." Boy, that's a dandy, isn't it?

If that's your explanation, when we need to examine the "unconstitutionality" of recent judicial behavior. Heck, I've already said that the problem here is the court system legislating. You AGREE that they do exactly that, but that it's ok, especially if you agree with the court's legislation.

I did not say the court was legislating, I said it was preventing legislation that wrongly deprived citizens of their rights under the constitution. That's quite a different thing so please at least quote or paraphrase correctly.

Why, sir, to YOU (not to me) the Court and court system indeed has the effect of legislating. According to YOU (not to me), striking down a ban in the state of Alabama against gay marriage has the net effect of legislating the legality of gay marriage! Then you say, "But they aren't legislating!" Which is it?

I further firmly believe you would see it differently if you were the one affected by the laws we are discussing.

No, the opposite is true. You would see how that from a legal standpoint your arguments are self-contradictory and circular, if not for the fact the your emotions were invested. The truth is, as in the days of civil rights, it's "the end justifies the means" - even if we have to ... ummm ... ignore a few little technicalities.

Since it is the legal system that is making the changes I don't see how you can claim it's illegal. Several legislators have been appealing to the Court to strike down laws they deem 'wrong',

OF course they are! They also did that back in civil rights days. They seek to work in reverse: "Lord knows we can't pass the laws that we would like to pass, so we'll just beg the court to 'strike down' laws that we don't like." They'd rather have no law at all than one with which they disagree.

I repeat: it is constitutionally WRONG for the court system to legislate social change based mainly upon societal considerations - or to issue rulings which have that effect. Now ... the fact that it is wrong does not stop them from doing it again and again.

Say the court system strikes down Roe v Wade. Say it does it tomorrow. Does that make legal abortion automatically illegal? Of course not! Same with homosexual marriage.

Actually, it will because all of those Christian legislators who want it criminalized again would instantly put in bills to do just that.