Judge Roy Moore vs Chris Cuomo on States Rights, the Constitution, and Marriage

[William Tell]

I found this very much worth watching.

 

[TommyJeff]

No state can invent the definition of marriage?!?
Where is the federal power to define marriage??? I can't find it in my pocket constitution.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

No state can invent the definition of marriage?!?
Where is the federal power to define marriage??? I can't find it in my pocket constitution.

It's not that the federal government is defining marriage so much as it's the 14th Amendment preventing the States from violating the Equal Protection Clause by making unsupportable distinctions in saying who can get married.

 

[mrsat_98]

No state can invent the definition of marriage?!?
Where is the federal power to define marriage??? I can't find it in my pocket constitution.

When it comes to benefits and gov employees they can not discriminate.

 

[TommyJeff]

..... in saying who can get married.

Because the federal government has defined marriage. Which they never should have done. Had they not, there would be no discrimination.

 

[TommyJeff]

When it comes to benefits and gov employees they can not discriminate.

If the fed never defined marriage there would be no discrimination or violation of amendments - the problem is because the fed, wrongfully, defined marriage.

 

[jmdrake]

It's not that the federal government is defining marriage so much as it's the 14th Amendment preventing the States from violating the Equal Protection Clause by making unsupportable distinctions in saying who can get married.

Right. Let's let brothers and sisters marry, father and daughters or mothers and sons marry, multiple people marry, and any other configuration anybody can come up with. The idea that somehow gays are some special case is laughable.

 

[jmdrake]

Wow! Listening to Judge Moore. He just kicked butt regarding Dred Scott quoting the dissenting judge as stating that the horrible Dred Scott decision was a result of abandoning strict interpretation of the constitution. See 6:30 in.

And for the record, I don't know why the SCOTUS doesn't just rule on this issue and get it over with one way or the other.

 

[William Tell]

Wow! Listening to Judge Moore. He just kicked butt regarding Dred Scott quoting the dissenting judge as stating that the horrible Dred Scott decision was a result of abandoning strict interpretation of the constitution. See 6:30 in.

Yep! He did a great job! We need more like like him.

 

[Southron]

It's not that the federal government is defining marriage so much as it's the 14th Amendment preventing the States from violating the Equal Protection Clause by making unsupportable distinctions in saying who can get married.

The key word is unsupportable.
In other words, at the whim of whatever federal judge is in power.

 

[osan]

I found this very much worth watching.

Wow... the interviewer did not make even the most weakly respectable effort to appear impartial or professional.

I like this judge - he kicked that nutless phag's sack into his mostly-empty cranium.

What an unprofessional and pathetically transparent little "man". Honorless and without any art whatsoever. No wonder CNN has less than zero credibility.

ETA: I am embarrassed to admit that this punk annoyed me enough to want to knock a couple of his teeth out. "The satellite window went out." Yeah, but by what cause? Asshole.

So it is interesting that the good judge finally got the smarmy little twat to admit he would have accepted Dred and Plessy as the law of the land. "Vee ver only follovink ohduz..." God how I hope there are enough good Americans remaining to put the likes of this punk on the ends of several million ropes. And yes, I mean that very literally. A lifetime of this creeping filth has left me in a decidedly uncharitable timbre. At some point, the rebalancing of the scales must happen no matter how ugly the means.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

The key word is unsupportable.
In other words, at the whim of whatever federal judge is in power.

No State has yet to offer a cogent reason for banning gay marriage.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Right. Let's let brothers and sisters marry, father and daughters or mothers and sons marry, multiple people marry, and any other configuration anybody can come up with. The idea that somehow gays are some special case is laughable.

We've heard this slippery slope argument before when it was made to uphold anti-miscegenation laws. It didn't work then and it doesn't work now.

If the State desires to preserve the purity of the African blood by prohibiting intermarriage between whites and blacks, we know of no power on earth to prevent such legislation. It is a matter of purely domestic concern. The 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United States ... has no such scope as seems to have been accorded it by the circuit court. ... All of one's rights as a citizen of the United States will be found guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. If any provision of that instrument confers upon a citizen the right to marry any one who is willing to wed him, our attention has not been called to it. If such be one of the rights attached to American citizenship all our marriage acts forbidding intermarriage between persons within certain degrees of consanguinity are void ... State v. Jackson, 80 Mo. 175 (1883)

The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions against incest and incestuous marriages. Dissenting opinion in Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711, 198 P.2d 17 (1948), which overturned California’s anti-miscegenation law.

It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then [sic] those of the intermarried and that the state’s prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the preventing of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent. Brief for the State of Virginia in Loving v. Virginia

 

[samforpaul]

Thank you God for Roy Moore.

 

[Stratovarious]

This Chris is a jack### right off the bat ...."I appreciate you taking the OPPORTUNITY...?

Really , what a great way to welcome a guest .... with an insult.

 

[William Tell]

Roy Moore is a jack### right off the bat ...."I appreciate you taking the OPPORTUNITY...?

Really , what a great way to welcome a guest .... with an insult.

Chris Cuomo is the host, Roy is the guest. Chris was the one who said that. Yeah, Chris is nasty.

 

[Stratovarious]

Chris Cuomo is the host, Roy is the guest. Chris was the one who said that. Yeah, Chris is nasty.

ha , yea I just caught that....ooops.

 

[Stratovarious]

jmdrake[/URL];5784692]Right. Let's let brothers and sisters marry, father and daughters or mothers and sons marry, multiple people marry, and any other configuration anybody can come up with. The idea that somehow gays are some special case is laughable.

I can't get past the opening insult from who ever this arrogant ##### Roy thing thinks he is.

The question I have is , why aren't these people screaming and yelling to support the kind of unions you mentioned ? And Polygamy , why aren't they
marching the streets in support of that and some of the combinations you mentioned.
I guess that comes later.

 

[jmdrake]

We've heard this slippery slope argument before when it was made to uphold anti-miscegenation laws. It didn't work then and it doesn't work now.

Hello. Do you actually have a cohent intelligent argument as to why if we allow same sex marriage we shouldn't allow adult incest, polygamy, polyamory or any other arrangement of consenting adults? Because it seems that you don't.

 

[TommyJeff]

Hello. Do you actually have a cohent intelligent argument as to why if we allow same sex marriage we shouldn't allow adult incest, polygamy, polyamory or any other arrangement of consenting adults? Because it seems that you don't.

I am not sure if you are taking this position or simply asking a question. But I will ask (to you or anyone), does the government have the right to outlaw polygamy or the like? Why can't people do as they choose (so long as they are adults) with Their own body and well being? Why must the govt even define marriage? What's the point other than to give special privileges and to promote "all knowing" govt ideals of marriage between 1 man and 1 woman as the end all be all