Roy Moore stands with homophobic supporters

DAMN, how do you people remember all those people like Milk and Hastert ???

I will open a bit about myself: I'm worried about the future even though I'm 73 and don't expect to be here for the future.
With all the interracial marriages, movies, commercials. All the acceptance of that and gay marriages, movies and commercials.
What is the world and the U.S. going to look like in the future??

As for myself, I'm straight. I can't stand the thought of another man touching me in a romantic way. I don't hate homosexuals and I don't expect them to go back into the closet, but I sure wish they would stop jamming it down my throat in movies, commercials, and LGBTQ parades and marches.
On the other hand, and this is what I'm not sure about. I have no problem with Lesbians it's even a bit of a turn on for me...

Oh, I also feel the same about transgenders

OK, beat me up

 

Homophobic is the proper term. Or *******s.

 

When I first saw the title I thought Moore was getting Muslims to support him.

 

Well, certainly the Progressives in the government are hoping to achieve that goal.

 

Yes, the federal government gets to set immigration law. Kudos for knowing a basic concept.

But the 10th amendment also protects local states and municipalities from being required to enforce a federal law.

 

Sure, it's just "them".

 

Now that's a whole different condition.

 

LOL. According to your last paragraph you have unwittingly just agreed with Judge Roy Moore.

 

True, provided they don't move into nullification by adopting actions that appear to show rejection of Federal Law.

Sanctuary Cities and States are walking a fine line on that issue by inviting breaking of Federal Law, and then impeding it's enforcement. Remains to be seen when this will go to the Supreme Court.

 

...what? Marriage is not a federal law/program.

 

The States and local municipalities are also protected by the US Constitution. They are protected, by the 10th amendment, from being required to enforce federal laws, but suck up every last dime of federal funding they can get at. Odd ain't it, this "independent" posture.

 

You are correct only because "sanctuary cities and states" refers to a whole host of different policies and procedures that span a really broad spectrum. Some might, arguably, border on actively hampering and stopping federal officials from exercising their authority. But the overwhelming do not and that is why Sessions tried to avoid lawsuits and instead to rely on imposing additional restrictions to federal funding as a method of forcing these municipalities to amend their policies.

 

I would note that many of the municipalities and states (California and New York, for example) which have sanctuary-style policies are the same ones that contribute more to the federal government than they receive.

 

Sessions seems to have a schizophrenic relationship with matters like states rights and local control.

 

No issue at all for fans of an Antebellum planter aristocracy type power structure of societal control.

 

LOL, this happens when you try to use the law to suit a specific agenda.

 

By that logic every leftist is intimidated by President Trump and evangelical whites secretly in love with them.

 

Correct. That is the short term approach until the right case can be identified and suits filled. At that point, the process will eventually lead to the Supreme Court, should they decide to hear it.

 

Sessions is a phony little weasel of a man, his lying on the stand and rolling version of the truth is laughable at every turn as he attempts to maneuver his way to remain in the administration’s cast of swamp rats.

 

That's the campaign Democrats need to run in Alabama. Anyone who opposes SSM is a "homophobe." That'll win it for the Democrats for sure!

 

Ok, tell everyone that for a while then.

 

The Dems are toast, rightly so, one party down, one to go.

 

Good answer, exactly the one I was hoping for.

Gay marriage isn't in the Constitution and it isn't protected by anything other than a loose modern law interpretation of what a "Constitutional right".

So now on to the 10th, and what is sadly a common neophytic understand of it.

With a lacking understand, one could make the case that 99.9999% of federal laws are in violation of the 10th because they're not in the Constitution.

That is, of course, until one realizes there is a very special part of the Constitution that makes this all possible.

Section 8, clause 18, commonly referred to as "the necessary and proper clause".

Congress passed immigration law.

To ignore immigration law is to violate the Constitution.

So, lets go back to our original question and amend it with some new language:

Why should Constitutional gay marriage laws be upheld by people who don't agree with them when Constitutional illegal immigration laws are not upheld by people who don't agree with them?

 

Wat?!??

Being exclusively heterosexual is being sexually repressed?

Who knew?

 

Gay marriage isn't in the Constitution and it isn't protected by anything other than a loose modern law interpretation of what a "Constitutional right".

Is heterosexual marriage?