Roy Moore suspended from office: Alabama chief justice faces removal over gay marriag


Make no mistake about it.
The homosexual agenda doesn’t just want to shut up Judge Moore.
They want to shut up every one of us who believes that homosexuality is immoral.

For the second time in his career, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore faces charges before the Alabama Court of the Judiciary and potential removal from office.
Until that court hears and rules on those charges, Moore will be suspended with pay from his position atop the state’s highest court.
On Friday, the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission forwarded charges to the commission, accusing the chief justice of violating judicial ethics in his opposition to same-sex marriage.

Roy Moore suspended from office: Alabama chief justice faces removal over gay marriage stance |


They really want to get a reaction.

And I’m just about ready to let them have it. Their enablers, the Democrats, are making nicey-nice with the Mohammedans. You know, those fun-loving guys with the dirty bathtowels on their filthy, scabby heads, who get their kicks throwing homosexuals off buildings. Or, as Mohammed recommended…building walls - for the purpose of dropping on the gay boyos.

LET THEM GO AT IT. I’m TIRED of this madness…the Left’s madness; the deranged sodomites; the qat-chewing camel-buggerers. Let them kill each other.

We’ll retreat to our Safe Spaces for a few years…rather the sodomites get it than unborn babies…


No one cares if you think homosexuality is immoral. What people want is for you to tolerate (not accept) other peoples lifestyle choices.

Now in so far as gay marriage…Should gays be allowed to marry? The state should not sanction religious marriage, so there’s part of the problem. The state has no business in religion, therefore all it needs to do is provide the SAME rights to individuals who wish to be recognized as a partner to someone else and all of the legal and cultural benefits that go with it (inheritance, PoA, insurance ect). If you wish to be “married” in the eyes of god, then you need to find a church that will marry you. No state should force a church to marry anyone if that marriage is inconsistent with the Churches religious doctrine. On the other hand, any ideas about what is and is not immoral under religious doctrine should not be codified in law for only that reason.

So I for one could care less if you think it’s immoral, what I do care about is that you believe that your morals based on religious doctrine should be recognized by everyone.


CS or is it BS,

The action is NOT to tolerate, but to “ACCEPT”, this does not mean I condone or condemn, just means I am neutral and really do not care one way or another, sometimes called ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ which worked well for all of known history.

As for tolerance, mine is low, in fact I have no desire to be tolerant. I tolerate your inane posts and do so mostly due to idle curiosity as to what your next absurd and circular post will be. I question your lucidity most of the time. To be frank the last time I saw this much crap come out of anything was the Christmas goose I had to chase down and chop off it head. I’d swear that goose lost half its weight in crap before he decided to give in to the hatchet head. Which makes me wonder if the reason you hang around here like a cheap suit is just to lose weight?


CS or BS?..LOL Is this 4th grade or an adult conversation?

People like you demand tolerance but are unwilling to give it. Therein lies your problem.

I hang around here, because I know, contrary to your protestations, that you enjoy my being here. If I was so offensive you and the others here would simply ignore me.

For myself, I learn as much from those I agree with as those I disagree with and as a bonus, I get to share my conversations here with my friends and we discuss my conversations here and have an occasional laugh at your expense. The goose story will get a laugh, however, the last laugh will be on me as my friends are likely to agree with you…LOL



OK, folks, let’s make sure to target the content of the posts instead of the person posting it. Please, don’t make me have to moderate stuff. Thanks.

And actually participate in homo events, like parades and weddings, regardless of how one feels about it.

If tolerance were all anyone wanted, the sniveling would have ended when homos got the right to marry.


There was no lack of “tolerance”, there was a lack of approval; so the Queer Mafia is demanding approval at the point of a gun.

It is your side that is forcing your decadence down the throats of everyone, you use the word “tolerance” with full knowledge that it does NOT mean what you are demanding at gunpoint from every citizen. You are the ones DEMANDING that everyone else embrace YOUR religious doctrine **OR ELSE.

There will eventually be blowback, you are making the same mistake that all Terrorists make about us; you confuse our desire to get along with weakness that you can exploit without end. You are a tiny minority that cannot go more than a couple news cycles without spitting in the face of decent people and using government to punish those who dare to act in accordance with their own beliefs; there is a line and your Queer Mafia will find it and cross it if history is a reliable indicator.


Already is. I’m ready to treat them the way they want to treat me and use the government to coerce them back into their closets. I supported civil marriage for homos. It’s only right. When they got that though, they said I had to come to their weddings regardless of whether I want to, and then they got the courts to coerce me into attending and working there. With their self-righteous indignation, they’ve been pretty bad sports about this whole thing. Instead of being thankful, they’re hateful. Screw 'em except the handful who actually respect individual liberty.


I’m not familiar with homosexuals forcing others to partake in thier events. Can you link something?

Having said that, like any other group, they are made up of individuals, some are reasonable others are not. I cannot and would not try to account for everyone. I think my position with respect to tolerance is reasonable, though I conceded that gays can be equally intolerant in some situations, but I am nothing if not consistent. I have no trouble debating with them with respect to their boundaries.


What the LGBT activists want is for us to accept, embrace, celebrate, and slave ourselves to their lifestyle.


What RwNj said. Besides making us grouchy, it also risks retorts that make the original personal jab look immature.


No gov’t gun will make me approve of their lifestyle.

However, besides gay family members, and friends, I do accept their lifestyle. I’m tolerant. I’m not going to celebrate it. I will not be attending gay pride events. I will not eat the rainbow cake.


Are you talking about business that don’t want to provide services to homosexuals? Is that what you mean when you say people are forced?


Rightwing, here is the problem, we have allowed the govt to call the shots. There is NO ROLE for the GOVT in GLBTQ or marriage of any one. Sorry folks but you have reaped what you have sown and there is no going back from here.

No peoples that have ever given up freedoms have ever got them back. Now we have Marriage arranged by and approved by the Federal Govt. How long before we have quota marriages…sorry Jack and Jane you cannot get married until we have 39 more Bob and Bruce marriages, but if Jack wants to marry Bob or Jane want to marry Betty then you can go to the head of the line.


If your saying that government shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all. I agree.

Except slaves…Oh, and women…Then there was the civil rights movement of the 60’s…Oh crap, never mind.

Where do you get this stuff?

Comedy gold.


When any group freely gives up their rights (as opposed to them being taken away) the rights never return. The Govt control marriage and will continue to do so until the people take it away from the govt.

The govt has UNLIMITED POWER and UNLIMITED POWER TO TAX. Therefore they can control the process and the outcome. As the Govt works off QUOTA’s then they can establish quota marriages. There are MANY ways to accomplish this from the heavy hand as I illustrated or from the incentive side such as giving cash or tax incentives to take an action.

We have one of the largest scams of the America people now with the Solar incentives (lets call it what it is: Subsidy), Ethanol, Electric cars, set aside loans for minorities and the list goes on and on.

When tyranny sets in fully then incentives/subsidies are no longer needed, just the heavy hand of the Jack Boots from DHS…


I agree that government should get out of the business of marriage as a religious ceremony. That power should be relegated to the church. The government need only recognize people that chose to enter into a union as a binding contract.

Given the hyperbolic nature of that statement, I’m not sure what you mean. Does the US government have power? Clearly. Does it have “unlimited power”? Clearly not. It couldn’t even break into an iPhone without help. Seems a government with unlimited power could accomplish that.

Again, perhaps you were being dramatic, but the government’s power to tax isn’t unlimited. Absolute perhaps, but not unlimited. If it was unlimited the last democratic Congress would tax away everyone’s ability to own guns.

Are there taxes that attempt to influence outcome? Yes, absolutely, but doe those taxes control anything? Not really.

This sounds like a figment of an extreme right fantasy, but before I accuse you of operating with one screw loose, I’ll simply ask you to provide something I can reference so I make sure what your saying and my interpretation are the same.

Let’s break this down.

What exactly is the nature of the scam? That people are being let money? Or that they are being lent money for ideas that will never work? Or that people that are economically disadvantaged are being given greater opportunity?

What exactly is the scam? And exactly who gets to decide if what you claim is a scam is actually a scam? Or is all of this just your opinion?

More ridiculous hyperbole.


The only person(s) that should have the power to enter into marriage are consenting adults. The only role the church should play is when consenting adults want the church to have a role, otherwise none needed. The govt has NO role in any marriage!

YES the govt DOES have unlimited power to tax. John Roberts used this in order to justify and support Obamacare. In the written brief the USSC stated that Congress has “UNLIMITED POWR TO TAX”…Google is your friend

I can only surmise you must be very young and a product of our current education system, you lack of even a modicum if a basic understanding of our govt and society is amazing. That said its all at your fingertips and Google is your friend.

Its also evident that history is not a strong suit for you. You lack and understanding as to how far a govt will go to control its citizens. To sum it up, govts have murdered about 260,000,000 MILLION citizens since the year 1900. This is called “Democide”, again, Google is your friend and I am sorry I don’t have time to school you on how our govt runs by its heavy hand…


Slaves never “Gave up their Rights”, they had no Rights until Free men decided to fight and die to include them as partakers of our Constitutional Rights.

Women never “Gave up their Rights”, it was men who decided to grant them full inclusion as partakers of our Constitutional Rights.

Nobody who was granted any favor by the 1960’s Civil Rights Act had previously “given up” any of those Rights either.

Your knowledge of history is appalling.


Definition of marriage:

A legally or formally recognized union.

But I’ve heard the religious try to claim the word “marriage”, so I let um have it. If you don’t care, I don’t either.

As far as people entering into “marriage”, I agree. Consenting adults. Aren’t homosexuals connecting adults?

Disagree. Government simply records it for legal purposes.

Ok, so then I don’t know what you mean when you say “unlimited”. I mean if it decided to tax everyone at 100%, no one would work, so while technically it has the power, so what?

As far as Obamacare, that’s a difficult subject. I have my own issues with the law, but, that’s a subject that would take an entire thread.

If you supported ideas that decoupled government from the money interests you might find that your representatives would spend more time representing your interests and less time representing the people and corporations and special interest that fund their campaigns.

LOL…That’s the kinda stuff people say to people when they can’t simply let the strength of their argument stand for itself.

Its also evident that history is not a strong suit for you. You lack and understanding as to how far a govt will go to control its citizens. To sum it up, govts have murdered about 260,000,000 MILLION citizens since the year 1900. This is called “Democide”, again, Google is your friend and I am sorry I don’t have time to school you on how our govt runs by its heavy hand…[/QUOTE]

Don’t be a putz, I’m aware of how many people have been killed by other governments. Your paranoid, and you’re simply grasping at the illusion that you, your gun, and your gold are all you need as if it would make a dam bit of difference should your government decide it wanted you dead. So please, that might work on “truthers” and “preppers” but it won’t work on me. Your preparing for a war with your government that will never come.

Now let’s get back to the post I was responding to originally. You’re either deflecting or you have ADD.

You were blathering on about scams, marriage quotas and how taxes control outcomes…Care to fill me in on what you were talking about before you start railing off in another direction?