User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 1:45:53 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am fucking speechless at the hypocrisy of this woman and that is saying something considering I have BIG mouth. Plus, I believe in Jesus Christ for god's sake............but I am fucking speechless.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
............ lol According to her. "To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience,” she said. She added: "I have no animosity toward anyone and harbor no ill will. To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God’s word.” I am fucking speechless at the hypocrisy of this woman and that is saying something considering I have BIG mouth. Plus, I believe in Jesus Christ for god's sake............but I am fucking speechless. Unless she was married to another woman, I'm not seeing your point .... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 1:48:41 PM EDT
[#2]
Why not have 0% tax rates, across the board?
I would support this. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep, 10% across the board, not deductions, no "loopholes", no right offs, no EIC. The ONLY concession I would even consider making is a business incentive of some sort to attract manufacturing, like a 5% break for a max of 5 years for bringing and keeping jobs at home. Yeah, I don't want you anywhere near our tax code or any possible reforms of said code. There are "loop holes" in our tax code however I have not yet had a person accurately articulate even ONE such loop hole to me in all the times I have asked. A large chunk of the loopholes that were low hanging fruit were closed in the colossal tax act of 1986 (Tax Reform Act of 1986). Oh and "write offs" in tax accounting are deductions that reduce taxable income. Some of those write offs include the cost of goods sold. If we have an income tax, we damn well better have "write offs" because I can assure you a future Congress is going to do what past Congress's have done and jack the tax rates as high as they can get them only this time you won't have any sort of shield to protect your income. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 1:50:08 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Her intent doesn't matter. What matters is whether she is actually engaging in prohibited discrimination, unless there is some other basis for federal jurisdiction. If an individual chooses not to open a restaurant because he doesn't want to serve black people, nobody has a discrimination claim. OTOH, if that person opens a restaurant and posts a "whites only" sign, he's in trouble. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 1. I don't see how she can be locked up indefinitely, since incarceration for civil contempt requires that the contemnor have the immediate ability to purge and thereby gain release and she can't very well issue marriage licenses from jail. 2. I still haven't figured out how a federal court got jurisdiction over this matter. She is not violating Obergefell, which says that licenses must be issued to same-sex couples on the same terms as they are issued to heterosexual couples. She is not issuing licenses to anyone and therefore not discriminating against anyone; no federal rights are implicated. It's clear that her intent is to deny marriage licenses to same sex couples in violation of SCOTUS's rulings. That she chooses to not issue any marriage licenses to anybody in order to carry out this intent does not shield her. Her intent doesn't matter. What matters is whether she is actually engaging in prohibited discrimination, unless there is some other basis for federal jurisdiction. If an individual chooses not to open a restaurant because he doesn't want to serve black people, nobody has a discrimination claim. OTOH, if that person opens a restaurant and posts a "whites only" sign, he's in trouble. Her words show that she is acting in prohibited discrimination, and it's crystal clear that she's trying to shield herself from the charge by denying licenses to all applicants. It's not even thinly veiled; it's blatantly obvious. You really think this is comparable to not opening a restaurant?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 1:53:37 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You should move to some theocratic nation if that's what you want. America is a secular nation, the laws of god have no power or authority here. They do if the electorate so chooses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 1:58:26 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They do if the electorate so chooses. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You should move to some theocratic nation if that's what you want. America is a secular nation, the laws of god have no power or authority here. They do if the electorate so chooses. No they do not. The establishment clause prohibits that. 99% of the population can vote to have Christianity made the official religion and it would not be legal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 1:58:52 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, in a constitutional republic the majority cannot violate the rights of the minority. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There's where to the argument really lies, is defining when it's over reach. Personally I do think the government should have a hand in assuring equal application of the law throughout the 50 states. Be it gun rights, property rights or gay rights. I do hold marriage to be a right between consenting adults. You clearly disagree, but at the end of the day the feds have made their ruling. We'll see how it plays out. IF marriage is a right, then I should be able to: Marry more than one person. Marry my mom. Or my sister. Or my daughter. Marry despite my present status of already married. If not - why not? Please explain how your theory of equal protection under the law either extends, or does not, to those situations. As long as everyone involved is of the age of majority I really don't care if you want to marry your sister and your mother and 37 other people. There's already nothing stopping you from having sex with your mom and sister, what difference does a piece of paper make? I find the behavior you listed to be disgusting, but I don't see why it should illegal. The question is NOT whether YOU see why it should be illegal. rather, the question is, in a representative democracy, are these particulars something that society can regulate through their elected representatives? No, in a constitutional republic the majority cannot violate the rights of the minority. Tyranny of and by the minority is not that fun either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 1:59:59 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How is a county clerk not doing her job rewriting the laws? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Scalia: do your job or resign. [I]n my view the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation, rather than simply ignoring duly enacted, constitutional laws and sabotaging death penalty cases. He has, after all, taken an oath to apply the laws and has been given no power to supplant them with rules of his own. Of course if he feels strongly enough he can go beyond mere resignation and lead a political campaign to abolish the death penalty”and if that fails, lead a revolution. But rewrite the laws he cannot do. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/02/justice-scalia-explains-why-kim-davis-should-issue-marriage-licenses-to-same-sex-couples-or-find-a-new-job/ You are going to hurt tons of feelerbugs, bro.  How is a county clerk not doing her job rewriting the laws? A judge is not doing his job by rewriting the laws. A county clerk is not doing her job by refusing to issue licenses. Do your job, or resign. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:00:27 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tyranny of and by the minority is not that fun either. I'll agree with that statement, but that's not what's happening here. The only thing the supreme court ruling did was say that fags get to have the same piece of paper and the advantages that go with it as straight couples. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:03:58 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll agree with that statement, but that's not what's happening here. The only thing the supreme court ruling did was say that fags get to have the same piece of paper and the advantages that go with it as straight couples. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Tyranny of and by the minority is not that fun either. I'll agree with that statement, but that's not what's happening here. The only thing the supreme court ruling did was say that fags get to have the same piece of paper and the advantages that go with it as straight couples. Five Supreme Court Justices are the ultimate minority. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:06:28 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Five Supreme Court Justices are the ultimate minority. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Tyranny of and by the minority is not that fun either. I'll agree with that statement, but that's not what's happening here. The only thing the supreme court ruling did was say that fags get to have the same piece of paper and the advantages that go with it as straight couples. Five Supreme Court Justices are the ultimate minority. They made a ruling within their purview. The plaintiff's took their case through all the proper legal channels and the judges made their ruling. IF nolo gets his lawsuit before the supreme court and they rule in his favor I'm sure no one here will be complaining. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:10:38 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not have 0% tax rates, across the board? I would support this. Yeah, I don't want you anywhere near our tax code or any possible reforms of said code. There are "loop holes" in our tax code however I have not yet had a person accurately articulate even ONE such loop hole to me in all the times I have asked. A large chunk of the loopholes that were low hanging fruit were closed in the colossal tax act of 1986 (Tax Reform Act of 1986). Oh and "write offs" in tax accounting are deductions that reduce taxable income. Some of those write offs include the cost of goods sold. If we have an income tax, we damn well better have "write offs" because I can assure you a future Congress is going to do what past Congress's have done and jack the tax rates as high as they can get them only this time you won't have any sort of shield to protect your income.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not have 0% tax rates, across the board? I would support this. Quoted:
Yep, 10% across the board, not deductions, no "loopholes", no right offs, no EIC. The ONLY concession I would even consider making is a business incentive of some sort to attract manufacturing, like a 5% break for a max of 5 years for bringing and keeping jobs at home. Yeah, I don't want you anywhere near our tax code or any possible reforms of said code. There are "loop holes" in our tax code however I have not yet had a person accurately articulate even ONE such loop hole to me in all the times I have asked. A large chunk of the loopholes that were low hanging fruit were closed in the colossal tax act of 1986 (Tax Reform Act of 1986). Oh and "write offs" in tax accounting are deductions that reduce taxable income. Some of those write offs include the cost of goods sold. If we have an income tax, we damn well better have "write offs" because I can assure you a future Congress is going to do what past Congress's have done and jack the tax rates as high as they can get them only this time you won't have any sort of shield to protect your income.
I put "loopholes" in quotes because they don't exist, kinda like "gunshow loopholes" don't exist. I know what (sorry for the spelling error  ) are, I have owned, grown and sold at a profit 4 different business', but since we will never get a flat tax because the government is more worried about itself then the people, it's a moot point anyway.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:13:29 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They made a ruling within their purview. The plaintiff's took their case through all the proper legal channels and the judges made their ruling. IF nolo gets his lawsuit before the supreme court and they rule in his favor I'm sure no one here will be complaining. Quote HistoryQuoted:
They made a ruling within their purview. The plaintiff's took their case through all the proper legal channels and the judges made their ruling. IF nolo gets his lawsuit before the supreme court and they rule in his favor I'm sure no one here will be complaining. For Roberts: Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I
begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept. .... Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer. ... From Scalia: It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it
is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves. ... This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:15:56 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's about as many as she has had over the years hasn't she?  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
............... You will give fucks when some Morman "family" has a multimillion dollar income and no income tax because they have 40+ deductions. Gee - I wonder how many sham marriages tax issues alone will cause? That's about as many as she has had over the years hasn't she? No. Math much? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:17:38 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you have an issue with tax policy, fix the tax policy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You will give fucks when some Morman "family" has a multimillion dollar income and no income tax because they have 40+ deductions. Gee - I wonder how many sham marriages tax issues alone will cause? If you have an issue with tax policy, fix the tax policy. If you have an issue with the definition of marriage, fix the law. Don't magic it away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:18:25 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They made a ruling within their purview. The plaintiff's took their case through all the proper legal channels and the judges made their ruling. IF nolo gets his lawsuit before the supreme court and they rule in his favor I'm sure no one here will be complaining. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Tyranny of and by the minority is not that fun either. I'll agree with that statement, but that's not what's happening here. The only thing the supreme court ruling did was say that fags get to have the same piece of paper and the advantages that go with it as straight couples. Five Supreme Court Justices are the ultimate minority. They made a ruling within their purview. The plaintiff's took their case through all the proper legal channels and the judges made their ruling. IF nolo gets his lawsuit before the supreme court and they rule in his favor I'm sure no one here will be complaining. The Obergefell ruling was not within their purview. There is nothing in Article III Section 2 that put this case in their jurisdiction. As to Nolo's case - I have been constantly and consistently against incorporation on the BOR, moreover, ALL national firearm laws are unconstitutional the moment they are signed into law. State constitutions are sufficient in maintaining ordered liberty, and if one does not like the ordered liberty that a particular state provides, one can change it or move. There is no where to move under this decision and little or no way to change the ruling. This is the ultimate tyranny of the minority. ....edited for further thoughts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:19:22 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I put "loopholes" in quotes because they don't exist, kinda like "gunshow loopholes" don't exist. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I put "loopholes" in quotes because they don't exist, kinda like "gunshow loopholes" don't exist. Except there are loop holes that do exist; it's just that your average person is generally unaware of what they are. Quoted:I know what (sorry for the spelling error ) are, I have owned, grown and sold at a profit 4 different business', but since we will never get a flat tax because the government is more worried about itself then the people, it's a moot point anyway.I did not take issue with your spelling (lord knows I misspell my fair share); I took issue with the substance of your post. Congratulations on being a successful business owner. Furthermore, why on earth do you want a flat tax? A flat tax is only preferable to what we have currently. I say 0 income tax and 0 flat tax. There are ways to fund the necessary and proper functions of the federal government with out the system we have currently. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:19:39 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your statement needs context and application. Without it, I can say with "owning black people could be considered "ordered liberty". Cite an example in the texts from the Founding Fathers where ordered liberty involving the restriction of activities done behind closed doors. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Heller and McDonald were decided by a 5 - 4 vote. In light of that, what we are discussing here should scare the **** out of you. I have no idea where this tangent came from. However to address it; The government restricts an individual's right to own a gun. The government restricts an individual's right to get married solely on the basis of gender. If courts slap either one of these down, it is good for liberty. Liberty isn't passing laws that restrict individuals from doing shit you find distasteful. It just isn't, even if you really really hate it. The Founding Fathers envisioned "ordered liberty". Not some Randian libertarian wet-dream free-for-all. Your statement needs context and application. Without it, I can say with "owning black people could be considered "ordered liberty". Cite an example in the texts from the Founding Fathers where ordered liberty involving the restriction of activities done behind closed doors. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke. You do know that some very notable Founding Fathers were all in favor of the death penalty for male homosexuals - right? How is THAT for "context and application"? Can YOU cite notable state-sanctioned gay marriages from the time of the Founding Fathers? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:19:42 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Her words show that she is acting in prohibited discrimination, and it's crystal clear that she's trying to shield herself from the charge by denying licenses to all applicants. It's not even thinly veiled; it's blatantly obvious. You really think this is comparable to not opening a restaurant?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1. I don't see how she can be locked up indefinitely, since incarceration for civil contempt requires that the contemnor have the immediate ability to purge and thereby gain release and she can't very well issue marriage licenses from jail. 2. I still haven't figured out how a federal court got jurisdiction over this matter. She is not violating Obergefell, which says that licenses must be issued to same-sex couples on the same terms as they are issued to heterosexual couples. She is not issuing licenses to anyone and therefore not discriminating against anyone; no federal rights are implicated. It's clear that her intent is to deny marriage licenses to same sex couples in violation of SCOTUS's rulings. That she chooses to not issue any marriage licenses to anybody in order to carry out this intent does not shield her. Her intent doesn't matter. What matters is whether she is actually engaging in prohibited discrimination, unless there is some other basis for federal jurisdiction. If an individual chooses not to open a restaurant because he doesn't want to serve black people, nobody has a discrimination claim. OTOH, if that person opens a restaurant and posts a "whites only" sign, he's in trouble. Her words show that she is acting in prohibited discrimination, and it's crystal clear that she's trying to shield herself from the charge by denying licenses to all applicants. It's not even thinly veiled; it's blatantly obvious. You really think this is comparable to not opening a restaurant?
You really think that intent to discriminate without discriminatory action is discrimination? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:20:10 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They made a ruling within their purview. The plaintiff's took their case through all the proper legal channels and the judges made their ruling. IF nolo gets his lawsuit before the supreme court and they rule in his favor I'm sure no one here will be complaining. For Roberts: Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I
begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept. .... Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer. ... From Scalia: It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it
is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves. ... This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy. His comments only matter if you believe the laws regarding the banning of same sex marriage were legitimate to begin with. I do not. Just as I don't believe gun control laws are legitimate. When the government legislates over that which they have no authority, then it doesn't matter which branch strikes them down. They never should have been in place to begin with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:22:14 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A judge is not doing his job by rewriting the laws. A county clerk is not doing her job by refusing to issue licenses. Do your job, or resign. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Scalia: do your job or resign. [I]n my view the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation, rather than simply ignoring duly enacted, constitutional laws and sabotaging death penalty cases. He has, after all, taken an oath to apply the laws and has been given no power to supplant them with rules of his own. Of course if he feels strongly enough he can go beyond mere resignation and lead a political campaign to abolish the death penalty”and if that fails, lead a revolution. But rewrite the laws he cannot do. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/02/justice-scalia-explains-why-kim-davis-should-issue-marriage-licenses-to-same-sex-couples-or-find-a-new-job/ You are going to hurt tons of feelerbugs, bro. How is a county clerk not doing her job rewriting the laws? A judge is not doing his job by rewriting the laws. A county clerk is not doing her job by refusing to issue licenses. Do your job, or resign. Scalia's remark is about not rewriting laws. The clerk is not rewriting laws. She is apparently derelict in her duties under state law, but she is not changing the law, nor is she doing anything that warrants federal intervention. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:22:33 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Obergefell ruling was not within their purview. There is nothing in Article III Section 2 that put this case in their jurisdiction. As to Nolo's case - I have been constantly and consistently against incorporation on the BOR, moreover, ALL national firearm laws are unconstitutional the moment they are signed into law. State constitutions are sufficient in maintaining ordered liberty. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Tyranny of and by the minority is not that fun either. I'll agree with that statement, but that's not what's happening here. The only thing the supreme court ruling did was say that fags get to have the same piece of paper and the advantages that go with it as straight couples. Five Supreme Court Justices are the ultimate minority. They made a ruling within their purview. The plaintiff's took their case through all the proper legal channels and the judges made their ruling. IF nolo gets his lawsuit before the supreme court and they rule in his favor I'm sure no one here will be complaining. The Obergefell ruling was not within their purview. There is nothing in Article III Section 2 that put this case in their jurisdiction. As to Nolo's case - I have been constantly and consistently against incorporation on the BOR, moreover, ALL national firearm laws are unconstitutional the moment they are signed into law. State constitutions are sufficient in maintaining ordered liberty. State constitutions that pass amendments that violate the rights of minorities within their borders are no more legitimate than the gun control laws. It's gotten to be a rather tired argument, but if KY passed an amendment that slavery was legal in the state it would still be wrong even if the majority of the state approved of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:23:39 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So gays getting married automatically means you'll come into contact with tainted blood, and that said blood is tainted because they are married, and is only tainted because they are married? Quote HistoryQuoted:
So gays getting married automatically means you'll come into contact with tainted blood, and that said blood is tainted because they are married, and is only tainted because they are married? Homosexual conduct increase the likelihood. Therefor, it is well within the legitimate exercise of societal power to refuse to sanction it in a marriage. With gays transmitting AIDS to each other at a higher clip, how does them getting married impact this rate? How would that impact you specifically? Better question - how does the Federal government seize the power to define and regulate marriage from the States that created it? The questions you aks only have meaning if this question remained within the legislative process. The 9 black robes have seen fit to remove it from there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:23:54 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You do know that some very notable Founding Fathers were all in favor of the death penalty for male homosexuals - right? How is THAT for "context and application"? Can YOU cite notable state-sanctioned gay marriages from the time of the Founding Fathers? Quote HistoryQuoted:
You do know that some very notable Founding Fathers were all in favor of the death penalty for male homosexuals - right? How is THAT for "context and application"? Can YOU cite notable state-sanctioned gay marriages from the time of the Founding Fathers? If memory serves, Thomas Jefferson wrote a set of proposed laws for Virginia that lowered the penalty for sodomy from execution to merely mutilation. Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.
Thomas Jefferson, A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments 1778 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:24:37 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Scalia's remark is about not rewriting laws. The clerk is not rewriting laws. She is apparently derelict in her duties under state law, but she is not changing the law, nor is she doing anything that warrants federal intervention. Scalia's remark is about a civil servant doing its job. Its quite simple. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:25:27 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
People tend not to truly change, you are correct. She maybe putting on a slick facade and you people buy it hook line and sinker. Perhaps. Or perhaps you are just being cynical and concentrating on the messenger, rather than the message. Perhaps. As to people changing, they can and do. Whether you choose to believe so or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:26:30 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, in a constitutional republic the majority cannot violate the rights of the minority. When did the minority right in question here come into being? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:27:57 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ....Just as I don't believe gun control laws are legitimate. When the government legislates over that which they have no authority, then it doesn't matter which branch strikes them down. They never should have been in place to begin with. Quote HistoryQuoted: ....Just as I don't believe gun control laws are legitimate. When the government legislates over that which they have no authority, then it doesn't matter which branch strikes them down. They never should have been in place to begin with. From Justice Thomas: Nor, under the broader definition, can they claim that
the States have restricted their ability to go about their daily lives as they would be able to absent governmental restrictions. Petitioners do not ask this Court to order the States to stop restricting their ability to enter same-sex relationships, to engage in intimate behavior, to make vows to their partners in public ceremonies, to engage in religious wedding ceremonies, to hold themselves out as married, or to raise children. The States have imposed no such restrictions. Nor have the States prevented petitioners from approximating a number of incidents of marriage through private legal means, such as wills, trusts, and powers of attorney. Instead, the States have refused to grant them governmental entitlements. Petitioners claim that as a matter of “liberty,” they are entitled to access privileges and benefits that exist solely because of the government. They want, for example, to receive the State’s imprimatur on their marriages—on state issued marriage licenses, death certificates, or other official forms. And they want to receive various monetary benefits, including reduced inheritance taxes upon the death of a spouse, compensation if a spouse dies as a result of a work-related injury, or loss of consortium damages in tort suits. But receiving governmental recognition and benefits has nothing to do with any understanding of “liberty” that the Framers would have recognized. To the extent that the Framers would have recognized a natural right to marriage that fell within the broader definition of liberty, it would not have included a right to governmental recognition and benefits. Instead, it would have included a right to engage in the very same activities that petitioners have been left free to engage in—making vows, holding religious ceremonies celebrating those vows, raising children, and otherwise enjoying the society of one’s spouse—without governmental interference. At the founding, such conduct was understood to predate government, not to flow from it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:28:13 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When did the minority right in question here come into being? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No, in a constitutional republic the majority cannot violate the rights of the minority. When did the minority right in question here come into being? When the government became responsible for issuing marriage licenses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:30:22 PM EDT
[#29]
I'm bored with this thread, no one's going to change anyone's mind anyway. So I wish you all good day
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:31:09 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
State constitutions that pass amendments that violate the rights of minorities within their borders are no more legitimate than the gun control laws. It's gotten to be a rather tired argument, but if KY passed an amendment that slavery was legal in the state it would still be wrong even if the majority of the state approved of it. It would be wrong, but it would only be invalid because of the 13thAm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:31:20 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When the government became responsible for issuing marriage licenses. Quote HistoryQuoted:
When the government became responsible for issuing marriage licenses. Here is what Scalia said to address that specific issue: But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in
today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003.20 They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds— minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly— could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago,21 cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution. The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so.22 Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:33:05 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What he said is absolutely correct. More liberty and less government involvement. Not the other way around. What you want is to use force of government to tell two other people what they can and cannot do, despite the fact that it doesn't affect you. I know you can reach all kinds of justifications for how it will destroy the world and ruin this or that. The hand wringing aside, it doesn't affect you and you're trying to impose your will, through law, on people you disagree with on religious grounds. [ETA] I would prefer this to be a state's rights issue but it isn't. What he said is absolutely WRONG. This isn't "more liberty and less government" - it is an abrogation of State and Federal legislative authority by the judiciary. It is the concentration of all and ultimate power in the hands of 5 of 9 unelected lawyers who were never given that power under the Constitution. It is a complete end-run around the Constitution, and it endangers everything that the Constitution protects. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:34:12 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except there are loop holes that do exist; it's just that your average person is generally unaware of what they are. I did not take issue with your spelling (lord knows I misspell my fair share); I took issue with the substance of your post. Congratulations on being a successful business owner. Furthermore, why on earth do you want a flat tax? A flat tax is only preferable to what we have currently. I say 0 income tax and 0 flat tax. There are ways to fund the necessary and proper functions of the federal government with out the system we have currently. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I put "loopholes" in quotes because they don't exist, kinda like "gunshow loopholes" don't exist. Except there are loop holes that do exist; it's just that your average person is generally unaware of what they are. Quoted:I know what (sorry for the spelling error ) are, I have owned, grown and sold at a profit 4 different business', but since we will never get a flat tax because the government is more worried about itself then the people, it's a moot point anyway.I did not take issue with your spelling (lord knows I misspell my fair share); I took issue with the substance of your post. Congratulations on being a successful business owner. Furthermore, why on earth do you want a flat tax? A flat tax is only preferable to what we have currently. I say 0 income tax and 0 flat tax. There are ways to fund the necessary and proper functions of the federal government with out the system we have currently. I understand 2 things, after that all things "tax" hurt my head because I can't think in the terms of all the tax code BS. first is that the current system is WAY to complicated, second is that I understand the t "10% (or whatever), no haggling.", so if you can explain alternatives in a way that makes sense and shows how it won't be abused, I am up for an education. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:34:41 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
She's not doing the job she was elected to perform. In most career fields that gets you fired. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
While I don't agree that using "God's authority" as the reason for your actions, she could simply say she has strong personal convictions and will not follow through with the order. But with that aside, I applaud her for standing up to these assholes. She is refusing to issue licenses to ANYBODY, not just gay couples. She's not doing the job she was elected to perform. In most career fields that gets you fired. When she was elected, she was not required to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. They changed the rules AFTER she was elected to her job. I think she has a right to take her stand. If the people don't like it, hold a new election, let the people speak. Guess what if she wins again, the people made their voice clear in their support of her, and her position.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:36:46 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would be wrong, but it would only be invalid because of the 13thAm. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
State constitutions that pass amendments that violate the rights of minorities within their borders are no more legitimate than the gun control laws. It's gotten to be a rather tired argument, but if KY passed an amendment that slavery was legal in the state it would still be wrong even if the majority of the state approved of it. It would be wrong, but it would only be invalid because of the 13thAm. Reductio ad servum the new Godwin's Law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:37:50 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I understand 2 things, after that all things "tax" hurt my head because I can't think in the terms of all the tax code BS. first is that the current system is WAY to complicated, second is that I understand the t "10% (or whatever), no haggling.", so if you can explain alternatives in a way that makes sense and shows how it won't be abused, I am up for an education. Alternative: repeal the 16th amendment. Simple enough? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:40:12 PM EDT
[#37]
She's on her forth marriage and wants to tell others how to live their lives....Piss on her.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:49:37 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The only "northern" State that had any slaves was Delaware at the time of the civil war. Maryland and Kentucky remained in the Union and both had slaves, but Maryland didn't secede only because the Federal government prevented the State legislature from meeting to discuss/vote on it. And I wouldn't call either of them "Northern" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
]The fact that "state's rights" was used to defend slavery ought to tell you all you need to know about it. Pure bullshit. States have reserved powers and authorities, since they created the damned FedGov in the first place. Those reserved powers and rights have been shit on since the War of Northern Aggression. Or did you forget the inconvenient fact that Northern States had slaves and indentured servants too? Excepting those like Lincolns Illinois, which prohibited blacks of any kind, free or slave, from entering. The only "northern" State that had any slaves was Delaware at the time of the civil war. Maryland and Kentucky remained in the Union and both had slaves, but Maryland didn't secede only because the Federal government prevented the State legislature from meeting to discuss/vote on it. And I wouldn't call either of them "Northern" Slavery did not end in New Jersey until 1865, That north enough for you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:51:34 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would think encouraging gays to commit themselves to lifelong monogamous relationships would reduce the transmission of AIDS. Seems like it might actually benefit society. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1. Are you trying to say that gays getting married has a physical, negative impact on you? Yes. Tainted blood supply anyone? 2. Are you trying to say that homosexuality is a causality to higher AIDS infections? Absolutely. As is intravenous drug abuse. There is a reason they try to give away free clean needles to junkies and a reason why they ask you if you ever had homosexual sex before you donate blood. Which is an argument you could make if we were allowed to hash this out in the legislative process. Unfortunately, we can't. So gays getting married automatically means you'll come into contact with tainted blood, and that said blood is tainted because they are married, and is only tainted because they are married? With gays transmitting AIDS to each other at a higher clip, how does them getting married impact this rate? How would that impact you specifically? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:53:18 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, in a constitutional republic the majority cannot violate the rights of the minority. Marriage is not a right, and the majority can do what it wishes in the areas not prohibited to ti. Like zoning laws, and regulating marriage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:56:34 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No they do not. The establishment clause prohibits that. 99% of the population can vote to have Christianity made the official religion and it would not be legal. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You should move to some theocratic nation if that's what you want. America is a secular nation, the laws of god have no power or authority here. They do if the electorate so chooses. No they do not. The establishment clause prohibits that. 99% of the population can vote to have Christianity made the official religion and it would not be legal. Voters have every right to have their opinion, their votes, and the actions of their representatives to be informed by any such thing they choose, whether that be religion or any other thing. You misunderstand what the Establishment Clause does, and you ignore the fact that apparently we are ignoring the Constitution now. This ruling means that the Establishment Clause means only what 5 justices at any given time say it means. That is why this is a bad and dangerous decision. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:57:08 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll agree with that statement, but that's not what's happening here. The only thing the supreme court ruling did was say that fags get to have the same piece of paper and the advantages that go with it as straight couples. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Tyranny of and by the minority is not that fun either. I'll agree with that statement, but that's not what's happening here. The only thing the supreme court ruling did was say that fags get to have the same piece of paper and the advantages that go with it as straight couples. Which is not and never was their decision to make. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 3:17:12 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Marriage is not a right, and the majority can do what it wishes in the areas not prohibited to ti. Like zoning laws, and regulating marriage. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No, in a constitutional republic the majority cannot violate the rights of the minority. Marriage is not a right, and the majority can do what it wishes in the areas not prohibited to ti. Like zoning laws, and regulating marriage. It isn't one of the enumerated ones, yes. The funny thing about the enumerated rights in the BOR is they were all the ones specifically in contention at the time, which explains the oddity of the 3rd Amendment. They were also afraid people would claim the only rights protected were the ones specifically enumerated, so Madison included the 9th to clarify the existence and protection of rights not so enumerated. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that had the British imposed ridiculous requirements on marriage, that marriage would have been specifically included in the BOR as the right it in fact is, and it's been recognized as a right multiple times since the early 1800s. With that said rights are generally not absolute, and we're so far off in a grey area legally I can see how reasonable people would have differing interpretations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 3:23:39 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It isn't one of the enumerated ones, yes. The funny thing about the enumerated rights in the BOR is they were all the ones specifically in contention at the time, which explains the oddity of the 3rd Amendment. They were also afraid people would claim the only rights protected were the ones specifically enumerated, so Madison included the 9th to clarify the existence and protection of rights not so enumerated. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that had the British imposed ridiculous requirements on marriage, that marriage would have been specifically included in the BOR as the right it in fact is, and it's been recognized as a right multiple times since the early 1800s. With that said rights are generally not absolute, and we're so far off in a grey area legally I can see how reasonable people would have differing interpretations. Quote HistoryQuoted:
It isn't one of the enumerated ones, yes. The funny thing about the enumerated rights in the BOR is they were all the ones specifically in contention at the time, which explains the oddity of the 3rd Amendment. They were also afraid people would claim the only rights protected were the ones specifically enumerated, so Madison included the 9th to clarify the existence and protection of rights not so enumerated. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that had the British imposed ridiculous requirements on marriage, that marriage would have been specifically included in the BOR as the right it in fact is, and it's been recognized as a right multiple times since the early 1800s. With that said rights are generally not absolute, and we're so far off in a grey area legally I can see how reasonable people would have differing interpretations. From Justice Thomas: Nor, under the broader definition, can they claim that
the States have restricted their ability to go about their daily lives as they would be able to absent governmental restrictions. Petitioners do not ask this Court to order the States to stop restricting their ability to enter same-sex relationships, to engage in intimate behavior, to make vows to their partners in public ceremonies, to engage in religious wedding ceremonies, to hold themselves out as married, or to raise children. The States have imposed no such restrictions. Nor have the States prevented petitioners from approximating a number of incidents of marriage through private legal means, such as wills, trusts, and powers of attorney. Instead, the States have refused to grant them governmental entitlements. Petitioners claim that as a matter of “liberty,” they are entitled to access privileges and benefits that exist solely because of the government. They want, for example, to receive the State’s imprimatur on their marriages—on state issued marriage licenses, death certificates, or other official forms. And they want to receive various monetary benefits, including reduced inheritance taxes upon the death of a spouse, compensation if a spouse dies as a result of a work-related injury, or loss of consortium damages in tort suits. But receiving governmental recognition and benefits has nothing to do with any understanding of “liberty” that the Framers would have recognized. To the extent that the Framers would have recognized a natural right to marriage that fell within the broader definition of liberty, it would not have included a right to governmental recognition and benefits. Instead, it would have included a right to engage in the very same activities that petitioners have been left free to engage in—making vows, holding religious ceremonies celebrating those vows, raising children, and otherwise enjoying the society of one’s spouse—without governmental interference. At the founding, such conduct was understood to predate government, not to flow from it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 3:44:03 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How is a county clerk not doing her job rewriting the laws? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Scalia: do your job or resign. [I]n my view the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation, rather than simply ignoring duly enacted, constitutional laws and sabotaging death penalty cases. He has, after all, taken an oath to apply the laws and has been given no power to supplant them with rules of his own. Of course if he feels strongly enough he can go beyond mere resignation and lead a political campaign to abolish the death penalty”and if that fails, lead a revolution. But rewrite the laws he cannot do. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/02/justice-scalia-explains-why-kim-davis-should-issue-marriage-licenses-to-same-sex-couples-or-find-a-new-job/ You are going to hurt tons of feelerbugs, bro. How is a county clerk not doing her job rewriting the laws? Just pointing out the Scalia love in GD will get a little awkward. Your initial point many pages ago that alluded to a quasi Printz like issue (it's the best way I can describe it) is interesting. Still, she is denying licenses to mo's, and didn't do a good job at hiding it 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 4:00:59 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They made a ruling within their purview. The plaintiff's took their case through all the proper legal channels and the judges made their ruling. IF nolo gets his lawsuit before the supreme court and they rule in his favor I'm sure no one here will be complaining. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Tyranny of and by the minority is not that fun either. I'll agree with that statement, but that's not what's happening here. The only thing the supreme court ruling did was say that fags get to have the same piece of paper and the advantages that go with it as straight couples. Five Supreme Court Justices are the ultimate minority. They made a ruling within their purview. The plaintiff's took their case through all the proper legal channels and the judges made their ruling. IF nolo gets his lawsuit before the supreme court and they rule in his favor I'm sure no one here will be complaining. So not the same thing. One is a "right" invented out of whole cloth, the other is a right explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights... Apples and Volkswagens. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 4:05:13 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
She chose to run for office, she swore an oath (I assume) to execute the laws and do her job when she won the election. Ergo, she isn't doing her job and needs to be removed. And she will be. She's only grandstanding so that she can keep that gov't check coming in a little longer. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I love how a bunch of people not from KY are saying this woman is defending the beliefs of Kentuckians, when there are quite a few Kentuckians in here saying she's a moron. I would think that someone who is selectively law abiding would support another selectively law abiding person. The difference between me and her is I didn't choose a job in government. When I choose to ignore a law no one else knows about it. I don't think you understand the difference between an elected office and a "job in government". They're not the same. She chose to run for office, she swore an oath (I assume) to execute the laws and do her job when she won the election. Ergo, she isn't doing her job and needs to be removed. And she will be. She's only grandstanding so that she can keep that gov't check coming in a little longer. She's executing the will of the people of KY as elected to do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 4:05:58 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It isn't one of the enumerated ones, yes. The funny thing about the enumerated rights in the BOR is they were all the ones specifically in contention at the time, which explains the oddity of the 3rd Amendment. They were also afraid people would claim the only rights protected were the ones specifically enumerated, so Madison included the 9th to clarify the existence and protection of rights not so enumerated. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that had the British imposed ridiculous requirements on marriage, that marriage would have been specifically included in the BOR as the right it in fact is, and it's been recognized as a right multiple times since the early 1800s. With that said rights are generally not absolute, and we're so far off in a grey area legally I can see how reasonable people would have differing interpretations. From Justice Thomas: Nor, under the broader definition, can they claim that
the States have restricted their ability to go about their daily lives as they would be able to absent governmental restrictions. Petitioners do not ask this Court to order the States to stop restricting their ability to enter same-sex relationships, to engage in intimate behavior, to make vows to their partners in public ceremonies, to engage in religious wedding ceremonies, to hold themselves out as married, or to raise children. The States have imposed no such restrictions. Nor have the States prevented petitioners from approximating a number of incidents of marriage through private legal means, such as wills, trusts, and powers of attorney. Instead, the States have refused to grant them governmental entitlements. Petitioners claim that as a matter of “liberty,” they are entitled to access privileges and benefits that exist solely because of the government. They want, for example, to receive the State’s imprimatur on their marriages—on state issued marriage licenses, death certificates, or other official forms. And they want to receive various monetary benefits, including reduced inheritance taxes upon the death of a spouse, compensation if a spouse dies as a result of a work-related injury, or loss of consortium damages in tort suits. But receiving governmental recognition and benefits has nothing to do with any understanding of “liberty” that the Framers would have recognized. To the extent that the Framers would have recognized a natural right to marriage that fell within the broader definition of liberty, it would not have included a right to governmental recognition and benefits. Instead, it would have included a right to engage in the very same activities that petitioners have been left free to engage in—making vows, holding religious ceremonies celebrating those vows, raising children, and otherwise enjoying the society of one’s spouse—without governmental interference. At the founding, such conduct was understood to predate government, not to flow from it. Seems like he basically agrees that marriage is a right. The issue, I think, is this deals with the 14th amendment-which specifically includes a part dealing with how the government handles documents and basic legal acts. Given the 14th was ratified roughly a hundred years after the original ratification-long after the framers were dead, and with none of their input-so disregarding something simply because the Framers didn't consider it, even when a part added later does, is probably not the best path. I really just don't buy his argument. The thing to remember is the verb form of 'amendment' is 'amend', and a synonym for 'amend' is 'change'. So past the BOR, you're looking at a sequential progression of changes that modify the original document, with latter ones taking precedent over conflicting earlier ones. This is why we now have individual income tax, direct election of senators, blacks as citizens, women voting, and a BOR incorporated against state and local governments. We also have an interesting case of two changes conflicting, where the latter 21st change specifically nullified the earlier 18th change. My concern really, is that we're in far enough of a gray area where reasonable people can disagree, and the legal reasoning had become more interpretitive instead of explicit. I thing long term it may have been better to work the legislative side, seeing as how rapidly opinion was changing. I say that even considering how the issue impacts me, as before I had no real way to have a truly inviolate marriage. Many states would have only allowed me to marry a man, and yet I still ran the risk of any such marriage being invalidated due to my birth status. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 4:21:55 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: She's executing the will of the people of KY as elected to do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 4:30:31 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Meh, that's kind of a different kettle of fish. There will be a push to revoke the tax exempt status of churches that will not bow to gay marriage, hard to believe that it will go anywhere but I have heard that mentioned as a goal Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How long before homos sue to force churches to marry them against their will and beliefs?  They'll definitely try. If they succeed (which they won't), it's going to get ugly. They are already attacking military chaplains. Unless something drastic changes, that will likely happen within two years. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
