User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:20:09 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would you say the same if a pacifist refused to issue a CCW license or sign NFA forms? You must disagree with Heller then. The "People" banned guns in Washington DC, how dare "The Supremes" overturn that? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
She works for the government, she represents and serves everyone equally. She is violating the First Amendment rights of gays. If she doesn't like it, she can quit. She's an elected agent of a State government. The Supremes changed the playing field by fiat not the will of the people. This is the fallout when extra Constitutional measures are embarked upon. The Supremes overstepped their authority. Would you say the same if a pacifist refused to issue a CCW license or sign NFA forms? You must disagree with Heller then. The "People" banned guns in Washington DC, how dare "The Supremes" overturn that? There is existing law (The Constitution) regarding private right to keep and bear arms. There is a process (Amendment) to change it. Where is the existing Federal law regarding homosexual marriage that predates the Supremes decision? The Supremes are authorized to interpret EXISTING law, not create it from whole cloth. That is the authority of Congress. The separation of powers is essential to our type of government. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:21:37 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There is existing law (The Constitution) regarding private right to keep and bear arms. There is a process (Amendment) to change it. Where is the existing Federal law regarding homosexual marriage that predates the Supremes decision? The Supremes are authorized to interpret EXISTING law, not create it from whole cloth. That is the authority of Congress. The separation of powers is essential to our type of government. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: She works for the government, she represents and serves everyone equally. She is violating the First Amendment rights of gays. If she doesn't like it, she can quit. She's an elected agent of a State government. The Supremes changed the playing field by fiat not the will of the people. This is the fallout when extra Constitutional measures are embarked upon. The Supremes overstepped their authority. Would you say the same if a pacifist refused to issue a CCW license or sign NFA forms? You must disagree with Heller then. The "People" banned guns in Washington DC, how dare "The Supremes" overturn that? There is existing law (The Constitution) regarding private right to keep and bear arms. There is a process (Amendment) to change it. Where is the existing Federal law regarding homosexual marriage that predates the Supremes decision? The Supremes are authorized to interpret EXISTING law, not create it from whole cloth. That is the authority of Congress. The separation of powers is essential to our type of government. What law did the Supreme Court create from whole cloth? Could you please cite it?
Doesn't the Equal Protection Clause, that provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws", cover this? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:21:39 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The only way refusing to issue CCW permits would be a violation of a citizen's civil rights is if they were denied a CCW permit simply because they were black, or a woman, etc etc. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: She claims it is a religious battle and not political. Or refusing CCW permits or CLEO NFA permits odd how this seems to be the first time that an official is held to the letter of the law That judge in Texas said she wouldn't marrying anyone because she can't marry a woman. She didn't say because God told her so. The folks refusing to issue CCWs are on a different level all together. They aren't doing anything wrong because it is a May Issue Permit where tbis usually occurs. The laws are writte that way and they aren't refusing to issue permits due to religious reasons either. Both of those cases aren't 1st Amendment violations. No... it is another matter of civil rights that is being violated... the 2nd Amendment. Crazy Looney Bird is violating the 1st. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:21:45 AM EDT
[#4]
This is getting more and more stupid by the day.
She's not a conscientious objector. She has nothing to object to. Nobody is making her doing anything. She wasn't conscripted into that job, it was her choice. She's now refusing to do the job she chose, and ran for. If she doesn't want to do it, I'm sure resigning her position is a very simple process. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:22:32 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tough shit. Resign. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
she's nuts... If your religion or belief system prevents you from performing the duties of a job you were hired or elected to do, than you should find another job..end of story. The "duties" changed (were imposed) AFTER she was elected. Tough shit. Resign. Or, perhaps, impeach, recall or wait until the next election. If I take on a contract to execute a certain task, and then the parameters of the task I agreed to are changed (through some questionable process) am I obligated to the changed contract or the elements of the contract I agreed to enter into? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:22:41 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is existing law (The Constitution) regarding private right to keep and bear arms. There is a process (Amendment) to change it. Where is the existing Federal law regarding homosexual marriage that predates the Supremes decision? The Supremes are authorized to interpret EXISTING law, not create it from whole cloth. That is the authority of Congress. The separation of powers is essential to our type of government. The First Amendment. Marriage is a religious concept, and therefore a religious right, regardless of religious belief. Muslims can get married. Blacks can marry whites. Jews can marry Hindus. And gays can marry each other. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:22:57 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is existing law (The Constitution) regarding private right to keep and bear arms. There is a process (Amendment) to change it. Where is the existing Federal law regarding homosexual marriage that predates the Supremes decision? The Supremes are authorized to interpret EXISTING law, not create it from whole cloth. That is the authority of Congress. The separation of powers is essential to our type of government. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
She works for the government, she represents and serves everyone equally. She is violating the First Amendment rights of gays. If she doesn't like it, she can quit. She's an elected agent of a State government. The Supremes changed the playing field by fiat not the will of the people. This is the fallout when extra Constitutional measures are embarked upon. The Supremes overstepped their authority. Would you say the same if a pacifist refused to issue a CCW license or sign NFA forms? You must disagree with Heller then. The "People" banned guns in Washington DC, how dare "The Supremes" overturn that? There is existing law (The Constitution) regarding private right to keep and bear arms. There is a process (Amendment) to change it. Where is the existing Federal law regarding homosexual marriage that predates the Supremes decision? The Supremes are authorized to interpret EXISTING law, not create it from whole cloth. That is the authority of Congress. The separation of powers is essential to our type of government. How loudly did you complain when the city of Chicago had their handgun ban overturned. There was no constitutional basis under which to do that. Was this a miscarriage of justice? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:24:35 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The First Amendment. Marriage is a religious concept, and therefore a religious right, regardless of religious belief. Muslims can get married. Blacks can marry whites. Jews can marry Hindus. And gays can marry each other. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There is existing law (The Constitution) regarding private right to keep and bear arms. There is a process (Amendment) to change it. Where is the existing Federal law regarding homosexual marriage that predates the Supremes decision? The Supremes are authorized to interpret EXISTING law, not create it from whole cloth. That is the authority of Congress. The separation of powers is essential to our type of government. The First Amendment. Marriage is a religious concept, and therefore a religious right, regardless of religious belief. Muslims can get married. Blacks can marry whites. Jews can marry Hindus. And gays can marry each other. I hope you feel the same way about the Second Amendment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:24:55 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Her "duties" have remained the same. She was elected to issue marriage licenses to the citizens of Kentucky, and one of the duties of her office is not to deny basic rights to any citizen of the United States. She's always been tasked with that duty from the moment she took office. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
she's nuts... If your religion or belief system prevents you from performing the duties of a job you were hired or elected to do, than you should find another job..end of story. The "duties" changed (were imposed) AFTER she was elected. The "basic rights" as you put it were redefined (through a questionable judicial process) after her election. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:25:05 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hope you feel the same way about the Second Amendment. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is existing law (The Constitution) regarding private right to keep and bear arms. There is a process (Amendment) to change it. Where is the existing Federal law regarding homosexual marriage that predates the Supremes decision? The Supremes are authorized to interpret EXISTING law, not create it from whole cloth. That is the authority of Congress. The separation of powers is essential to our type of government. The First Amendment. Marriage is a religious concept, and therefore a religious right, regardless of religious belief. Muslims can get married. Blacks can marry whites. Jews can marry Hindus. And gays can marry each other. I hope you feel the same way about the Second Amendment. I like all the amendments equally. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:26:26 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Suppose a buddhist (and elected official) believes in nonviolence, and he believes signing his name on the CCW license approval form violates this belief. Is he wrong to refuse the license in a shall issue state? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted:The only way refusing to issue CCW permits would be a violation of a citizen's civil rights is if they were denied a CCW permit simply because they were black, or a woman, etc etc. Suppose a buddhist (and elected official) believes in nonviolence, and he believes signing his name on the CCW license approval form violates this belief. Is he wrong to refuse the license in a shall issue state? Then he is Proselytizing from the bench and that is a 1st Amendment violation. Any other reason would be a 2nd Amendment violation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:26:46 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Or, perhaps, impeach, recall or wait until the next election. If I take on a contract to execute a certain task, and then the parameters of the task I agreed to are changed (through some questionable process) am I obligated to the changed contract or the elements of the contract I agreed to enter into? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: she's nuts... If your religion or belief system prevents you from performing the duties of a job you were hired or elected to do, than you should find another job..end of story. The "duties" changed (were imposed) AFTER she was elected. Tough shit. Resign. Or, perhaps, impeach, recall or wait until the next election. If I take on a contract to execute a certain task, and then the parameters of the task I agreed to are changed (through some questionable process) am I obligated to the changed contract or the elements of the contract I agreed to enter into? Was she ever allowed, from the beginning of her term of office, ever to deny civil rights to a citizen of Kentucky? Did that requirement, not to violate a person's rights, ever change? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:26:53 AM EDT
[#13]
Meanwhile, that freak tranny bruce jenner actually killed someone with its car, and is not in jail.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:27:50 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then he is Proselytizing from the bench and that is a 1st Amendment violation. Any other reason would be a 2nd Amendment violation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:The only way refusing to issue CCW permits would be a violation of a citizen's civil rights is if they were denied a CCW permit simply because they were black, or a woman, etc etc. Suppose a buddhist (and elected official) believes in nonviolence, and he believes signing his name on the CCW license approval form violates this belief. Is he wrong to refuse the license in a shall issue state? Then he is Proselytizing from the bench and that is a 1st Amendment violation. Any other reason would be a 2nd Amendment violation. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:28:40 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The "basic rights" as you put it were redefined (through a questionable judicial process) after her election. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: she's nuts... If your religion or belief system prevents you from performing the duties of a job you were hired or elected to do, than you should find another job..end of story. The "duties" changed (were imposed) AFTER she was elected. The "basic rights" as you put it were redefined (through a questionable judicial process) after her election. So you agree that she can not deny or violate the rights of any citizen of the United States? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:29:19 AM EDT
[#16]
If this is true the woman has no moral ground to stand on.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:30:05 AM EDT
[#17]
She is the County Court Clerk? Right?
Go some where else! I play pool and shoot with OUR County Court Clerk. He said" Let them bitch and moan, its my call" I asked," what would you do, he said, you come to the counter and have money and its legal i issue." |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:30:34 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did they overstep their authority in 1967 when SCOTUS ruled in Loving v. Virginia that laws banning mixed marriages were unconstitutional? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
She works for the government, she represents and serves everyone equally. She is violating the First Amendment rights of gays. If she doesn't like it, she can quit. She's an elected agent of a State government. The Supremes changed the playing field by fiat not the will of the people. This is the fallout when extra Constitutional measures are embarked upon. The Supremes overstepped their authority. Well...Now we see why the 17th Amendment was the precursor to the death of the 10th. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:33:14 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The First Amendment. Marriage is a religious concept, and therefore a religious right, regardless of religious belief. Muslims can get married. Blacks can marry whites. Jews can marry Hindus. And gays can marry each other. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: There is existing law (The Constitution) regarding private right to keep and bear arms. There is a process (Amendment) to change it. Where is the existing Federal law regarding homosexual marriage that predates the Supremes decision? The Supremes are authorized to interpret EXISTING law, not create it from whole cloth. That is the authority of Congress. The separation of powers is essential to our type of government. The First Amendment. Marriage is a religious concept, and therefore a religious right, regardless of religious belief. Muslims can get married. Blacks can marry whites. Jews can marry Hindus. And gays can marry each other. My wife and I were legally married at the Clerk of the Court. God played no part in it. It was a Civil Marriage. A year later we did it at the church. Government played no part in it. A couple can be civilly married and never have a religious one. Same on the flip side. A couple can go to a religious service and be married according to the religious customs and never go to the government. According to Catholic dogma, divorce is not possible. But I can get legally divorced yet in the eyes of the church if hat wre to happen, our divorce documents would mean nothing since according to Catholic dogma, once married always married. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:33:28 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The First Amendment. Marriage is a religious concept, and therefore a religious right, regardless of religious belief. Muslims can get married. Blacks can marry whites. Jews can marry Hindus. And gays can marry each other. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There is existing law (The Constitution) regarding private right to keep and bear arms. There is a process (Amendment) to change it. Where is the existing Federal law regarding homosexual marriage that predates the Supremes decision? The Supremes are authorized to interpret EXISTING law, not create it from whole cloth. That is the authority of Congress. The separation of powers is essential to our type of government. The First Amendment. Marriage is a religious concept, and therefore a religious right, regardless of religious belief. Muslims can get married. Blacks can marry whites. Jews can marry Hindus. And gays can marry each other. You don't need permission from the government to get married in a religious institution. Homosexuals have been getting married in accommodating churches for decades. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:34:13 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Meanwhile, that freak tranny bruce jenner actually killed someone with its car, and is not in jail. At most, Jenner is guilty of misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter in the state of California, the max sentence is 6 months in jail. She'll probably not serve any time in jail. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:34:26 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How loudly did you complain when the city of Chicago had their handgun ban overturned. There was no constitutional basis under which to do that. Was this a miscarriage of justice? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
She works for the government, she represents and serves everyone equally. She is violating the First Amendment rights of gays. If she doesn't like it, she can quit. She's an elected agent of a State government. The Supremes changed the playing field by fiat not the will of the people. This is the fallout when extra Constitutional measures are embarked upon. The Supremes overstepped their authority. Would you say the same if a pacifist refused to issue a CCW license or sign NFA forms? You must disagree with Heller then. The "People" banned guns in Washington DC, how dare "The Supremes" overturn that? There is existing law (The Constitution) regarding private right to keep and bear arms. There is a process (Amendment) to change it. Where is the existing Federal law regarding homosexual marriage that predates the Supremes decision? The Supremes are authorized to interpret EXISTING law, not create it from whole cloth. That is the authority of Congress. The separation of powers is essential to our type of government. How loudly did you complain when the city of Chicago had their handgun ban overturned. There was no constitutional basis under which to do that. Was this a miscarriage of justice? The right of The People to keep and BEAR arms ring a bell? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:36:01 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well...Now we see why the 17th Amendment was the precursor to the death of the 10th. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: She works for the government, she represents and serves everyone equally. She is violating the First Amendment rights of gays. If she doesn't like it, she can quit. She's an elected agent of a State government. The Supremes changed the playing field by fiat not the will of the people. This is the fallout when extra Constitutional measures are embarked upon. The Supremes overstepped their authority. Well...Now we see why the 17th Amendment was the precursor to the death of the 10th. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:36:29 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You don't need permission from the government to get married in a religious institution. Homosexuals have been getting married in accommodating churches for decades. Yet their marriages were not recognized by the government, because they were second class citizens. The government represents ALL PEOPLE equally. They don't get to pick and choose which ones to represent on different days. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:37:49 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The parameters of the task were never changed, and the so-called process was never questionable. Was she ever allowed, from the beginning of her term of office, ever to deny civil rights to a citizen of Kentucky? Did that requirement, not to violate a person's rights, ever change? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
she's nuts... If your religion or belief system prevents you from performing the duties of a job you were hired or elected to do, than you should find another job..end of story. The "duties" changed (were imposed) AFTER she was elected. Tough shit. Resign. Or, perhaps, impeach, recall or wait until the next election. If I take on a contract to execute a certain task, and then the parameters of the task I agreed to are changed (through some questionable process) am I obligated to the changed contract or the elements of the contract I agreed to enter into? Was she ever allowed, from the beginning of her term of office, ever to deny civil rights to a citizen of Kentucky? Did that requirement, not to violate a person's rights, ever change? Are you sure the Kentucky form didn't say Husband/Wife or Man/Woman on the application form? The SCOTUS basis for their decision is questionable, and the crux of the issue. I can't wait to see what happens when the same technique is used to enact something the people who support this "decision" are against. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:38:50 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Meanwhile, that freak tranny bruce jenner actually killed someone with its car, and is not in jail. Bruce Jenner killed someone, Bruce Jenner no longer exists. ergo there is no one to put in jail. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:38:58 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you sure the Kentucky form didn't say Husband/Wife or Man/Woman on the application form? The SCOTUS basis for their decision is questionable, and the crux of the issue. I can't wait to see what happens when the same technique is used to enact something the people who support this "decision" are against. Is it okay for a pacifist to deny a CCW license? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:39:25 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The right of The People to keep and BEAR arms ring a bell? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
She's an elected agent of a State government. The Supremes changed the playing field by fiat not the will of the people. This is the fallout when extra Constitutional measures are embarked upon. The Supremes overstepped their authority. Would you say the same if a pacifist refused to issue a CCW license or sign NFA forms? You must disagree with Heller then. The "People" banned guns in Washington DC, how dare "The Supremes" overturn that? There is existing law (The Constitution) regarding private right to keep and bear arms. There is a process (Amendment) to change it. Where is the existing Federal law regarding homosexual marriage that predates the Supremes decision? The Supremes are authorized to interpret EXISTING law, not create it from whole cloth. That is the authority of Congress. The separation of powers is essential to our type of government. How loudly did you complain when the city of Chicago had their handgun ban overturned. There was no constitutional basis under which to do that. Was this a miscarriage of justice? The right of The People to keep and BEAR arms ring a bell? Oh you mean that federal right that had never been incorporated to the states? That rings a bell. The Supreme Court in their own judgment just went ahead and decided that the 2nd amendment would, from that point on, apply to the states. The entire reason Chicago was sued separately after DC is because the 2nd amendment was only a federal thing. The Supreme Court used the same authority they used in Obergefell to decide that as of some day, the 2nd amendment restricted state powers as well. That ring a bell? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:40:58 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If this is true the woman has no moral ground to stand on. http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/files/2015/09/davis-timeline.jpg Is divorce allowed in her faith? If yes, then not a hypocrite. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:42:08 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well...Now we see why the 17th Amendment was the precursor to the death of the 10th. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: She works for the government, she represents and serves everyone equally. She is violating the First Amendment rights of gays. If she doesn't like it, she can quit. She's an elected agent of a State government. The Supremes changed the playing field by fiat not the will of the people. This is the fallout when extra Constitutional measures are embarked upon. The Supremes overstepped their authority. Well...Now we see why the 17th Amendment was the precursor to the death of the 10th. Did SCOTUS overstep their authority in their ruling of Loving v. Virginia? Is it justified to ban two people of different races from being legally married? Does such a law violate their civil rights? How does the 17th Amendment affect that ruling? Virginia's law was passd in 1924 and he 17th Amendment was ratified by 1913. The issue with Virginia's law was a State issue of the State Government violating the rights of two American Citizens and Residents of Virginia from legally marrying on other because of the colornof heir skin. The 17th Amendment simply changed how Fedral Senators are elected into office. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:42:54 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Defining how many senators each state has in Congress and how to handle seat vacancies was the death of the 10th? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
She works for the government, she represents and serves everyone equally. She is violating the First Amendment rights of gays. If she doesn't like it, she can quit. She's an elected agent of a State government. The Supremes changed the playing field by fiat not the will of the people. This is the fallout when extra Constitutional measures are embarked upon. The Supremes overstepped their authority. Well...Now we see why the 17th Amendment was the precursor to the death of the 10th. You fail at Constitution 101 Recommend a refresher. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:43:51 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is it okay for a pacifist to deny a CCW license? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Are you sure the Kentucky form didn't say Husband/Wife or Man/Woman on the application form? The SCOTUS basis for their decision is questionable, and the crux of the issue. I can't wait to see what happens when the same technique is used to enact something the people who support this "decision" are against. Is it okay for a pacifist to deny a CCW license? In California? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:43:55 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I like all the amendments equally. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is existing law (The Constitution) regarding private right to keep and bear arms. There is a process (Amendment) to change it. Where is the existing Federal law regarding homosexual marriage that predates the Supremes decision? The Supremes are authorized to interpret EXISTING law, not create it from whole cloth. That is the authority of Congress. The separation of powers is essential to our type of government. The First Amendment. Marriage is a religious concept, and therefore a religious right, regardless of religious belief. Muslims can get married. Blacks can marry whites. Jews can marry Hindus. And gays can marry each other. I hope you feel the same way about the Second Amendment. I like all the amendments equally. I follow you. Would you personally, have hooked her up and transported to the pokey, as ordered? Edit: I didn't realize how loaded my question was. Feel free to ignore, and carry on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:45:09 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You don't need permission from the government to get married in a religious institution. Homosexuals have been getting married in accommodating churches for decades. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: There is existing law (The Constitution) regarding private right to keep and bear arms. There is a process (Amendment) to change it. Where is the existing Federal law regarding homosexual marriage that predates the Supremes decision? The Supremes are authorized to interpret EXISTING law, not create it from whole cloth. That is the authority of Congress. The separation of powers is essential to our type of government. The First Amendment. Marriage is a religious concept, and therefore a religious right, regardless of religious belief. Muslims can get married. Blacks can marry whites. Jews can marry Hindus. And gays can marry each other. You don't need permission from the government to get married in a religious institution. Homosexuals have been getting married in accommodating churches for decades. 1. If they could find a church that would marry them in a religious ceremony, would that help them with the state of Ohio? (answer is no) 2. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In this case did Ohio deprive them of any privileges, immunities or equal protection of the law? (Yes) 3. In this case, wasn't Ohio depriving them of a basic civil right, granted that their union was recognized by another state?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:45:41 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In California? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Are you sure the Kentucky form didn't say Husband/Wife or Man/Woman on the application form? The SCOTUS basis for their decision is questionable, and the crux of the issue. I can't wait to see what happens when the same technique is used to enact something the people who support this "decision" are against. Is it okay for a pacifist to deny a CCW license? In California? Say in Ohio, a shall issue state. A pacifist declines to issue because it violates his religious beliefs. Do you agree with his right to refuse service as a government employee, or do you think he's wrong? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:46:20 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I follow you. Would you personally, have hooked her up and transported to the pokey, as ordered? I don't see a problem with it. She sent herself to jail. ETA: Saw your edit, don't mind answering. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:47:14 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You fail at Constitution 101 Recommend a refresher. "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect that the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution." |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:49:28 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I present to you, the 17th amendment. Can you highlight the relevant text that was the precursor of the 10th please? "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect that the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You fail at Constitution 101 Recommend a refresher. "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect that the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution." What that amendment actually changed was it codified the election of senators from each state by popular vote. Originally, senators were chose by elected state officials. This meant that the states had a say in the way the federal government functioned, and would vote down things that shit on the states. After the 17th amendment, there were basically two populist chambers of Congress, since both were elected by popular vote. He's right about that. It was the beginning of the end of the 10th amendment. It's probably the only thing he's right about in this entire thread, but he's right. ETA: The 17th amendment may not have actually made a huge difference, since many states had started appointing senators by popular vote anyway, and it was becoming more common. But there were quite a few that did not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:51:19 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What does the 17th Amendment have to do with marriage? Answer the question. Did SCOTUS overstep their authority in their ruling of Loving v. Virginia? Is it justified to ban two people of different races from being legally married? Does such a law violate their civil rights? How does the 17th Amendment affect that ruling? Virginia's law was passd in 1924 and he 17th Amendment was ratified by 1913. The issue with Virginia's law was a State issue of the State Government violating the rights of two American Citizens and Residents of Virginia from legally marrying on other because of the colornof heir skin. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
She works for the government, she represents and serves everyone equally. She is violating the First Amendment rights of gays. If she doesn't like it, she can quit. She's an elected agent of a State government. The Supremes changed the playing field by fiat not the will of the people. This is the fallout when extra Constitutional measures are embarked upon. The Supremes overstepped their authority. Well...Now we see why the 17th Amendment was the precursor to the death of the 10th. Did SCOTUS overstep their authority in their ruling of Loving v. Virginia? Is it justified to ban two people of different races from being legally married? Does such a law violate their civil rights? How does the 17th Amendment affect that ruling? Virginia's law was passd in 1924 and he 17th Amendment was ratified by 1913. The issue with Virginia's law was a State issue of the State Government violating the rights of two American Citizens and Residents of Virginia from legally marrying on other because of the colornof heir skin. The 17th removed State representation at the Federal level by changing to popular election of Senators from the previous appointments by State legislatures as originally intended and setup at the founding. This took the teeth out of the 10th Amendment, States Rights The United States used to be referred to collectively, as in "The United States are...", following the 17th Amendment, it began being referred to in a monolithic fashion, "The United States is..." That is a subtle but important difference. Marriage is not addressed in the Constitution, it is a State issue. And each of the several states are empowered to set their own criteria. As it was originally intended. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:51:20 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What that amendment actually changed was it codified the election of senators from each state by popular vote. Originally, senators were chose by elected state officials. This meant that the states had a say in the way the federal government functioned, and would vote down things that shit on the states. After the 17th amendment, there were basically two populist chambers of Congress, since both were elected by popular vote. He's right about that. It was the beginning of the end of the 10th amendment. It's probably the only thing he's right about in this entire thread, but he's right. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: You fail at Constitution 101 Recommend a refresher. "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect that the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution." What that amendment actually changed was it codified the election of senators from each state by popular vote. Originally, senators were chose by elected state officials. This meant that the states had a say in the way the federal government functioned, and would vote down things that shit on the states. After the 17th amendment, there were basically two populist chambers of Congress, since both were elected by popular vote. He's right about that. It was the beginning of the end of the 10th amendment. It's probably the only thing he's right about in this entire thread, but he's right. Still not really sure what it has to do with a County Clerk refusing a marriage license to a gay couple, but ah. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:52:17 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The 17th removed State representation at the Federal level by changing to popular election of Senators from the previous appointments by State legislatures as originally intended and setup at the founding. This took the teeth out of the 10th Amendment, States Rights The United States used to be referred to collectively, as in "The United States are...", following the 17th Amendment, it began being referred to in a monolithic fashion, "The United States is..." That is a subtle but important difference. Marriage is not addressed in the Constitution, it is a State issue. And each of the several states are empowered to set their own criteria. As it was originally intended. You keep ducking the question. Can a state make marriage between a black dude and a white woman illegal? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:52:51 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you know the case behind Obergefell v. Hodges, the same-sex marriage case the Supreme Court ruled on? James Obergefell and John Arthur, a same-sex marriage decided to get married to obtain legal recognition of their relationship. They married in Maryland, where it was legal. They moved back to their state of residence, Ohio, which at the time didn't recognize their marriage. One of the partners, John Arthur, was dying from ALS and they wanted the other partner to be listed as the surviving spouse on the death certificate. Ohio refused to do so, as they did not recognize their marriage from another state. 1. If they could find a church that would marry them in a religious ceremony, would that help them with the state of Ohio? (answer is no) 2. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In this case did Ohio deprive them of any privileges, immunities or equal protection of the law? (Yes) 3. In this case, wasn't Ohio depriving them of a basic civil right, granted that their union was recognized by another state? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is existing law (The Constitution) regarding private right to keep and bear arms. There is a process (Amendment) to change it. Where is the existing Federal law regarding homosexual marriage that predates the Supremes decision? The Supremes are authorized to interpret EXISTING law, not create it from whole cloth. That is the authority of Congress. The separation of powers is essential to our type of government. The First Amendment. Marriage is a religious concept, and therefore a religious right, regardless of religious belief. Muslims can get married. Blacks can marry whites. Jews can marry Hindus. And gays can marry each other. You don't need permission from the government to get married in a religious institution. Homosexuals have been getting married in accommodating churches for decades. 1. If they could find a church that would marry them in a religious ceremony, would that help them with the state of Ohio? (answer is no) 2. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In this case did Ohio deprive them of any privileges, immunities or equal protection of the law? (Yes) 3. In this case, wasn't Ohio depriving them of a basic civil right, granted that their union was recognized by another state? Why did they move to Ohio knowing the state did not recognize their marriage? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:53:37 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do you know the case behind Obergefell v. Hodges, the same-sex marriage case the Supreme Court ruled on? James Obergefell and John Arthur, a same-sex marriage decided to get married to obtain legal recognition of their relationship. They married in Maryland, where it was legal. They moved back to their state of residence, Ohio, which at the time didn't recognize their marriage. One of the partners, John Arthur, was dying from ALS and they wanted the other partner to be listed as the surviving spouse on the death certificate. Ohio refused to do so, as they did not recognize their marriage from another state. 1. If they could find a church that would marry them in a religious ceremony, would that help them with the state of Ohio? (answer is no) 2. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In this case did Ohio deprive them of any privileges, immunities or equal protection of the law? (Yes) 3. In this case, wasn't Ohio depriving them of a basic civil right, granted that their union was recognized by another state? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There is existing law (The Constitution) regarding private right to keep and bear arms. There is a process (Amendment) to change it. Where is the existing Federal law regarding homosexual marriage that predates the Supremes decision? The Supremes are authorized to interpret EXISTING law, not create it from whole cloth. That is the authority of Congress. The separation of powers is essential to our type of government. The First Amendment. Marriage is a religious concept, and therefore a religious right, regardless of religious belief. Muslims can get married. Blacks can marry whites. Jews can marry Hindus. And gays can marry each other. You don't need permission from the government to get married in a religious institution. Homosexuals have been getting married in accommodating churches for decades. 1. If they could find a church that would marry them in a religious ceremony, would that help them with the state of Ohio? (answer is no) 2. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In this case did Ohio deprive them of any privileges, immunities or equal protection of the law? (Yes) 3. In this case, wasn't Ohio depriving them of a basic civil right, granted that their union was recognized by another state? Shhhhh! Don't interject logic in here. Marriage from a government standpoint has been and always will be about financial and property transfer rights. That is why people get married. Even back in the olden days of yore.... people married so estates can be passed down and transferred from generation to generation or from spouse to spouse. I could have simply gone to my Catholic Church and gotten married under the eyes of God... but we didn't. We went to the Clerk of the Court so we have certain legal and financial rights. Because God forbid I get killed in the line of duty. Mrs. Miami_JBT gets the house, guns, money, life insurance, etc... or worse, I'm a fucking vegetable. I want the plug pulled and she knows it. My parents are against me having that wish and wouldn't do it. If we weren't legally married she'd have no say in what my final wishes are and I'd waste away in a hospital bed with a feeding tube. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:53:57 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why did they move to Ohio knowing the state did not recognize their marriage? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There is existing law (The Constitution) regarding private right to keep and bear arms. There is a process (Amendment) to change it. Where is the existing Federal law regarding homosexual marriage that predates the Supremes decision? The Supremes are authorized to interpret EXISTING law, not create it from whole cloth. That is the authority of Congress. The separation of powers is essential to our type of government. The First Amendment. Marriage is a religious concept, and therefore a religious right, regardless of religious belief. Muslims can get married. Blacks can marry whites. Jews can marry Hindus. And gays can marry each other. You don't need permission from the government to get married in a religious institution. Homosexuals have been getting married in accommodating churches for decades. 1. If they could find a church that would marry them in a religious ceremony, would that help them with the state of Ohio? (answer is no) 2. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In this case did Ohio deprive them of any privileges, immunities or equal protection of the law? (Yes) 3. In this case, wasn't Ohio depriving them of a basic civil right, granted that their union was recognized by another state? Why did they move to Ohio knowing the state did not recognize their marriage? Does Ohio not recognize any marriage that was performed in the state of Maryland? Or just homosexual ones? If they recognize marriages between a man and a woman performed in Maryland, but not one between a man and a man in Maryland, on what basis does Ohio have to do so? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:54:13 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Touche. You keep ducking the question. Can a state make marriage between a black dude and a white woman illegal? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The 17th removed State representation at the Federal level by changing to popular election of Senators from the previous appointments by State legislatures as originally intended and setup at the founding. This took the teeth out of the 10th Amendment, States Rights The United States used to be referred to collectively, as in "The United States are...", following the 17th Amendment, it began being referred to in a monolithic fashion, "The United States is..." That is a subtle but important difference. Marriage is not addressed in the Constitution, it is a State issue. And each of the several states are empowered to set their own criteria. As it was originally intended. You keep ducking the question. Can a state make marriage between a black dude and a white woman illegal? He's ducking mine, too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:56:01 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Say in Ohio, a shall issue state. A pacifist declines to issue because it violates his religious beliefs. Do you agree with his right to refuse service as a government employee, or do you think he's wrong? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Are you sure the Kentucky form didn't say Husband/Wife or Man/Woman on the application form? The SCOTUS basis for their decision is questionable, and the crux of the issue. I can't wait to see what happens when the same technique is used to enact something the people who support this "decision" are against. Is it okay for a pacifist to deny a CCW license? In California? Say in Ohio, a shall issue state. A pacifist declines to issue because it violates his religious beliefs. Do you agree with his right to refuse service as a government employee, or do you think he's wrong? Well, number one, it is already a parameter going in, the law didn't change mid term in an elected position's duties, and number two, the Constitution addresses bearing arms. It does not address marriage. Anything not specified in the Constitution belongs to the States or the People, not the Federal government. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:56:52 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why did they move to Ohio knowing the state did not recognize their marriage? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There is existing law (The Constitution) regarding private right to keep and bear arms. There is a process (Amendment) to change it. Where is the existing Federal law regarding homosexual marriage that predates the Supremes decision? The Supremes are authorized to interpret EXISTING law, not create it from whole cloth. That is the authority of Congress. The separation of powers is essential to our type of government. The First Amendment. Marriage is a religious concept, and therefore a religious right, regardless of religious belief. Muslims can get married. Blacks can marry whites. Jews can marry Hindus. And gays can marry each other. You don't need permission from the government to get married in a religious institution. Homosexuals have been getting married in accommodating churches for decades. 1. If they could find a church that would marry them in a religious ceremony, would that help them with the state of Ohio? (answer is no) 2. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In this case did Ohio deprive them of any privileges, immunities or equal protection of the law? (Yes) 3. In this case, wasn't Ohio depriving them of a basic civil right, granted that their union was recognized by another state? Why did they move to Ohio knowing the state did not recognize their marriage? No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:57:12 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I present to you, the 17th amendment. Can you highlight the relevant text that was the precursor of the death of the 10th please? "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect that the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You fail at Constitution 101 Recommend a refresher. "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect that the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution." Read the original text |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:57:31 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, number one, it is already a parameter going in, the law didn't change mid term in an elected position's duties, and number two, the Constitution addresses bearing arms. It does not address marriage. Anything not specified in the Constitution belongs to the States or the People, not the Federal government. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Are you sure the Kentucky form didn't say Husband/Wife or Man/Woman on the application form? The SCOTUS basis for their decision is questionable, and the crux of the issue. I can't wait to see what happens when the same technique is used to enact something the people who support this "decision" are against. Is it okay for a pacifist to deny a CCW license? In California? Say in Ohio, a shall issue state. A pacifist declines to issue because it violates his religious beliefs. Do you agree with his right to refuse service as a government employee, or do you think he's wrong? Well, number one, it is already a parameter going in, the law didn't change mid term in an elected position's duties, and number two, the Constitution addresses bearing arms. It does not address marriage. Anything not specified in the Constitution belongs to the States or the People, not the Federal government. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:59:08 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He's ducking mine, too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The 17th removed State representation at the Federal level by changing to popular election of Senators from the previous appointments by State legislatures as originally intended and setup at the founding. This took the teeth out of the 10th Amendment, States Rights The United States used to be referred to collectively, as in "The United States are...", following the 17th Amendment, it began being referred to in a monolithic fashion, "The United States is..." That is a subtle but important difference. Marriage is not addressed in the Constitution, it is a State issue. And each of the several states are empowered to set their own criteria. As it was originally intended. Touche. You keep ducking the question. Can a state make marriage between a black dude and a white woman illegal? He's ducking mine, too. I think he called it quits on the Chicago handgun ban point, too. |
|
|
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.
