User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:59:20 AM EDT
[#1]
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. The First Amendment addresses marriage. Also, no amendment addresses carrying a concealed handgun. In fact, the state constitutions of several states specifically outline the right to prohibit or limit the carrying of concealed weapons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:59:28 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Read the original text 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." Read the original text |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:59:48 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's their state of residence. 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? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? Does Maryland, (or California) recognize the Ohio CCW? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 3:59:57 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think he called it quits on the Chicago handgun ban point, too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. Some people want to have their cake and eat it, too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:02:28 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So if the state of Ohio recognizes a legal union between a man and a woman performed in the state of Maryland, what legal standing does it have to not recognize the same legal union between a man and a man that is also performed in the state of Maryland? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. How is marriage defined by the several states? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:02:44 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Does Maryland, (or California) recognize the Ohio CCW? We've already established the fact that Ohio recognizes the legal union of marriage that is performed in Maryland, right? Are you disputing that fact? Do I have that wrong? Is any marriage performed in Maryland not recognized in Ohio? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:03:46 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The First Amendment addresses marriage. Also, no amendment addresses carrying a concealed handgun. In fact, the state constitutions of several states specifically outline the right to prohibit or limit the carrying of concealed weapons. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. The First Amendment addresses marriage. Also, no amendment addresses carrying a concealed handgun. In fact, the state constitutions of several states specifically outline the right to prohibit or limit the carrying of concealed weapons. "bear" and "shall not be infringed" seem fairly plainly worded |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:04:18 AM EDT
[#8]
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. 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. 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. 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. The 17th Amendment has nothing to do wih due process and equal protection. The Supreme Court is duly appointed by the President and vetted by he Senate. So you might say that the State Legislatures lost their voice in choosing Members of the Court. Well, if State Legislatures are he voice of the people and it was instead changed that the middle man be removed and the people have a direct voice in the elections of Senators then guess what.... the voice of he people are still being heard. Let me mak it easier for you.
Answer the question below this sentence. 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? Yeah, answer that question.... the one right above this sentence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:04:40 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How is marriage defined by the several states? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. How is marriage defined by the several states? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:04:46 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What if Maryland recognized the Ohio CCW, but only straight people's CCWs, not gays? We've already established the fact that Ohio recognizes the legal union of marriage that is performed in Maryland, right? Are you disputing that fact? Do I have that wrong? Is any marriage performed in Maryland not recognized in Ohio? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Does Maryland, (or California) recognize the Ohio CCW? We've already established the fact that Ohio recognizes the legal union of marriage that is performed in Maryland, right? Are you disputing that fact? Do I have that wrong? Is any marriage performed in Maryland not recognized in Ohio? How is (was) marriage defined? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:05:55 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"bear" and "shall not be infringed" seem fairly plainly worded Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. The First Amendment addresses marriage. Also, no amendment addresses carrying a concealed handgun. In fact, the state constitutions of several states specifically outline the right to prohibit or limit the carrying of concealed weapons. "bear" and "shall not be infringed" seem fairly plainly worded So does "prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." but you have no problem saying it's okay to punish gay people for their beliefs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:07:14 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How is (was) marriage defined? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Does Maryland, (or California) recognize the Ohio CCW? We've already established the fact that Ohio recognizes the legal union of marriage that is performed in Maryland, right? Are you disputing that fact? Do I have that wrong? Is any marriage performed in Maryland not recognized in Ohio? How is (was) marriage defined? Granted I am a little rusty on Constitutional law, but I believe there is something about that in the Constitution, perhaps the "Full Faith and Credit Clause"?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:07:53 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So when a person is married in Maryland, they have to get married based on the state law of Ohio? Let's say that Ohio requires a blood test before it will issue a marriage certificate (I don't know if it does or not) and Maryland does not. If the state of Maryland issues a marriage license, but they didn't get a blood test based on Ohio law, is the marriage not recognized in Ohio? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. How is marriage defined by the several states? If I move to another state, do I have to get a new drivers license? Not just visiting, but change my residency (citizenship). Which standards apply? The old or new state? Which insurance minimums apply? The old or new state? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:08:24 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How is (was) marriage defined? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Does Maryland, (or California) recognize the Ohio CCW? We've already established the fact that Ohio recognizes the legal union of marriage that is performed in Maryland, right? Are you disputing that fact? Do I have that wrong? Is any marriage performed in Maryland not recognized in Ohio? How is (was) marriage defined? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:08:30 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If I move to another state, do I have to get a new drivers license? Not just visiting, but change my residency (citizenship). Which standards apply? The old or new state? Which insurance minimums apply? The old or new state? Driving is a privilege. Getting married is a right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:09:25 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If I move to another state, do I have to get a new drivers license? Not just visiting, but change my residency (citizenship). Which standards apply? The old or new state? Which insurance minimums apply? The old or new state? Can a state make it illegal for a black dude and a white woman to drive in the same car? (Trying different variations, maybe you'll actually answer one) |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:09:41 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Based on the state that the marriage took place in, the other states accept in good faith that marriage was performed and took place.Granted I am a little rusty on Constitutional law, but I believe there is something about that in the Constitution, perhaps the "Full Faith and Credit Clause"? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does Maryland, (or California) recognize the Ohio CCW? We've already established the fact that Ohio recognizes the legal union of marriage that is performed in Maryland, right? Are you disputing that fact? Do I have that wrong? Is any marriage performed in Maryland not recognized in Ohio? How is (was) marriage defined? The state the marriage wasn't performed in accepts it if it met the criteria of the new state. If it doesn't, i.e. homosexual in this case, it does not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:10:49 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Driving is a privilege. Getting married is a right. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If I move to another state, do I have to get a new drivers license? Not just visiting, but change my residency (citizenship). Which standards apply? The old or new state? Which insurance minimums apply? The old or new state? Driving is a privilege. Getting married is a right. Based on what? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:11:42 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The state the marriage wasn't performed in accepts it if it met the criteria of the new state. If it doesn't, i.e. homosexual in this case, it does not. "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof" |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:12:16 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Based on what? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If I move to another state, do I have to get a new drivers license? Not just visiting, but change my residency (citizenship). Which standards apply? The old or new state? Which insurance minimums apply? The old or new state? Driving is a privilege. Getting married is a right. Based on what? There is no constitutional right to operate a motor vehicle on a public street. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:12:55 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The state the marriage wasn't performed in accepts it if it met the criteria of the new state. If it doesn't, i.e. homosexual in this case, it does not. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Does Maryland, (or California) recognize the Ohio CCW? We've already established the fact that Ohio recognizes the legal union of marriage that is performed in Maryland, right? Are you disputing that fact? Do I have that wrong? Is any marriage performed in Maryland not recognized in Ohio? How is (was) marriage defined? The state the marriage wasn't performed in accepts it if it met the criteria of the new state. If it doesn't, i.e. homosexual in this case, it does not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:13:25 AM EDT
[#22]
So... Desert_AIP....
About that handgun ban in Chicago. Bullshit, striking that down, right? Judicial activism. Making law from the courts. No authority to do so. Am I right, or what? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:18:41 AM EDT
[#23]
So two questions I have that need to be answered:
1. Can a state make interracial marriage illegal? Hell, look at the facts of the case of Loving vs. Virginia, it even closely mirrors the Obergefell v Hodges case. They lived in Virginia, they got married in Washington DC where it was legal to marry between the races (it was illegal in their home state of Virginia). When they returned home, they were arrested for violating Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924. Hell, you could even argue that they conspired to circumvent Virginia's law by fleeing the state to have the marriage performed elsewhere? (Also, she had already violated the VA's Racial Integrity Act, she was pregnant before they got married.) Do you think that was right? Isn't your contention that marriage is defined by the state, and at the time Virginia clearly stated that any marriage between people of two different races was against the law and not valid? Did the Supreme Court err in it's judgement? Did it go to far? 2. You are contending that the state of Ohio was not denying a person from being listed as the surviving spouse when their marriage had been formalized and legally recognized by the state of Maryland a basic right? Keep in mind that Ohio recognizes marriages from the state of Maryland. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:19:33 AM EDT
[#24]
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?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:20:12 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So... Desert_AIP.... About that handgun ban in Chicago. Bullshit, striking that down, right? Judicial activism. Making law from the courts. No authority to do so. Am I right, or what? Lets all ask the same question so he can't ignore one person to argue with another. Lol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:21:41 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:23:59 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lets all ask the same question so he can't ignore one person to argue with another. Lol. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So... Desert_AIP.... About that handgun ban in Chicago. Bullshit, striking that down, right? Judicial activism. Making law from the courts. No authority to do so. Am I right, or what? Lets all ask the same question so he can't ignore one person to argue with another. Lol. If we all stick to our original questions, and he can't answer any of them... does it matter? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:24:24 AM EDT
[#28]
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? Their marriage was legally performed and recognized in Washington DC and they were arrested in Virginia because of it. Did that violate heir civil rights?
What about the ruling SCOTUS did in McDonald v. Chicago and overturning the Handgun Ban? Was that an overstep on their authority? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:29:06 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryThe state the marriage wasn't performed in accepts it if it met the criteria of the new state. If it doesn't, i.e. homosexual in this case, it does not. Ohio does not allow marriages between first cousins, nor do they allow marriages between minors. Ohio does however recognize any marriage between minors or first cousins if the marriage was solemnized in a jurisdiction outside of Ohio where it is allowed. outside of Ohio is valid in Ohio if it is valid where solemnized. Thus, for example, under Ohio law, out-of-state marriages between first cousins are recognized by Ohio, even though Ohio law does not authorize marriages between first cousins. Likewise, under Ohio law, out of state marriages of minors are recognized by Ohio, even though Ohio law does not authorize marriages of minors."  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:31:24 AM EDT
[#30]
I guess we should all bid him good night. I doubt he'll be back....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:32:30 AM EDT
[#31]
So when people rally against the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage, how they overstepped their bounds or used "questionable procedures", did they actually know anything about the case before the Supreme Court? It seems like very few people actually know what was being decided, we just hear "Oh, the Supreme Court made up a new law!" or something like that. When you point out that these guys were married in Maryland but Ohio didn't recognize their marriage, it seems like they are kind of surprised by it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:33:57 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So when people rally against the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage, how they overstepped their bounds or used "questionable procedures", did they actually know anything about the case before the Supreme Court? It seems like very few people actually know what was being decided, we just hear "Oh, the Supreme Court made up a new law!" or something like that. When you point out that these guys were married in Maryland but Ohio didn't recognize their marriage, it seems like they are kind of surprised by it. It's not logic. It's feelings. Gays are icky. That's all you need to know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:36:42 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ohio does not allow marriages between first cousins, nor do they allow marriages between minors. Ohio does however recognize any marriage between minors or first cousins if the marriage was solemnized in a jurisdiction outside of Ohio where it is allowed. "Throughout Ohio’s history, Ohio law has been clear: a marriage solemnizedoutside of Ohio is valid in Ohio if it is valid where solemnized. Thus, for example,under Ohio law, out-of-state marriages between first cousins are recognized by Ohio,even though Ohio law does not authorize marriages between first cousins. Likewise,under Ohio law, out of state marriages of minors are recognized by Ohio, even thoughOhio law does not authorize marriages of minors." Quote HistoryQuoted: The state the marriage wasn't performed in accepts it if it met the criteria of the new state. If it doesn't, i.e. homosexual in this case, it does not. "Throughout Ohio’s history, Ohio law has been clear: a marriage solemnizedoutside of Ohio is valid in Ohio if it is valid where solemnized. Thus, for example,under Ohio law, out-of-state marriages between first cousins are recognized by Ohio,even though Ohio law does not authorize marriages between first cousins. Likewise,under Ohio law, out of state marriages of minors are recognized by Ohio, even thoughOhio law does not authorize marriages of minors." https://media2.giphy.com/media/149R89yoMrIFgI/200.gif  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:41:13 AM EDT
[#34]
I think we broke Desert_AIP.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 7:08:53 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is no law passed by the federal congress changing the definition of marriage. Neither was a law passed by the state of KY to change the definition. All we got ("all"...) was a supreme court case that determined that the 14th amendment - beyond all probability, was really all along about allowing future generations to change the definition of "marriage" to suit their fluid, changing understanding of the same term....the 10th amendment notwithstanding. But the clerk swore an oath to uphold the constitution of the US and KY before this SCOTUS case was conjured out of whole cloth. Changing the terms and definition and meaning of a Constitutional amendment beyond anything the drafters and voters of that amendment would have wanted, cannot stand. So her invoking religion notwithstanding, her case is actually stronger from a strictly legal basis. How can any court ex post facto change the terms of a contract like this? It would be like us declaring that "the people" means only corporations and so presto chango only corporations have bill of right protections and not individuals. Don't give them any ideas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 7:10:06 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You do realize being a Conscientious objector is simply boiled down to "This conflicts with my religion, I'm not doing it, I'm going home" She is free to resign from her position at ANY time. So the Christians can't take government jobs now? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 7:13:11 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When it comes right down to it, I can't see this as a religious issue. No one ordered her to marry anyone. She only is required to provide a legal document once certain requirements are met. If they were forcing her, or anyone else, to PERFORM marriages against their religious beliefs, then I would have a major issue with that. Her name goes on the document whether she is directly involved or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 7:21:36 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The First Amendment addresses marriage. Also, no amendment addresses carrying a concealed handgun. In fact, the state constitutions of several states specifically outline the right to prohibit or limit the carrying of concealed weapons. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. The First Amendment addresses marriage. Also, no amendment addresses carrying a concealed handgun. In fact, the state constitutions of several states specifically outline the right to prohibit or limit the carrying of concealed weapons. The 2nd Amendment covers it very clearly A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 7:30:22 AM EDT
[#39]
So,
The top enforcement official in the country can "not enforce" a law he doesn't like (immigration, DOMA) The DOJ has "Discretion" I to not enforce laws it doesn't like (marijuana) The same Judges who found no constitutional basis for the Defense of Marriage Act in the Constitution, subsequently found gay marriage in the Constitution. Local prosecutors have prosecutorial discretion to charge any cop with anything and not enforce laws against looting and rioting to "give them space" But a county clerk, who must have the complete power over marriage in her county*, gives up all her individual rights when she takes office. Its not about getting married, it's about pushing an agenda. *if the county clerk gets the flu then nobody in the county can get married until she is healthy? If she goes on vacation then the marriages stop till she returns? Nobody can possibly do this but her? She wasn't elected clerk, she was elected "Marriage God of the State" http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/paul-backs-clerk-gay-marriage-firing Stand with Rand on this issue |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 7:55:00 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So does "prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." but you have no problem saying it's okay to punish gay people for their beliefs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. The First Amendment addresses marriage. Also, no amendment addresses carrying a concealed handgun. In fact, the state constitutions of several states specifically outline the right to prohibit or limit the carrying of concealed weapons. "bear" and "shall not be infringed" seem fairly plainly worded So does "prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." but you have no problem saying it's okay to punish gay people for their beliefs. So....gay is a religion now? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 8:17:04 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So the Christians can't take government jobs now? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You do realize being a Conscientious objector is simply boiled down to "This conflicts with my religion, I'm not doing it, I'm going home" She is free to resign from her position at ANY time. So the Christians can't take government jobs now? Sure they can! They just have to actually do the job they were hired/elected to do. You don't get to pick and choose who can get a marriage license based off of your personal beliefs. You base it off of the law. Don't want to do that? Don't take the job. I get where she is coming from. I have resigned from jobs because they no longer agreed with my personal/religious views. Nobody would blame her if she said "i disagree with this, so I'm resigning." The problem is she wants to not do her job AND keep it. That's not how it works. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 8:26:45 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? Their marriage was legally performed and recognized in Washington DC and they were arrested in Virginia because of it. Did that violate heir civil rights? What about the ruling SCOTUS did in McDonald v. Chicago and overturning the Handgun Ban? Was that an overstep on their authority? Dude, if you want to be obnoxious, use PD colors - not FD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 8:39:26 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: And kosher meals in government facilities and allowing military members time to practice their religion. And halal meals and any accommodations for religion what so ever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 8:59:39 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why is it the county doesn't just fire her? She is an elected official, not a county employee. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 11:21:48 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think we broke Desert_AIP. You broke my internet. My modem tripped off line. It was 1:30 AM, I went to bed. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 1:21:51 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You broke my internet. My modem tripped off line. It was 1:30 AM, I went to bed. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I think we broke Desert_AIP. You broke my internet. My modem tripped off line. It was 1:30 AM, I went to bed. For a second I thought Jade Helm got you.  Phew! At least we can continue this discussion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 2:21:35 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Target, as her employer, has elected to make accommodations for her, something a government employee can not do when it comes to performing a vital civil function. 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. So explain conscientious objector in the military. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 2:39:54 PM EDT
[#48]
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. That's unfortunate.. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 2:50:27 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, The top enforcement official in the country can "not enforce" a law he doesn't like (immigration, DOMA) The DOJ has "Discretion" I to not enforce laws it doesn't like (marijuana) The same Judges who found no constitutional basis for the Defense of Marriage Act in the Constitution, subsequently found gay marriage in the Constitution. Local prosecutors have prosecutorial discretion to charge any cop with anything and not enforce laws against looting and rioting to "give them space" But a county clerk, who must have the complete power over marriage in her county*, gives up all her individual rights when she takes office. Its not about getting married, it's about pushing an agenda. *if the county clerk gets the flu then nobody in the county can get married until she is healthy? If she goes on vacation then the marriages stop till she returns? Nobody can possibly do this but her? She wasn't elected clerk, she was elected "Marriage God of the State" http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/paul-backs-clerk-gay-marriage-firing Stand with Rand on this issue It was DOMA that led to homosexuality being a protected class under the 14th. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:59:00 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So explain conscientious objector in the military. Are you saying that a government official denying two gay guys a marriage license is equal to a citizen refusing to serve in the military because of their belief system? What right, privilege or equal protection of the law does the conscientious objector in the military deprive from another citizen? One has nothing to do with the other. |
|
|
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.
