# Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court



## Vandalshandle

...for failure to obey court order of issuing marraige licenses to gay couples.

News from The Associated Press


----------



## Claudette

Good. Woman is an idiot.


----------



## Vandalshandle

I'm guessing that Jesus didn't show up to testify.....


----------



## DigitalDrifter

America 2015.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.


----------



## Claudette

I doubt anyone showed up to testify.

What a biased idiot. Hope she enjoys her bunk at the jail.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Bye bye, bitch.  You'll have lots of time to pray to Jesus now, all alone behind bars where you belong.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

TheOldSchool said:


> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.


No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!


----------



## Vandalshandle

This just in There has been a run on the sale of loud speakers by street preachers.....


----------



## aris2chat

Expected that.
Twice the courts ruled against her.  Judge had little choice.
It is illegal to discriminate and that is what she was doing.  She was supposed to serve the community without prejudice.  She was supposed to do her job, not impose her religious beliefs onto those seeking to get married.

If she had belong to some white supremacy church, she could not have refuse a mix race couple or a black couple a license.


----------



## martybegan

PaintMyHouse said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> 
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
Click to expand...


She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

Vandalshandle said:


> ...for failure to obey court order of issuing marraige licenses to gay couples.
> 
> News from The Associated Press



*Thank God, no pun intended.*


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

*The silly bitch either needs to get on God's payroll or quit her job with the county.   *


----------



## Ravi

Vandalshandle said:


> ...for failure to obey court order of issuing marraige licenses to gay couples.
> 
> News from The Associated Press


She probably thinks she'll be turned in the slammer. Too funny!


----------



## mudwhistle

Claudette said:


> Good. Woman is an idiot.


Can you spell "MARTYR"?


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

martybegan said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> 
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
Click to expand...




martybegan said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> 
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
Click to expand...


*Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?*


----------



## Mac1958

Yeah, an elected official refusing to do their job is a little problematic...


.


----------



## mudwhistle

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> *The silly bitch either needs to get on God's payroll or quit her job with the county.   *


Bigot.


----------



## Claudette

mudwhistle said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Woman is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spell "MARTYR"?
Click to expand...


Yup and I can spell IDIOT  as well.


----------



## martybegan

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> 
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?*
Click to expand...


it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.


----------



## martybegan

Mac1958 said:


> Yeah, an elected official refusing to do their job is a little problematic...
> 
> 
> .



What would really be problematic is her being re-elected after all this.

What can the feds do then?


----------



## Ravi

martybegan said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> 
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
Click to expand...

 MLK wasn't getting himself arrested so he could discriminate against black people.


----------



## DigitalDrifter

They now officially have a martyr.


----------



## Mac1958

martybegan said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, an elected official refusing to do their job is a little problematic...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> What would really be problematic is her being re-elected after all this.  What can the feds do then?
Click to expand...

Yikes, good question.  I have a hard time believing she'd get re-elected, but yeah, it could happen.
.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

mudwhistle said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The silly bitch either needs to get on God's payroll or quit her job with the county.   *
> 
> 
> 
> Bigot.
Click to expand...



*Let's let her go back to work on the condition that God pays her from now on instead of taxpayers.  Think she'd agree to that?  (he-hee-hee)  

I'd back her if she had made that stand and refused her pay based on her religious beliefs.

Fucking hypocrite.  *


----------



## mudwhistle

Claudette said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Woman is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spell "MARTYR"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup and I can spell IDIOT  as well.
Click to expand...


You must be an expert then....


----------



## martybegan

Ravi said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> 
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MLK wasn't getting himself arrested so he could discriminate against black people.
Click to expand...


I'm talking methods, not reasons.


----------



## martybegan

Mac1958 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, an elected official refusing to do their job is a little problematic...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> What would really be problematic is her being re-elected after all this.  What can the feds do then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yikes, good question.  I have a hard time believing she'd get re-elected, but yeah, it could happen.
> .
Click to expand...


it's a small area of Kentucky.


----------



## mudwhistle

Mac1958 said:


> Yeah, an elected official refusing to do their job is a little problematic...
> 
> 
> .


Sounds a little too much like Obama.


----------



## bodecea

mudwhistle said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Woman is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spell "MARTYR"?
Click to expand...

Yes I can.   If she thinks she's a martyr, I'm sure she gets all tingly about it.....Lester Maddox and George Wallace thought they were martyrs too.


----------



## bodecea

martybegan said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> 
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
Click to expand...

Oh my yes.  Compare her to Martin Luther King.  This will be wonderful.


----------



## WorldWatcher

martybegan said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, an elected official refusing to do their job is a little problematic...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would really be problematic is her being re-elected after all this.
> 
> What can the feds do then?
Click to expand...



IIRC she just started a 4-year term in January 2015.  That means she would be reelected in the fall of 2018 for a new term in January 2019.

If she continues to refuse to perform the duties of her job, she will be running for reelection from Jail.  If she starts issuing Civil Marriage licenses as the job requires, the court would have no issue with her.  

If she says she will start issuing licenses, doesn't resign, and then refuses again - she'd return to jail.

Seems pretty straightforward.




>>>>


----------



## mudwhistle

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The silly bitch either needs to get on God's payroll or quit her job with the county.   *
> 
> 
> 
> Bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Let's let her go back to work on the condition that God pays her from now on instead of taxpayers.  Think she'd agree to that?  (he-hee-hee)
> 
> I'd back her if she had made that stand and refused her pay based on her religious beliefs.
> 
> Fucking hypocrite.  *
Click to expand...

God should pay her????

No problem........


----------



## Vandalshandle

Here is a picture of her cell mate:


----------



## bodecea

martybegan said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, an elected official refusing to do their job is a little problematic...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would really be problematic is her being re-elected after all this.
> 
> What can the feds do then?
Click to expand...

What did they do with that State Supreme Court Justice in Alabama?


----------



## TheOldSchool

martybegan said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, an elected official refusing to do their job is a little problematic...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would really be problematic is her being re-elected after all this.
> 
> What can the feds do then?
Click to expand...

Keep her in jail of course.  Though I can't imagine Rowan county voting to continue to ban marriage there.


----------



## bodecea

DigitalDrifter said:


> They now officially have a martyr.


OMIGOD!   THEY KILLED HER??????????


----------



## TheOldSchool

bodecea said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Woman is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spell "MARTYR"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I can.   If she thinks she's a martyr, I'm sure she gets all tingly about it.....Lester Maddox and George Wallace thought they were martyrs too.
Click to expand...

So do all terrorists.


----------



## mudwhistle

bodecea said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Woman is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spell "MARTYR"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I can.   If she thinks she's a martyr, I'm sure she gets all tingly about it.....Lester Maddox and George Wallace thought they were martyrs too.
Click to expand...

Not really. They hated blacks. 

This lady says she doesn't hate Gays.

Your problem is you assume anyone who doesn't agree with you hates you.


----------



## martybegan

bodecea said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> 
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my yes.  Compare her to Martin Luther King.  This will be wonderful.
Click to expand...


Methods, not the reason.


----------



## Vandalshandle

She will resign, and then be released. Then, she will run again, be reelected, and jailed again


----------



## bodecea

mudwhistle said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Woman is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spell "MARTYR"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I can.   If she thinks she's a martyr, I'm sure she gets all tingly about it.....Lester Maddox and George Wallace thought they were martyrs too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really. They hated blacks.
> 
> This lady says she doesn't hate Gays.
> 
> Your problem is you assume anyone who doesn't agree with you hates you.
Click to expand...

RIght...the old "I don't hate gays, I just don't serve them in my duly elected compacity" schtick.  If she refused to marry Jews, I'm SURE you wouldn't call her an anti-semite.


----------



## Ravi

DigitalDrifter said:


> They now officially have a martyr.


Just like AQ! Awesome!


----------



## Flopper

TheOldSchool said:


> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.


As the judge said, a fine would do nothing.  She is being backed by a religious group that will foot the bill.


----------



## Ravi

martybegan said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, an elected official refusing to do their job is a little problematic...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would really be problematic is her being re-elected after all this.
> 
> What can the feds do then?
Click to expand...

She wouldn't be able to sign her oath of office and therefore wouldn't be able to serve.


----------



## bodecea

Flopper said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> 
> 
> As the judge said, a fine would do nothing.  She is being backed by a religious group that will foot the bill.
Click to expand...

Smart (and very patient) judge.


----------



## mudwhistle

TheOldSchool said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Woman is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spell "MARTYR"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I can.   If she thinks she's a martyr, I'm sure she gets all tingly about it.....Lester Maddox and George Wallace thought they were martyrs too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So do all terrorists.
Click to expand...


Oh.....So now she's a terrorist.

Lol.

Too bad she's a Democrat......not a Republican.

Then guys would have something to actually bitch about.

Like I said before.......quit being assholes and go to another county.

But No!!

You want to force your sexuality down everyone's throats.

I learned a long time ago that you get more bees with honey, not with vinegar.


----------



## Ravi

martybegan said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MLK wasn't getting himself arrested so he could discriminate against black people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm talking methods, not reasons.
Click to expand...

Then why did you post "injustice of the system" as the only injustice being done is being done by her.


----------



## Asclepias

Vandalshandle said:


> ...for failure to obey court order of issuing marraige licenses to gay couples.
> 
> News from The Associated Press


Good. Put her dumb ass under the jail. If she wants to be a holy roller let her do it while not on the payroll of the public.


----------



## mudwhistle

bodecea said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Woman is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spell "MARTYR"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I can.   If she thinks she's a martyr, I'm sure she gets all tingly about it.....Lester Maddox and George Wallace thought they were martyrs too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really. They hated blacks.
> 
> This lady says she doesn't hate Gays.
> 
> Your problem is you assume anyone who doesn't agree with you hates you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RIght...the old "I don't hate gays, I just don't serve them in my duly elected compacity" schtick.  If she refused to marry Jews, I'm SURE you wouldn't call her an anti-semite.
Click to expand...

It's not a sin to be a Jew.


----------



## Ravi

Vandalshandle said:


> Here is a picture of her cell mate:


I hope they let her watch Orange is the New Black in jail.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Flopper said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> 
> 
> As the judge said, a fine would do nothing.  She is being backed by a religious group that will foot the bill.
Click to expand...

That's fine though.  More money for the budget


----------



## Vandalshandle

Well, there goes my scheme to get elected sheriff of my county, and then refuse to issue Concealed Carry licenses, based on religious beliefs....


----------



## TheOldSchool

mudwhistle said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Woman is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spell "MARTYR"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I can.   If she thinks she's a martyr, I'm sure she gets all tingly about it.....Lester Maddox and George Wallace thought they were martyrs too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So do all terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh.....So now she's a terrorist.
> 
> Lol.
> 
> Too bad she's a Democrat......not a Republican.
> 
> Then guys would have something to actually bitch about.
> 
> Like I said before.......quit being assholes and go to another county.
> 
> But No!!
> 
> You want to force your sexuality down everyone's throats.
> 
> I learned a long time ago that you get more bees with honey, not with vinegar.
Click to expand...

Her religious views are closer to the terrorists than to the views of the overwhelming majority of the Democrat party.  If she's a Democrat, then she needs to gtfo.


----------



## Asclepias

mudwhistle said:


> Like I said before.......quit being assholes and go to another county.
> 
> But No!!
> 
> You want to force your sexuality down everyone's throats.
> 
> I learned a long time ago that you get more bees with honey, not with vinegar.


No one is forcing you to be gay. If you dont want to marry a gay person you pretty much should mind your own business.


----------



## Flopper

martybegan said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, an elected official refusing to do their job is a little problematic...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would really be problematic is her being re-elected after all this.
> 
> What can the feds do then?
Click to expand...

Just as it's doing now.  The court really has no alternative.  It certainly can't override a higher court.  If this clerk has any sense at all she will comply. There is no limit on how long a person can be jailed for contempt.  A 73 year old lawyer spent 14 years in prison for contempt.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

mudwhistle said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Woman is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spell "MARTYR"?
Click to expand...



*I-G-N-O-R-A-N-T  B-I-G-O-T*


----------



## AvgGuyIA

Vandalshandle said:


> ...for failure to obey court order of issuing marraige licenses to gay couples.
> 
> News from The Associated Press


Obama's and the Democrat Party's first political prisoner.  We are no longer free Americans.  The transfer of our rights is now whatever democrats tell us.  The transformation is complete.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

mudwhistle said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Woman is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spell "MARTYR"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I can.   If she thinks she's a martyr, I'm sure she gets all tingly about it.....Lester Maddox and George Wallace thought they were martyrs too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So do all terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh.....So now she's a terrorist.
> 
> Lol.
> 
> Too bad she's a Democrat......not a Republican.
> 
> Then guys would have something to actually bitch about.
> 
> Like I said before.......quit being assholes and go to another county.
> 
> But No!!
> 
> You want to force your sexuality down everyone's throats.
> 
> I learned a long time ago that you get more bees with honey, not with vinegar.
Click to expand...



AS you well know, its the other way around.

You fundie nutters want to _"force your sexuality down everyone's throats"_. 

You have every right to believe as you wish.

You do not have the right to "force your sexuality down everyone's throats".

Just deal with it and go back to living your own life.

MYOB


----------



## AvgGuyIA

Luddly Neddite said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Woman is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spell "MARTYR"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *I-G-N-O-R-A-N-T  B-I-G-O-T*
Click to expand...

You're the bigot.


----------



## Vandalshandle

AvgGuyIA said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...for failure to obey court order of issuing marraige licenses to gay couples.
> 
> News from The Associated Press
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's and the Democrat Party's first political prisoner.  We are no longer free Americans.  The transfer of our rights is now whatever democrats tell us.  The transformation is complete.
Click to expand...


No, it won't be complete until we bait Trump into bankrupting himself.


----------



## Katzndogz

The people of this community should punish the ones directly responsible.  The gay couples themselves should get some community involvement.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

martybegan said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> 
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
Click to expand...

She is the Christian Roa Parks, but only with God on her side.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Tipsycatlover said:


> The people of this community should punish the ones directly responsible.  The gay couples themselves should get some community involvement.



True. The RW never can seem to round up vigilantes when they really need them.....

Somebody get Clive Bundy on the phone.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

You liberals are evil in your celebration of this political prisoner's imprisonment.


----------



## TheOldSchool

AvgGuyIA said:


> You liberals are evil in your celebration of this political prisoner's imprisonment.


She can leave jail anytime she likes.  I would however, have preferred massive fines.


----------



## mudwhistle

TheOldSchool said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Woman is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spell "MARTYR"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I can.   If she thinks she's a martyr, I'm sure she gets all tingly about it.....Lester Maddox and George Wallace thought they were martyrs too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So do all terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh.....So now she's a terrorist.
> 
> Lol.
> 
> Too bad she's a Democrat......not a Republican.
> 
> Then guys would have something to actually bitch about.
> 
> Like I said before.......quit being assholes and go to another county.
> 
> But No!!
> 
> You want to force your sexuality down everyone's throats.
> 
> I learned a long time ago that you get more bees with honey, not with vinegar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her religious views are closer to the terrorists than to the views of the overwhelming majority of the Democrat party.  If she's a Democrat, then she needs to gtfo.
Click to expand...


You sound exactly like the Strawman you guys claim is a conservative.

So you want Democrats you don't agree with to leave. Get the fuck out.

Lmao!!!


----------



## PaintMyHouse

AvgGuyIA said:


> You liberals are evil in your celebration of this political prisoner's imprisonment.


It's not political, she's breaking the law, and now in jail where she belongs for doing so...


----------



## martybegan

Flopper said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, an elected official refusing to do their job is a little problematic...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would really be problematic is her being re-elected after all this.
> 
> What can the feds do then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just as it's doing now.  The court really has no alternative.  It certainly can't override a higher court.  If this clerk has any sense at all she will comply. There is no limit on how long a person can be jailed for contempt.  A 73 year old lawyer spent 14 years in prison for contempt.
Click to expand...


First of all, I agree that as a government official, she is in the wrong. What I do admire is her refusal to comply even when she is wrong.  Too often people just lie down and take it, instead of forcing government to follow through with it's actions.


----------



## JOSweetHeart

God bless you and Aaron and that woman always!!!   

Holly


----------



## Hossfly

mudwhistle said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The silly bitch either needs to get on God's payroll or quit her job with the county.   *
> 
> 
> 
> Bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Let's let her go back to work on the condition that God pays her from now on instead of taxpayers.  Think she'd agree to that?  (he-hee-hee)
> 
> I'd back her if she had made that stand and refused her pay based on her religious beliefs.
> 
> Fucking hypocrite.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God should pay her????
> 
> No problem........
Click to expand...

After all is said and done, God is on her side, no matter what heathens think or say.


----------



## TheOldSchool

mudwhistle said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spell "MARTYR"?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I can.   If she thinks she's a martyr, I'm sure she gets all tingly about it.....Lester Maddox and George Wallace thought they were martyrs too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So do all terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh.....So now she's a terrorist.
> 
> Lol.
> 
> Too bad she's a Democrat......not a Republican.
> 
> Then guys would have something to actually bitch about.
> 
> Like I said before.......quit being assholes and go to another county.
> 
> But No!!
> 
> You want to force your sexuality down everyone's throats.
> 
> I learned a long time ago that you get more bees with honey, not with vinegar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her religious views are closer to the terrorists than to the views of the overwhelming majority of the Democrat party.  If she's a Democrat, then she needs to gtfo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound exactly like the Strawman you guys claim is a conservative.
> 
> So you want Democrats you don't agree with to leave. Get the fuck out.
> 
> Lmao!!!
Click to expand...

She'd feel much more at home in the GOP, where hatred is applauded and where superstition takes precedence over the laws of this country.


----------



## martybegan

Ravi said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, an elected official refusing to do their job is a little problematic...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would really be problematic is her being re-elected after all this.
> 
> What can the feds do then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She wouldn't be able to sign her oath of office and therefore wouldn't be able to serve.
Click to expand...


She has to swear to sign off on Gay marriages?


----------



## Vandalshandle

AvgGuyIA said:


> You liberals are evil in your celebration of this political prisoner's imprisonment.



You are right. She should not be imprisoned. She should be sent to the Burning Man festival to do community service:


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Hossfly said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The silly bitch either needs to get on God's payroll or quit her job with the county.   *
> 
> 
> 
> Bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Let's let her go back to work on the condition that God pays her from now on instead of taxpayers.  Think she'd agree to that?  (he-hee-hee)
> 
> I'd back her if she had made that stand and refused her pay based on her religious beliefs.
> 
> Fucking hypocrite.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God should pay her????
> 
> No problem........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After all is said and done, God is on her side, no matter what heathens think or say.
Click to expand...

Well if he is then her god is entirely unworthy of praise...


----------



## Katzndogz

Vandalshandle said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people of this community should punish the ones directly responsible.  The gay couples themselves should get some community involvement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. The RW never can seem to round up vigilantes when they really need them.....
> 
> Somebody get Clive Bundy on the phone.
Click to expand...

Real vigilantes work quite differently.  However, the law has failed.   The only thing left is covert vigilanteism.


----------



## martybegan

Ravi said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MLK wasn't getting himself arrested so he could discriminate against black people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm talking methods, not reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why did you post "injustice of the system" as the only injustice being done is being done by her.
Click to expand...


SHE perceives an injustice, I actually think she is in the wrong. 

I just like seeing government have to go through the motions of force instead of a person just knuckling under and complying.


----------



## asaratis

Mac1958 said:


> Yeah, an elected official refusing to do their job is a little problematic...
> 
> 
> .


Then why don't you gripe about Obama not doing his job?  Oh, I forgot!  He was elected by useful idiots that do not understand what his job entails.


----------



## mudwhistle

TheOldSchool said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I can.   If she thinks she's a martyr, I'm sure she gets all tingly about it.....Lester Maddox and George Wallace thought they were martyrs too.
> 
> 
> 
> So do all terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh.....So now she's a terrorist.
> 
> Lol.
> 
> Too bad she's a Democrat......not a Republican.
> 
> Then guys would have something to actually bitch about.
> 
> Like I said before.......quit being assholes and go to another county.
> 
> But No!!
> 
> You want to force your sexuality down everyone's throats.
> 
> I learned a long time ago that you get more bees with honey, not with vinegar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her religious views are closer to the terrorists than to the views of the overwhelming majority of the Democrat party.  If she's a Democrat, then she needs to gtfo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound exactly like the Strawman you guys claim is a conservative.
> 
> So you want Democrats you don't agree with to leave. Get the fuck out.
> 
> Lmao!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She'd feel much more at home in the GOP, where hatred is applauded and where superstition takes precedence over the laws of this country.
Click to expand...


Sounds like hatred isn't exclusive to the GOP.

I've witnessed plenty of it in this thread.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Tipsycatlover said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people of this community should punish the ones directly responsible.  The gay couples themselves should get some community involvement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. The RW never can seem to round up vigilantes when they really need them.....
> 
> Somebody get Clive Bundy on the phone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Real vigilantes work quite differently.  However, the law has failed.   The only thing left is covert vigilanteism.
Click to expand...


May I suggest rainbow colored KKK robes?


----------



## Hossfly

PaintMyHouse said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The silly bitch either needs to get on God's payroll or quit her job with the county.   *
> 
> 
> 
> Bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Let's let her go back to work on the condition that God pays her from now on instead of taxpayers.  Think she'd agree to that?  (he-hee-hee)
> 
> I'd back her if she had made that stand and refused her pay based on her religious beliefs.
> 
> Fucking hypocrite.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God should pay her????
> 
> No problem........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After all is said and done, God is on her side, no matter what heathens think or say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if he is then her god is entirely unworthy of praise...
Click to expand...

Dick sucking and carpet munching is praiseworthy? No thanks.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Hossfly said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The silly bitch either needs to get on God's payroll or quit her job with the county.   *
> 
> 
> 
> Bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Let's let her go back to work on the condition that God pays her from now on instead of taxpayers.  Think she'd agree to that?  (he-hee-hee)
> 
> I'd back her if she had made that stand and refused her pay based on her religious beliefs.
> 
> Fucking hypocrite.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God should pay her????
> 
> No problem........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After all is said and done, God is on her side, no matter what heathens think or say.
Click to expand...

Hey according to Ben Carson going to jail will make Davis gay right?  Jesus might have the last laugh after all!


----------



## mudwhistle

AvgGuyIA said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Woman is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spell "MARTYR"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *I-G-N-O-R-A-N-T  B-I-G-O-T*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the bigot.
Click to expand...


Nuh-uh


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Hossfly said:


> Dick sucking...is praiseworthy?


Oh hell yeah, and worth the price of wherever the wife wants to go to dinner that night as well...


----------



## Luddly Neddite

AvgGuyIA said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...for failure to obey court order of issuing marraige licenses to gay couples.
> 
> News from The Associated Press
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's and the Democrat Party's first political prisoner.  We are no longer free Americans.  The transfer of our rights is now whatever democrats tell us.  The transformation is complete.
Click to expand...



Ever hear of the Supreme Court of the United States?








Tipsycatlover said:


> The people of this community should punish the ones directly responsible.  The gay couples themselves should get some community involvement.




So the drunk doctor/lawyer/dog washer wants to punish the SCOTUS?

Or does she not know who is "directly responsible"?


----------



## asaratis

PaintMyHouse said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> You liberals are evil in your celebration of this political prisoner's imprisonment.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not political, she's breaking the law, and now in jail where she belongs for doing so...
Click to expand...

...and where Obama should be for breaking the law...and where Hillary should be for breaking the law...

Your selective application of rules to follow is understandable.  Liberals are some sick people.


----------



## Flopper

mudwhistle said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spell "MARTYR"?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I can.   If she thinks she's a martyr, I'm sure she gets all tingly about it.....Lester Maddox and George Wallace thought they were martyrs too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So do all terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh.....So now she's a terrorist.
> 
> Lol.
> 
> Too bad she's a Democrat......not a Republican.
> 
> Then guys would have something to actually bitch about.
> 
> Like I said before.......quit being assholes and go to another county.
> 
> But No!!
> 
> You want to force your sexuality down everyone's throats.
> 
> I learned a long time ago that you get more bees with honey, not with vinegar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her religious views are closer to the terrorists than to the views of the overwhelming majority of the Democrat party.  If she's a Democrat, then she needs to gtfo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound exactly like the Strawman you guys claim is a conservative.
> 
> So you want Democrats you don't agree with to leave. Get the fuck out.
> 
> Lmao!!!
Click to expand...

Her failure to issue marriage licenses is based on religious not political grounds.  I think she has made that quite clear.


----------



## Mac1958

asaratis said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, an elected official refusing to do their job is a little problematic...
> 
> 
> 
> Then why don't you gripe about Obama not doing his job?  Oh, I forgot!  He was elected by useful idiots that do not understand what his job entails.
Click to expand...

There can be a difference between doing his job and doing his job the way you want him to.

This lady is refusing to do her job, period.
.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Luddly Neddite said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...for failure to obey court order of issuing marraige licenses to gay couples.
> 
> News from The Associated Press
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's and the Democrat Party's first political prisoner.  We are no longer free Americans.  The transfer of our rights is now whatever democrats tell us.  The transformation is complete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ever hear of the Supreme Court of the United States?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people of this community should punish the ones directly responsible.  The gay couples themselves should get some community involvement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So the drunk doctor/lawyer/dog washer wants to punish the SCOTUS?
> 
> Or does she not know who is "directly responsible"?
Click to expand...


Tipsy wants the community to covertly punish the gays. It is the Christian thing to do....

Presumably that means cutting off their supply of K.D. Lang discs.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

asaratis said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> You liberals are evil in your celebration of this political prisoner's imprisonment.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not political, she's breaking the law, and now in jail where she belongs for doing so...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and where Obama should be for breaking the law...and where Hillary should be for breaking the law...
> 
> Your selective application of rules to follow is understandable.  Liberals are some sick people.
Click to expand...

Unlike your other two examples, this one has actually been convicted by an actual court...


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

martybegan said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> 
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
Click to expand...



*MLK wasn't getting paid by government for what he did, and was working to stop segregation, not enforce it like she is.  

*


----------



## ogibillm

TheOldSchool said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> You liberals are evil in your celebration of this political prisoner's imprisonment.
> 
> 
> 
> She can leave jail anytime she likes.  I would however, have preferred massive fines.
Click to expand...

so she can get rich off a gofundme?


----------



## Hossfly

Vandalshandle said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...for failure to obey court order of issuing marraige licenses to gay couples.
> 
> News from The Associated Press
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's and the Democrat Party's first political prisoner.  We are no longer free Americans.  The transfer of our rights is now whatever democrats tell us.  The transformation is complete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ever hear of the Supreme Court of the United States?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people of this community should punish the ones directly responsible.  The gay couples themselves should get some community involvement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So the drunk doctor/lawyer/dog washer wants to punish the SCOTUS?
> 
> Or does she not know who is "directly responsible"?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tipsy wants the community to covertly punish the gays. It is the Christian thing to do....
Click to expand...

God will eventually punish them. And He ain't a Christian.


----------



## martybegan

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> 
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *MLK wasn't getting paid by government for what he did, and was working to stop segregation, not enforce it like she is.
> *
Click to expand...


Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.


----------



## bodecea

mudwhistle said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Woman is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spell "MARTYR"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I can.   If she thinks she's a martyr, I'm sure she gets all tingly about it.....Lester Maddox and George Wallace thought they were martyrs too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So do all terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh.....So now she's a terrorist.
> 
> Lol.
> 
> Too bad she's a Democrat......not a Republican.
> 
> Then guys would have something to actually bitch about.
> 
> Like I said before.......quit being assholes and go to another county.
> 
> But No!!
> 
> You want to force your sexuality down everyone's throats.
> 
> I learned a long time ago that you get more bees with honey, not with vinegar.
Click to expand...

He did not say she was a terrorist....what's wrong with you?   Incomplete education?  Never learn to read well?


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

*This homely hog Davis is taking her cue from the SCOTUS finding in favor of defendants like Hobby Lobby.  That's what happens when religion is allowed to influence laws and citizen's rights.*


----------



## SillyWabbit

mudwhistle said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Woman is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spell "MARTYR"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I can.   If she thinks she's a martyr, I'm sure she gets all tingly about it.....Lester Maddox and George Wallace thought they were martyrs too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really. They hated blacks.
> 
> This lady says she doesn't hate Gays.
> 
> Your problem is you assume anyone who doesn't agree with you hates you.
Click to expand...

I never know about people who disagree with me. So I hate _them _just in case.


----------



## ogibillm

martybegan said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *MLK wasn't getting paid by government for what he did, and was working to stop segregation, not enforce it like she is.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
Click to expand...

when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice


----------



## reconmark

aris2chat said:


> Expected that.
> Twice the courts ruled against her.  Judge had little choice.
> It is illegal to discriminate and that is what she was doing.  She was supposed to serve the community without prejudice.  She was supposed to do her job, not impose her religious beliefs onto those seeking to get married.
> 
> If she had belong to some white supremacy church, she could not have refuse a mix race couple or a black couple a license.


Her son's name is Nathan Davis; who knows...


----------



## mudwhistle

Mac1958 said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, an elected official refusing to do their job is a little problematic...
> 
> 
> 
> Then why don't you gripe about Obama not doing his job?  Oh, I forgot!  He was elected by useful idiots that do not understand what his job entails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There can be a difference between doing his job and doing his job the way you want him to.
> 
> This lady is refusing to do her job, period.
> .
Click to expand...



Just like Obama.

I think he should be jailed.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

martybegan said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *MLK wasn't getting paid by government for what he did, and was working to stop segregation, not enforce it like she is.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
Click to expand...


*Don't compare that stringy-haired hogette to MLK, in any way.  *


----------



## asaratis

This Clerk is not keeping gays from getting married.  They can find any one of many other Clerks that will sign the licenses.  Their purpose here is *make her* sign the licenses just to say "We won!" again.   That was the sole purpose for pushing for the redefinition of the word 'marriage'.

Insecure fucking idiots!


----------



## TheOldSchool

ogibillm said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> You liberals are evil in your celebration of this political prisoner's imprisonment.
> 
> 
> 
> She can leave jail anytime she likes.  I would however, have preferred massive fines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so she can get rich off a gofundme?
Click to expand...

GoFundMe put out a statement long ago that they wouldn't allow fundraisers for criminals.  

But if religious groups wanted to fork over hundreds of thousands of dollars to support the state budget I'd be fine with that, as long as Davis remained in jail.


----------



## bodecea

Hossfly said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Let's let her go back to work on the condition that God pays her from now on instead of taxpayers.  Think she'd agree to that?  (he-hee-hee)
> 
> I'd back her if she had made that stand and refused her pay based on her religious beliefs.
> 
> Fucking hypocrite.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God should pay her????
> 
> No problem........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After all is said and done, God is on her side, no matter what heathens think or say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if he is then her god is entirely unworthy of praise...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dick sucking and carpet munching is praiseworthy? No thanks.
Click to expand...

Ah...another one of those "not gays" who spends more time talking about gay sex than gays do.


----------



## Ravi

martybegan said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, an elected official refusing to do their job is a little problematic...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would really be problematic is her being re-elected after all this.
> 
> What can the feds do then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She wouldn't be able to sign her oath of office and therefore wouldn't be able to serve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She has to swear to sign off on Gay marriages?
Click to expand...

She has to swear to serve the community equally.


----------



## Katzndogz

MLK Was an alcoholic whoremaster who plagiarized his speeches.  Don't compare anyone to that piece of obama slime.


----------



## mudwhistle

ogibillm said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *MLK wasn't getting paid by government for what he did, and was working to stop segregation, not enforce it like she is.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
Click to expand...


If marriage is a right, then anyone can marry.

No??????

WTF!!!!


----------



## bodecea

asaratis said:


> This Clerk is not keeping gays from getting married.  They can find any one of many other Clerks that will sign the licenses.  Their purpose here is *make her* sign the licenses just to say "We won!" again.   That was the sole purpose for pushing for the redefinition of the word 'marriage'.
> 
> Insecure fucking idiots!


You like leeches at the government teat, I see.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

PaintMyHouse said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> You liberals are evil in your celebration of this political prisoner's imprisonment.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not political, she's breaking the law, and now in jail where she belongs for doing so...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and where Obama should be for breaking the law...and where Hillary should be for breaking the law...
> 
> Your selective application of rules to follow is understandable.  Liberals are some sick people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike your other two examples, this one has actually been convicted by an actual court...
Click to expand...



The law has no importance to RWs. 

They either make up shit as they go along and  believe its fact - or side with this lying, hypocritical clerk for breaking the law. 

And apparently, most of them have no clue what the role of the SCOTUS is.


----------



## bodecea

mudwhistle said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *MLK wasn't getting paid by government for what he did, and was working to stop segregation, not enforce it like she is.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If marriage is a right, then anyone can marry.
> 
> No??????
> 
> WTF!!!!
Click to expand...

If you are currently not allowed to legally marry who or what you wish to marry...make your legal case for the law to change.....just like we did.  Use the system.


----------



## ogibillm

mudwhistle said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *MLK wasn't getting paid by government for what he did, and was working to stop segregation, not enforce it like she is.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If marriage is a right, then anyone can marry.
> 
> No??????
> 
> WTF!!!!
Click to expand...

same sex couples have the right to get married. she's denying them that right. 
what you said, as incoherent as it was, does not change that.


----------



## mudwhistle

bodecea said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Woman is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spell "MARTYR"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I can.   If she thinks she's a martyr, I'm sure she gets all tingly about it.....Lester Maddox and George Wallace thought they were martyrs too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So do all terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh.....So now she's a terrorist.
> 
> Lol.
> 
> Too bad she's a Democrat......not a Republican.
> 
> Then guys would have something to actually bitch about.
> 
> Like I said before.......quit being assholes and go to another county.
> 
> But No!!
> 
> You want to force your sexuality down everyone's throats.
> 
> I learned a long time ago that you get more bees with honey, not with vinegar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He did not say she was a terrorist....what's wrong with you?   Incomplete education?  Never learn to read well?
Click to expand...

He compared her to terrorists.

Fact.

Learn to read.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Hossfly said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Let's let her go back to work on the condition that God pays her from now on instead of taxpayers.  Think she'd agree to that?  (he-hee-hee)
> 
> I'd back her if she had made that stand and refused her pay based on her religious beliefs.
> 
> Fucking hypocrite.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God should pay her????
> 
> No problem........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After all is said and done, God is on her side, no matter what heathens think or say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if he is then her god is entirely unworthy of praise...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dick sucking and carpet munching is praiseworthy? No thanks.
Click to expand...



You know nothing about "god".

Nothing.


----------



## norwegen

Government is violating her religious liberty.  What jail time does government do for violating the law?


----------



## martybegan

ogibillm said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *MLK wasn't getting paid by government for what he did, and was working to stop segregation, not enforce it like she is.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
Click to expand...


injustice is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## asaratis

PaintMyHouse said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> You liberals are evil in your celebration of this political prisoner's imprisonment.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not political, she's breaking the law, and now in jail where she belongs for doing so...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and where Obama should be for breaking the law...and where Hillary should be for breaking the law...
> 
> Your selective application of rules to follow is understandable.  Liberals are some sick people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike your other two examples, this one has actually been convicted by an actual court...
Click to expand...

The only reason Obama and Hillary have not been convicted (yet) is that the courts are under Obama's control.  Eric Holder will go after whoever the HMFIC tells him to go after.  Obama is the only person standing between Hillary and prison.

Fucking Democrat crooks have to take care of their own.


----------



## TheOldSchool

mudwhistle said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spell "MARTYR"?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I can.   If she thinks she's a martyr, I'm sure she gets all tingly about it.....Lester Maddox and George Wallace thought they were martyrs too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So do all terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh.....So now she's a terrorist.
> 
> Lol.
> 
> Too bad she's a Democrat......not a Republican.
> 
> Then guys would have something to actually bitch about.
> 
> Like I said before.......quit being assholes and go to another county.
> 
> But No!!
> 
> You want to force your sexuality down everyone's throats.
> 
> I learned a long time ago that you get more bees with honey, not with vinegar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He did not say she was a terrorist....what's wrong with you?   Incomplete education?  Never learn to read well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He compared her to terrorists.
> 
> Fact.
> 
> Learn to read.
Click to expand...

I compared her religious beliefs to those of the terrorists.  Which have quite a number of startling similarities.


----------



## martybegan

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *MLK wasn't getting paid by government for what he did, and was working to stop segregation, not enforce it like she is.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Don't compare that stringy-haired hogette to MLK, in any way.  *
Click to expand...


or what? you are going to post something even stupider than you usually do?


----------



## ogibillm

martybegan said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *MLK wasn't getting paid by government for what he did, and was working to stop segregation, not enforce it like she is.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> injustice is in the eye of the beholder.
Click to expand...

only one person is acting to deny rights to others and that's the county clerk. where is there any other injustice?


----------



## martybegan

Ravi said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, an elected official refusing to do their job is a little problematic...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would really be problematic is her being re-elected after all this.
> 
> What can the feds do then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She wouldn't be able to sign her oath of office and therefore wouldn't be able to serve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She has to swear to sign off on Gay marriages?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She has to swear to serve the community equally.
Click to expand...


Do you have a copy of her exact oath of office?


----------



## mudwhistle

ogibillm said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *MLK wasn't getting paid by government for what he did, and was working to stop segregation, not enforce it like she is.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If marriage is a right, then anyone can marry.
> 
> No??????
> 
> WTF!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> same sex couples have the right to get married. she's denying them that right.
> what you said, as incoherent as it was, does not change that.
Click to expand...

She isn't denying them anything other than a license from her. They can always get one.....They just have to get into their cars and drive to another county.


----------



## ogibillm

asaratis said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> You liberals are evil in your celebration of this political prisoner's imprisonment.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not political, she's breaking the law, and now in jail where she belongs for doing so...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and where Obama should be for breaking the law...and where Hillary should be for breaking the law...
> 
> Your selective application of rules to follow is understandable.  Liberals are some sick people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike your other two examples, this one has actually been convicted by an actual court...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason Obama and Hillary have not been convicted (yet) is that the courts are under Obama's control.  Eric Holder will go after whoever the HMFIC tells him to go after.  Obama is the only person standing between Hillary and prison.
> 
> Fucking Democrat crooks have to take care of their own.
Click to expand...




asaratis said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> You liberals are evil in your celebration of this political prisoner's imprisonment.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not political, she's breaking the law, and now in jail where she belongs for doing so...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and where Obama should be for breaking the law...and where Hillary should be for breaking the law...
> 
> Your selective application of rules to follow is understandable.  Liberals are some sick people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike your other two examples, this one has actually been convicted by an actual court...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason Obama and Hillary have not been convicted (yet) is that the courts are under Obama's control.  Eric Holder will go after whoever the HMFIC tells him to go after.  Obama is the only person standing between Hillary and prison.
> 
> Fucking Democrat crooks have to take care of their own.
Click to expand...

some people will believe anything.


----------



## asaratis

ogibillm said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *MLK wasn't getting paid by government for what he did, and was working to stop segregation, not enforce it like she is.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
Click to expand...

She's not denying them anything other than her personal signature on a marriage license.  They can get other Clerks to sign the licenses.  You are a dupe!


----------



## Vandalshandle

She will be alright. I am familiar with that particular jail, and I left a Bible there for her.

Gideon


----------



## ogibillm

mudwhistle said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *MLK wasn't getting paid by government for what he did, and was working to stop segregation, not enforce it like she is.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If marriage is a right, then anyone can marry.
> 
> No??????
> 
> WTF!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> same sex couples have the right to get married. she's denying them that right.
> what you said, as incoherent as it was, does not change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She isn't denying them anything other than a license from her. They can always get one.....They just have to get into their cars and drive to another county.
Click to expand...

how can you claim that she isn't denying them and then point out that she is in fact denying them?
doublethink?


----------



## mudwhistle

martybegan said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, an elected official refusing to do their job is a little problematic...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would really be problematic is her being re-elected after all this.
> 
> What can the feds do then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She wouldn't be able to sign her oath of office and therefore wouldn't be able to serve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She has to swear to sign off on Gay marriages?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She has to swear to serve the community equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a copy of her exact oath of office?
Click to expand...


Again.....Obama sets the example. He decided that he wasn't going to support and defend the constitution or obey our laws.....So he belongs in jail too.


----------



## martybegan

ogibillm said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *MLK wasn't getting paid by government for what he did, and was working to stop segregation, not enforce it like she is.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> injustice is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only one person is acting to deny rights to others and that's the county clerk. where is there any other injustice?
Click to expand...


To her the injustice is in her being forced to go against her morals. You may not agree with it, and as a government official, I think her position is invalid, but that what she thinks.


----------



## ogibillm

asaratis said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *MLK wasn't getting paid by government for what he did, and was working to stop segregation, not enforce it like she is.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She's not denying them anything other than her personal signature on a marriage license.  They can get other Clerks to sign the licenses.  You are a dupe!
Click to expand...

her office is not issuing licenses to same sex couples. do you deny that?


----------



## mudwhistle

ogibillm said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If marriage is a right, then anyone can marry.
> 
> No??????
> 
> WTF!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> same sex couples have the right to get married. she's denying them that right.
> what you said, as incoherent as it was, does not change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She isn't denying them anything other than a license from her. They can always get one.....They just have to get into their cars and drive to another county.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how can you claim that she isn't denying them and then point out that she is in fact denying them?
> doublethink?
Click to expand...

Easy. She gave them other options. Probably gave them directions as well. At the end of the day, they can still get married.


----------



## ogibillm

martybegan said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *MLK wasn't getting paid by government for what he did, and was working to stop segregation, not enforce it like she is.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> injustice is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only one person is acting to deny rights to others and that's the county clerk. where is there any other injustice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To her the injustice is in her being forced to go against her morals. You may not agree with it, and as a government official, I think her position is invalid, but that what she thinks.
Click to expand...

okay. but again, not all points of view are valid. her's is not valid and shouldn't be treated as if it is


----------



## Vandalshandle

martybegan said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *MLK wasn't getting paid by government for what he did, and was working to stop segregation, not enforce it like she is.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> injustice is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only one person is acting to deny rights to others and that's the county clerk. where is there any other injustice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To her the injustice is in her being forced to go against her morals. You may not agree with it, and as a government official, I think her position is invalid, but that what she thinks.
Click to expand...


Presumably, it is not against her morals to cash her paycheck, while refusing to do her job......


----------



## Hossfly

Luddly Neddite said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Let's let her go back to work on the condition that God pays her from now on instead of taxpayers.  Think she'd agree to that?  (he-hee-hee)
> 
> I'd back her if she had made that stand and refused her pay based on her religious beliefs.
> 
> Fucking hypocrite.  *
> 
> 
> 
> God should pay her????
> 
> No problem........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After all is said and done, God is on her side, no matter what heathens think or say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if he is then her god is entirely unworthy of praise...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dick sucking and carpet munching is praiseworthy? No thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know nothing about "god".
> 
> Nothing.
Click to expand...

What do you know about Him, Heathen?


----------



## asaratis

TheOldSchool said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I can.   If she thinks she's a martyr, I'm sure she gets all tingly about it.....Lester Maddox and George Wallace thought they were martyrs too.
> 
> 
> 
> So do all terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh.....So now she's a terrorist.
> 
> Lol.
> 
> Too bad she's a Democrat......not a Republican.
> 
> Then guys would have something to actually bitch about.
> 
> Like I said before.......quit being assholes and go to another county.
> 
> But No!!
> 
> You want to force your sexuality down everyone's throats.
> 
> I learned a long time ago that you get more bees with honey, not with vinegar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He did not say she was a terrorist....what's wrong with you?   Incomplete education?  Never learn to read well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He compared her to terrorists.
> 
> Fact.
> 
> Learn to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I compared her religious beliefs to those of the terrorists.  Which have quite a number of startling similarities.
Click to expand...

Liberals think that anyone that does not agree with them is a terrorist.  Obama is that way.

Fuck Obama!


----------



## martybegan

Vandalshandle said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> injustice is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only one person is acting to deny rights to others and that's the county clerk. where is there any other injustice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To her the injustice is in her being forced to go against her morals. You may not agree with it, and as a government official, I think her position is invalid, but that what she thinks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Presumably, it is not against her morals to cash her paycheck, while refusing to do her job......
Click to expand...


Evidently not.


----------



## ogibillm

mudwhistle said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If marriage is a right, then anyone can marry.
> 
> No??????
> 
> WTF!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> same sex couples have the right to get married. she's denying them that right.
> what you said, as incoherent as it was, does not change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She isn't denying them anything other than a license from her. They can always get one.....They just have to get into their cars and drive to another county.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how can you claim that she isn't denying them and then point out that she is in fact denying them?
> doublethink?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy. She gave them other options. Probably gave them directions as well. At the end of the day, they can still get married.
Click to expand...

what gives her the right to decide who does and does not receive county services?


----------



## TheOldSchool

asaratis said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> So do all terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh.....So now she's a terrorist.
> 
> Lol.
> 
> Too bad she's a Democrat......not a Republican.
> 
> Then guys would have something to actually bitch about.
> 
> Like I said before.......quit being assholes and go to another county.
> 
> But No!!
> 
> You want to force your sexuality down everyone's throats.
> 
> I learned a long time ago that you get more bees with honey, not with vinegar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He did not say she was a terrorist....what's wrong with you?   Incomplete education?  Never learn to read well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He compared her to terrorists.
> 
> Fact.
> 
> Learn to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I compared her religious beliefs to those of the terrorists.  Which have quite a number of startling similarities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals think that anyone that does not agree with them is a terrorist.  Obama is that way.
> 
> Fuck Obama!
Click to expand...

Conservatives pretend that terrorists are liberals.  Despite them holding entirely conservative beliefs.


----------



## asaratis

ogibillm said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *MLK wasn't getting paid by government for what he did, and was working to stop segregation, not enforce it like she is.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She's not denying them anything other than her personal signature on a marriage license.  They can get other Clerks to sign the licenses.  You are a dupe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> her office is not issuing licenses to same sex couples. do you deny that?
Click to expand...

No, I don't. Same sex couples can get a license from other nearby offices.  Do you deny that?


----------



## asaratis

ogibillm said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If marriage is a right, then anyone can marry.
> 
> No??????
> 
> WTF!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> same sex couples have the right to get married. she's denying them that right.
> what you said, as incoherent as it was, does not change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She isn't denying them anything other than a license from her. They can always get one.....They just have to get into their cars and drive to another county.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how can you claim that she isn't denying them and then point out that she is in fact denying them?
> doublethink?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy. She gave them other options. Probably gave them directions as well. At the end of the day, they can still get married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what gives her the right to decide who does and does not receive county services?
Click to expand...

What gives Obama and Holder the right to determine who gets prosecuted and who does not?


----------



## TheOldSchool

asaratis said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *MLK wasn't getting paid by government for what he did, and was working to stop segregation, not enforce it like she is.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She's not denying them anything other than her personal signature on a marriage license.  They can get other Clerks to sign the licenses.  You are a dupe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> her office is not issuing licenses to same sex couples. do you deny that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I don't. Same sex couples can get a license from other nearby offices.  Do you deny that?
Click to expand...

Yeah.  And ******* could have just shut up and sat at the back of the bus.  Do you deny that?


----------



## ogibillm

asaratis said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *MLK wasn't getting paid by government for what he did, and was working to stop segregation, not enforce it like she is.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She's not denying them anything other than her personal signature on a marriage license.  They can get other Clerks to sign the licenses.  You are a dupe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> her office is not issuing licenses to same sex couples. do you deny that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I don't. Same sex couples can get a license from other nearby offices.  Do you deny that?
Click to expand...

well i guess that would depend on those other offices. if she's allowed to turn gay couples away why would they not be allowed to do the same


----------



## Vandalshandle

asaratis said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *MLK wasn't getting paid by government for what he did, and was working to stop segregation, not enforce it like she is.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She's not denying them anything other than her personal signature on a marriage license.  They can get other Clerks to sign the licenses.  You are a dupe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> her office is not issuing licenses to same sex couples. do you deny that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I don't. Same sex couples can get a license from other nearby offices.  Do you deny that?
Click to expand...


Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on what brand of superstition the other clerk may believe in.


----------



## Ravi

martybegan said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, an elected official refusing to do their job is a little problematic...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would really be problematic is her being re-elected after all this.
> 
> What can the feds do then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She wouldn't be able to sign her oath of office and therefore wouldn't be able to serve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She has to swear to sign off on Gay marriages?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She has to swear to serve the community equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a copy of her exact oath of office?
Click to expand...

 I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of .... according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.


----------



## mudwhistle

ogibillm said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *MLK wasn't getting paid by government for what he did, and was working to stop segregation, not enforce it like she is.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She's not denying them anything other than her personal signature on a marriage license.  They can get other Clerks to sign the licenses.  You are a dupe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> her office is not issuing licenses to same sex couples. do you deny that?
Click to expand...


Her job is to do her job to best of her ability. It isn't specifically to bow to the will of activist judges.

She's a Democrat living in Kentucky. What did you expect?

Jesus Christ!

I've been telling you fuckwads this shit for years.

Look at her clothes. She's a Bible-thumping holy roller.


----------



## asaratis

ogibillm said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If marriage is a right, then anyone can marry.
> 
> No??????
> 
> WTF!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> same sex couples have the right to get married. she's denying them that right.
> what you said, as incoherent as it was, does not change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She isn't denying them anything other than a license from her. They can always get one.....They just have to get into their cars and drive to another county.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how can you claim that she isn't denying them and then point out that she is in fact denying them?
> doublethink?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy. She gave them other options. Probably gave them directions as well. At the end of the day, they can still get married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what gives her the right to decide who does and does not receive county services?
Click to expand...

She does not keep the same sex couples from getting licenses.  She just refuses to be the one that signs it.


----------



## SillyWabbit

bodecea said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *MLK wasn't getting paid by government for what he did, and was working to stop segregation, not enforce it like she is.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If marriage is a right, then anyone can marry.
> 
> No??????
> 
> WTF!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are currently not allowed to legally marry who or what you wish to marry...make your legal case for the law to change.....just like we did.  Use the system.
Click to expand...

No need to wait. I am a Minister. For the right price I will tell you're married*. Under God and everything. 




*Not legally binding. Please refer to applicable Federal, State and local guidelines.


----------



## martybegan

Ravi said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would really be problematic is her being re-elected after all this.
> 
> What can the feds do then?
> 
> 
> 
> She wouldn't be able to sign her oath of office and therefore wouldn't be able to serve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She has to swear to sign off on Gay marriages?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She has to swear to serve the community equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a copy of her exact oath of office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of .... according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.
Click to expand...


"best of her ability" is an out, saying that gay marriage isn't in the constitution is an out. 

and i positively LOVE that they still keep the duel thing in there.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Actually, none of the clerks in her office are signing any marriage licenses. They are lucky that they all didn't go to the slammer. My guess is that her employees are going to have a sudden change of heart about all this.


----------



## ogibillm

martybegan said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> She wouldn't be able to sign her oath of office and therefore wouldn't be able to serve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She has to swear to sign off on Gay marriages?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She has to swear to serve the community equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a copy of her exact oath of office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of .... according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "best of her ability" is an out, saying that gay marriage isn't in the constitution is an out.
> 
> and i positively LOVE that they still keep the duel thing in there.
Click to expand...

she can't claim that gay marriage is not constitutional - the supreme court ruled the right was guaranteed by the 14th amendment.

and i don't think that she can claim that the best of her abilities only allows her to sign her name on some marriage licenses.


----------



## asaratis

TheOldSchool said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She's not denying them anything other than her personal signature on a marriage license.  They can get other Clerks to sign the licenses.  You are a dupe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> her office is not issuing licenses to same sex couples. do you deny that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I don't. Same sex couples can get a license from other nearby offices.  Do you deny that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah.  And ******* could have just shut up and sat at the back of the bus.  Do you deny that?
Click to expand...

Strawman...non sequitur...stupid reply.   Try some logic courses.


----------



## TheOldSchool

asaratis said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
> 
> 
> 
> She's not denying them anything other than her personal signature on a marriage license.  They can get other Clerks to sign the licenses.  You are a dupe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> her office is not issuing licenses to same sex couples. do you deny that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I don't. Same sex couples can get a license from other nearby offices.  Do you deny that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah.  And ******* could have just shut up and sat at the back of the bus.  Do you deny that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman...non sequitur...stupid reply.   Try some logic courses.
Click to expand...

Try not to kick and scream too much as you get dragged into the 21st century.


----------



## bucs90

She broke the law. I respect her non violent protest. Civil disobedience. But...she went too far with breaking the law.


----------



## Ravi

martybegan said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> She wouldn't be able to sign her oath of office and therefore wouldn't be able to serve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She has to swear to sign off on Gay marriages?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She has to swear to serve the community equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a copy of her exact oath of office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of .... according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "best of her ability" is an out, saying that gay marriage isn't in the constitution is an out.
> 
> and i positively LOVE that they still keep the duel thing in there.
Click to expand...

Marriage isn't in the constitution at all, that doesn't mean that the laws don't have to be applied equally to those who are "granted" the right to get married. Not seeing how best of her ability is an out.


----------



## guno

Looks like the cross groveling yahoos are being taken to the woodshed once again


----------



## Asclepias

mudwhistle said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If marriage is a right, then anyone can marry.
> 
> No??????
> 
> WTF!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> same sex couples have the right to get married. she's denying them that right.
> what you said, as incoherent as it was, does not change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She isn't denying them anything other than a license from her. They can always get one.....They just have to get into their cars and drive to another county.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how can you claim that she isn't denying them and then point out that she is in fact denying them?
> doublethink?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy. She gave them other options. Probably gave them directions as well. At the end of the day, they can still get married.
Click to expand...

Doesnt work like that. If she offers anyone licenses she has to offer all. Thats why she is in the pokey now.


----------



## martybegan

ogibillm said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> She has to swear to sign off on Gay marriages?
> 
> 
> 
> She has to swear to serve the community equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a copy of her exact oath of office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of .... according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "best of her ability" is an out, saying that gay marriage isn't in the constitution is an out.
> 
> and i positively LOVE that they still keep the duel thing in there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> she can't claim that gay marriage is not constitutional - the supreme court ruled the right was guaranteed by the 14th amendment.
> 
> and i don't think that she can claim that the best of her abilities only allows her to sign her name on some marriage licenses.
Click to expand...


If you think the SC is overstepping its bounds, you sure as hell can think it isn't constitutional. I have a right to keep and bear arms, and NYC had decided I don't. I don't see progressives going apeshit over that.


----------



## ogibillm

Asclepias said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If marriage is a right, then anyone can marry.
> 
> No??????
> 
> WTF!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> same sex couples have the right to get married. she's denying them that right.
> what you said, as incoherent as it was, does not change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She isn't denying them anything other than a license from her. They can always get one.....They just have to get into their cars and drive to another county.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how can you claim that she isn't denying them and then point out that she is in fact denying them?
> doublethink?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy. She gave them other options. Probably gave them directions as well. At the end of the day, they can still get married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesnt work like that. If she offers anyone licenses she has to offer all. Thats why she is in the pokey now.
Click to expand...

it doesn't really work like that either. she can't deny licenses to everyone just so gays won't get them.


----------



## martybegan

Ravi said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> She has to swear to sign off on Gay marriages?
> 
> 
> 
> She has to swear to serve the community equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a copy of her exact oath of office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of .... according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "best of her ability" is an out, saying that gay marriage isn't in the constitution is an out.
> 
> and i positively LOVE that they still keep the duel thing in there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage isn't in the constitution at all, that doesn't mean that the laws don't have to be applied equally to those who are "granted" the right to get married. Not seeing how best of her ability is an out.
Click to expand...


Her oath is to the constitution of the US and the State. don't see how she violates those, considering she isn't taking an oath to follow the SC.


----------



## ogibillm

martybegan said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> She has to swear to serve the community equally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a copy of her exact oath of office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of .... according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "best of her ability" is an out, saying that gay marriage isn't in the constitution is an out.
> 
> and i positively LOVE that they still keep the duel thing in there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> she can't claim that gay marriage is not constitutional - the supreme court ruled the right was guaranteed by the 14th amendment.
> 
> and i don't think that she can claim that the best of her abilities only allows her to sign her name on some marriage licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think the SC is overstepping its bounds, you sure as hell can think it isn't constitutional. I have a right to keep and bear arms, and NYC had decided I don't. I don't see progressives going apeshit over that.
Click to expand...

she can think it, but she'd be wrong. she is not the arbiter of what is and is not constitutional, that job belongs to the supreme court.


----------



## Hossfly

guno said:


> Looks like the cross groveling yahoos are being taken to the woodshed once again


When same sex faggots can do the following, I'll accept same sex marriage.


*Genesis 1:28*
Viewing the King James Version. Click to switch to 1611 King James Version of Genesis 1:28.


*And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.*

_- King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition_


----------



## ogibillm

Hossfly said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like the cross groveling yahoos are being taken to the woodshed once again
> 
> 
> 
> When same sex faggots can do the following, I'll accept same sex marriage.
> 
> 
> *Genesis 1:28*
> Viewing the King James Version. Click to switch to 1611 King James Version of Genesis 1:28.
> 
> 
> *And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.*
> 
> _- King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition_
Click to expand...

huh. didn't realize god wrote our marriage laws.


----------



## Hossfly

ogibillm said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like the cross groveling yahoos are being taken to the woodshed once again
> 
> 
> 
> When same sex faggots can do the following, I'll accept same sex marriage.
> 
> 
> *Genesis 1:28*
> Viewing the King James Version. Click to switch to 1611 King James Version of Genesis 1:28.
> 
> 
> *And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.*
> 
> _- King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> huh. didn't realize god wrote our marriage laws.
Click to expand...

Now you know, Heathen.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Hossfly said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like the cross groveling yahoos are being taken to the woodshed once again
> 
> 
> 
> When same sex faggots can do the following, I'll accept same sex marriage.
> 
> 
> *Genesis 1:28*
> Viewing the King James Version. Click to switch to 1611 King James Version of Genesis 1:28.
> 
> 
> *And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.*
> 
> _- King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition_
Click to expand...


I confess that I am a little rusty on the Bible, but doesn't this verse blessing them, and telling them to be fruitful come after he condemned them to death, and threw them out of the Garden of Eden, for having sex?


----------



## mudwhistle

ogibillm said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> same sex couples have the right to get married. she's denying them that right.
> what you said, as incoherent as it was, does not change that.
> 
> 
> 
> She isn't denying them anything other than a license from her. They can always get one.....They just have to get into their cars and drive to another county.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how can you claim that she isn't denying them and then point out that she is in fact denying them?
> doublethink?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy. She gave them other options. Probably gave them directions as well. At the end of the day, they can still get married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesnt work like that. If she offers anyone licenses she has to offer all. Thats why she is in the pokey now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it doesn't really work like that either. she can't deny licenses to everyone just so gays won't get them.
Click to expand...

Well....we want Obama to enforce immigration laws and he refuses.....So fuck it.


----------



## Asclepias

Hossfly said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like the cross groveling yahoos are being taken to the woodshed once again
> 
> 
> 
> When same sex faggots can do the following, I'll accept same sex marriage.
> 
> 
> *Genesis 1:28*
> Viewing the King James Version. Click to switch to 1611 King James Version of Genesis 1:28.
> 
> 
> *And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.*
> 
> _- King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition_
Click to expand...

What you personally accept is irrelevant unless you are gay and want to get married to another gay person.


----------



## Ravi

martybegan said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> She has to swear to serve the community equally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a copy of her exact oath of office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of .... according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "best of her ability" is an out, saying that gay marriage isn't in the constitution is an out.
> 
> and i positively LOVE that they still keep the duel thing in there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage isn't in the constitution at all, that doesn't mean that the laws don't have to be applied equally to those who are "granted" the right to get married. Not seeing how best of her ability is an out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her oath is to the constitution of the US and the State. don't see how she violates those, considering she isn't taking an oath to follow the SC.
Click to expand...

The way the constitution works is that laws must be applied equally. That's what the equal protection law is all about. Outlawing SSM was never constitutional.


----------



## Asclepias

mudwhistle said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> She isn't denying them anything other than a license from her. They can always get one.....They just have to get into their cars and drive to another county.
> 
> 
> 
> how can you claim that she isn't denying them and then point out that she is in fact denying them?
> doublethink?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy. She gave them other options. Probably gave them directions as well. At the end of the day, they can still get married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesnt work like that. If she offers anyone licenses she has to offer all. Thats why she is in the pokey now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it doesn't really work like that either. she can't deny licenses to everyone just so gays won't get them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well....we want Obama to enforce immigration laws and he refuses.....So fuck it.
Click to expand...

Doesnt matter what you want. Thats why she is the pokey and Obama is not.


----------



## guno

Vandalshandle said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like the cross groveling yahoos are being taken to the woodshed once again
> 
> 
> 
> When same sex faggots can do the following, I'll accept same sex marriage.
> 
> 
> *Genesis 1:28*
> Viewing the King James Version. Click to switch to 1611 King James Version of Genesis 1:28.
> 
> 
> *And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.*
> 
> _- King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I confess that I am a little rusty on the Bible, but doesn't this verse blessing them, and telling them to be fruitful come after he condemned them to death, and threw them out of the Garden of Eden, for having sex?
Click to expand...




Vandalshandle said:


> Garden of Eden



It was the garden of eatin' an the sermon on the mounting


----------



## Vandalshandle

Vandalshandle said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like the cross groveling yahoos are being taken to the woodshed once again
> 
> 
> 
> When same sex faggots can do the following, I'll accept same sex marriage.
> 
> 
> *Genesis 1:28*
> Viewing the King James Version. Click to switch to 1611 King James Version of Genesis 1:28.
> 
> 
> *And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.*
> 
> _- King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I confess that I am a little rusty on the Bible, but doesn't this verse blessing them, and telling them to be fruitful come after he condemned them to death, and threw them out of the Garden of Eden, for having sex?
Click to expand...


I just hope to hell that He doesn't change His mind again!


----------



## Hossfly

Vandalshandle said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like the cross groveling yahoos are being taken to the woodshed once again
> 
> 
> 
> When same sex faggots can do the following, I'll accept same sex marriage.
> 
> 
> *Genesis 1:28*
> Viewing the King James Version. Click to switch to 1611 King James Version of Genesis 1:28.
> 
> 
> *And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.*
> 
> _- King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I confess that I am a little rusty on the Bible, but doesn't this verse blessing them, and telling them to be fruitful come after he condemned them to death, and threw them out of the Garden of Eden, for having sex?
Click to expand...

For lying, Rusty.


----------



## Hossfly

Asclepias said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like the cross groveling yahoos are being taken to the woodshed once again
> 
> 
> 
> When same sex faggots can do the following, I'll accept same sex marriage.
> 
> 
> *Genesis 1:28*
> Viewing the King James Version. Click to switch to 1611 King James Version of Genesis 1:28.
> 
> 
> *And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.*
> 
> _- King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you personally accept is irrelevant unless you are gay and want to get married to another gay person.
Click to expand...

I guess that disqualifies me. Shit!


----------



## ogibillm

mudwhistle said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> She isn't denying them anything other than a license from her. They can always get one.....They just have to get into their cars and drive to another county.
> 
> 
> 
> how can you claim that she isn't denying them and then point out that she is in fact denying them?
> doublethink?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy. She gave them other options. Probably gave them directions as well. At the end of the day, they can still get married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesnt work like that. If she offers anyone licenses she has to offer all. Thats why she is in the pokey now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it doesn't really work like that either. she can't deny licenses to everyone just so gays won't get them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well....we want Obama to enforce immigration laws and he refuses.....So fuck it.
Click to expand...

see, that's just ignorant. he isn't enforcing the law the way you would like him too, but it is dishonest to claim our laws aren't being enforced.


----------



## Vandalshandle

DAMN! We are all condemned to die because Adam and Eve told a lie? Man, this puts a whole new perspective on the time I fed my broccoli to my dog under the table, but told my mother that I had eaten it!


----------



## Hossfly

guno said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like the cross groveling yahoos are being taken to the woodshed once again
> 
> 
> 
> When same sex faggots can do the following, I'll accept same sex marriage.
> 
> 
> *Genesis 1:28*
> Viewing the King James Version. Click to switch to 1611 King James Version of Genesis 1:28.
> 
> 
> *And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.*
> 
> _- King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I confess that I am a little rusty on the Bible, but doesn't this verse blessing them, and telling them to be fruitful come after he condemned them to death, and threw them out of the Garden of Eden, for having sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Garden of Eden
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was the garden of eatin' an the sermon on the mounting
Click to expand...

*WETSU*


----------



## Ravi

martybegan said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> She has to swear to serve the community equally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a copy of her exact oath of office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of .... according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "best of her ability" is an out, saying that gay marriage isn't in the constitution is an out.
> 
> and i positively LOVE that they still keep the duel thing in there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage isn't in the constitution at all, that doesn't mean that the laws don't have to be applied equally to those who are "granted" the right to get married. Not seeing how best of her ability is an out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her oath is to the constitution of the US and the State. don't see how she violates those, considering she isn't taking an oath to follow the SC.
Click to expand...

By the way, she also takes this oath:

"I, —————, do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of ————— County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God."


----------



## martybegan

ogibillm said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a copy of her exact oath of office?
> 
> 
> 
> I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of .... according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "best of her ability" is an out, saying that gay marriage isn't in the constitution is an out.
> 
> 
> and i positively LOVE that they still keep the duel thing in there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> she can't claim that gay marriage is not constitutional - the supreme court ruled the right was guaranteed by the 14th amendment.
> 
> and i don't think that she can claim that the best of her abilities only allows her to sign her name on some marriage licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think the SC is overstepping its bounds, you sure as hell can think it isn't constitutional. I have a right to keep and bear arms, and NYC had decided I don't. I don't see progressives going apeshit over that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> she can think it, but she'd be wrong. she is not the arbiter of what is and is not constitutional, that job belongs to the supreme court.
Click to expand...


The arbiter has been doing a piss poor job for 3 decades now.


----------



## martybegan

Ravi said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a copy of her exact oath of office?
> 
> 
> 
> I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of .... according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "best of her ability" is an out, saying that gay marriage isn't in the constitution is an out.
> 
> and i positively LOVE that they still keep the duel thing in there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage isn't in the constitution at all, that doesn't mean that the laws don't have to be applied equally to those who are "granted" the right to get married. Not seeing how best of her ability is an out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her oath is to the constitution of the US and the State. don't see how she violates those, considering she isn't taking an oath to follow the SC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the way, she also takes this oath:
> 
> "I, —————, do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of ————— County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God."
Click to expand...


Well she might have a problem with that one a bit more. less wiggle room.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

I wonder what will happen when a priest refuses to marry gays?  As for this gal, I tend to agree, you work for the government, this is your job... what happens thought when they try this in the private sector?  And they will, bet your ass that's next up.  I wonder if the "separation of church and state" nutters will be crying when the state meddles in the affairs of the church?


----------



## Ravi

Soggy in NOLA said:


> I wonder what will happen when a priest refuses to marry gays?  As for this gal, I tend to agree, you work for the government, this is your job... what happens thought when they try this in the private sector?  And they will, bet your ass that's next up.  I wonder if the "separation of church and state" nutters will be crying when the state meddles in the affairs of the church?


The state can't meddle in church affairs regarding weddings. Church may or may not perform ceremonies as they please.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Soggy in NOLA said:


> I wonder what will happen when a priest refuses to marry gays?  As for this gal, I tend to agree, you work for the government, this is your job... what happens thought when they try this in the private sector?  And they will, bet your ass that's next up.  I wonder if the "separation of church and state" nutters will be crying when the state meddles in the affairs of the church?


A church can turn people away all damn day long, but not a country clerk.  Her ass works for us, not God.


----------



## norwegen

asaratis said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> same sex couples have the right to get married. she's denying them that right.
> what you said, as incoherent as it was, does not change that.
> 
> 
> 
> She isn't denying them anything other than a license from her. They can always get one.....They just have to get into their cars and drive to another county.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how can you claim that she isn't denying them and then point out that she is in fact denying them?
> doublethink?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy. She gave them other options. Probably gave them directions as well. At the end of the day, they can still get married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what gives her the right to decide who does and does not receive county services?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She does not keep the same sex couples from getting licenses.  She just refuses to be the one that signs it.
Click to expand...

When liberals say that gays are denied their "right" to marry, they mean that the faggots are too stupid to realize the state has more than one county.

As for this woman, she is within her rights to defy an illegitimate law.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

PaintMyHouse said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> You liberals are evil in your celebration of this political prisoner's imprisonment.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not political, she's breaking the law, and now in jail where she belongs for doing so...
Click to expand...

It's political.  We know who is on what side here.  America has jailed a political prisoner..a Christian.  Obama has declared war on Christians and is no different than ISIS.


----------



## martybegan

Ravi said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what will happen when a priest refuses to marry gays?  As for this gal, I tend to agree, you work for the government, this is your job... what happens thought when they try this in the private sector?  And they will, bet your ass that's next up.  I wonder if the "separation of church and state" nutters will be crying when the state meddles in the affairs of the church?
> 
> 
> 
> The state can't meddle in church affairs regarding weddings. Church may or may not perform ceremonies as they please.
Click to expand...


For now.


----------



## Ravi

norwegen said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> She isn't denying them anything other than a license from her. They can always get one.....They just have to get into their cars and drive to another county.
> 
> 
> 
> how can you claim that she isn't denying them and then point out that she is in fact denying them?
> doublethink?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy. She gave them other options. Probably gave them directions as well. At the end of the day, they can still get married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what gives her the right to decide who does and does not receive county services?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She does not keep the same sex couples from getting licenses.  She just refuses to be the one that signs it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When liberals say that gays are denied their "right" to marry, they mean that the faggots are too stupid to realize the state has more than one county.
> 
> As for this woman, she is within her rights to defy an illegitimate law.
Click to expand...

Why would you have to leave your home county to get married? That's fascist.


----------



## norwegen

bucs90 said:


> She broke the law. I respect her non violent protest. Civil disobedience. But...she went too far with breaking the law.


She broke an illegitimate law.  She broke a law that violated her religious liberty.


----------



## Ravi

martybegan said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what will happen when a priest refuses to marry gays?  As for this gal, I tend to agree, you work for the government, this is your job... what happens thought when they try this in the private sector?  And they will, bet your ass that's next up.  I wonder if the "separation of church and state" nutters will be crying when the state meddles in the affairs of the church?
> 
> 
> 
> The state can't meddle in church affairs regarding weddings. Church may or may not perform ceremonies as they please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For now.
Click to expand...

No, forever. A church doesn't have to accept members that don't follow their doctrine and doesn't have to marry non-members, period.

You can pretend all you want that this is some kind of slippery slope but it simply is not.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Apparently this warrior in God's army may be more flawed than the people she is choosing to moralize on. It seems she has been married four times, had adulterous relationships that resulted in children born out of wedlock. Now here she is passing judgement on those who wish to marry and is acting in violation of the law.
What an imbicile. I would hope that those supporting her would re- examine that support.

TRUE: Kim Davis Has Been Married Four Times


----------



## AvgGuyIA

I hope their are prayer vigils outside the jail with thousands of their knees praying for the restoration our our first amendment rights to worship and practice our religion without government interference.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

Hutch Starskey said:


> Apparently this warrior in God's army may be more flawed than the people she is choosing to moralize on. It seems she has been married four times, had adulterous relationships that resulted in children born out of wedlock. Now here she is passing judgement on those who wish to marry and is acting in violation of the law.
> What an imbicile. I would hope that those supporting her would re- examine that support.
> 
> TRUE: Kim Davis Has Been Married Four Times


That was before she became a Christian.  Non issue for God.


----------



## martybegan

Ravi said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what will happen when a priest refuses to marry gays?  As for this gal, I tend to agree, you work for the government, this is your job... what happens thought when they try this in the private sector?  And they will, bet your ass that's next up.  I wonder if the "separation of church and state" nutters will be crying when the state meddles in the affairs of the church?
> 
> 
> 
> The state can't meddle in church affairs regarding weddings. Church may or may not perform ceremonies as they please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, forever. A church doesn't have to accept members that don't follow their doctrine and doesn't have to marry non-members, period.
> 
> You can pretend all you want that this is some kind of slippery slope but it simply is not.
Click to expand...


Nah, they will just go after their tax exempt status, and anything else than can to punish them.


----------



## ogibillm

norwegen said:


> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She broke the law. I respect her non violent protest. Civil disobedience. But...she went too far with breaking the law.
> 
> 
> 
> She broke an illegitimate law.  She broke a law that violated her religious liberty.
Click to expand...

the office of county clerk does not have religious beliefs.


----------



## Ravi

Hutch Starskey said:


> Apparently this warrior in God's army may be more flawed than the people she is choosing to moralize on. It seems she has been married four times, had adulterous relationships that resulted in children born out of wedlock. Now here she is passing judgement on those who wish to marry and is acting in violation of the law.
> What an imbicile. I would hope that those supporting her would re- examine that support.
> 
> TRUE: Kim Davis Has Been Married Four Times


"Rumor around Morehead has it that one of her ex-husbands might have left her for a man. Is that true?" lol


----------



## ogibillm

AvgGuyIA said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> You liberals are evil in your celebration of this political prisoner's imprisonment.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not political, she's breaking the law, and now in jail where she belongs for doing so...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's political.  We know who is on what side here.  America has jailed a political prisoner..a Christian.  Obama has declared war on Christians and is no different than ISIS.
Click to expand...

in no way shape or form is the idiot a political prisoner.


----------



## Ravi

martybegan said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what will happen when a priest refuses to marry gays?  As for this gal, I tend to agree, you work for the government, this is your job... what happens thought when they try this in the private sector?  And they will, bet your ass that's next up.  I wonder if the "separation of church and state" nutters will be crying when the state meddles in the affairs of the church?
> 
> 
> 
> The state can't meddle in church affairs regarding weddings. Church may or may not perform ceremonies as they please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, forever. A church doesn't have to accept members that don't follow their doctrine and doesn't have to marry non-members, period.
> 
> You can pretend all you want that this is some kind of slippery slope but it simply is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, they will just go after their tax exempt status, and anything else than can to punish them.
Click to expand...

They shouldn't have tax exempt status for many reasons, the main one is that it violates the 1st amendment.


----------



## martybegan

Ravi said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what will happen when a priest refuses to marry gays?  As for this gal, I tend to agree, you work for the government, this is your job... what happens thought when they try this in the private sector?  And they will, bet your ass that's next up.  I wonder if the "separation of church and state" nutters will be crying when the state meddles in the affairs of the church?
> 
> 
> 
> The state can't meddle in church affairs regarding weddings. Church may or may not perform ceremonies as they please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, forever. A church doesn't have to accept members that don't follow their doctrine and doesn't have to marry non-members, period.
> 
> You can pretend all you want that this is some kind of slippery slope but it simply is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, they will just go after their tax exempt status, and anything else than can to punish them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They shouldn't have tax exempt status for many reasons, the main one is that it violates the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...


How so?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

mudwhistle said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *MLK wasn't getting paid by government for what he did, and was working to stop segregation, not enforce it like she is.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If marriage is a right, then anyone can marry.
> 
> No??????
> 
> WTF!!!!
Click to expand...



Consenting adults.

Yes. 

MYOB



.


----------



## ogibillm

AvgGuyIA said:


> I hope their are prayer vigils outside the jail with thousands of their knees praying for the restoration our our first amendment rights to worship and practice our religion without government interference.


she has the right to worship and practice her religion without interference. her rights end when they begin to infringe on the rights of others.


----------



## asaratis

ogibillm said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> how can you claim that she isn't denying them and then point out that she is in fact denying them?
> doublethink?
> 
> 
> 
> Easy. She gave them other options. Probably gave them directions as well. At the end of the day, they can still get married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesnt work like that. If she offers anyone licenses she has to offer all. Thats why she is in the pokey now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it doesn't really work like that either. she can't deny licenses to everyone just so gays won't get them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well....we want Obama to enforce immigration laws and he refuses.....So fuck it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> see, that's just ignorant. he isn't enforcing the law the way you would like him too, but it is dishonest to claim our laws aren't being enforced.
Click to expand...

If you think Obama and Holder are enforcing the immigration laws of this country, you are a complete fool.  They are thumbing their noses at the laws of the land.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Ravi said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what will happen when a priest refuses to marry gays?  As for this gal, I tend to agree, you work for the government, this is your job... what happens thought when they try this in the private sector?  And they will, bet your ass that's next up.  I wonder if the "separation of church and state" nutters will be crying when the state meddles in the affairs of the church?
> 
> 
> 
> The state can't meddle in church affairs regarding weddings. Church may or may not perform ceremonies as they please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, forever. A church doesn't have to accept members that don't follow their doctrine and doesn't have to marry non-members, period.
> 
> You can pretend all you want that this is some kind of slippery slope but it simply is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, they will just go after their tax exempt status, and anything else than can to punish them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They shouldn't have tax exempt status for many reasons, the main one is that it violates the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...



Hate groups shouldn't have tax free status. 

But they do.


----------



## TheOldSchool

norwegen said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> She isn't denying them anything other than a license from her. They can always get one.....They just have to get into their cars and drive to another county.
> 
> 
> 
> how can you claim that she isn't denying them and then point out that she is in fact denying them?
> doublethink?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy. She gave them other options. Probably gave them directions as well. At the end of the day, they can still get married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what gives her the right to decide who does and does not receive county services?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She does not keep the same sex couples from getting licenses.  She just refuses to be the one that signs it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When liberals say that gays are denied their "right" to marry, they mean that the faggots are too stupid to realize the state has more than one county.
> 
> As for this woman, she is within her rights to defy an illegitimate law.
Click to expand...

You should go visit her in prison and tell her that


----------



## norwegen

Ravi said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> how can you claim that she isn't denying them and then point out that she is in fact denying them?
> doublethink?
> 
> 
> 
> Easy. She gave them other options. Probably gave them directions as well. At the end of the day, they can still get married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what gives her the right to decide who does and does not receive county services?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She does not keep the same sex couples from getting licenses.  She just refuses to be the one that signs it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When liberals say that gays are denied their "right" to marry, they mean that the faggots are too stupid to realize the state has more than one county.
> 
> As for this woman, she is within her rights to defy an illegitimate law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you have to leave your home county to get married? That's fascist.
Click to expand...




ogibillm said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She broke the law. I respect her non violent protest. Civil disobedience. But...she went too far with breaking the law.
> 
> 
> 
> She broke an illegitimate law.  She broke a law that violated her religious liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the office of county clerk does not have religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

Uh, yea.

The rest of us are talking about a woman.


----------



## Ravi

martybegan said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state can't meddle in church affairs regarding weddings. Church may or may not perform ceremonies as they please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, forever. A church doesn't have to accept members that don't follow their doctrine and doesn't have to marry non-members, period.
> 
> You can pretend all you want that this is some kind of slippery slope but it simply is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, they will just go after their tax exempt status, and anything else than can to punish them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They shouldn't have tax exempt status for many reasons, the main one is that it violates the 1st amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?
Click to expand...

Congress shall make no law....but a law was made granting them exemption.


----------



## martybegan

Luddly Neddite said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state can't meddle in church affairs regarding weddings. Church may or may not perform ceremonies as they please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, forever. A church doesn't have to accept members that don't follow their doctrine and doesn't have to marry non-members, period.
> 
> You can pretend all you want that this is some kind of slippery slope but it simply is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, they will just go after their tax exempt status, and anything else than can to punish them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They shouldn't have tax exempt status for many reasons, the main one is that it violates the 1st amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hate groups shouldn't have tax free status.
> 
> But they do.
Click to expand...


You consider the Catholic Church a hate group? What about your local Mosque?


----------



## Ravi

Deputy clerks are now saying they will issue the licenses.


----------



## asaratis

Hutch Starskey said:


> Apparently this warrior in God's army may be more flawed than the people she is choosing to moralize on. It seems she has been married four times, had adulterous relationships that resulted in children born out of wedlock. Now here she is passing judgement on those who wish to marry and is acting in violation of the law.
> What an imbicile. I would hope that those supporting her would re- examine that support.
> 
> TRUE: Kim Davis Has Been Married Four Times


I have hoped the same for supporters of liberals and Marxists for years.   Only a fool can think like a liberal.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

PaintMyHouse said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> You liberals are evil in your celebration of this political prisoner's imprisonment.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not political, she's breaking the law, and now in jail where she belongs for doing so...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and where Obama should be for breaking the law...and where Hillary should be for breaking the law...
> 
> Your selective application of rules to follow is understandable.  Liberals are some sick people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike your other two examples, this one has actually been convicted by an actual court...
Click to expand...

What conviction?  No trial, just thrown in jail for political reasons.  This gay marriage is not settled by the people.  Until then she is a political prisoner.


----------



## martybegan

Ravi said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> For now.
> 
> 
> 
> No, forever. A church doesn't have to accept members that don't follow their doctrine and doesn't have to marry non-members, period.
> 
> You can pretend all you want that this is some kind of slippery slope but it simply is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, they will just go after their tax exempt status, and anything else than can to punish them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They shouldn't have tax exempt status for many reasons, the main one is that it violates the 1st amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress shall make no law....but a law was made granting them exemption.
Click to expand...


establishing a religion, or preventing free exercise thereof, By treating them as any other non-profit, how is that treating them differently?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

asaratis said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy. She gave them other options. Probably gave them directions as well. At the end of the day, they can still get married.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesnt work like that. If she offers anyone licenses she has to offer all. Thats why she is in the pokey now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it doesn't really work like that either. she can't deny licenses to everyone just so gays won't get them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well....we want Obama to enforce immigration laws and he refuses.....So fuck it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> see, that's just ignorant. he isn't enforcing the law the way you would like him too, but it is dishonest to claim our laws aren't being enforced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think Obama and Holder are enforcing the immigration laws of this country, you are a complete fool.  They are thumbing their noses at the laws of the land.
Click to expand...



Oh please. That's such a dumb thing to say.

Net zero illegals coming in, increased to more than 18,500 Border Patrol, deported more illegals than any other president.


----------



## LittleNipper

Luddly Neddite said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state can't meddle in church affairs regarding weddings. Church may or may not perform ceremonies as they please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, forever. A church doesn't have to accept members that don't follow their doctrine and doesn't have to marry non-members, period.
> 
> You can pretend all you want that this is some kind of slippery slope but it simply is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, they will just go after their tax exempt status, and anything else than can to punish them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They shouldn't have tax exempt status for many reasons, the main one is that it violates the 1st amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hate groups shouldn't have tax free status.
> 
> But they do.
Click to expand...

Do you really want to go there? Anytime one person disagrees with another or a group, one could simply draw the "Hate" card. This would end freedom of speech. Of course, we still have out thoughts ---- but, one can only imagine what the government would do if they could tap that...


----------



## Luddly Neddite

AvgGuyIA said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> You liberals are evil in your celebration of this political prisoner's imprisonment.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not political, she's breaking the law, and now in jail where she belongs for doing so...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and where Obama should be for breaking the law...and where Hillary should be for breaking the law...
> 
> Your selective application of rules to follow is understandable.  Liberals are some sick people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike your other two examples, this one has actually been convicted by an actual court...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What conviction?  No trial, just thrown in jail for political reasons.  This gay marriage is not settled by the people.  Until then she is a political prisoner.
Click to expand...



IOW, you STILL don't understand what SCOTUS does.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

LittleNipper said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> For now.
> 
> 
> 
> No, forever. A church doesn't have to accept members that don't follow their doctrine and doesn't have to marry non-members, period.
> 
> You can pretend all you want that this is some kind of slippery slope but it simply is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, they will just go after their tax exempt status, and anything else than can to punish them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They shouldn't have tax exempt status for many reasons, the main one is that it violates the 1st amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hate groups shouldn't have tax free status.
> 
> But they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you really want to go there? Anytime one person disagrees with another or a group, one could simply draw the "Hate" card. This would end freedom of speech. Of course, we still have out thoughts ---- but, one can only imagine what the government would do if they could tap that...
Click to expand...



I don't think legit religions should have tax free status either.


----------



## Preacher

TYRANNY UPDATE:  Judge Orders Christian Woman to Jail because She Refuses to Violate her Faith

Christians,while I am NOT one of you I respect ANYONE who stands for their faith so much they are willing to be thrown in jail rather than bend to the tyrants rule deserves respect. This is without a doubt in my mind the beginning of the assault on christianity and those that believe in it and stand by its doctrines. Now just a few quotes for you all.

There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.
Charles de Montesquieu

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
Edmund Burke

This judges ruling is PROOF that neither he nor the plaintiffs are interested in "marriage" they are interested in this martyr violating her faith by approving these "marriages" The Kentucky Legislature has had 3 months to impeach Kim Davis why haven't they? The judge can rule her to be absent since his tyrannical ass just tossed a woman in jail for following her faith he will still not rule her absent. He is ALSO threatening to throw the rest of the clerks in court for following their faith as well.Its time to march on the court and give this tyrant a tyrants just desserts.

Oh and for any CLOWNS in here. This woman may have been married 4 times but she has also only been a christian for 4 years. GET OVER IT and stop hiding your bigotry trying to destroy her religious rights.

People this is what our forefathers FOUGHT FOR! Its WHY the USA was founded! STAND! FIGHT! RESIST!


----------



## ogibillm

norwegen said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy. She gave them other options. Probably gave them directions as well. At the end of the day, they can still get married.
> 
> 
> 
> what gives her the right to decide who does and does not receive county services?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She does not keep the same sex couples from getting licenses.  She just refuses to be the one that signs it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When liberals say that gays are denied their "right" to marry, they mean that the faggots are too stupid to realize the state has more than one county.
> 
> As for this woman, she is within her rights to defy an illegitimate law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you have to leave your home county to get married? That's fascist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She broke the law. I respect her non violent protest. Civil disobedience. But...she went too far with breaking the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She broke an illegitimate law.  She broke a law that violated her religious liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the office of county clerk does not have religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh, yea.
> 
> The rest of us are talking about a woman.
Click to expand...

and when she's acting in the capacity of the office of county clerk her religious convictions are irrelevant
if her religious convictions pushed her to deny marriage licenses to interracial couples would you support her? if she didn't want to grant licenses to interfaith marriages, would you support her? licenses to divorced individuals? some county clerks oversee elections - if she held religious beliefs that women shouldn't vote, does she get to turn them away from the polls and claim religious persecution if anyone has a problem with that?


----------



## ogibillm

AvgGuyIA said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> You liberals are evil in your celebration of this political prisoner's imprisonment.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not political, she's breaking the law, and now in jail where she belongs for doing so...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and where Obama should be for breaking the law...and where Hillary should be for breaking the law...
> 
> Your selective application of rules to follow is understandable.  Liberals are some sick people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike your other two examples, this one has actually been convicted by an actual court...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What conviction?  No trial, just thrown in jail for political reasons.  This gay marriage is not settled by the people.  Until then she is a political prisoner.
Click to expand...

how hard is it for you to understand that she was not thrown in jail for political reasons? she was thrown in jail for contempt of a court order.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

This isn't "tyranny" this is hopey changey.


----------



## norwegen

ogibillm said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> what gives her the right to decide who does and does not receive county services?
> 
> 
> 
> She does not keep the same sex couples from getting licenses.  She just refuses to be the one that signs it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When liberals say that gays are denied their "right" to marry, they mean that the faggots are too stupid to realize the state has more than one county.
> 
> As for this woman, she is within her rights to defy an illegitimate law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you have to leave your home county to get married? That's fascist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She broke the law. I respect her non violent protest. Civil disobedience. But...she went too far with breaking the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She broke an illegitimate law.  She broke a law that violated her religious liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the office of county clerk does not have religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh, yea.
> 
> The rest of us are talking about a woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and when she's acting in the capacity of the office of county clerk her religious convictions are irrelevant
Click to expand...

No they're not.


----------



## ogibillm

Luddly Neddite said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesnt work like that. If she offers anyone licenses she has to offer all. Thats why she is in the pokey now.
> 
> 
> 
> it doesn't really work like that either. she can't deny licenses to everyone just so gays won't get them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well....we want Obama to enforce immigration laws and he refuses.....So fuck it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> see, that's just ignorant. he isn't enforcing the law the way you would like him too, but it is dishonest to claim our laws aren't being enforced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think Obama and Holder are enforcing the immigration laws of this country, you are a complete fool.  They are thumbing their noses at the laws of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please. That's such a dumb thing to say.
> 
> Net zero illegals coming in, increased to more than 18,500 Border Patrol, deported more illegals than any other president.
Click to expand...

it's just partisan ignorance. some people will believe anything.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Well they called Lincoln a tyrant too.


----------



## Vandalshandle

AvgGuyIA said:


> I hope their are prayer vigils outside the jail with thousands of their knees praying for the restoration our our first amendment rights to worship and practice our religion without government interference.



We seeded the grounds with fire ants.....


----------



## ogibillm

norwegen said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> She does not keep the same sex couples from getting licenses.  She just refuses to be the one that signs it.
> 
> 
> 
> When liberals say that gays are denied their "right" to marry, they mean that the faggots are too stupid to realize the state has more than one county.
> 
> As for this woman, she is within her rights to defy an illegitimate law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you have to leave your home county to get married? That's fascist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She broke the law. I respect her non violent protest. Civil disobedience. But...she went too far with breaking the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She broke an illegitimate law.  She broke a law that violated her religious liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the office of county clerk does not have religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh, yea.
> 
> The rest of us are talking about a woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and when she's acting in the capacity of the office of county clerk her religious convictions are irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they're not.
Click to expand...

they absolutely are. she's an agent of the government, and when acting as such her religious convictions are irrelevant - but more than that your rights do not ever give you the right to infringe upon the rights of others. her religious liberty stops when it begins to infringe on equal access and service for the people she serves.


----------



## Muhammed

I would LMAO if the judge got fried by lightning or some other unfortunate accident.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Ravi said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what will happen when a priest refuses to marry gays?  As for this gal, I tend to agree, you work for the government, this is your job... what happens thought when they try this in the private sector?  And they will, bet your ass that's next up.  I wonder if the "separation of church and state" nutters will be crying when the state meddles in the affairs of the church?
> 
> 
> 
> The state can't meddle in church affairs regarding weddings. Church may or may not perform ceremonies as they please.
Click to expand...


Well, I agree.  But this issue will be pushed, trust me.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

AvgGuyIA said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> You liberals are evil in your celebration of this political prisoner's imprisonment.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not political, she's breaking the law, and now in jail where she belongs for doing so...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and where Obama should be for breaking the law...and where Hillary should be for breaking the law...
> 
> Your selective application of rules to follow is understandable.  Liberals are some sick people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike your other two examples, this one has actually been convicted by an actual court...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What conviction?  No trial, just thrown in jail for political reasons.  This gay marriage is not settled by the people.  Until then she is a political prisoner.
Click to expand...

The "people" don't, and never should have been, given a say.  It isn't up to them.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Muhammed said:


> I would LMAO if the judge got fried by lightning or some other unfortunate accident.


If she does the world a favor, and kills herself in prison, I'll laugh with you...


----------



## LittleNipper

Luddly Neddite said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, forever. A church doesn't have to accept members that don't follow their doctrine and doesn't have to marry non-members, period.
> 
> You can pretend all you want that this is some kind of slippery slope but it simply is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, they will just go after their tax exempt status, and anything else than can to punish them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They shouldn't have tax exempt status for many reasons, the main one is that it violates the 1st amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hate groups shouldn't have tax free status.
> 
> But they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you really want to go there? Anytime one person disagrees with another or a group, one could simply draw the "Hate" card. This would end freedom of speech. Of course, we still have out thoughts ---- but, one can only imagine what the government would do if they could tap that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think legit religions should have tax free status either.
Click to expand...

 The Church does for the soul what a hospital does for the body. In fact, very often once the soul has been healed the body also benefits.   So my guess is that you feel that hospitals should not be tax exempt. With what they charge for a room, perhaps that is logical at that!!!!!


----------



## Preacher

NYcarbineer said:


> Well they called Lincoln a tyrant too.


While this is NOT about Lincoln I will leave a tad bit of facts with you,you can check for yourself. 

In his _first four months_, he


Failed to call Congress into session after the South fired upon Fort Sumter, in direct violation of the Constitution.
Called up an army of 75,000 men, bypassing the Congressional authority in direct violation of the Constitution.
Unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a function of Congress, violating the Constitution. This gave him the power, as he saw it, to arrest civilians without charge and imprison them indefinitely without trial—which he did.
Ignored a Supreme Court order to restore the right of habeas corpus, thus violating the Constitution again and ignoring the Separation of Powers which the Founders put in place exactly for the purpose of preventing one man’s using tyrannical powers in the executive.
When the Chief Justice forwarded a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision to Lincoln, he wrote out an order for the arrest of the Chief Justice and gave it to a U.S. Marshall for expedition, in violation of the Constitution.
Unilaterally ordered a naval blockade of southern ports, an act of war, and a responsibility of Congress, in violation of the Constitution.
Commandeered and closed over 300 newspapers in the _North_, because of editorials against his war policy and his illegal military invasion of the South. This clearly violated the First Amendment freedom of speech and press clauses.
Sent in Army forces to destroy the printing presses and other machinery at those newspapers, in violation of the Constitution.
Arrested the publishers, editors and owners of those newspapers, and imprisoned them without charge and without trial for the remainder of the war, all in direct violation of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court order aforementioned.
Arrested and imprisoned, without charge or trial, another 15,000-20,000 U.S. citizens who dared to speak out against the war, his policies, or were suspected of anti-war feelings. (Relative to the population at the time, this would be equivalent to President G.W. Bush arresting and imprisoning roughly 150,000-200,000 Americans without trial for “disagreeing” with the Iraq war; can you imagine?)
Sent the Army to arrest the _entire legislature_ of Maryland to keep them from meeting legally, because they were debating a bill of secession; they were all imprisoned without charge or trial, in direct violation of the Constitution.
Unilaterally created the state of West Virginia in direct violation of the Constitution.
Sent 350,000 Northern men to their deaths to kill 350,000 Southern men in order to force the free and sovereign states of the South to remain in the Union they, the people, legally voted to peacefully withdraw from, all in order to continue the South’s revenue flow into the North.
The Terrible Truth About Abraham Lincoln and the Confederate War


----------



## PaintMyHouse

AvgGuyIA said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> You liberals are evil in your celebration of this political prisoner's imprisonment.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not political, she's breaking the law, and now in jail where she belongs for doing so...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and where Obama should be for breaking the law...and where Hillary should be for breaking the law...
> 
> Your selective application of rules to follow is understandable.  Liberals are some sick people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike your other two examples, this one has actually been convicted by an actual court...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What conviction?  No trial, just thrown in jail for political reasons.  This gay marriage is not settled by the people.  Until then she is a political prisoner.
Click to expand...

She has been convicted of Contempt of Court: 

*"Contempt of court*, often referred to simply as "*contempt*", is the offense of being disobedient to or disrespectful towards a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies authority, justice, and dignity of the court.[1][2] It manifests itself in willful disregard of or disrespect for the authority of a court of law, which is often behavior that is illegal because it does not obey or respect the rules of a law court.[3][4]"
Contempt of court - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Vandalshandle

Ravi said:


> Deputy clerks are now saying they will issue the licenses.





LittleNipper said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, they will just go after their tax exempt status, and anything else than can to punish them.
> 
> 
> 
> They shouldn't have tax exempt status for many reasons, the main one is that it violates the 1st amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hate groups shouldn't have tax free status.
> 
> But they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you really want to go there? Anytime one person disagrees with another or a group, one could simply draw the "Hate" card. This would end freedom of speech. Of course, we still have out thoughts ---- but, one can only imagine what the government would do if they could tap that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think legit religions should have tax free status either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Church does for the soul what a hospital does for the body. So my guess is that you feel that hospitals should not be tax exempt. With what they charge for a room, perhaps that is logical at that!!!!!
Click to expand...


Well, the last time I was in a hospital, they gave me a colonoscopy for my body. What will the church do for my soul?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Odium said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well they called Lincoln a tyrant too.
> 
> 
> 
> While this is NOT about Lincoln I will leave a tad bit of facts with you,you can check for yourself.
> 
> In his _first four months_, he
> 
> 
> Failed to call Congress into session after the South fired upon Fort Sumter, in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Called up an army of 75,000 men, bypassing the Congressional authority in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a function of Congress, violating the Constitution. This gave him the power, as he saw it, to arrest civilians without charge and imprison them indefinitely without trial—which he did.
> Ignored a Supreme Court order to restore the right of habeas corpus, thus violating the Constitution again and ignoring the Separation of Powers which the Founders put in place exactly for the purpose of preventing one man’s using tyrannical powers in the executive.
> When the Chief Justice forwarded a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision to Lincoln, he wrote out an order for the arrest of the Chief Justice and gave it to a U.S. Marshall for expedition, in violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally ordered a naval blockade of southern ports, an act of war, and a responsibility of Congress, in violation of the Constitution.
> Commandeered and closed over 300 newspapers in the _North_, because of editorials against his war policy and his illegal military invasion of the South. This clearly violated the First Amendment freedom of speech and press clauses.
> Sent in Army forces to destroy the printing presses and other machinery at those newspapers, in violation of the Constitution.
> Arrested the publishers, editors and owners of those newspapers, and imprisoned them without charge and without trial for the remainder of the war, all in direct violation of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court order aforementioned.
> Arrested and imprisoned, without charge or trial, another 15,000-20,000 U.S. citizens who dared to speak out against the war, his policies, or were suspected of anti-war feelings. (Relative to the population at the time, this would be equivalent to President G.W. Bush arresting and imprisoning roughly 150,000-200,000 Americans without trial for “disagreeing” with the Iraq war; can you imagine?)
> Sent the Army to arrest the _entire legislature_ of Maryland to keep them from meeting legally, because they were debating a bill of secession; they were all imprisoned without charge or trial, in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally created the state of West Virginia in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Sent 350,000 Northern men to their deaths to kill 350,000 Southern men in order to force the free and sovereign states of the South to remain in the Union they, the people, legally voted to peacefully withdraw from, all in order to continue the South’s revenue flow into the North.
> The Terrible Truth About Abraham Lincoln and the Confederate War
Click to expand...


You lost and you lost your slaves.  Get over it.


----------



## boedicca

Looks like Obama finally has a shovel ready project building Gulags for those commit Thought Crimes.

Hopenchange!


----------



## norwegen

ogibillm said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> When liberals say that gays are denied their "right" to marry, they mean that the faggots are too stupid to realize the state has more than one county.
> 
> As for this woman, she is within her rights to defy an illegitimate law.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you have to leave your home county to get married? That's fascist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> She broke an illegitimate law.  She broke a law that violated her religious liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the office of county clerk does not have religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh, yea.
> 
> The rest of us are talking about a woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and when she's acting in the capacity of the office of county clerk her religious convictions are irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they absolutely are. she's an agent of the government, and when acting as such her religious convictions are irrelevant - but more than that your rights do not ever give you the right to infringe upon the rights of others. her religious liberty stops when it begins to infringe on equal access and service for the people she serves.
Click to expand...

Her religious convictions are not ever irrelevant.  Not if those convictions are Christian.  Ever.

She is not abridging anyone's rights.    And if you persist in thinking (and I use that term loosely) she is, then blame the judge, too.  He removed her from her post.


----------



## g5000

Vandalshandle said:


> ...for failure to obey court order of issuing marraige licenses to gay couples.
> 
> News from The Associated Press


Ka-ching!  The martyr is going to be rich!  The rubes are going to stampede to PayPal.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ah yes, tyranny...

*"Let us rise to the call of freedom-loving blood that is in us, and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South.  In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw a line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say, segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever."*
*
George Wallace.*


----------



## EriktheRed

What happened to all that gloating we saw from the OP in that other thread?


----------



## Muhammed

PaintMyHouse said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would LMAO if the judge got fried by lightning or some other unfortunate accident.
> 
> 
> 
> If she does the world a favor, and kills herself in prison, I'll laugh with you...
Click to expand...


I have a suspicion you're stoned and/or drunk.


----------



## RodISHI

NYcarbineer said:


> Well they called Lincoln a tyrant too.


Was Lincoln talking about Sodomites too! I think not he came from a Quaker community. You have failed again.


----------



## Vandalshandle

g5000 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...for failure to obey court order of issuing marraige licenses to gay couples.
> 
> News from The Associated Press
> 
> 
> 
> Ka-ching!  The martyr is going to be rich!  The rubes are going to stampede to PayPal.
Click to expand...


The woman should have stayed out of jail. Who knows? Bristol may yet find a man who will marry her! Society needs this woman!


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Odium said:


> TYRANNY UPDATE:  Judge Orders Christian Woman to Jail because She Refuses to Violate her Faith


So glad that **** is behind bars, where she belongs.  Now if only the rest of her life falls as much apart.

Good luck, bitch, you'll need it a lot more than that God of yours if there is any justice left in the world...


----------



## Blackrook

If we support the Christian clerk for refusing to do her job based on her religious objections, then we must also support the Muslim stewardess who refuses to sell alcohol based on her religious objections.

Blog: Religious liberty: The Kentucky county clerk and the Muslim flight attendant

Best advice I think, get a job that you can do without requiring you to do something against your religion.


----------



## nuhuh

The hate within Kim Davis is the same hate that got Jesus Christ crucified. A County Clerk has no business deciding who gets married, end of story. What if she was a Muslim and denied a permit based on something from the Koran? What if she were a Jew and denied a permit to a food establishment because it was not Kosher? What if she was Wiccan and denied a permit for a religious statue? Get it? An elected county clerk was put into office by a bunch of fellow religious people and decided that she was going to take the responsibility of interpreting the law the way she sees fit, not what the courts dictate or anyone else.

I recall  Sandra Day O' Connor saying something relevant and I will quote it loosely: "Those that would debate the boundary between church and state must ask themselves a question "Why would we trade a system of government that has served us so well for one that has served others so badly?" This isn't an assault on Christianity, it is an assault on secular Democracy.


----------



## ogibillm

norwegen said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you have to leave your home county to get married? That's fascist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> the office of county clerk does not have religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh, yea.
> 
> The rest of us are talking about a woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and when she's acting in the capacity of the office of county clerk her religious convictions are irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they absolutely are. she's an agent of the government, and when acting as such her religious convictions are irrelevant - but more than that your rights do not ever give you the right to infringe upon the rights of others. her religious liberty stops when it begins to infringe on equal access and service for the people she serves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her religious convictions are not ever irrelevant.  Not if those convictions are Christian.  Ever.
> 
> She is not abridging anyone's rights.    And if you persist in thinking (and I use that term loosely) she is, then blame the judge, too.  He removed her from her post.
Click to expand...

her religious convictions only matter if she is a christian?

she is infringing on the rights of the people of her county - she's refusing to issue marriage licenses, a service they have a right to

again, i'll ask, if her convictions kept her from issuing licenses to interfaith or interracial couples would you support those convictions? if she didnt allow women to vote, would you support those religious convictions?


----------



## Blackrook

Odium said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well they called Lincoln a tyrant too.
> 
> 
> 
> While this is NOT about Lincoln I will leave a tad bit of facts with you,you can check for yourself.
> 
> In his _first four months_, he
> 
> 
> Failed to call Congress into session after the South fired upon Fort Sumter, in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Called up an army of 75,000 men, bypassing the Congressional authority in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a function of Congress, violating the Constitution. This gave him the power, as he saw it, to arrest civilians without charge and imprison them indefinitely without trial—which he did.
> Ignored a Supreme Court order to restore the right of habeas corpus, thus violating the Constitution again and ignoring the Separation of Powers which the Founders put in place exactly for the purpose of preventing one man’s using tyrannical powers in the executive.
> When the Chief Justice forwarded a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision to Lincoln, he wrote out an order for the arrest of the Chief Justice and gave it to a U.S. Marshall for expedition, in violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally ordered a naval blockade of southern ports, an act of war, and a responsibility of Congress, in violation of the Constitution.
> Commandeered and closed over 300 newspapers in the _North_, because of editorials against his war policy and his illegal military invasion of the South. This clearly violated the First Amendment freedom of speech and press clauses.
> Sent in Army forces to destroy the printing presses and other machinery at those newspapers, in violation of the Constitution.
> Arrested the publishers, editors and owners of those newspapers, and imprisoned them without charge and without trial for the remainder of the war, all in direct violation of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court order aforementioned.
> Arrested and imprisoned, without charge or trial, another 15,000-20,000 U.S. citizens who dared to speak out against the war, his policies, or were suspected of anti-war feelings. (Relative to the population at the time, this would be equivalent to President G.W. Bush arresting and imprisoning roughly 150,000-200,000 Americans without trial for “disagreeing” with the Iraq war; can you imagine?)
> Sent the Army to arrest the _entire legislature_ of Maryland to keep them from meeting legally, because they were debating a bill of secession; they were all imprisoned without charge or trial, in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally created the state of West Virginia in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Sent 350,000 Northern men to their deaths to kill 350,000 Southern men in order to force the free and sovereign states of the South to remain in the Union they, the people, legally voted to peacefully withdraw from, all in order to continue the South’s revenue flow into the North.
> The Terrible Truth About Abraham Lincoln and the Confederate War
Click to expand...

Once rebellion starts, a US President can do almost anything under his power as  Commander in Chief.


----------



## RodISHI

Blackrook said:


> If we support the Christian clerk for refusing to do her job based on her religious objections, then we must also support the Muslim stewardess who refuses to sell alcohol based on her religious objections.
> 
> Blog: Religious liberty: The Kentucky county clerk and the Muslim flight attendant
> 
> Best advice I think, get a job that you can do without requiring you to do something against your religion.


I think better that the people awaken to what is transpiring in their country and double down to fight this beast. Losers capitulate winners do not.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Ravi said:


> Deputy clerks are now saying they will issue the licenses.




That's funny.

All so she can violate the law and take basic rights away from Americans.

And yet, we hear that the poor "christians" are the victims.


----------



## Rotagilla

Odium said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well they called Lincoln a tyrant too.
> 
> 
> 
> While this is NOT about Lincoln I will leave a tad bit of facts with you,you can check for yourself.
> 
> In his _first four months_, he
> 
> 
> Failed to call Congress into session after the South fired upon Fort Sumter, in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Called up an army of 75,000 men, bypassing the Congressional authority in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a function of Congress, violating the Constitution. This gave him the power, as he saw it, to arrest civilians without charge and imprison them indefinitely without trial—which he did.
> Ignored a Supreme Court order to restore the right of habeas corpus, thus violating the Constitution again and ignoring the Separation of Powers which the Founders put in place exactly for the purpose of preventing one man’s using tyrannical powers in the executive.
> When the Chief Justice forwarded a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision to Lincoln, he wrote out an order for the arrest of the Chief Justice and gave it to a U.S. Marshall for expedition, in violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally ordered a naval blockade of southern ports, an act of war, and a responsibility of Congress, in violation of the Constitution.
> Commandeered and closed over 300 newspapers in the _North_, because of editorials against his war policy and his illegal military invasion of the South. This clearly violated the First Amendment freedom of speech and press clauses.
> Sent in Army forces to destroy the printing presses and other machinery at those newspapers, in violation of the Constitution.
> Arrested the publishers, editors and owners of those newspapers, and imprisoned them without charge and without trial for the remainder of the war, all in direct violation of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court order aforementioned.
> Arrested and imprisoned, without charge or trial, another 15,000-20,000 U.S. citizens who dared to speak out against the war, his policies, or were suspected of anti-war feelings. (Relative to the population at the time, this would be equivalent to President G.W. Bush arresting and imprisoning roughly 150,000-200,000 Americans without trial for “disagreeing” with the Iraq war; can you imagine?)
> Sent the Army to arrest the _entire legislature_ of Maryland to keep them from meeting legally, because they were debating a bill of secession; they were all imprisoned without charge or trial, in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally created the state of West Virginia in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Sent 350,000 Northern men to their deaths to kill 350,000 Southern men in order to force the free and sovereign states of the South to remain in the Union they, the people, legally voted to peacefully withdraw from, all in order to continue the South’s revenue flow into the North.
> The Terrible Truth About Abraham Lincoln and the Confederate War
Click to expand...


then he unleashed his army to invade the south and when the south tried to defend itself he used it as an excuse to wage all out, scorched earth war on civilians...rape, robbery and murder...stealing their belongings, seizing their property and "redistributing" it, burning their homes and businesses, wrecking the infrastructure...fellow americans who only wanted to peacefully withdraw from the union.

THEN there was the "reconstruction" where he appointed unelected provisional military governors to further punish the south..  many Southern families of that day lost far more than one member to Northern Aggression and in the end were  governed by corrupt, perpetually aggrieved politicians appointed to take them down even further. 

"As between the loss of independence and the loss of slavery, we assume that every patriot will freely give up the latter--give up the negro slave rather than be a slave himself. If we are correct in this assumption it only remains to show how this great national sacrifice is, in all human probabilities, to change the current of success and sweep the invader from our country,"

-- Jefferson Davis


----------



## TheOldSchool

NYcarbineer said:


> Well they called Lincoln a tyrant too.


And then they murdered him.  And MLK too.


----------



## RodISHI

Blackrook said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well they called Lincoln a tyrant too.
> 
> 
> 
> While this is NOT about Lincoln I will leave a tad bit of facts with you,you can check for yourself.
> 
> In his _first four months_, he
> 
> 
> Failed to call Congress into session after the South fired upon Fort Sumter, in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Called up an army of 75,000 men, bypassing the Congressional authority in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a function of Congress, violating the Constitution. This gave him the power, as he saw it, to arrest civilians without charge and imprison them indefinitely without trial—which he did.
> Ignored a Supreme Court order to restore the right of habeas corpus, thus violating the Constitution again and ignoring the Separation of Powers which the Founders put in place exactly for the purpose of preventing one man’s using tyrannical powers in the executive.
> When the Chief Justice forwarded a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision to Lincoln, he wrote out an order for the arrest of the Chief Justice and gave it to a U.S. Marshall for expedition, in violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally ordered a naval blockade of southern ports, an act of war, and a responsibility of Congress, in violation of the Constitution.
> Commandeered and closed over 300 newspapers in the _North_, because of editorials against his war policy and his illegal military invasion of the South. This clearly violated the First Amendment freedom of speech and press clauses.
> Sent in Army forces to destroy the printing presses and other machinery at those newspapers, in violation of the Constitution.
> Arrested the publishers, editors and owners of those newspapers, and imprisoned them without charge and without trial for the remainder of the war, all in direct violation of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court order aforementioned.
> Arrested and imprisoned, without charge or trial, another 15,000-20,000 U.S. citizens who dared to speak out against the war, his policies, or were suspected of anti-war feelings. (Relative to the population at the time, this would be equivalent to President G.W. Bush arresting and imprisoning roughly 150,000-200,000 Americans without trial for “disagreeing” with the Iraq war; can you imagine?)
> Sent the Army to arrest the _entire legislature_ of Maryland to keep them from meeting legally, because they were debating a bill of secession; they were all imprisoned without charge or trial, in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally created the state of West Virginia in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Sent 350,000 Northern men to their deaths to kill 350,000 Southern men in order to force the free and sovereign states of the South to remain in the Union they, the people, legally voted to peacefully withdraw from, all in order to continue the South’s revenue flow into the North.
> The Terrible Truth About Abraham Lincoln and the Confederate War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once rebellion starts, a US President can do almost anything under his power as  Commander in Chief.
Click to expand...

He's almost gone.


----------



## EriktheRed

RodISHI said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we support the Christian clerk for refusing to do her job based on her religious objections, then we must also support the Muslim stewardess who refuses to sell alcohol based on her religious objections.
> 
> Blog: Religious liberty: The Kentucky county clerk and the Muslim flight attendant
> 
> Best advice I think, get a job that you can do without requiring you to do something against your religion.
> 
> 
> 
> I think better that the people awaken to what is transpiring in their country and double down to fight this beast. Losers capitulate winners do not.
Click to expand...



Fag-bashers lost.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

norwegen said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you have to leave your home county to get married? That's fascist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> the office of county clerk does not have religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh, yea.
> 
> The rest of us are talking about a woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and when she's acting in the capacity of the office of county clerk her religious convictions are irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they absolutely are. she's an agent of the government, and when acting as such her religious convictions are irrelevant - but more than that your rights do not ever give you the right to infringe upon the rights of others. her religious liberty stops when it begins to infringe on equal access and service for the people she serves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her religious convictions are not ever irrelevant.  Not if those convictions are Christian.  Ever.
> 
> She is not abridging anyone's rights.    And if you persist in thinking (and I use that term loosely) she is, then blame the judge, too.  He removed her from her post.
Click to expand...



And if they were Muslim?

The RWs would be screaming for her head if she were Muslim. 

Hypocrites.


----------



## Preacher

NYcarbineer said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well they called Lincoln a tyrant too.
> 
> 
> 
> While this is NOT about Lincoln I will leave a tad bit of facts with you,you can check for yourself.
> 
> In his _first four months_, he
> 
> 
> Failed to call Congress into session after the South fired upon Fort Sumter, in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Called up an army of 75,000 men, bypassing the Congressional authority in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a function of Congress, violating the Constitution. This gave him the power, as he saw it, to arrest civilians without charge and imprison them indefinitely without trial—which he did.
> Ignored a Supreme Court order to restore the right of habeas corpus, thus violating the Constitution again and ignoring the Separation of Powers which the Founders put in place exactly for the purpose of preventing one man’s using tyrannical powers in the executive.
> When the Chief Justice forwarded a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision to Lincoln, he wrote out an order for the arrest of the Chief Justice and gave it to a U.S. Marshall for expedition, in violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally ordered a naval blockade of southern ports, an act of war, and a responsibility of Congress, in violation of the Constitution.
> Commandeered and closed over 300 newspapers in the _North_, because of editorials against his war policy and his illegal military invasion of the South. This clearly violated the First Amendment freedom of speech and press clauses.
> Sent in Army forces to destroy the printing presses and other machinery at those newspapers, in violation of the Constitution.
> Arrested the publishers, editors and owners of those newspapers, and imprisoned them without charge and without trial for the remainder of the war, all in direct violation of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court order aforementioned.
> Arrested and imprisoned, without charge or trial, another 15,000-20,000 U.S. citizens who dared to speak out against the war, his policies, or were suspected of anti-war feelings. (Relative to the population at the time, this would be equivalent to President G.W. Bush arresting and imprisoning roughly 150,000-200,000 Americans without trial for “disagreeing” with the Iraq war; can you imagine?)
> Sent the Army to arrest the _entire legislature_ of Maryland to keep them from meeting legally, because they were debating a bill of secession; they were all imprisoned without charge or trial, in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally created the state of West Virginia in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Sent 350,000 Northern men to their deaths to kill 350,000 Southern men in order to force the free and sovereign states of the South to remain in the Union they, the people, legally voted to peacefully withdraw from, all in order to continue the South’s revenue flow into the North.
> The Terrible Truth About Abraham Lincoln and the Confederate War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lost and you lost your slaves.  Get over it.
Click to expand...

Stop derailing my thread or I report you.



NYcarbineer said:


> Ah yes, tyranny...
> 
> *"Let us rise to the call of freedom-loving blood that is in us, and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South.  In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw a line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say, segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever."
> 
> George Wallace.*


Keep it up clown...one more time I report you


EriktheRed said:


> What happened to all that gloating we saw from the OP in that other thread?


I am still gloating because this just put the nail in the coffin of the demonazi party. You have become the party of intolerance for anyone who REFUSES to think,act,believe like you. Thanks! I said MANY times throwing her in jail would just make her a martyr and symbol of 21st century religious freedom. 


PaintMyHouse said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> TYRANNY UPDATE:  Judge Orders Christian Woman to Jail because She Refuses to Violate her Faith
> 
> 
> 
> So glad that **** is behind bars, where she belongs.  Now if only the rest of her life falls as much apart.
> 
> Good luck, bitch, you'll need it a lot more than that God of yours if there is any justice left in the world...
Click to expand...

State of Kentucky has had 3 months to kick her out of office...take it up with them you little faggot. Oh and watch your back.


Blackrook said:


> If we support the Christian clerk for refusing to do her job based on her religious objections, then we must also support the Muslim stewardess who refuses to sell alcohol based on her religious objections.
> 
> Blog: Religious liberty: The Kentucky county clerk and the Muslim flight attendant
> 
> Best advice I think, get a job that you can do without requiring you to do something against your religion.


That's fine with me! Religious freedom is religious freedom. PERIOD.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Rotagilla said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well they called Lincoln a tyrant too.
> 
> 
> 
> While this is NOT about Lincoln I will leave a tad bit of facts with you,you can check for yourself.
> 
> In his _first four months_, he
> 
> 
> Failed to call Congress into session after the South fired upon Fort Sumter, in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Called up an army of 75,000 men, bypassing the Congressional authority in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a function of Congress, violating the Constitution. This gave him the power, as he saw it, to arrest civilians without charge and imprison them indefinitely without trial—which he did.
> Ignored a Supreme Court order to restore the right of habeas corpus, thus violating the Constitution again and ignoring the Separation of Powers which the Founders put in place exactly for the purpose of preventing one man’s using tyrannical powers in the executive.
> When the Chief Justice forwarded a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision to Lincoln, he wrote out an order for the arrest of the Chief Justice and gave it to a U.S. Marshall for expedition, in violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally ordered a naval blockade of southern ports, an act of war, and a responsibility of Congress, in violation of the Constitution.
> Commandeered and closed over 300 newspapers in the _North_, because of editorials against his war policy and his illegal military invasion of the South. This clearly violated the First Amendment freedom of speech and press clauses.
> Sent in Army forces to destroy the printing presses and other machinery at those newspapers, in violation of the Constitution.
> Arrested the publishers, editors and owners of those newspapers, and imprisoned them without charge and without trial for the remainder of the war, all in direct violation of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court order aforementioned.
> Arrested and imprisoned, without charge or trial, another 15,000-20,000 U.S. citizens who dared to speak out against the war, his policies, or were suspected of anti-war feelings. (Relative to the population at the time, this would be equivalent to President G.W. Bush arresting and imprisoning roughly 150,000-200,000 Americans without trial for “disagreeing” with the Iraq war; can you imagine?)
> Sent the Army to arrest the _entire legislature_ of Maryland to keep them from meeting legally, because they were debating a bill of secession; they were all imprisoned without charge or trial, in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally created the state of West Virginia in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Sent 350,000 Northern men to their deaths to kill 350,000 Southern men in order to force the free and sovereign states of the South to remain in the Union they, the people, legally voted to peacefully withdraw from, all in order to continue the South’s revenue flow into the North.
> The Terrible Truth About Abraham Lincoln and the Confederate War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> then he unleashed his army to invade the south and when the south tried to defend itself he used it as an excuse to wage all out, scorched earth war on civilians...rape, robbery and murder...stealing their belongings, seizing their property and "redistributing" it, burning their homes and businesses, wrecking the infrastructure...fellow americans who only wanted to peacefully withdraw from the union.
> 
> THEN there was the "reconstruction" where he appointed unelected provisional military governors to further punish the south..  many Southern families of that day lost far more than one member to Northern Aggression and in the end were  governed by corrupt, perpetually aggrieved politicians appointed to take them down even further.
> 
> "As between the loss of independence and the loss of slavery, we assume that every patriot will freely give up the latter--give up the negro slave rather than be a slave himself. If we are correct in this assumption it only remains to show how this great national sacrifice is, in all human probabilities, to change the current of success and sweep the invader from our country,"
> 
> -- Jefferson Davis
Click to expand...

Then he made the mistake of showing the south mercy instead of finishing the job.


----------



## RodISHI

EriktheRed said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we support the Christian clerk for refusing to do her job based on her religious objections, then we must also support the Muslim stewardess who refuses to sell alcohol based on her religious objections.
> 
> Blog: Religious liberty: The Kentucky county clerk and the Muslim flight attendant
> 
> Best advice I think, get a job that you can do without requiring you to do something against your religion.
> 
> 
> 
> I think better that the people awaken to what is transpiring in their country and double down to fight this beast. Losers capitulate winners do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fag-bashers lost.
Click to expand...

Nah y'all just upped the game and showed your true colors and that your lil demons can celebrate for a moment or two before heading yourselves into the sea to be drowned like the rats you are.


----------



## Preacher

EriktheRed said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we support the Christian clerk for refusing to do her job based on her religious objections, then we must also support the Muslim stewardess who refuses to sell alcohol based on her religious objections.
> 
> Blog: Religious liberty: The Kentucky county clerk and the Muslim flight attendant
> 
> Best advice I think, get a job that you can do without requiring you to do something against your religion.
> 
> 
> 
> I think better that the people awaken to what is transpiring in their country and double down to fight this beast. Losers capitulate winners do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fag-bashers lost.
Click to expand...

LOL you think we lost? You moron you just made a martyr out of this woman...congrats. BIG mistake. You think you saw a wave of anti cultural marxism before? Just wait. You just woke up the religious right AND those like me that support religious freedom but aren't christians.


----------



## Rotagilla

Blackrook said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well they called Lincoln a tyrant too.
> 
> 
> 
> While this is NOT about Lincoln I will leave a tad bit of facts with you,you can check for yourself.
> 
> In his _first four months_, he
> 
> 
> Failed to call Congress into session after the South fired upon Fort Sumter, in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Called up an army of 75,000 men, bypassing the Congressional authority in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a function of Congress, violating the Constitution. This gave him the power, as he saw it, to arrest civilians without charge and imprison them indefinitely without trial—which he did.
> Ignored a Supreme Court order to restore the right of habeas corpus, thus violating the Constitution again and ignoring the Separation of Powers which the Founders put in place exactly for the purpose of preventing one man’s using tyrannical powers in the executive.
> When the Chief Justice forwarded a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision to Lincoln, he wrote out an order for the arrest of the Chief Justice and gave it to a U.S. Marshall for expedition, in violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally ordered a naval blockade of southern ports, an act of war, and a responsibility of Congress, in violation of the Constitution.
> Commandeered and closed over 300 newspapers in the _North_, because of editorials against his war policy and his illegal military invasion of the South. This clearly violated the First Amendment freedom of speech and press clauses.
> Sent in Army forces to destroy the printing presses and other machinery at those newspapers, in violation of the Constitution.
> Arrested the publishers, editors and owners of those newspapers, and imprisoned them without charge and without trial for the remainder of the war, all in direct violation of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court order aforementioned.
> Arrested and imprisoned, without charge or trial, another 15,000-20,000 U.S. citizens who dared to speak out against the war, his policies, or were suspected of anti-war feelings. (Relative to the population at the time, this would be equivalent to President G.W. Bush arresting and imprisoning roughly 150,000-200,000 Americans without trial for “disagreeing” with the Iraq war; can you imagine?)
> Sent the Army to arrest the _entire legislature_ of Maryland to keep them from meeting legally, because they were debating a bill of secession; they were all imprisoned without charge or trial, in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally created the state of West Virginia in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Sent 350,000 Northern men to their deaths to kill 350,000 Southern men in order to force the free and sovereign states of the South to remain in the Union they, the people, legally voted to peacefully withdraw from, all in order to continue the South’s revenue flow into the North.
> The Terrible Truth About Abraham Lincoln and the Confederate War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once rebellion starts, a US President can do almost anything under his power as  Commander in Chief.
Click to expand...


There was no rebellion. The south tried to peacefully withdraw..the north invaded and sent troops and ships to fort sumter.
As all patriots would, the south fired on the invaders. 

Just like the patriots did when they declared independence in 1776 and the british invaded.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

boedicca said:


> Looks like Obama finally has a shovel ready project building Gulags for those commit Thought Crimes.
> 
> Hopenchange!




Obama family did not pass the law.
The phony christian woman is not "thinking".
Unless you're in the wrong thread, this is just plain dumb.

How it is that the RWs are so ignorant about how our govt works as well as the role of SCOTUS?


,


----------



## Preacher

Rotagilla said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well they called Lincoln a tyrant too.
> 
> 
> 
> While this is NOT about Lincoln I will leave a tad bit of facts with you,you can check for yourself.
> 
> In his _first four months_, he
> 
> 
> Failed to call Congress into session after the South fired upon Fort Sumter, in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Called up an army of 75,000 men, bypassing the Congressional authority in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a function of Congress, violating the Constitution. This gave him the power, as he saw it, to arrest civilians without charge and imprison them indefinitely without trial—which he did.
> Ignored a Supreme Court order to restore the right of habeas corpus, thus violating the Constitution again and ignoring the Separation of Powers which the Founders put in place exactly for the purpose of preventing one man’s using tyrannical powers in the executive.
> When the Chief Justice forwarded a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision to Lincoln, he wrote out an order for the arrest of the Chief Justice and gave it to a U.S. Marshall for expedition, in violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally ordered a naval blockade of southern ports, an act of war, and a responsibility of Congress, in violation of the Constitution.
> Commandeered and closed over 300 newspapers in the _North_, because of editorials against his war policy and his illegal military invasion of the South. This clearly violated the First Amendment freedom of speech and press clauses.
> Sent in Army forces to destroy the printing presses and other machinery at those newspapers, in violation of the Constitution.
> Arrested the publishers, editors and owners of those newspapers, and imprisoned them without charge and without trial for the remainder of the war, all in direct violation of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court order aforementioned.
> Arrested and imprisoned, without charge or trial, another 15,000-20,000 U.S. citizens who dared to speak out against the war, his policies, or were suspected of anti-war feelings. (Relative to the population at the time, this would be equivalent to President G.W. Bush arresting and imprisoning roughly 150,000-200,000 Americans without trial for “disagreeing” with the Iraq war; can you imagine?)
> Sent the Army to arrest the _entire legislature_ of Maryland to keep them from meeting legally, because they were debating a bill of secession; they were all imprisoned without charge or trial, in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally created the state of West Virginia in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Sent 350,000 Northern men to their deaths to kill 350,000 Southern men in order to force the free and sovereign states of the South to remain in the Union they, the people, legally voted to peacefully withdraw from, all in order to continue the South’s revenue flow into the North.
> The Terrible Truth About Abraham Lincoln and the Confederate War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once rebellion starts, a US President can do almost anything under his power as  Commander in Chief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no rebellion. The south tried to peacefully withdraw..the north invaded and sent troops and ships to fort sumter.
> As all patriots would, the south fired on the invaders.
> 
> Just like the patriots did when they declared independence in 1776 and the british invaded.
Click to expand...

No need to continue talking to idiots. They have no common sense and are just trying to derail a serious thread.


----------



## norwegen

Luddly Neddite said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yea.
> 
> The rest of us are talking about a woman.
> 
> 
> 
> and when she's acting in the capacity of the office of county clerk her religious convictions are irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they absolutely are. she's an agent of the government, and when acting as such her religious convictions are irrelevant - but more than that your rights do not ever give you the right to infringe upon the rights of others. her religious liberty stops when it begins to infringe on equal access and service for the people she serves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her religious convictions are not ever irrelevant.  Not if those convictions are Christian.  Ever.
> 
> She is not abridging anyone's rights.    And if you persist in thinking (and I use that term loosely) she is, then blame the judge, too.  He removed her from her post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And if they were Muslim?
> 
> The RWs would be screaming for her head if she were Muslim.
> 
> Hypocrites.
Click to expand...

Yea, let's allow the Muslims to exercise their liberties in this country, Fool.

Will you be the first in line for a female circumcision and to get your driver license revoked?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Odium said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we support the Christian clerk for refusing to do her job based on her religious objections, then we must also support the Muslim stewardess who refuses to sell alcohol based on her religious objections.
> 
> Blog: Religious liberty: The Kentucky county clerk and the Muslim flight attendant
> 
> Best advice I think, get a job that you can do without requiring you to do something against your religion.
> 
> 
> 
> I think better that the people awaken to what is transpiring in their country and double down to fight this beast. Losers capitulate winners do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fag-bashers lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you think we lost? You moron you just made a martyr out of this woman...congrats. BIG mistake. You think you saw a wave of anti cultural marxism before? Just wait. You just woke up the religious right AND those like me that support religious freedom but aren't christians.
Click to expand...

What are you planning to do, bust her out of Federal prison?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Odium said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well they called Lincoln a tyrant too.
> 
> 
> 
> While this is NOT about Lincoln I will leave a tad bit of facts with you,you can check for yourself.
> 
> In his _first four months_, he
> 
> 
> Failed to call Congress into session after the South fired upon Fort Sumter, in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Called up an army of 75,000 men, bypassing the Congressional authority in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a function of Congress, violating the Constitution. This gave him the power, as he saw it, to arrest civilians without charge and imprison them indefinitely without trial—which he did.
> Ignored a Supreme Court order to restore the right of habeas corpus, thus violating the Constitution again and ignoring the Separation of Powers which the Founders put in place exactly for the purpose of preventing one man’s using tyrannical powers in the executive.
> When the Chief Justice forwarded a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision to Lincoln, he wrote out an order for the arrest of the Chief Justice and gave it to a U.S. Marshall for expedition, in violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally ordered a naval blockade of southern ports, an act of war, and a responsibility of Congress, in violation of the Constitution.
> Commandeered and closed over 300 newspapers in the _North_, because of editorials against his war policy and his illegal military invasion of the South. This clearly violated the First Amendment freedom of speech and press clauses.
> Sent in Army forces to destroy the printing presses and other machinery at those newspapers, in violation of the Constitution.
> Arrested the publishers, editors and owners of those newspapers, and imprisoned them without charge and without trial for the remainder of the war, all in direct violation of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court order aforementioned.
> Arrested and imprisoned, without charge or trial, another 15,000-20,000 U.S. citizens who dared to speak out against the war, his policies, or were suspected of anti-war feelings. (Relative to the population at the time, this would be equivalent to President G.W. Bush arresting and imprisoning roughly 150,000-200,000 Americans without trial for “disagreeing” with the Iraq war; can you imagine?)
> Sent the Army to arrest the _entire legislature_ of Maryland to keep them from meeting legally, because they were debating a bill of secession; they were all imprisoned without charge or trial, in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally created the state of West Virginia in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Sent 350,000 Northern men to their deaths to kill 350,000 Southern men in order to force the free and sovereign states of the South to remain in the Union they, the people, legally voted to peacefully withdraw from, all in order to continue the South’s revenue flow into the North.
> The Terrible Truth About Abraham Lincoln and the Confederate War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lost and you lost your slaves.  Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop derailing my thread or I report you.
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, tyranny...
> 
> *"Let us rise to the call of freedom-loving blood that is in us, and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South.  In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw a line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say, segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever."
> 
> George Wallace.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep it up clown...one more time I report you
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to all that gloating we saw from the OP in that other thread?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am still gloating because this just put the nail in the coffin of the demonazi party. You have become the party of intolerance for anyone who REFUSES to think,act,believe like you. Thanks! I said MANY times throwing her in jail would just make her a martyr and symbol of 21st century religious freedom.
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> TYRANNY UPDATE:  Judge Orders Christian Woman to Jail because She Refuses to Violate her Faith
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So glad that **** is behind bars, where she belongs.  Now if only the rest of her life falls as much apart.
> 
> Good luck, bitch, you'll need it a lot more than that God of yours if there is any justice left in the world...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> State of Kentucky has had 3 months to kick her out of office...take it up with them you little faggot. Oh and watch your back.
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we support the Christian clerk for refusing to do her job based on her religious objections, then we must also support the Muslim stewardess who refuses to sell alcohol based on her religious objections.
> 
> Blog: Religious liberty: The Kentucky county clerk and the Muslim flight attendant
> 
> Best advice I think, get a job that you can do without requiring you to do something against your religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's fine with me! Religious freedom is religious freedom. PERIOD.
Click to expand...




RodISHI said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well they called Lincoln a tyrant too.
> 
> 
> 
> Was Lincoln talking about Sodomites too! I think not he came from a Quaker community. You have failed again.
Click to expand...


I'm not in jail.  The fat cracker is.


----------



## EriktheRed

Odium said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to all that gloating we saw from the OP in that other thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am still gloating because this just put the nail in the coffin of the demonazi party. You have become the party of intolerance for anyone who REFUSES to think,act,believe like you. Thanks! I said MANY times throwing her in jail would just make her a martyr and symbol of 21st century religious freedom.
Click to expand...



Nah, nutbags like you have lost this one. Those other counties across the Bible-thumper belt are gonna fall in line eventually, too.


Why The Kentucky Clerk's Last Stand Won't Make Her A Right-Wing Hero


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Muhammed said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would LMAO if the judge got fried by lightning or some other unfortunate accident.
> 
> 
> 
> If she does the world a favor, and kills herself in prison, I'll laugh with you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a suspicion you're stoned and/or drunk.
Click to expand...


No, just an abject waste of humanity.


----------



## Rotagilla

Odium said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well they called Lincoln a tyrant too.
> 
> 
> 
> While this is NOT about Lincoln I will leave a tad bit of facts with you,you can check for yourself.
> 
> In his _first four months_, he
> 
> 
> Failed to call Congress into session after the South fired upon Fort Sumter, in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Called up an army of 75,000 men, bypassing the Congressional authority in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a function of Congress, violating the Constitution. This gave him the power, as he saw it, to arrest civilians without charge and imprison them indefinitely without trial—which he did.
> Ignored a Supreme Court order to restore the right of habeas corpus, thus violating the Constitution again and ignoring the Separation of Powers which the Founders put in place exactly for the purpose of preventing one man’s using tyrannical powers in the executive.
> When the Chief Justice forwarded a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision to Lincoln, he wrote out an order for the arrest of the Chief Justice and gave it to a U.S. Marshall for expedition, in violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally ordered a naval blockade of southern ports, an act of war, and a responsibility of Congress, in violation of the Constitution.
> Commandeered and closed over 300 newspapers in the _North_, because of editorials against his war policy and his illegal military invasion of the South. This clearly violated the First Amendment freedom of speech and press clauses.
> Sent in Army forces to destroy the printing presses and other machinery at those newspapers, in violation of the Constitution.
> Arrested the publishers, editors and owners of those newspapers, and imprisoned them without charge and without trial for the remainder of the war, all in direct violation of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court order aforementioned.
> Arrested and imprisoned, without charge or trial, another 15,000-20,000 U.S. citizens who dared to speak out against the war, his policies, or were suspected of anti-war feelings. (Relative to the population at the time, this would be equivalent to President G.W. Bush arresting and imprisoning roughly 150,000-200,000 Americans without trial for “disagreeing” with the Iraq war; can you imagine?)
> Sent the Army to arrest the _entire legislature_ of Maryland to keep them from meeting legally, because they were debating a bill of secession; they were all imprisoned without charge or trial, in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally created the state of West Virginia in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Sent 350,000 Northern men to their deaths to kill 350,000 Southern men in order to force the free and sovereign states of the South to remain in the Union they, the people, legally voted to peacefully withdraw from, all in order to continue the South’s revenue flow into the North.
> The Terrible Truth About Abraham Lincoln and the Confederate War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once rebellion starts, a US President can do almost anything under his power as  Commander in Chief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no rebellion. The south tried to peacefully withdraw..the north invaded and sent troops and ships to fort sumter.
> As all patriots would, the south fired on the invaders.
> 
> Just like the patriots did when they declared independence in 1776 and the british invaded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need to continue talking to idiots. They have no common sense and are just trying to derail a serious thread.
Click to expand...


I know it.This is anger management therapy for most of them..name calling and cursing..LMAO.....comical

...but other people wander across these boards and if one sticks to the facts, hopefully some of them will be curious enough to do some research on their own and see what the truth is...


----------



## Blackrook

The South did not withdraw peacably, the started the fight when they attacked Fort Sumter.

Battle of Fort Sumter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can't blame Lincoln for Reconstruction.  This happened after Lincoln was shot by a Southerner.

Assassination of Abraham Lincoln - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General Sherman's march through Georgia was to break the South and force them to surrender.  The United States also bombed civilians during World War II, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties.

If you want to live a long and prosperous life, don't declare war against the United States of America.


----------



## ogibillm

norwegen said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> and when she's acting in the capacity of the office of county clerk her religious convictions are irrelevant
> 
> 
> 
> No they're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they absolutely are. she's an agent of the government, and when acting as such her religious convictions are irrelevant - but more than that your rights do not ever give you the right to infringe upon the rights of others. her religious liberty stops when it begins to infringe on equal access and service for the people she serves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her religious convictions are not ever irrelevant.  Not if those convictions are Christian.  Ever.
> 
> She is not abridging anyone's rights.    And if you persist in thinking (and I use that term loosely) she is, then blame the judge, too.  He removed her from her post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And if they were Muslim?
> 
> The RWs would be screaming for her head if she were Muslim.
> 
> Hypocrites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea, let's allow the Muslims to exercise their liberties in this country, Fool.
> 
> Will you be the first in line for a female circumcision and to get your driver license revoked?
Click to expand...

lol. you should have just started out by telling us you don't care about the constitution.


----------



## Preacher

EriktheRed said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to all that gloating we saw from the OP in that other thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am still gloating because this just put the nail in the coffin of the demonazi party. You have become the party of intolerance for anyone who REFUSES to think,act,believe like you. Thanks! I said MANY times throwing her in jail would just make her a martyr and symbol of 21st century religious freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, nutbags like you have lost this one. Those other counties across the Bible-thumper belt are gonna fall in line eventually, too.
> 
> 
> Why The Kentucky Clerk's Last Stand Won't Make Her A Right-Wing Hero
Click to expand...

Keep dreaming. We ALL look forward to the day we get to exact revenge...I for one have one hell of a imagination when it comes how to best get revenge for destroying society like you sick fucks have done.


----------



## Katzndogz

If there is anger,  it is misplaced to direct it against the city offices.  Direct that anger against the ones who deserve it.  The gay couples themselves.


----------



## NYcarbineer

We saw these same sorts of comical meltdowns over the bakery cases.  lol, martyrs.


----------



## Preacher

Blackrook said:


> The South did not withdraw peacably, the started the fight when they attacked Fort Sumter.
> 
> Battle of Fort Sumter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> You can't blame Lincoln for Reconstruction.  This happened after Lincoln was shot by a Southerner.
> 
> Assassination of Abraham Lincoln - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> General Sherman's march through Georgia was to break the South and force them to surrender.  The United States also bombed civilians during World War II, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties.
> 
> If you want to live a long and prosperous life, don't declare war against the United States of America.


Take it to another thread please.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Odium said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to all that gloating we saw from the OP in that other thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am still gloating because this just put the nail in the coffin of the demonazi party. You have become the party of intolerance for anyone who REFUSES to think,act,believe like you. Thanks! I said MANY times throwing her in jail would just make her a martyr and symbol of 21st century religious freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, nutbags like you have lost this one. Those other counties across the Bible-thumper belt are gonna fall in line eventually, too.
> 
> 
> Why The Kentucky Clerk's Last Stand Won't Make Her A Right-Wing Hero
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep dreaming. We ALL look forward to the day we get to exact revenge...I for one have one hell of a imagination when it comes how to best get revenge for destroying society like you sick fucks have done.
Click to expand...


What are you going to do?  Burn your couch?


----------



## Preacher

NYcarbineer said:


> We saw these same sorts of comical meltdowns over the bakery cases.  lol, martyrs.


None of them were thrown in jail they were just assaulted monetarily for their right to religious freedom.


----------



## ogibillm

i find it funny that the op believes tyranny is jailing a public servant for contempt but that same public servant unilaterally denying services to citizens she disagrees with is not tyrannical.


----------



## Preacher

NYcarbineer said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to all that gloating we saw from the OP in that other thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am still gloating because this just put the nail in the coffin of the demonazi party. You have become the party of intolerance for anyone who REFUSES to think,act,believe like you. Thanks! I said MANY times throwing her in jail would just make her a martyr and symbol of 21st century religious freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, nutbags like you have lost this one. Those other counties across the Bible-thumper belt are gonna fall in line eventually, too.
> 
> 
> Why The Kentucky Clerk's Last Stand Won't Make Her A Right-Wing Hero
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep dreaming. We ALL look forward to the day we get to exact revenge...I for one have one hell of a imagination when it comes how to best get revenge for destroying society like you sick fucks have done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you going to do?  Burn your couch?
Click to expand...

Its going to  be fun...and hell no I love my couch!


----------



## EriktheRed

Odium said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to all that gloating we saw from the OP in that other thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am still gloating because this just put the nail in the coffin of the demonazi party. You have become the party of intolerance for anyone who REFUSES to think,act,believe like you. Thanks! I said MANY times throwing her in jail would just make her a martyr and symbol of 21st century religious freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, nutbags like you have lost this one. Those other counties across the Bible-thumper belt are gonna fall in line eventually, too.
> 
> 
> Why The Kentucky Clerk's Last Stand Won't Make Her A Right-Wing Hero
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep dreaming. We ALL look forward to the day we get to exact revenge...I for one have one hell of a imagination when it comes how to best get revenge for destroying society like you sick fucks have done.
Click to expand...



Nope, you're just a shit-talking troll. Shouldn't even be feeding you, really, but you present a pretty good target.


----------



## Kondor3

PaintMyHouse said:


> ...What are you planning to do, bust her out of Federal prison?


No need.

There is no reason why the split-decision opinion of five lawyers should be left standing for much longer.

Things like this are pushing Middle America over the edge.

In 2016, America leaves the House and Senate in Republican control, and gives them the White House, as well.

In 2017, the new regime takes over, and sets to reversing much of the Looney Left's phyrric victories of the past couple of years.

How?

Constitutional Amendments, making the changes SCOTUS-Activism -proof.

Retiring a Justice or two and packing the Court with Better People.

It'll take a couple of years, but the meter can start ticking on that, come January 20, 2017.

The three (3%) percent of America that identifies as sexual deviants and perverts (homosexuals) cannot hold the ninety-seven (97%) percent in thrall forever.

Judgment Day's a-comin'.

There will be a great and tremendous earth-shaking cheer, when it does.

We're all gonna laugh, while you(r side) wails and gnashes its teeth.

This could be fun.


----------



## ogibillm

Rotagilla said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well they called Lincoln a tyrant too.
> 
> 
> 
> While this is NOT about Lincoln I will leave a tad bit of facts with you,you can check for yourself.
> 
> In his _first four months_, he
> 
> 
> Failed to call Congress into session after the South fired upon Fort Sumter, in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Called up an army of 75,000 men, bypassing the Congressional authority in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a function of Congress, violating the Constitution. This gave him the power, as he saw it, to arrest civilians without charge and imprison them indefinitely without trial—which he did.
> Ignored a Supreme Court order to restore the right of habeas corpus, thus violating the Constitution again and ignoring the Separation of Powers which the Founders put in place exactly for the purpose of preventing one man’s using tyrannical powers in the executive.
> When the Chief Justice forwarded a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision to Lincoln, he wrote out an order for the arrest of the Chief Justice and gave it to a U.S. Marshall for expedition, in violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally ordered a naval blockade of southern ports, an act of war, and a responsibility of Congress, in violation of the Constitution.
> Commandeered and closed over 300 newspapers in the _North_, because of editorials against his war policy and his illegal military invasion of the South. This clearly violated the First Amendment freedom of speech and press clauses.
> Sent in Army forces to destroy the printing presses and other machinery at those newspapers, in violation of the Constitution.
> Arrested the publishers, editors and owners of those newspapers, and imprisoned them without charge and without trial for the remainder of the war, all in direct violation of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court order aforementioned.
> Arrested and imprisoned, without charge or trial, another 15,000-20,000 U.S. citizens who dared to speak out against the war, his policies, or were suspected of anti-war feelings. (Relative to the population at the time, this would be equivalent to President G.W. Bush arresting and imprisoning roughly 150,000-200,000 Americans without trial for “disagreeing” with the Iraq war; can you imagine?)
> Sent the Army to arrest the _entire legislature_ of Maryland to keep them from meeting legally, because they were debating a bill of secession; they were all imprisoned without charge or trial, in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Unilaterally created the state of West Virginia in direct violation of the Constitution.
> Sent 350,000 Northern men to their deaths to kill 350,000 Southern men in order to force the free and sovereign states of the South to remain in the Union they, the people, legally voted to peacefully withdraw from, all in order to continue the South’s revenue flow into the North.
> The Terrible Truth About Abraham Lincoln and the Confederate War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once rebellion starts, a US President can do almost anything under his power as  Commander in Chief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no rebellion. The south tried to peacefully withdraw..the north invaded and sent troops and ships to fort sumter.
> As all patriots would, the south fired on the invaders.
> 
> Just like the patriots did when they declared independence in 1776 and the british invaded.
Click to expand...

you just love your delusions, don't you?
why you can't see those traitors for what they were astounds me.


----------



## boedicca

Luddly Neddite said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like Obama finally has a shovel ready project building Gulags for those commit Thought Crimes.
> 
> Hopenchange!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama family did not pass the law.
> The phony christian woman is not "thinking".
> Unless you're in the wrong thread, this is just plain dumb.
> 
> How it is that the RWs are so ignorant about how our govt works as well as the role of SCOTUS?
> 
> 
> ,
Click to expand...



I didn't say that he passed the law.  But the Social Justice Snowflake mentality that he has promoted and which insists that anyone who disagrees with the Prog Agenda be DESTROYED is at the bottom of this. 

So, he finally has the GUILTY to put in the Gulags.   What an appropriate legacy for him.


----------



## Preacher

ogibillm said:


> i find it funny that the op believes tyranny is jailing a public servant for contempt but that same public servant unilaterally denying services to citizens she disagrees with is not tyrannical.


The tyrant is trampling on her first amendment rights. Plain and simple. If he dislikes her choices so much why has the Kentucky Legislature in 3 months not impeached and removed her? Hmmmm?


----------



## norwegen

ogibillm said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they're not.
> 
> 
> 
> they absolutely are. she's an agent of the government, and when acting as such her religious convictions are irrelevant - but more than that your rights do not ever give you the right to infringe upon the rights of others. her religious liberty stops when it begins to infringe on equal access and service for the people she serves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her religious convictions are not ever irrelevant.  Not if those convictions are Christian.  Ever.
> 
> She is not abridging anyone's rights.    And if you persist in thinking (and I use that term loosely) she is, then blame the judge, too.  He removed her from her post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And if they were Muslim?
> 
> The RWs would be screaming for her head if she were Muslim.
> 
> Hypocrites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea, let's allow the Muslims to exercise their liberties in this country, Fool.
> 
> Will you be the first in line for a female circumcision and to get your driver license revoked?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol. you should have just started out by telling us you don't care about the constitution.
Click to expand...

It's capitalized.  _Constitution_ is capitalized.  Show some respect for it, eh.

Protest the defiling of it, maybe, say from Muslims and progressives.


----------



## ogibillm

Odium said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> i find it funny that the op believes tyranny is jailing a public servant for contempt but that same public servant unilaterally denying services to citizens she disagrees with is not tyrannical.
> 
> 
> 
> The tyrant is trampling on her first amendment rights. Plain and simple. If he dislikes her choices so much why has the Kentucky Legislature in 3 months not impeached and removed her? Hmmmm?
Click to expand...

why do her first amendment rights trump the 14th amendment rights of the people? the office of county clerk has no religious convictions.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> *This homely hog Davis is taking her cue from the SCOTUS finding in favor of defendants like Hobby Lobby.  That's what happens when religion is allowed to influence laws and citizen's rights.*


There is no reason to call her a hog.  Is that why she should be jailed in your opinion?    Stay on topic.  Christians singled out for political prisioners.


----------



## EriktheRed

Kondor3 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...What are you planning to do, bust her out of Federal prison?
> 
> 
> 
> No need.
> 
> There is no reason why the split-decision opinion of five lawyers should be left standing for much longer.
> 
> Things like this are pushing Middle America over the edge.
> 
> In 2016, America leaves the House and Senate in Republican control, and gives them the White House, as well.
> 
> In 2017, the new regime takes over, and sets to reversing much of the Looney Left's phyrric victories of the past couple of years.
> 
> How?
> 
> Constitutional Amendments, making the changes SCOTUS-Activism -proof.
> 
> Retiring a Justice or two and packing the Court with Better People.
> 
> It'll take a couple of years, but the meter can start ticking on that, come January 20, 2017.
> 
> The three (3%) percent of America that identifies as sexual deviants and perverts (homosexuals) cannot hold the ninety-seven (97%) percent in thrall forever.
> 
> Judgment Day's a-comin'.
> 
> There will be a great and tremendous earth-shaking cheer, when it does.
> 
> We're all gonna laugh, while you(r side) wails and gnashes its teeth.
> 
> This could be fun.
Click to expand...



Funny, I'm pretty sure I heard horseshit like that about 4 years ago, too. Except of, of course, the date the meter was supposed to start ticking was January 20, 2013.

How'd that turn out again?


----------



## ogibillm

norwegen said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> they absolutely are. she's an agent of the government, and when acting as such her religious convictions are irrelevant - but more than that your rights do not ever give you the right to infringe upon the rights of others. her religious liberty stops when it begins to infringe on equal access and service for the people she serves.
> 
> 
> 
> Her religious convictions are not ever irrelevant.  Not if those convictions are Christian.  Ever.
> 
> She is not abridging anyone's rights.    And if you persist in thinking (and I use that term loosely) she is, then blame the judge, too.  He removed her from her post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And if they were Muslim?
> 
> The RWs would be screaming for her head if she were Muslim.
> 
> Hypocrites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea, let's allow the Muslims to exercise their liberties in this country, Fool.
> 
> Will you be the first in line for a female circumcision and to get your driver license revoked?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol. you should have just started out by telling us you don't care about the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's capitalized.  _Constitution_ is capitalized.  Show some respect for it, eh.
> 
> Protest the defiling of it, maybe, say from Muslims and progressives.
Click to expand...

lol. you complain about my capitalization while arguing for tossing out one of the most basic rights enshrined in it.

you're a confused individual.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

PaintMyHouse said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> You liberals are evil in your celebration of this political prisoner's imprisonment.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not political, she's breaking the law, and now in jail where she belongs for doing so...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and where Obama should be for breaking the law...and where Hillary should be for breaking the law...
> 
> Your selective application of rules to follow is understandable.  Liberals are some sick people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike your other two examples, this one has actually been convicted by an actual court...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What conviction?  No trial, just thrown in jail for political reasons.  This gay marriage is not settled by the people.  Until then she is a political prisoner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She has been convicted of Contempt of Court:
> 
> *"Contempt of court*, often referred to simply as "*contempt*", is the offense of being disobedient to or disrespectful towards a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies authority, justice, and dignity of the court.[1][2] It manifests itself in willful disregard of or disrespect for the authority of a court of law, which is often behavior that is illegal because it does not obey or respect the rules of a law court.[3][4]"
> Contempt of court - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...



And yet again, the RWs have no understanding, not a clue. 

How do these bozos get through their days without help from liberals?


----------



## ogibillm

AvgGuyIA said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This homely hog Davis is taking her cue from the SCOTUS finding in favor of defendants like Hobby Lobby.  That's what happens when religion is allowed to influence laws and citizen's rights.*
> 
> 
> 
> There is no reason to call her a hog.  Is that why she should be jailed in your opinion?    Stay on topic.  Christians singled out for political prisioners.
Click to expand...

she isn't in jail because of her christianity. she's in jail for defying a court order.


----------



## Vandalshandle

My best guess is that, before the Federal court adjourns today, she will have talked to God, who will have told her to resign her job, and go home.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

AvgGuyIA said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This homely hog Davis is taking her cue from the SCOTUS finding in favor of defendants like Hobby Lobby.  That's what happens when religion is allowed to influence laws and citizen's rights.*
> 
> 
> 
> There is no reason to call her a hog.  Is that why she should be jailed in your opinion?    Stay on topic.  Christians singled out for political prisioners.
Click to expand...


You have been spoon fed the facts of the case and yet you continue to lie about it. 

Or are you just plain stupid?

Either way, quit being such a silly drama queen. She's not a martyr or a political prisoner. 

She defied the decision of the Supreme Court of The United States. She is in contempt of court. 

And no - Obama had nothing to do with it so don't even go there.


----------



## Preacher

ogibillm said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> i find it funny that the op believes tyranny is jailing a public servant for contempt but that same public servant unilaterally denying services to citizens she disagrees with is not tyrannical.
> 
> 
> 
> The tyrant is trampling on her first amendment rights. Plain and simple. If he dislikes her choices so much why has the Kentucky Legislature in 3 months not impeached and removed her? Hmmmm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do her first amendment rights trump the 14th amendment rights of the people? the office of county clerk has no religious convictions.
Click to expand...

Which is why the Kentucky Legislature should impeach and remove her. SHE does have first amendment rights. Period. The judge as well can claim she is absent and have someone else sign these "marriage" licenses.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

First off all folks.  Gays aren't prevented from obtaining a license to marry. Let's not have You folks fainting from the vapors over this.


----------



## boedicca

NYcarbineer said:


> Well they called Lincoln a tyrant too.



NYC pins the bogometer, como siempre.

The clerk is not preventing gays from getting married; she just doesn't want to participate in the process.  That doesn't keep them from getting a marriage license elsewhere or from someone else.

This is yet another instance of Tolerance not being enough.  One must Accept and Participate and given up Independent Thought.

Slavery is Freedom.


----------



## Kondor3

EriktheRed said:


> Funny, I'm pretty sure I heard horseshit like that about 4 years ago, too. Except of, of course, the date the meter was supposed to start ticking was January 20, 2013. How'd that turn out again?


A lot more has happened since then, to sicken people, as evidenced by the atypical early success of people like Trump.

There's a _*much*_ greater chance of such a thing materializing, this time, versus 2012.

A state of affairs that The Left has brought upon its own head... pushing America, and pushing, and pushing, and pushing, and pushing...

Until they finally run out of luck.

As they just have.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *MLK wasn't getting paid by government for what he did, and was working to stop segregation, not enforce it like she is.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Don't compare that stringy-haired hogette to MLK, in any way.  *
Click to expand...

She is a Rosa Parks fighting injustice to Christians.


----------



## ogibillm

Odium said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> i find it funny that the op believes tyranny is jailing a public servant for contempt but that same public servant unilaterally denying services to citizens she disagrees with is not tyrannical.
> 
> 
> 
> The tyrant is trampling on her first amendment rights. Plain and simple. If he dislikes her choices so much why has the Kentucky Legislature in 3 months not impeached and removed her? Hmmmm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do her first amendment rights trump the 14th amendment rights of the people? the office of county clerk has no religious convictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is why the Kentucky Legislature should impeach and remove her. SHE does have first amendment rights. Period. The judge as well can claim she is absent and have someone else sign these "marriage" licenses.
Click to expand...

she has them, but her rights end where the rights of others begin. if she can't do her job, she can resign. but in no way shape or form do her religious beliefs allow her to use her office to deny rights to others.


----------



## Vandalshandle

AvgGuyIA said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *MLK wasn't getting paid by government for what he did, and was working to stop segregation, not enforce it like she is.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Don't compare that stringy-haired hogette to MLK, in any way.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is a Rosa Parks fighting injustice to Christians.
Click to expand...


I am sure that the Westboro Baptist Church will build a shrine for her!


----------



## AvgGuyIA

asaratis said:


> This Clerk is not keeping gays from getting married.  They can find any one of many other Clerks that will sign the licenses.  Their purpose here is *make her* sign the licenses just to say "We won!" again.   That was the sole purpose for pushing for the redefinition of the word 'marriage'.
> 
> Insecure fucking idiots!


It's all about normalizing faggotry and forcing everyone to accept it by judicial fiat.  That's no way to run a Society.  We are free people and not to be forced into shit we disagree with.  That is what is behind this fight.  Liberal's want to force their ideology on us.  There is going to be pushback.


----------



## pwjohn

That gal is right where she needs to be.She cannot use her office to impose her religious beliefs on others, which puts her at adds with the constitution.


----------



## Kondor3

ogibillm said:


> ...deny rights to others.


Sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality) should have _*no*_ standing at-law, other than to be recognized as dangerous to the Republic and its People.

We (as a country) have lost our way.

The long trek back towards sanity may begin as early as January 20, 2017.


----------



## Katzndogz

She wasn't trying to impose her beliefs on anyone.  She was trying to keep other religious beliefs from being imposed on her.


----------



## Kondor3

So, RIghteousness has claimed its first Martyr, in the struggle against Wickedness (homosexuality).


----------



## Luddly Neddite

SassyIrishLass said:


> This isn't "tyranny" this is hopey changey.




Hey stooopid, Obama didn't make the law. 

A predominately conservative SCOTUS did.

Educate yourself as to how our govt works and what the role of SCOTUS is.

You might also want to educate yourself as to what the phony christian was jailed for. 

Hint: contempt of court and, though you would have not way of knowing it, Obama didn't have anything to do with that either.

Note to OP - there's already a half dozen threads on this.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

Luddly Neddite said:


> The law has no importance to RWs.
> 
> They either make up shit as they go along and  believe its fact - or side with this lying, hypocritical clerk for breaking the law.
> 
> And apparently, most of them have no clue what the role of the SCOTUS is.


We didn't authorize SCOTUS to persecute Christians.   Set her free and let a judge sign the license without her name on the document.  The judge can answer to God.  Don't force Christians to accept perversion.  Problem solved.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Kondor3 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...deny rights to others.
> 
> 
> 
> Sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality) should have _*no*_ standing at-law, other than to be recognized as dangerous to the Republic and its People.
> 
> We (as a country) have lost our way.
> 
> The long trek back towards sanity may begin as early as January 20, 2017.
Click to expand...



Tell it to the Supreme Court of the United States.

You really think they will change their decision when Obama leaves office? Why do you believe that? Or are you just another RW who doesn't understand the SCOTUS ruling has NOTHING to do with the prez?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Vandalshandle said:


> My best guess is that, before the Federal court adjourns today, she will have talked to God, who will have told her to resign her job, and go home.




... and start a Go Fund Me account!

Hey, all you gullible, anti-America fundies - C'mon, put your money where your bible is and pony up for your poor, victimized "martyr".


----------



## Mac1958

And here we go, just in time for the campaign:

Huckabee: 'Kim Davis In Federal Custody Removes All Doubts About The Criminalization Of Christianity In This Country'
.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Kondor3 said:


> So, RIghteousness has claimed its first Martyr, in the struggle against Wickedness (homosexuality).




Oh my fucking god, you really are a drama queen.



Question for you fundies who work for a living ... If you refuse to do your job, what happens?

Hmmm?


----------



## Katzndogz

Mac1958 said:


> And here we go, just in time for the campaign:
> 
> Huckabee: 'Kim Davis In Federal Custody Removes All Doubts About The Criminalization Of Christianity In This Country'
> .


Huckabee is correct.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

bodecea said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *MLK wasn't getting paid by government for what he did, and was working to stop segregation, not enforce it like she is.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If marriage is a right, then anyone can marry.
> 
> No??????
> 
> WTF!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are currently not allowed to legally marry who or what you wish to marry...make your legal case for the law to change.....just like we did.  Use the system.
Click to expand...

Make your case to the people.  Let them vote on it.  Then pass a law.  The court is not a way to run our Republic.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Mac1958 said:


> And here we go, just in time for the campaign:
> 
> Huckabee: 'Kim Davis In Federal Custody Removes All Doubts About The Criminalization Of Christianity In This Country'
> .






Wow, you would almost think this lying charleton is running for office. 

I wonder how his phony cures for cancer and diabetes are going? And, did he send some survival meals to The Martyr?

Actually, I'd like to know if he's hiding pedo Josh Duggar.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

AvgGuyIA said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *MLK wasn't getting paid by government for what he did, and was working to stop segregation, not enforce it like she is.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If marriage is a right, then anyone can marry.
> 
> No??????
> 
> WTF!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are currently not allowed to legally marry who or what you wish to marry...make your legal case for the law to change.....just like we did.  Use the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make your case to the people.  Let them vote on it.  Then pass a law.  The court is not a way to run our Republic.
Click to expand...



That's exactly what was done.

You just don't like the law that was passed. 

Lucky for you, you don't have to agree. 

And yes, the SCOTUS is the way our republic is run. Deal with it.


----------



## Kondor3

Luddly Neddite said:


> ...Tell it to the Supreme Court of the United States. You really think they will change their decision when Obama leaves office?...


Nope. I don't think that. I think we need for one of the five to retire or expire, and be replaced by a Righteous Person.



> ...Why do you believe that?...


I don't.



> ...Or are you just another RW who doesn't understand the SCOTUS ruling has NOTHING to do with the prez?


Nope.

I've already demonstrated my understanding, in that regard.

But the advent of a new President puts two things on the table...

1. sponsorship of new Constitutional Amendment(s) impacting this area, if the President is so inclined

2. power to appoint new (and more conservative) Supreme Court Justices, subject to approval by a more conservative Congress.


----------



## ogibillm

Kondor3 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...deny rights to others.
> 
> 
> 
> Sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality) should have _*no*_ standing at-law, other than to be recognized as dangerous to the Republic and its People.
> 
> We (as a country) have lost our way.
> 
> The long trek back towards sanity may begin as early as January 20, 2017.
Click to expand...

nice opinion. now back to reality...


----------



## ogibillm

AvgGuyIA said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *MLK wasn't getting paid by government for what he did, and was working to stop segregation, not enforce it like she is.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If marriage is a right, then anyone can marry.
> 
> No??????
> 
> WTF!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are currently not allowed to legally marry who or what you wish to marry...make your legal case for the law to change.....just like we did.  Use the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make your case to the people.  Let them vote on it.  Then pass a law.  The court is not a way to run our Republic.
Click to expand...

the aw already existed. passing another allowing gay marriage would be redundant


----------



## Rotagilla

Blackrook said:


> The South did not withdraw peacably, the started the fight when they attacked Fort Sumter.
> 
> Battle of Fort Sumter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The north sent troops and ships to reinforce fort sumter and blockade the port after the south legally seceded and tried to negotiate. The south was very aware of the Anaconda Plan and were very sensitive to having a foreign nation blockade their harbors/exports.

Those are acts of war anywhere in the world.



Blackrook said:


> You can't blame Lincoln for Reconstruction.  This happened after Lincoln was shot by a Southerner.
> 
> Assassination of Abraham Lincoln - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




First let's look at the Declaration of Independence.
These people tried to peacefully withdraw, too and THEY got invaded and fought off the invaders. You ok with defeating the british in 1776?

_When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — *That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.*_


The u.s. was formed with the consent of each individual state, when the founders wrote the constitution and debated it, they always said it was a states prerogative if they wanted to break away from the Union.
Alexander Hamilton and most of the founders believed it was well within the state's rights to leave the Union voluntarily if they wanted to.
Starting a war to collect taxes and imports was just as wrong as starting a war that violated a states right to secession


Lincoln was a lying POS.

_
*Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."


Abraham Lincoln *
Jan 12, 1848_

From his first inaugural address;
1861

_Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that --

*I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.*

I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause -- as cheerfully to one section as to another.
_




Blackrook said:


> General Sherman's march through Georgia was to break the South and force them to surrender.



So you're ok with murdering, raping and robbing fellow americans.... stealing their property, wrecking their infrastructure, burning their homes and businesses, denying them elected representation in the government...because they tried to peacefully withdraw?..

Let's see, then.... if your wife asks for a divorce do you think that gives you the right to beat her up and force her to stay?






Blackrook said:


> The United States also bombed civilians during World War II, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties.
> 
> If you want to live a long and prosperous life, don't declare war against the United States of America.



They didn't declare war...they tried to peacefully withdraw.

...but anyway....Live and learn. Things change all the time. Nothing lasts forever. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

Luddly Neddite said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This homely hog Davis is taking her cue from the SCOTUS finding in favor of defendants like Hobby Lobby.  That's what happens when religion is allowed to influence laws and citizen's rights.*
> 
> 
> 
> There is no reason to call her a hog.  Is that why she should be jailed in your opinion?    Stay on topic.  Christians singled out for political prisioners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been spoon fed the facts of the case and yet you continue to lie about it.
> 
> Or are you just plain stupid?
> 
> Either way, quit being such a silly drama queen. She's not a martyr or a political prisoner.
> 
> She defied the decision of the Supreme Court of The United States. She is in contempt of court.
> 
> And no - Obama had nothing to do with it so don't even go there.
Click to expand...

Don't call me stupid fuckwad.  How do you like this getting personal?  My opinion is just as valid if not more so.  Half the country was against this court decision.  That doesn't settle anything when God is concerned.  Makes no difference is you believe in God or not.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Tipsycatlover said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here we go, just in time for the campaign:
> 
> Huckabee: 'Kim Davis In Federal Custody Removes All Doubts About The Criminalization Of Christianity In This Country'
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Huckabee is correct.
Click to expand...



Have you told the Supreme Court?

I'm sure they would want to hear the opinion of a drunk doctor/lawyer/dog washer.


----------



## Seawytch

Break the law, suffer the consequences. That's tyranny?


----------



## Kondor3

Luddly Neddite said:


> ...Oh my fucking god, you really are a drama queen...


Just serving-up the Rally Cry. Like it? It's yours. I'll even toss-in the black keys for free.



> ...Question for you fundies who work for a living ... If you refuse to do your job, what happens? Hmmm?


Depends on whether or not doing one's job includes defying God's Law and committing a Wicked Act.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

AvgGuyIA said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This homely hog Davis is taking her cue from the SCOTUS finding in favor of defendants like Hobby Lobby.  That's what happens when religion is allowed to influence laws and citizen's rights.*
> 
> 
> 
> There is no reason to call her a hog.  Is that why she should be jailed in your opinion?    Stay on topic.  Christians singled out for political prisioners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been spoon fed the facts of the case and yet you continue to lie about it.
> 
> Or are you just plain stupid?
> 
> Either way, quit being such a silly drama queen. She's not a martyr or a political prisoner.
> 
> She defied the decision of the Supreme Court of The United States. She is in contempt of court.
> 
> And no - Obama had nothing to do with it so don't even go there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't call me stupid fuckwad.  How do you like this getting personal?  My opinion is just as valid if not more so.  Half the country was against this court decision.  That doesn't settle anything when God is concerned.  Makes no difference is you believe in God or not.
Click to expand...



Wrong. 

You saying that she is a martyr or political prisoner is indeed the words of an ignorant drama queen. 

If you don't like the law, work to change it. Until then, neither you nor she are above the laws of the land. 

If you want to live by the laws of some "god", Iraq has a spot for you.


----------



## bucs90

Oh....by the way....this intolerant, homophobic, law violating clerk......IS A DEMOCRAT. 

OOOPS! THREAD MALFUNCTION! ABORT ABORT ABORT!!!!!


----------



## AvgGuyIA

Luddly Neddite said:


> That's exactly what was done.
> 
> You just don't like the law that was passed.
> 
> Lucky for you, you don't have to agree.
> 
> And yes, the SCOTUS is the way our republic is run. Deal with it.


What law was passed?  The only law passed and signed by a President, namely Bill Clinton, was DOMA.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Jindal and Cruz are on board with Huckabee. This is going to be a clown car extravaganza!


----------



## Preacher

Seawytch said:


> Break the law, suffer the consequences. That's tyranny?


Get lost dyke bitch.


----------



## Preacher

Judge David Bunning's office number.
Give him a call. (859) 392-7907

Have fun sane thinking people!  To bad we don't have the numbers or enough angry people fed up with activist swine tyrants to march on his office.


----------



## ogibillm

Seawytch said:


> Break the law, suffer the consequences. That's tyranny?


tyranny that she has to respect the rights of others.


----------



## Vigilante

Really, she was the wrong woman to do this, as her history brought out by the FAGERAL media shows her to be a hypocrite...BUT, if all the other clerks around the country refused to do it, were arrested, and held onto their religious convictions, what would THOUSANDS of these people be sending a message to the majority of Americans....that our culture has been usurped by a bunch of perverted scumbags that, at most are 2% of the population, and have lesbians in the SCOTUS that made another horrible decision!


----------



## Kondor3

ogibillm said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...deny rights to others.
> 
> 
> 
> Sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality) should have _*no*_ standing at-law, other than to be recognized as dangerous to the Republic and its People.
> 
> We (as a country) have lost our way.
> 
> The long trek back towards sanity may begin as early as January 20, 2017.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice opinion. now back to reality...
Click to expand...

Au contraire... I show you an entirely plausible future, after January 20, 2017.. but, please continue to believe that you recent victory(ies) are final and irreversible.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

Luddly Neddite said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This homely hog Davis is taking her cue from the SCOTUS finding in favor of defendants like Hobby Lobby.  That's what happens when religion is allowed to influence laws and citizen's rights.*
> 
> 
> 
> There is no reason to call her a hog.  Is that why she should be jailed in your opinion?    Stay on topic.  Christians singled out for political prisioners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been spoon fed the facts of the case and yet you continue to lie about it.
> 
> Or are you just plain stupid?
> 
> Either way, quit being such a silly drama queen. She's not a martyr or a political prisoner.
> 
> She defied the decision of the Supreme Court of The United States. She is in contempt of court.
> 
> And no - Obama had nothing to do with it so don't even go there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't call me stupid fuckwad.  How do you like this getting personal?  My opinion is just as valid if not more so.  Half the country was against this court decision.  That doesn't settle anything when God is concerned.  Makes no difference is you believe in God or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> You saying that she is a martyr or political prisoner is indeed the words of an ignorant drama queen.
> 
> If you don't like the law, work to change it. Until then, neither you nor she are above the laws of the land.
> 
> If you want to live by the laws of some "god", Iraq has a spot for you.
Click to expand...

Your response is proof this is all about religious persecution and creation of a new class of political prisoners in this country.  Next yoo people will line up the boxcars to haul us off to prisoner camps for extermination.  You did it once before.  You are capable of it again.


----------



## ogibillm

Odium said:


> Judge David Bunning's office number.
> Give him a call. (859) 392-7907
> 
> Have fun sane thinking people!  To bad we don't have the numbers or enough angry people fed up with activist swine tyrants to march on his office.


yeah. it's sad that insanity just isn't as popular as you'd like


----------



## Kondor3

ogibillm said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Break the law, suffer the consequences. That's tyranny?
> 
> 
> 
> tyranny that she has to respect the rights of others.
Click to expand...

Tyranny that forces her to deal with sexual deviants and perverts (homosexuals).


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Kondor3 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Oh my fucking god, you really are a drama queen...
> 
> 
> 
> Just serving-up the Rally Cry. Like it? It's yours. I'll even toss-in the black keys for free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Question for you fundies who work for a living ... If you refuse to do your job, what happens? Hmmm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Depends on whether or not doing one's job includes defying God's Law and committing a Wicked Act.
Click to expand...



More drama.

No, that's not what it "depends on".

This is actually very simple.

1. If you don't do your job, get fired.
2. If you don't want to do your job, find a different job.
3. If you don't like the law, work to change it.
4. Believing in a god does not make you immune from the law.
5. Know and accept that you WILL suffer the consequences of breaking the law.


----------



## ogibillm

Kondor3 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...deny rights to others.
> 
> 
> 
> Sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality) should have _*no*_ standing at-law, other than to be recognized as dangerous to the Republic and its People.
> 
> We (as a country) have lost our way.
> 
> The long trek back towards sanity may begin as early as January 20, 2017.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice opinion. now back to reality...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Au contraire... I show you an entirely plausible future, after January 20, 2017.. but, please continue to believe that you recent victory(ies) are final and irreversible.
Click to expand...

what happens on jan 20, 2017 that would cause the supreme court to go back on their decision?


----------



## WorldWatcher

reconmark said:


> Her son's name is Nathan Davis; who knows...




Was he from the first marriage?  Second marriage?  Third marriage? or Fourth marriage?



>>>>


----------



## ogibillm

Kondor3 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Break the law, suffer the consequences. That's tyranny?
> 
> 
> 
> tyranny that she has to respect the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tyranny that forces her to deal with sexual deviants and perverts (homosexuals).
Click to expand...

lol. keep up the crazy. it suits you.


----------



## Kondor3

Luddly Neddite said:


> ...4. Believing in a god does not make you immune from the law.


When the Law forces you to engage in Wickedness, then the Law must be changed.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.


----------



## Vigilante

Kondor3 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...4. Believing in a god does not make you immune from the law.
> 
> 
> 
> When the Law forces you to engage in Wickedness, then the Law must be changed.
> 
> The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Click to expand...


How many LAWS has the obomanation REFUSED to prosecute?


----------



## ogibillm

AvgGuyIA said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This homely hog Davis is taking her cue from the SCOTUS finding in favor of defendants like Hobby Lobby.  That's what happens when religion is allowed to influence laws and citizen's rights.*
> 
> 
> 
> There is no reason to call her a hog.  Is that why she should be jailed in your opinion?    Stay on topic.  Christians singled out for political prisioners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been spoon fed the facts of the case and yet you continue to lie about it.
> 
> Or are you just plain stupid?
> 
> Either way, quit being such a silly drama queen. She's not a martyr or a political prisoner.
> 
> She defied the decision of the Supreme Court of The United States. She is in contempt of court.
> 
> And no - Obama had nothing to do with it so don't even go there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't call me stupid fuckwad.  How do you like this getting personal?  My opinion is just as valid if not more so.  Half the country was against this court decision.  That doesn't settle anything when God is concerned.  Makes no difference is you believe in God or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> You saying that she is a martyr or political prisoner is indeed the words of an ignorant drama queen.
> 
> If you don't like the law, work to change it. Until then, neither you nor she are above the laws of the land.
> 
> If you want to live by the laws of some "god", Iraq has a spot for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your response is proof this is all about religious persecution and creation of a new class of political prisoners in this country.  Next yoo people will line up the boxcars to haul us off to prisoner camps for extermination.  You did it once before.  You are capable of it again.
Click to expand...

wow. you really do go all in on the crazy, don't you?
she does not have the right to deny services to the people of her county. her first amendment rights do not trump their 14th amendment rights. if her convictions prevent her from fulfilling her oath of office she can find new work.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

AvgGuyIA said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This homely hog Davis is taking her cue from the SCOTUS finding in favor of defendants like Hobby Lobby.  That's what happens when religion is allowed to influence laws and citizen's rights.*
> 
> 
> 
> There is no reason to call her a hog.  Is that why she should be jailed in your opinion?    Stay on topic.  Christians singled out for political prisioners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been spoon fed the facts of the case and yet you continue to lie about it.
> 
> Or are you just plain stupid?
> 
> Either way, quit being such a silly drama queen. She's not a martyr or a political prisoner.
> 
> She defied the decision of the Supreme Court of The United States. She is in contempt of court.
> 
> And no - Obama had nothing to do with it so don't even go there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't call me stupid fuckwad.  How do you like this getting personal?  My opinion is just as valid if not more so.  Half the country was against this court decision.  That doesn't settle anything when God is concerned.  Makes no difference is you believe in God or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> You saying that she is a martyr or political prisoner is indeed the words of an ignorant drama queen.
> 
> If you don't like the law, work to change it. Until then, neither you nor she are above the laws of the land.
> 
> If you want to live by the laws of some "god", Iraq has a spot for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your response is proof this is all about religious persecution and creation of a new class of political prisoners in this country.  Next yoo people will line up the boxcars to haul us off to prisoner camps for extermination.  You did it once before.  You are capable of it again.
Click to expand...



Comparing the Supreme Court of the United States to nazis?

That's downright stupid.


----------



## ogibillm

Vigilante said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...4. Believing in a god does not make you immune from the law.
> 
> 
> 
> When the Law forces you to engage in Wickedness, then the Law must be changed.
> 
> The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many LAWS has the obomanation REFUSED to prosecute?
Click to expand...

none.


----------



## Kondor3

ogibillm said:


> what happens on jan 20, 2017 that would cause the supreme court to go back on their decision?


Conservatives regain control of the Executive, as well as the Legislative, and begin to strong-arm the Judicial.

All it takes is one Justice, to change his-or-her mind, or to retire, or to expire - in order to stand the whole thing back on its ear again.

The present state of affairs is far more fragile than you are allowing yourself to believe.

The war isn't over.

It's only just begun.

You won the last round.

The American People are likely to win the next.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

Vigilante said:


> Really, she was the wrong woman to do this, as her history brought out by the FAGERAL media shows her to be a hypocrite...BUT, if all the other clerks around the country refused to do it, were arrested, and held onto their religious convictions, what would THOUSANDS of these people be sending a message to the majority of Americans....that our culture has been usurped by a bunch of perverted scumbags that, at most are 2% of the population, and have lesbians in the SCOTUS that made another horrible decision!


She wasn't a Christian while committing those indiscretions.  If she was, Christians would abandon her.  We aren't.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Kondor3 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...4. Believing in a god does not make you immune from the law.
> 
> 
> 
> When the Law forces you to engage in Wickedness, then the Law must be changed.
> 
> The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Click to expand...



Then change the law.

And if you don't like the Constitution of the US, leave or join the other anti-America RWs and work to overthrow it.

Meanwhile, you DO have to abide by the law or suffer the consequences.


----------



## BULLDOG

bodecea said:


> DigitalDrifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> They now officially have a martyr.
> 
> 
> 
> OMIGOD!   THEY KILLED HER??????????
Click to expand...


----------



## Kondor3

ogibillm said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Break the law, suffer the consequences. That's tyranny?
> 
> 
> 
> tyranny that she has to respect the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tyranny that forces her to deal with sexual deviants and perverts (homosexuals).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol. keep up the crazy. it suits you.
Click to expand...

It is not 'crazy' to label homosexuality as sexual deviancy and perversion.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

Luddly Neddite said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no reason to call her a hog.  Is that why she should be jailed in your opinion?    Stay on topic.  Christians singled out for political prisioners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been spoon fed the facts of the case and yet you continue to lie about it.
> 
> Or are you just plain stupid?
> 
> Either way, quit being such a silly drama queen. She's not a martyr or a political prisoner.
> 
> She defied the decision of the Supreme Court of The United States. She is in contempt of court.
> 
> And no - Obama had nothing to do with it so don't even go there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't call me stupid fuckwad.  How do you like this getting personal?  My opinion is just as valid if not more so.  Half the country was against this court decision.  That doesn't settle anything when God is concerned.  Makes no difference is you believe in God or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> You saying that she is a martyr or political prisoner is indeed the words of an ignorant drama queen.
> 
> If you don't like the law, work to change it. Until then, neither you nor she are above the laws of the land.
> 
> If you want to live by the laws of some "god", Iraq has a spot for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your response is proof this is all about religious persecution and creation of a new class of political prisoners in this country.  Next yoo people will line up the boxcars to haul us off to prisoner camps for extermination.  You did it once before.  You are capable of it again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing the Supreme Court of the United States to nazis?
> 
> That's downright stupid.
Click to expand...

Bullshit.  Your side are the Nazis.


----------



## ogibillm

Kondor3 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> what happens on jan 20, 2017 that would cause the supreme court to go back on their decision?
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives regain control of the Executive, as well as the Legislative, and begin to strong-arm the Judicial.
> 
> All it takes is one Justice, to change his-or-her mind, or to retire, or to expire - in order to stand the whole thing back on its ear again.
> 
> The present state of affairs is far more fragile than you are allowing yourself to believe.
Click to expand...

good to know that you don't believe in an independent judicial branch like our founders did.


----------



## Kondor3

Luddly Neddite said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...4. Believing in a god does not make you immune from the law.
> 
> 
> 
> When the Law forces you to engage in Wickedness, then the Law must be changed.
> 
> The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then change the law.
> 
> And if you don't like the Constitution of the US, leave or join the other anti-America RWs and work to overthrow it.
> 
> Meanwhile, you DO have to abide by the law or suffer the consequences.
Click to expand...

All it will take is a revised SCOTUS ruling.

Which should be easy enough to arrange, over the long haul.


----------



## Seawytch

Odium said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Break the law, suffer the consequences. That's tyranny?
> 
> 
> 
> Get lost dyke bitch.
Click to expand...


Ooh, cogent argument. I'm slain.


----------



## ogibillm

Kondor3 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Break the law, suffer the consequences. That's tyranny?
> 
> 
> 
> tyranny that she has to respect the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tyranny that forces her to deal with sexual deviants and perverts (homosexuals).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol. keep up the crazy. it suits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not 'crazy' to label homosexuality as sexual deviancy and perversion.
Click to expand...

no, it's crazy to think that requiring a government official to follow the law and treat all citizens equally is tantamount to tyranny.
thinking that it matters that you believe homosexuality to be perversion or deviant is just laughable.


----------



## Kondor3

ogibillm said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> what happens on jan 20, 2017 that would cause the supreme court to go back on their decision?
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives regain control of the Executive, as well as the Legislative, and begin to strong-arm the Judicial.
> 
> All it takes is one Justice, to change his-or-her mind, or to retire, or to expire - in order to stand the whole thing back on its ear again.
> 
> The present state of affairs is far more fragile than you are allowing yourself to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good to know that you don't believe in an independent judicial branch like our founders did.
Click to expand...

Presidents have been stacking and strong-arming the Supreme Court for centuries... snap out of it, farm boy.


----------



## Rotagilla

ogibillm said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> what happens on jan 20, 2017 that would cause the supreme court to go back on their decision?
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives regain control of the Executive, as well as the Legislative, and begin to strong-arm the Judicial.
> 
> All it takes is one Justice, to change his-or-her mind, or to retire, or to expire - in order to stand the whole thing back on its ear again.
> 
> The present state of affairs is far more fragile than you are allowing yourself to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good to know that you don't believe in an independent judicial branch like our founders did.
Click to expand...


all three branches are irredeemably corrupt and only work for minorities and special interests...


----------



## Kondor3

ogibillm said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Break the law, suffer the consequences. That's tyranny?
> 
> 
> 
> tyranny that she has to respect the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tyranny that forces her to deal with sexual deviants and perverts (homosexuals).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol. keep up the crazy. it suits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not 'crazy' to label homosexuality as sexual deviancy and perversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it's crazy to think that requiring a government official to follow the law and treat all citizens equally is tantamount to tyranny.
> thinking that it matters that you believe homosexuality to be perversion or deviant is just laughable.
Click to expand...

Sexual deviancy and perversion should revert to outlaw status.


----------



## Seawytch

Kondor3 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> what happens on jan 20, 2017 that would cause the supreme court to go back on their decision?
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives regain control of the Executive, as well as the Legislative, and begin to strong-arm the Judicial.
> 
> All it takes is one Justice, to change his-or-her mind, or to retire, or to expire - in order to stand the whole thing back on its ear again.
> 
> The present state of affairs is far more fragile than you are allowing yourself to believe.
> 
> The war isn't over.
> 
> It's only just begun.
> 
> You won the last round.
> 
> The American People are likely to win the next.
Click to expand...


Except Roberts wouldn't reverse the decision. You'd have to get at least two liberals off the bench and replace them with someone insane. Good luck.


----------



## BULLDOG

Kondor3 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...4. Believing in a god does not make you immune from the law.
> 
> 
> 
> When the Law forces you to engage in Wickedness, then the Law must be changed.
> 
> The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then change the law.
> 
> And if you don't like the Constitution of the US, leave or join the other anti-America RWs and work to overthrow it.
> 
> Meanwhile, you DO have to abide by the law or suffer the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it will take is a revised SCOTUS ruling.
> 
> Which should be easy enough to arrange, over the long haul.
Click to expand...


You be sure to hold your breath until that happens. You lost. Accept it and move on.


----------



## ogibillm

Rotagilla said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> what happens on jan 20, 2017 that would cause the supreme court to go back on their decision?
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives regain control of the Executive, as well as the Legislative, and begin to strong-arm the Judicial.
> 
> All it takes is one Justice, to change his-or-her mind, or to retire, or to expire - in order to stand the whole thing back on its ear again.
> 
> The present state of affairs is far more fragile than you are allowing yourself to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good to know that you don't believe in an independent judicial branch like our founders did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> all three branches are irredeemably corrupt and only work for minorities and special interests...
Click to expand...

lol. you keep fighting the civil war. those traitors believed as you do


----------



## Vigilante

ogibillm said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...4. Believing in a god does not make you immune from the law.
> 
> 
> 
> When the Law forces you to engage in Wickedness, then the Law must be changed.
> 
> The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many LAWS has the obomanation REFUSED to prosecute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> none.
Click to expand...


You are either a liar, or stupid...I vote for both!


*U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Refuses to Prosecute ... *
*www.freerepublic.com*/focus/f-bloggers/2307562/posts
Aug 03, 2009 · U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder *Refuses to Prosecute* President *Obama* ... Violated the Code of Federal Regulations as well as Federal Criminal *Laws* ...

*Obama’s policy strategy: Ignore laws - Steve Friess ... *
*www.politico.com*/news/stories/0612/77486.html
Jun 16, 2012 · ... the Department of Justice announced it would not *prosecute* medical ... *has* told him *many* times as well. *Obama* is a ... to *ignore* voting *laws*?

*Americorps Inspector General has found many cases of fraud ... *
Americorps Inspector General has found many cases of fraud but Obama administration refuses to prosecute...
Feb 08, 2011 · Americorps Inspector General *has* found *many* cases of fraud but *Obama* administration *refuses to prosecute*. ... *to prosecute* those who break the *laws*?

*DOJ Refuses to Prosecute Case of 'Willful' Tax Records Access *
*www.newsmax.com*/Newsfront/Holder-tax-*prosecute*-*refuse*/2013/07/16/...
DOJ *Refuses to Prosecute* Case of 'Willful ... Grassley *has* asked Attorney General Eric Holder to explain before ... How can *Obama* be a failure. He *has* initiated ...
*DOJ Refuses to Prosecute IRS Cases | Politics *
*beforeitsnews.com* › Politics
Jul 19, 2013 · DOJ *Refuses to Prosecute* IRS Cases. Friday, July 19, 2013 3:46 % of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents. ... (an *Obama* appointee).


*Obama Pushes for Gun Control, Refuses to Prosecute Gang ... *
*www.frontpagemag.com*/.../*obama*-pushes-gun-control-*refuses*-*prosecute*...
*Obama* Pushes for Gun Control, ... but *Obama has* chosen to neglect ... one would think that the documented lack of enforcement of existing gun *laws* by a president ...

Need more, I have them!


----------



## ogibillm

Kondor3 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> tyranny that she has to respect the rights of others.
> 
> 
> 
> Tyranny that forces her to deal with sexual deviants and perverts (homosexuals).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol. keep up the crazy. it suits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not 'crazy' to label homosexuality as sexual deviancy and perversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it's crazy to think that requiring a government official to follow the law and treat all citizens equally is tantamount to tyranny.
> thinking that it matters that you believe homosexuality to be perversion or deviant is just laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sexual deviancy and perversion should revert to outlaw status.
Click to expand...

like i said, keep up the crazy.


----------



## Rotagilla

ogibillm said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Break the law, suffer the consequences. That's tyranny?
> 
> 
> 
> tyranny that she has to respect the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tyranny that forces her to deal with sexual deviants and perverts (homosexuals).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol. keep up the crazy. it suits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not 'crazy' to label homosexuality as sexual deviancy and perversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it's crazy to think that requiring a government official to follow the law and treat all citizens equally is tantamount to tyranny.
> thinking that it matters if you believe homosexuality to be perversion or deviant is just laughable.
Click to expand...


Does affirmative action "treat all citizens equally"?
Do race based set asides and preferential treatment as a "protected class" "treat all citizens equally"?


----------



## Vigilante

AvgGuyIA said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, she was the wrong woman to do this, as her history brought out by the FAGERAL media shows her to be a hypocrite...BUT, if all the other clerks around the country refused to do it, were arrested, and held onto their religious convictions, what would THOUSANDS of these people be sending a message to the majority of Americans....that our culture has been usurped by a bunch of perverted scumbags that, at most are 2% of the population, and have lesbians in the SCOTUS that made another horrible decision!
> 
> 
> 
> She wasn't a Christian while committing those indiscretions.  If she was, Christians would abandon her.  We aren't.
Click to expand...


I know, but still the VISUAL doesn't look good, and you know the FAGERALS in the press and in here will discount that!


----------



## ogibillm

Vigilante said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...4. Believing in a god does not make you immune from the law.
> 
> 
> 
> When the Law forces you to engage in Wickedness, then the Law must be changed.
> 
> The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many LAWS has the obomanation REFUSED to prosecute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are either a liar, or stupid...I vote for both!
> 
> 
> *U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Refuses to Prosecute ... *
> *www.freerepublic.com*/focus/f-bloggers/2307562/posts
> Aug 03, 2009 · U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder *Refuses to Prosecute* President *Obama* ... Violated the Code of Federal Regulations as well as Federal Criminal *Laws* ...
> 
> *Obama’s policy strategy: Ignore laws - Steve Friess ... *
> *www.politico.com*/news/stories/0612/77486.html
> Jun 16, 2012 · ... the Department of Justice announced it would not *prosecute* medical ... *has* told him *many* times as well. *Obama* is a ... to *ignore* voting *laws*?
> 
> *Americorps Inspector General has found many cases of fraud ... *
> Americorps Inspector General has found many cases of fraud but Obama administration refuses to prosecute...
> Feb 08, 2011 · Americorps Inspector General *has* found *many* cases of fraud but *Obama* administration *refuses to prosecute*. ... *to prosecute* those who break the *laws*?
> 
> *DOJ Refuses to Prosecute Case of 'Willful' Tax Records Access *
> *www.newsmax.com*/Newsfront/Holder-tax-*prosecute*-*refuse*/2013/07/16/...
> DOJ *Refuses to Prosecute* Case of 'Willful ... Grassley *has* asked Attorney General Eric Holder to explain before ... How can *Obama* be a failure. He *has* initiated ...
> *DOJ Refuses to Prosecute IRS Cases | Politics *
> *beforeitsnews.com* › Politics
> Jul 19, 2013 · DOJ *Refuses to Prosecute* IRS Cases. Friday, July 19, 2013 3:46 % of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents. ... (an *Obama* appointee).
> 
> 
> *Obama Pushes for Gun Control, Refuses to Prosecute Gang ... *
> *www.frontpagemag.com*/.../*obama*-pushes-gun-control-*refuses*-*prosecute*...
> *Obama* Pushes for Gun Control, ... but *Obama has* chosen to neglect ... one would think that the documented lack of enforcement of existing gun *laws* by a president ...
> 
> Need more, I have them!
Click to expand...

nice sources. now do you have something legitimate?
enforcing the law in a manner different from what you would like is not the same as not enforcing or prosecuting the law


----------



## AvgGuyIA

mudwhistle said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *MLK wasn't getting paid by government for what he did, and was working to stop segregation, not enforce it like she is.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If marriage is a right, then anyone can marry.
> 
> No??????
> 
> WTF!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> same sex couples have the right to get married. she's denying them that right.
> what you said, as incoherent as it was, does not change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She isn't denying them anything other than a license from her. They can always get one.....They just have to get into their cars and drive to another county.
Click to expand...

That doesn't force gay marriage acceptance on the rest us us.


----------



## Rotagilla

ogibillm said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> what happens on jan 20, 2017 that would cause the supreme court to go back on their decision?
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives regain control of the Executive, as well as the Legislative, and begin to strong-arm the Judicial.
> 
> All it takes is one Justice, to change his-or-her mind, or to retire, or to expire - in order to stand the whole thing back on its ear again.
> 
> The present state of affairs is far more fragile than you are allowing yourself to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good to know that you don't believe in an independent judicial branch like our founders did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> all three branches are irredeemably corrupt and only work for minorities and special interests...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol. you keep fighting the civil war. those traitors believed as you do
Click to expand...


they were patriots fighting an invasion...like the patriots in 1776

...like I said, though...all three branches are irredeemably corrupt and only work for minorities and special interests...


----------



## BlindBoo

Religious tyranny is coming to an end.  This is just one grumpy dinosaur pitching a fit.  I don't agree with jail, but if she refuses to do her job she should be fired.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Vandalshandle said:


> Jindal and Cruz are on board with Huckabee. This is going to be a clown car extravaganza!


----------



## Blackrook

Public officials have to obey the law and exercise their powers accordingly.

If we allowed every employee to use his religious objections as an excuse not to do their job, we would have total chaos.


----------



## ogibillm

AvgGuyIA said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have been spoon fed the facts of the case and yet you continue to lie about it.
> 
> Or are you just plain stupid?
> 
> Either way, quit being such a silly drama queen. She's not a martyr or a political prisoner.
> 
> She defied the decision of the Supreme Court of The United States. She is in contempt of court.
> 
> And no - Obama had nothing to do with it so don't even go there.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't call me stupid fuckwad.  How do you like this getting personal?  My opinion is just as valid if not more so.  Half the country was against this court decision.  That doesn't settle anything when God is concerned.  Makes no difference is you believe in God or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> You saying that she is a martyr or political prisoner is indeed the words of an ignorant drama queen.
> 
> If you don't like the law, work to change it. Until then, neither you nor she are above the laws of the land.
> 
> If you want to live by the laws of some "god", Iraq has a spot for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your response is proof this is all about religious persecution and creation of a new class of political prisoners in this country.  Next yoo people will line up the boxcars to haul us off to prisoner camps for extermination.  You did it once before.  You are capable of it again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing the Supreme Court of the United States to nazis?
> 
> That's downright stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit.  Your side are the Nazis.
Click to expand...

says the guy supporting a woman who uses her government office to deny rights to people she disagrees with


----------



## Vigilante

ogibillm said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...4. Believing in a god does not make you immune from the law.
> 
> 
> 
> When the Law forces you to engage in Wickedness, then the Law must be changed.
> 
> The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many LAWS has the obomanation REFUSED to prosecute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are either a liar, or stupid...I vote for both!
> 
> 
> *U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Refuses to Prosecute ... *
> *www.freerepublic.com*/focus/f-bloggers/2307562/posts
> Aug 03, 2009 · U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder *Refuses to Prosecute* President *Obama* ... Violated the Code of Federal Regulations as well as Federal Criminal *Laws* ...
> 
> *Obama’s policy strategy: Ignore laws - Steve Friess ... *
> *www.politico.com*/news/stories/0612/77486.html
> Jun 16, 2012 · ... the Department of Justice announced it would not *prosecute* medical ... *has* told him *many* times as well. *Obama* is a ... to *ignore* voting *laws*?
> 
> *Americorps Inspector General has found many cases of fraud ... *
> Americorps Inspector General has found many cases of fraud but Obama administration refuses to prosecute...
> Feb 08, 2011 · Americorps Inspector General *has* found *many* cases of fraud but *Obama* administration *refuses to prosecute*. ... *to prosecute* those who break the *laws*?
> 
> *DOJ Refuses to Prosecute Case of 'Willful' Tax Records Access *
> *www.newsmax.com*/Newsfront/Holder-tax-*prosecute*-*refuse*/2013/07/16/...
> DOJ *Refuses to Prosecute* Case of 'Willful ... Grassley *has* asked Attorney General Eric Holder to explain before ... How can *Obama* be a failure. He *has* initiated ...
> *DOJ Refuses to Prosecute IRS Cases | Politics *
> *beforeitsnews.com* › Politics
> Jul 19, 2013 · DOJ *Refuses to Prosecute* IRS Cases. Friday, July 19, 2013 3:46 % of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents. ... (an *Obama* appointee).
> 
> 
> *Obama Pushes for Gun Control, Refuses to Prosecute Gang ... *
> *www.frontpagemag.com*/.../*obama*-pushes-gun-control-*refuses*-*prosecute*...
> *Obama* Pushes for Gun Control, ... but *Obama has* chosen to neglect ... one would think that the documented lack of enforcement of existing gun *laws* by a president ...
> 
> Need more, I have them!
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice sources. now do you have something legitimate?
Click to expand...


Here, for you with the BULLSHIT answers is another 114,000 LINKS.... Sucks to be a fucking RETARDED FAGERAL!

how many laws has obama refused to prosecute - Bing


----------



## Luddly Neddite

AvgGuyIA said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have been spoon fed the facts of the case and yet you continue to lie about it.
> 
> Or are you just plain stupid?
> 
> Either way, quit being such a silly drama queen. She's not a martyr or a political prisoner.
> 
> She defied the decision of the Supreme Court of The United States. She is in contempt of court.
> 
> And no - Obama had nothing to do with it so don't even go there.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't call me stupid fuckwad.  How do you like this getting personal?  My opinion is just as valid if not more so.  Half the country was against this court decision.  That doesn't settle anything when God is concerned.  Makes no difference is you believe in God or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> You saying that she is a martyr or political prisoner is indeed the words of an ignorant drama queen.
> 
> If you don't like the law, work to change it. Until then, neither you nor she are above the laws of the land.
> 
> If you want to live by the laws of some "god", Iraq has a spot for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your response is proof this is all about religious persecution and creation of a new class of political prisoners in this country.  Next yoo people will line up the boxcars to haul us off to prisoner camps for extermination.  You did it once before.  You are capable of it again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing the Supreme Court of the United States to nazis?
> 
> That's downright stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit.  Your side are the Nazis.
Click to expand...



Why don't you know and understand that this law was passed by a CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

ogibillm said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't call me stupid fuckwad.  How do you like this getting personal?  My opinion is just as valid if not more so.  Half the country was against this court decision.  That doesn't settle anything when God is concerned.  Makes no difference is you believe in God or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> You saying that she is a martyr or political prisoner is indeed the words of an ignorant drama queen.
> 
> If you don't like the law, work to change it. Until then, neither you nor she are above the laws of the land.
> 
> If you want to live by the laws of some "god", Iraq has a spot for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your response is proof this is all about religious persecution and creation of a new class of political prisoners in this country.  Next yoo people will line up the boxcars to haul us off to prisoner camps for extermination.  You did it once before.  You are capable of it again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing the Supreme Court of the United States to nazis?
> 
> That's downright stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit.  Your side are the Nazis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> says the guy supporting a woman who uses her government office to deny rights to people she disagrees with
Click to expand...



Yep. He would indeed force others to conform to his beliefs and the expense of their own rights.

You don't get much more "nazi" than that.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

AvgGuyIA said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If marriage is a right, then anyone can marry.
> 
> No??????
> 
> WTF!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> same sex couples have the right to get married. she's denying them that right.
> what you said, as incoherent as it was, does not change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She isn't denying them anything other than a license from her. They can always get one.....They just have to get into their cars and drive to another county.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't force gay marriage acceptance on the rest us us.
Click to expand...



There is nothing that forces you to accept marriage equality.

Nothing.

Indeed, what you think and believe is of no importance at all. 

The law, however, is.


----------



## Preacher

ogibillm said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Judge David Bunning's office number.
> Give him a call. (859) 392-7907
> 
> Have fun sane thinking people!  To bad we don't have the numbers or enough angry people fed up with activist swine tyrants to march on his office.
> 
> 
> 
> yeah. it's sad that insanity just isn't as popular as you'd like
Click to expand...

Those supporting religious freedom are the sane. YOUR KIND are the insane. Criminally so.


Seawytch said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Break the law, suffer the consequences. That's tyranny?
> 
> 
> 
> Get lost dyke bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ooh, cogent argument. I'm slain.
Click to expand...

No need for me to waste my time or energy on a disgusting homosexual


BlindBoo said:


> Religious tyranny is coming to an end.  This is just one grumpy dinosaur pitching a fit.  I don't agree with jail, but if she refuses to do her job she should be fired.


Tell that to the Kentucky Legislature they have had 3 months to do that.


----------



## bucs90

Luddly Neddite said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If marriage is a right, then anyone can marry.
> 
> No??????
> 
> WTF!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> same sex couples have the right to get married. she's denying them that right.
> what you said, as incoherent as it was, does not change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She isn't denying them anything other than a license from her. They can always get one.....They just have to get into their cars and drive to another county.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't force gay marriage acceptance on the rest us us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing that forces you to accept marriage equality.
> 
> Nothing.
> 
> Indeed, what you think and believe is of no importance at all.
> 
> The law, however, is.
Click to expand...


That's true. Even if a person doesn't like it the Supreme Court rulings are the LAW and must be accepted.

Just like Graham v. Connor. And Tennessee v. Garner. And Maryland v. Wilson. ALL laws regarding police use of force. ALL major reason why cops are so often justified in shootings.

You libs may not LIKE it. But it's the law you must accept.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

And now Lindsey Graham, Kasich, Rand Paul.

Paul was just on and actually lied about it. 

Repubs believe they have to abide by only the laws with which they agree. 

Tough.


----------



## NYcarbineer

boedicca said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well they called Lincoln a tyrant too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYC pins the bogometer, como siempre.
> 
> The clerk is not preventing gays from getting married; she just doesn't want to participate in the process.  That doesn't keep them from getting a marriage license elsewhere or from someone else.
> 
> This is yet another instance of Tolerance not being enough.  One must Accept and Participate and given up Independent Thought.
> 
> Slavery is Freedom.
Click to expand...


Yeah, well turning black people away from your restaurant doesn't keep them from going to another neighborhood either.

Tyranny is when you abandon the democratic system you have in place and start letting one person make up their own set of laws.  In this case, this clerk is the one person.


----------



## Preacher

NYcarbineer said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well they called Lincoln a tyrant too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYC pins the bogometer, como siempre.
> 
> The clerk is not preventing gays from getting married; she just doesn't want to participate in the process.  That doesn't keep them from getting a marriage license elsewhere or from someone else.
> 
> This is yet another instance of Tolerance not being enough.  One must Accept and Participate and given up Independent Thought.
> 
> Slavery is Freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, well turning black people away from your restaurant doesn't keep them from going to another neighborhood either.
> 
> Tyranny is when you abandon the democratic system you have in place and start letting one person make up their own set of laws.  In this case, this clerk is the one person.
Click to expand...

My business my choice. Just like no pets,no shirt no shoes etc means no service.I want a safe quiet establishment not something out of a jungle scene between chimps playing out in my eatery.


----------



## Vigilante

Luddly Neddite said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't call me stupid fuckwad.  How do you like this getting personal?  My opinion is just as valid if not more so.  Half the country was against this court decision.  That doesn't settle anything when God is concerned.  Makes no difference is you believe in God or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> You saying that she is a martyr or political prisoner is indeed the words of an ignorant drama queen.
> 
> If you don't like the law, work to change it. Until then, neither you nor she are above the laws of the land.
> 
> If you want to live by the laws of some "god", Iraq has a spot for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your response is proof this is all about religious persecution and creation of a new class of political prisoners in this country.  Next yoo people will line up the boxcars to haul us off to prisoner camps for extermination.  You did it once before.  You are capable of it again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing the Supreme Court of the United States to nazis?
> 
> That's downright stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit.  Your side are the Nazis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you know and understand that this law was passed by a CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court?
Click to expand...


Lying Fugly TRIES to slip another one through! TALK about your LIBERAL COURT!


----------



## NYcarbineer

Odium said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well they called Lincoln a tyrant too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYC pins the bogometer, como siempre.
> 
> The clerk is not preventing gays from getting married; she just doesn't want to participate in the process.  That doesn't keep them from getting a marriage license elsewhere or from someone else.
> 
> This is yet another instance of Tolerance not being enough.  One must Accept and Participate and given up Independent Thought.
> 
> Slavery is Freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, well turning black people away from your restaurant doesn't keep them from going to another neighborhood either.
> 
> Tyranny is when you abandon the democratic system you have in place and start letting one person make up their own set of laws.  In this case, this clerk is the one person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My business my choice. Just like no pets,no shirt no shoes etc means no service.I want a safe quiet establishment not something out of a jungle scene between chimps playing out in my eatery.
Click to expand...


You can throw any color of person out of your restaurant for being disruptive.

You cannot refuse service based on skin color.  I'm not surprised you don't understand that.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

BTW, the others who defied the law were not elected and should be fired. 

Don't do the job you were hired to do? 

Go find a different job.


----------



## LastProphet

*Same actress plays "Kim Davis, Kentucky clerk still Refusing to Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses" and "Prison Seamstress Joyce Mitchell, who pleaded guilty to helping two inmates escape".*
Reductionism: Simulated reality: 
All headlines now stated with actors, the reverse of the 1998 movie "Truman show".
Reductionism: elapsed time between roles:
Contrast the actor playing Chris Stevens, who stepped again on stage in another role a decade later, with actors now stepping on stage in other roles weeks later.

_*Notes*_
Joyce Mitchell
Sex & Drugs: Prison Seamstress Joyce Mitchell's Escape Confession Revealed

Kim Davis
Kentucky Clerk Still Won't Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

*BASICS*
How fake folks are created:
Chris Stevens played by the same actor who played long time Rep. Gary Condit from the Chandra Levy hoax murder.
"Dead" US ambassador in Libya lived less than 2 years:
Part of Obama's detonation to let terninator Hiitlery Clinton finish the job:
Illuminati Actors: Chris Stevens Libya  ambassador lived only 2 years

_Blog_
Reductionism in End Times - KEY to conspiracies. In fact nothing escapes its Laws.: Kentucky clerk Prison Seamstress Same actress


----------



## Preacher

NYcarbineer said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well they called Lincoln a tyrant too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYC pins the bogometer, como siempre.
> 
> The clerk is not preventing gays from getting married; she just doesn't want to participate in the process.  That doesn't keep them from getting a marriage license elsewhere or from someone else.
> 
> This is yet another instance of Tolerance not being enough.  One must Accept and Participate and given up Independent Thought.
> 
> Slavery is Freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, well turning black people away from your restaurant doesn't keep them from going to another neighborhood either.
> 
> Tyranny is when you abandon the democratic system you have in place and start letting one person make up their own set of laws.  In this case, this clerk is the one person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My business my choice. Just like no pets,no shirt no shoes etc means no service.I want a safe quiet establishment not something out of a jungle scene between chimps playing out in my eatery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can throw any color of person out of your restaurant for being disruptive.
> 
> You cannot refuse service based on skin color.  I'm not surprised you don't understand that.
Click to expand...

Oh I understand tyranny says I can't. Its why I would never own a public business.I put my money into it I will choose who is allowed in or maybe I could make it a private club


----------



## BlindBoo

Odium said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> i find it funny that the op believes tyranny is jailing a public servant for contempt but that same public servant unilaterally denying services to citizens she disagrees with is not tyrannical.
> 
> 
> 
> The tyrant is trampling on her first amendment rights. Plain and simple. If he dislikes her choices so much why has the Kentucky Legislature in 3 months not impeached and removed her? Hmmmm?
Click to expand...


Requiring equal treatment of all citizens is not tyranny.  She should have resigned in protest.


----------



## westwall

Vandalshandle said:


> ...for failure to obey court order of issuing marraige licenses to gay couples.
> 
> News from The Associated Press








Good.  If she is not able to do her job in accordance with the laws of the land she should resign her position.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

From the comments section of the above link.

_In the United States, same-sex marriage has been legal nationwide since June 26, 2015, when the United States Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that state-level bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. The court ruled that the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples and the refusal to recognize those marriages performed in other jurisdictions violates the Due Process and the Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The ruling overturned a precedent, Baker v. Nelson._


----------



## Darkwind

EriktheRed said:


> What happened to all that gloating we saw from the OP in that other thread?


What gloating would that be?

The woman still has not violated her moral convictions while the Judge may have just shattered the Constitution.

I said she'd probably go to jail for it, but its like that governor of Mass. calling Christians who stand up for their beliefs bigots and that they had no place in our society.  Soon, he and the rest of you will be lining Christians up on the beach.


----------



## Blackrook

We have to make some exceptions for religious believers, but we can't let them roll over us, as the Muslims are trying to do: taxi drivers who refuse to carry passengers who have alcohol, stewardess refusing to work when told to serve alcohol, demanding separation of men and women at public assemblies, etc.  There was even a woman who would not take off her hajib to take a driver's license photo  We can't have different rules for Christians and Muslims.


----------



## westwall

Odium said:


> TYRANNY UPDATE:  Judge Orders Christian Woman to Jail because She Refuses to Violate her Faith
> 
> Christians,while I am NOT one of you I respect ANYONE who stands for their faith so much they are willing to be thrown in jail rather than bend to the tyrants rule deserves respect. This is without a doubt in my mind the beginning of the assault on christianity and those that believe in it and stand by its doctrines. Now just a few quotes for you all.
> 
> There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.
> Charles de Montesquieu
> 
> All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> This judges ruling is PROOF that neither he nor the plaintiffs are interested in "marriage" they are interested in this martyr violating her faith by approving these "marriages" The Kentucky Legislature has had 3 months to impeach Kim Davis why haven't they? The judge can rule her to be absent since his tyrannical ass just tossed a woman in jail for following her faith he will still not rule her absent. He is ALSO threatening to throw the rest of the clerks in court for following their faith as well.Its time to march on the court and give this tyrant a tyrants just desserts.
> 
> Oh and for any CLOWNS in here. This woman may have been married 4 times but she has also only been a christian for 4 years. GET OVER IT and stop hiding your bigotry trying to destroy her religious rights.
> 
> People this is what our forefathers FOUGHT FOR! Its WHY the USA was founded! STAND! FIGHT! RESIST!










ummm, she's the one who is being tyrannical.  She is defying the rule of law and thus she should resign her position if she can't find a way to reconcile her beliefs with the law.  Period end of story.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

From the comments section

_
In the United States, same-sex marriage has been legal nationwide since June 26, 2015, when the United States Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that state-level bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. The court ruled that the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples and the refusal to recognize those marriages performed in other jurisdictions violates the Due Process and the Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The ruling overturned a precedent, Baker v. Nelson._


----------



## Darkwind

BlindBoo said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> i find it funny that the op believes tyranny is jailing a public servant for contempt but that same public servant unilaterally denying services to citizens she disagrees with is not tyrannical.
> 
> 
> 
> The tyrant is trampling on her first amendment rights. Plain and simple. If he dislikes her choices so much why has the Kentucky Legislature in 3 months not impeached and removed her? Hmmmm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Requiring equal treatment of all citizens is not tyranny.  She should have resigned in protest.
Click to expand...

Requiring people to violate their own conscious is.  

She was in the job PRIOR to the ruling and held these beliefs PRIOR to the ruling..


----------



## Darkwind

westwall said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> TYRANNY UPDATE:  Judge Orders Christian Woman to Jail because She Refuses to Violate her Faith
> 
> Christians,while I am NOT one of you I respect ANYONE who stands for their faith so much they are willing to be thrown in jail rather than bend to the tyrants rule deserves respect. This is without a doubt in my mind the beginning of the assault on christianity and those that believe in it and stand by its doctrines. Now just a few quotes for you all.
> 
> There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.
> Charles de Montesquieu
> 
> All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> This judges ruling is PROOF that neither he nor the plaintiffs are interested in "marriage" they are interested in this martyr violating her faith by approving these "marriages" The Kentucky Legislature has had 3 months to impeach Kim Davis why haven't they? The judge can rule her to be absent since his tyrannical ass just tossed a woman in jail for following her faith he will still not rule her absent. He is ALSO threatening to throw the rest of the clerks in court for following their faith as well.Its time to march on the court and give this tyrant a tyrants just desserts.
> 
> Oh and for any CLOWNS in here. This woman may have been married 4 times but she has also only been a christian for 4 years. GET OVER IT and stop hiding your bigotry trying to destroy her religious rights.
> 
> People this is what our forefathers FOUGHT FOR! Its WHY the USA was founded! STAND! FIGHT! RESIST!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ummm, she's the one who is being tyrannical.  She is defying the rule of law and thus she should resign her position if she can't find a way to reconcile her beliefs with the law.  Period end of story.
Click to expand...

No law can be made that violates a persons conscious.....Any law becomes un-Constititutional that requires a person to give up their deeply held beliefs...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

* Every Deputy Clerk But Kim Davis' Son Agree To Issue Licenses *


----------



## g5000

Odium said:


> TYRANNY UPDATE:  Judge Orders Christian Woman to Jail because She Refuses to Violate her Faith



The way I see it, a hypocritical bigoted tyrant has finally been dislodged.

But don't you worry, pants shitter.  She's going to be rich when you rubes send her your money.  That's what she is in this for.

"First time I've donated to a Democrat!"


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Odium said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Judge David Bunning's office number.
> Give him a call. (859) 392-7907
> 
> Have fun sane thinking people!  To bad we don't have the numbers or enough angry people fed up with activist swine tyrants to march on his office.
> 
> 
> 
> yeah. it's sad that insanity just isn't as popular as you'd like
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those supporting religious freedom are the sane. YOUR KIND are the insane. Criminally so.
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Break the law, suffer the consequences. That's tyranny?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get lost dyke bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ooh, cogent argument. I'm slain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for me to waste my time or energy on a disgusting homosexual
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religious tyranny is coming to an end.  This is just one grumpy dinosaur pitching a fit.  I don't agree with jail, but if she refuses to do her job she should be fired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the Kentucky Legislature they have had 3 months to do that.
Click to expand...


_"Those supporting religious freedom are the sane. YOUR KIND are the insane. Criminally so."_

Wrong as usual.

There is nothing in the law that takes away this bigot's "religious freedom".
She broke the law and is paying the price for her criminal act.

Hopefully, she'll be on the unemployment line soon.

She'll probably have a Go Fund Me account. Put your money where your bible is and send her some bucks.


----------



## westwall

Darkwind said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> TYRANNY UPDATE:  Judge Orders Christian Woman to Jail because She Refuses to Violate her Faith
> 
> Christians,while I am NOT one of you I respect ANYONE who stands for their faith so much they are willing to be thrown in jail rather than bend to the tyrants rule deserves respect. This is without a doubt in my mind the beginning of the assault on christianity and those that believe in it and stand by its doctrines. Now just a few quotes for you all.
> 
> There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.
> Charles de Montesquieu
> 
> All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> This judges ruling is PROOF that neither he nor the plaintiffs are interested in "marriage" they are interested in this martyr violating her faith by approving these "marriages" The Kentucky Legislature has had 3 months to impeach Kim Davis why haven't they? The judge can rule her to be absent since his tyrannical ass just tossed a woman in jail for following her faith he will still not rule her absent. He is ALSO threatening to throw the rest of the clerks in court for following their faith as well.Its time to march on the court and give this tyrant a tyrants just desserts.
> 
> Oh and for any CLOWNS in here. This woman may have been married 4 times but she has also only been a christian for 4 years. GET OVER IT and stop hiding your bigotry trying to destroy her religious rights.
> 
> People this is what our forefathers FOUGHT FOR! Its WHY the USA was founded! STAND! FIGHT! RESIST!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ummm, she's the one who is being tyrannical.  She is defying the rule of law and thus she should resign her position if she can't find a way to reconcile her beliefs with the law.  Period end of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No law can be made that violates a persons conscious.....Any law becomes un-Constititutional that requires a person to give up their deeply held beliefs...
Click to expand...







Sure they can.  Laws like that are passed all of the time.  She can not be made to violate her religious beliefs, however, as she is a ELECTED OFFICIAL, she is bound to FOLLOW the LAW.  That is the oath she swore.

If she can't reconcile her beliefs with the oath she swore then her only option is to resign in protest.  Generals and business executives do it all the time and so should she.


----------



## Preacher

BlindBoo said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> i find it funny that the op believes tyranny is jailing a public servant for contempt but that same public servant unilaterally denying services to citizens she disagrees with is not tyrannical.
> 
> 
> 
> The tyrant is trampling on her first amendment rights. Plain and simple. If he dislikes her choices so much why has the Kentucky Legislature in 3 months not impeached and removed her? Hmmmm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Requiring equal treatment of all citizens is not tyranny.  She should have resigned in protest.
Click to expand...

Faggots can get married to any female that wants to marry them lesbians can marry any man that wants to marry them. There is equal treatment. The fact this thug in a robe has REQUIRED her to sign the license for the faggots "marriage" before he releases her is just proof its not about them getting a license its about FORCING their beliefs on her. He can order her to resign or be impeached but nope he didn't. He said she won't get out until she discards her religion which is unconstitutional, That POS thug just went on the list.


westwall said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> TYRANNY UPDATE:  Judge Orders Christian Woman to Jail because She Refuses to Violate her Faith
> 
> Christians,while I am NOT one of you I respect ANYONE who stands for their faith so much they are willing to be thrown in jail rather than bend to the tyrants rule deserves respect. This is without a doubt in my mind the beginning of the assault on christianity and those that believe in it and stand by its doctrines. Now just a few quotes for you all.
> 
> There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.
> Charles de Montesquieu
> 
> All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> This judges ruling is PROOF that neither he nor the plaintiffs are interested in "marriage" they are interested in this martyr violating her faith by approving these "marriages" The Kentucky Legislature has had 3 months to impeach Kim Davis why haven't they? The judge can rule her to be absent since his tyrannical ass just tossed a woman in jail for following her faith he will still not rule her absent. He is ALSO threatening to throw the rest of the clerks in court for following their faith as well.Its time to march on the court and give this tyrant a tyrants just desserts.
> 
> Oh and for any CLOWNS in here. This woman may have been married 4 times but she has also only been a christian for 4 years. GET OVER IT and stop hiding your bigotry trying to destroy her religious rights.
> 
> People this is what our forefathers FOUGHT FOR! Its WHY the USA was founded! STAND! FIGHT! RESIST!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ummm, she's the one who is being tyrannical.  She is defying the rule of law and thus she should resign her position if she can't find a way to reconcile her beliefs with the law.  Period end of story.
Click to expand...

No she isn't. Its not law its an opinion by 5 people. Period. The state of Kentucky should have impeached her if they wanted her gone yet neither the state nor this thug in a robe has realized that. Its about punishment for not agreeing with faggotry plain and simple.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Blackrook said:


> We have to make some exceptions for religious believers, but we can't let them roll over us, as the Muslims are trying to do: taxi drivers who refuse to carry passengers who have alcohol, stewardess refusing to work when told to serve alcohol, demanding separation of men and women at public assemblies, etc.  There was even a woman who would not take off her hajib to take a driver's license photo  We can't have different rules for Christians and Muslims.




If she were Muslim, the fundies would be calling for her head.

We DO have different laws for "christians" and Muslims.


----------



## Preacher

g5000 said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> TYRANNY UPDATE:  Judge Orders Christian Woman to Jail because She Refuses to Violate her Faith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The way I see it, a hypocritical bigoted tyrant has finally been dislodged.
> 
> But don't you worry, pants shitter.  She's going to be rich when you rubes send her your money.  That's what she is in this for.
> 
> "First time I've donated to a Democrat!"
Click to expand...

She is still in power. You moron. That's my entire fucking point. He could have ordered her absent and then ANY Kentucky legislator could have brought up impeachment against her....why is no one willing to do so? You telling me in entire state of Kentucky there ain't one fucking person that doesn't like what she is doing?


----------



## ogibillm

Rotagilla said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> what happens on jan 20, 2017 that would cause the supreme court to go back on their decision?
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives regain control of the Executive, as well as the Legislative, and begin to strong-arm the Judicial.
> 
> All it takes is one Justice, to change his-or-her mind, or to retire, or to expire - in order to stand the whole thing back on its ear again.
> 
> The present state of affairs is far more fragile than you are allowing yourself to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good to know that you don't believe in an independent judicial branch like our founders did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> all three branches are irredeemably corrupt and only work for minorities and special interests...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol. you keep fighting the civil war. those traitors believed as you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they were patriots fighting an invasion...like the patriots in 1776
> 
> ...like I said, though...all three branches are irredeemably corrupt and only work for minorities and special interests...
Click to expand...

you really don't understand the word patriot if you think it describes traitors.


----------



## Lakhota

Oh, what a beautiful sight.  She looks like a deranged Bible thumper - maybe an LDS type.


----------



## LittleNipper

Vigilante said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> You saying that she is a martyr or political prisoner is indeed the words of an ignorant drama queen.
> 
> If you don't like the law, work to change it. Until then, neither you nor she are above the laws of the land.
> 
> If you want to live by the laws of some "god", Iraq has a spot for you.
> 
> 
> 
> Your response is proof this is all about religious persecution and creation of a new class of political prisoners in this country.  Next yoo people will line up the boxcars to haul us off to prisoner camps for extermination.  You did it once before.  You are capable of it again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing the Supreme Court of the United States to nazis?
> 
> That's downright stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit.  Your side are the Nazis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you know and understand that this law was passed by a CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lying Fugly TRIES to slip another one through! TALK about your LIBERAL COURT!
Click to expand...

The question is who is "living" through that document? It doesn't seem to be the majority but an elite.


----------



## Darkwind

westwall said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> TYRANNY UPDATE:  Judge Orders Christian Woman to Jail because She Refuses to Violate her Faith
> 
> Christians,while I am NOT one of you I respect ANYONE who stands for their faith so much they are willing to be thrown in jail rather than bend to the tyrants rule deserves respect. This is without a doubt in my mind the beginning of the assault on christianity and those that believe in it and stand by its doctrines. Now just a few quotes for you all.
> 
> There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.
> Charles de Montesquieu
> 
> All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> This judges ruling is PROOF that neither he nor the plaintiffs are interested in "marriage" they are interested in this martyr violating her faith by approving these "marriages" The Kentucky Legislature has had 3 months to impeach Kim Davis why haven't they? The judge can rule her to be absent since his tyrannical ass just tossed a woman in jail for following her faith he will still not rule her absent. He is ALSO threatening to throw the rest of the clerks in court for following their faith as well.Its time to march on the court and give this tyrant a tyrants just desserts.
> 
> Oh and for any CLOWNS in here. This woman may have been married 4 times but she has also only been a christian for 4 years. GET OVER IT and stop hiding your bigotry trying to destroy her religious rights.
> 
> People this is what our forefathers FOUGHT FOR! Its WHY the USA was founded! STAND! FIGHT! RESIST!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ummm, she's the one who is being tyrannical.  She is defying the rule of law and thus she should resign her position if she can't find a way to reconcile her beliefs with the law.  Period end of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No law can be made that violates a persons conscious.....Any law becomes un-Constititutional that requires a person to give up their deeply held beliefs...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can.  Laws like that are passed all of the time.  She can not be made to violate her religious beliefs, however, as she is a ELECTED OFFICIAL, she is bound to FOLLOW the LAW.  That is the oath she swore.
> 
> If she can't reconcile her beliefs with the oath she swore then her only option is to resign in protest.  Generals and business executives do it all the time and so should she.
Click to expand...

Except it only works that way in a dictatorial tyranny....

She held the position BEFORE the law was passed.  This means that the law intentionally targets people of faith.....I hope that she appeals to the SCOTUS......

And to be honest.....I really don't care what anyone on this or any forum thinks regarding this.....The day this country can pass a law that requires ME to have to alter My beliefs or behaviors is the day that that government needs to be abolished.

It spells the death of liberty.


----------



## Vigilante

Lakhota said:


> Oh, what a beautiful sight.  She looks like a deranged Bible thumper.



Or a Lakota Indian squaw... one never knows!


----------



## ogibillm

Odium said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> TYRANNY UPDATE:  Judge Orders Christian Woman to Jail because She Refuses to Violate her Faith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The way I see it, a hypocritical bigoted tyrant has finally been dislodged.
> 
> But don't you worry, pants shitter.  She's going to be rich when you rubes send her your money.  That's what she is in this for.
> 
> "First time I've donated to a Democrat!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is still in power. You moron. That's my entire fucking point. He could have ordered her absent and then ANY Kentucky legislator could have brought up impeachment against her....why is no one willing to do so? You telling me in entire state of Kentucky there ain't one fucking person that doesn't like what she is doing?
Click to expand...

could it be that the kentucky legislatures is full of ignorant republicans that don't want to piss off their ignorant base?


----------



## Rotagilla

ogibillm said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives regain control of the Executive, as well as the Legislative, and begin to strong-arm the Judicial.
> 
> All it takes is one Justice, to change his-or-her mind, or to retire, or to expire - in order to stand the whole thing back on its ear again.
> 
> The present state of affairs is far more fragile than you are allowing yourself to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> good to know that you don't believe in an independent judicial branch like our founders did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> all three branches are irredeemably corrupt and only work for minorities and special interests...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol. you keep fighting the civil war. those traitors believed as you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they were patriots fighting an invasion...like the patriots in 1776
> 
> ...like I said, though...all three branches are irredeemably corrupt and only work for minorities and special interests...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you really don't understand the word patriot if you think it describes traitors.
Click to expand...


Who is a traitor? the confederates?  They tried to peacefully withdraw from the union...How were they "traitors"?

Were the colonists in 1776 "traitors"?


----------



## ogibillm

Darkwind said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> TYRANNY UPDATE:  Judge Orders Christian Woman to Jail because She Refuses to Violate her Faith
> 
> Christians,while I am NOT one of you I respect ANYONE who stands for their faith so much they are willing to be thrown in jail rather than bend to the tyrants rule deserves respect. This is without a doubt in my mind the beginning of the assault on christianity and those that believe in it and stand by its doctrines. Now just a few quotes for you all.
> 
> There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.
> Charles de Montesquieu
> 
> All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> This judges ruling is PROOF that neither he nor the plaintiffs are interested in "marriage" they are interested in this martyr violating her faith by approving these "marriages" The Kentucky Legislature has had 3 months to impeach Kim Davis why haven't they? The judge can rule her to be absent since his tyrannical ass just tossed a woman in jail for following her faith he will still not rule her absent. He is ALSO threatening to throw the rest of the clerks in court for following their faith as well.Its time to march on the court and give this tyrant a tyrants just desserts.
> 
> Oh and for any CLOWNS in here. This woman may have been married 4 times but she has also only been a christian for 4 years. GET OVER IT and stop hiding your bigotry trying to destroy her religious rights.
> 
> People this is what our forefathers FOUGHT FOR! Its WHY the USA was founded! STAND! FIGHT! RESIST!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ummm, she's the one who is being tyrannical.  She is defying the rule of law and thus she should resign her position if she can't find a way to reconcile her beliefs with the law.  Period end of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No law can be made that violates a persons conscious.....Any law becomes un-Constititutional that requires a person to give up their deeply held beliefs...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can.  Laws like that are passed all of the time.  She can not be made to violate her religious beliefs, however, as she is a ELECTED OFFICIAL, she is bound to FOLLOW the LAW.  That is the oath she swore.
> 
> If she can't reconcile her beliefs with the oath she swore then her only option is to resign in protest.  Generals and business executives do it all the time and so should she.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except it only works that way in a dictatorial tyranny....
> 
> She held the position BEFORE the law was passed.  This means that the law intentionally targets people of faith.....I hope that she appeals to the SCOTUS......
> 
> And to be honest.....I really don't care what anyone on this or any forum thinks regarding this.....The day this country can pass a law that requires ME to have to alter My beliefs or behaviors is the day that that government needs to be abolished.
> 
> It spells the death of liberty.
Click to expand...

she held her position prior to the ratification of the 14th amendment?


----------



## BlindBoo

Odium said:


> Those supporting religious freedom are the sane.



You have the freedom to believe in what ever mythology suits you.  Just stop imposing those superstitious beliefs on the rest of us.


----------



## RodISHI

westwall said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> TYRANNY UPDATE:  Judge Orders Christian Woman to Jail because She Refuses to Violate her Faith
> 
> Christians,while I am NOT one of you I respect ANYONE who stands for their faith so much they are willing to be thrown in jail rather than bend to the tyrants rule deserves respect. This is without a doubt in my mind the beginning of the assault on christianity and those that believe in it and stand by its doctrines. Now just a few quotes for you all.
> 
> There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.
> Charles de Montesquieu
> 
> All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> This judges ruling is PROOF that neither he nor the plaintiffs are interested in "marriage" they are interested in this martyr violating her faith by approving these "marriages" The Kentucky Legislature has had 3 months to impeach Kim Davis why haven't they? The judge can rule her to be absent since his tyrannical ass just tossed a woman in jail for following her faith he will still not rule her absent. He is ALSO threatening to throw the rest of the clerks in court for following their faith as well.Its time to march on the court and give this tyrant a tyrants just desserts.
> 
> Oh and for any CLOWNS in here. This woman may have been married 4 times but she has also only been a christian for 4 years. GET OVER IT and stop hiding your bigotry trying to destroy her religious rights.
> 
> People this is what our forefathers FOUGHT FOR! Its WHY the USA was founded! STAND! FIGHT! RESIST!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ummm, she's the one who is being tyrannical.  She is defying the rule of law and thus she should resign her position if she can't find a way to reconcile her beliefs with the law.  Period end of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No law can be made that violates a persons conscious.....Any law becomes un-Constititutional that requires a person to give up their deeply held beliefs...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can.  Laws like that are passed all of the time.  She can not be made to violate her religious beliefs, however, as she is a ELECTED OFFICIAL, she is bound to FOLLOW the LAW.  That is the oath she swore.
> 
> If she can't reconcile her beliefs with the oath she swore then her only option is to resign in protest.  Generals and business executives do it all the time and so should she.
Click to expand...

She was elected before the Supreme Court became activist and supposedly changed the law with an erroneous ruling that now claims a right to rule over her religious beliefs. Judges rulings are not law. Only Legislators can create law.


----------



## Preacher

ogibillm said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> TYRANNY UPDATE:  Judge Orders Christian Woman to Jail because She Refuses to Violate her Faith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The way I see it, a hypocritical bigoted tyrant has finally been dislodged.
> 
> But don't you worry, pants shitter.  She's going to be rich when you rubes send her your money.  That's what she is in this for.
> 
> "First time I've donated to a Democrat!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is still in power. You moron. That's my entire fucking point. He could have ordered her absent and then ANY Kentucky legislator could have brought up impeachment against her....why is no one willing to do so? You telling me in entire state of Kentucky there ain't one fucking person that doesn't like what she is doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> could it be that the kentucky legislatures is full of ignorant republicans that don't want to piss off their ignorant base?
Click to expand...


Current composition of the Kentucky Senate (2013)[8]
*Affiliation* *Members*
Republican Party 23
Democratic Party 14
  Independent 1
*Total* *38

Current composition of the Kentucky House of Representatives (2013)[10]
Affiliation Members
Democratic Party 54
Republican Party 46
  Vacant seat 0
Total 100


House is democrat run by democrats just like Kim Davis *


----------



## ogibillm

Rotagilla said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> good to know that you don't believe in an independent judicial branch like our founders did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> all three branches are irredeemably corrupt and only work for minorities and special interests...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol. you keep fighting the civil war. those traitors believed as you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they were patriots fighting an invasion...like the patriots in 1776
> 
> ...like I said, though...all three branches are irredeemably corrupt and only work for minorities and special interests...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you really don't understand the word patriot if you think it describes traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is a traitor? the confederates?  They tried to peacefully withdraw from the union...How were they "traitors"?
> 
> Were the colonists in 1776 "traitors"?
Click to expand...

yes. people who decide that they will rebel against their own country are traitors, not patriots. 
and you need a country in order to be a patriot. so our founders were not patriots prior to the adoption of the articles of confederation.


----------



## g5000

Odium said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> TYRANNY UPDATE:  Judge Orders Christian Woman to Jail because She Refuses to Violate her Faith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The way I see it, a hypocritical bigoted tyrant has finally been dislodged.
> 
> But don't you worry, pants shitter.  She's going to be rich when you rubes send her your money.  That's what she is in this for.
> 
> "First time I've donated to a Democrat!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is still in power. You moron. That's my entire fucking point. He could have ordered her absent and then ANY Kentucky legislator could have brought up impeachment against her....why is no one willing to do so? You telling me in entire state of Kentucky there ain't one fucking person that doesn't like what she is doing?
Click to expand...

Could it be because the Kentucky General Assembly is not in session and you are too retarded to know this?

Yep.

They only meet in even numbered  years, for 60 days.


----------



## Preacher

BlindBoo said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those supporting religious freedom are the sane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the freedom to believe in what ever mythology suits you.  Just stop imposing those superstitious beliefs on the rest of us.
Click to expand...

I am not a christian nor do I believe in ANY spook in the sky,I still support religious freedom.


----------



## Wyatt earp

PaintMyHouse said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> 
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
Click to expand...


I love it even more, you will never break her bitch.....


----------



## Darkwind

ogibillm said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> TYRANNY UPDATE:  Judge Orders Christian Woman to Jail because She Refuses to Violate her Faith
> 
> Christians,while I am NOT one of you I respect ANYONE who stands for their faith so much they are willing to be thrown in jail rather than bend to the tyrants rule deserves respect. This is without a doubt in my mind the beginning of the assault on christianity and those that believe in it and stand by its doctrines. Now just a few quotes for you all.
> 
> There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.
> Charles de Montesquieu
> 
> All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> This judges ruling is PROOF that neither he nor the plaintiffs are interested in "marriage" they are interested in this martyr violating her faith by approving these "marriages" The Kentucky Legislature has had 3 months to impeach Kim Davis why haven't they? The judge can rule her to be absent since his tyrannical ass just tossed a woman in jail for following her faith he will still not rule her absent. He is ALSO threatening to throw the rest of the clerks in court for following their faith as well.Its time to march on the court and give this tyrant a tyrants just desserts.
> 
> Oh and for any CLOWNS in here. This woman may have been married 4 times but she has also only been a christian for 4 years. GET OVER IT and stop hiding your bigotry trying to destroy her religious rights.
> 
> People this is what our forefathers FOUGHT FOR! Its WHY the USA was founded! STAND! FIGHT! RESIST!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ummm, she's the one who is being tyrannical.  She is defying the rule of law and thus she should resign her position if she can't find a way to reconcile her beliefs with the law.  Period end of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No law can be made that violates a persons conscious.....Any law becomes un-Constititutional that requires a person to give up their deeply held beliefs...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can.  Laws like that are passed all of the time.  She can not be made to violate her religious beliefs, however, as she is a ELECTED OFFICIAL, she is bound to FOLLOW the LAW.  That is the oath she swore.
> 
> If she can't reconcile her beliefs with the oath she swore then her only option is to resign in protest.  Generals and business executives do it all the time and so should she.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except it only works that way in a dictatorial tyranny....
> 
> She held the position BEFORE the law was passed.  This means that the law intentionally targets people of faith.....I hope that she appeals to the SCOTUS......
> 
> And to be honest.....I really don't care what anyone on this or any forum thinks regarding this.....The day this country can pass a law that requires ME to have to alter My beliefs or behaviors is the day that that government needs to be abolished.
> 
> It spells the death of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> she held her position prior to the ratification of the 14th amendment?
Click to expand...

It is NOT the 14th Amendment that is in jail for.....This reply of yours is completely inane.....

BTW...the 14th does NOT predate the 1st.....


----------



## ogibillm

Odium said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> TYRANNY UPDATE:  Judge Orders Christian Woman to Jail because She Refuses to Violate her Faith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The way I see it, a hypocritical bigoted tyrant has finally been dislodged.
> 
> But don't you worry, pants shitter.  She's going to be rich when you rubes send her your money.  That's what she is in this for.
> 
> "First time I've donated to a Democrat!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is still in power. You moron. That's my entire fucking point. He could have ordered her absent and then ANY Kentucky legislator could have brought up impeachment against her....why is no one willing to do so? You telling me in entire state of Kentucky there ain't one fucking person that doesn't like what she is doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> could it be that the kentucky legislatures is full of ignorant republicans that don't want to piss off their ignorant base?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Current composition of the Kentucky Senate (2013)[8]
> *Affiliation* *Members*
> Republican Party 23
> Democratic Party 14
> Independent 1
> *Total* *38
> 
> Current composition of the Kentucky House of Representatives (2013)[10]
> Affiliation Members
> Democratic Party 54
> Republican Party 46
> Vacant seat 0
> Total 100*
> 
> *House is democrat run by democrats just like Kim Davis *
Click to expand...

super. so the kentucky legislature is full of ignorant fucks just like kim davis.


----------



## westwall

Darkwind said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> TYRANNY UPDATE:  Judge Orders Christian Woman to Jail because She Refuses to Violate her Faith
> 
> Christians,while I am NOT one of you I respect ANYONE who stands for their faith so much they are willing to be thrown in jail rather than bend to the tyrants rule deserves respect. This is without a doubt in my mind the beginning of the assault on christianity and those that believe in it and stand by its doctrines. Now just a few quotes for you all.
> 
> There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.
> Charles de Montesquieu
> 
> All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> This judges ruling is PROOF that neither he nor the plaintiffs are interested in "marriage" they are interested in this martyr violating her faith by approving these "marriages" The Kentucky Legislature has had 3 months to impeach Kim Davis why haven't they? The judge can rule her to be absent since his tyrannical ass just tossed a woman in jail for following her faith he will still not rule her absent. He is ALSO threatening to throw the rest of the clerks in court for following their faith as well.Its time to march on the court and give this tyrant a tyrants just desserts.
> 
> Oh and for any CLOWNS in here. This woman may have been married 4 times but she has also only been a christian for 4 years. GET OVER IT and stop hiding your bigotry trying to destroy her religious rights.
> 
> People this is what our forefathers FOUGHT FOR! Its WHY the USA was founded! STAND! FIGHT! RESIST!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ummm, she's the one who is being tyrannical.  She is defying the rule of law and thus she should resign her position if she can't find a way to reconcile her beliefs with the law.  Period end of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No law can be made that violates a persons conscious.....Any law becomes un-Constititutional that requires a person to give up their deeply held beliefs...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can.  Laws like that are passed all of the time.  She can not be made to violate her religious beliefs, however, as she is a ELECTED OFFICIAL, she is bound to FOLLOW the LAW.  That is the oath she swore.
> 
> If she can't reconcile her beliefs with the oath she swore then her only option is to resign in protest.  Generals and business executives do it all the time and so should she.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except it only works that way in a dictatorial tyranny....
> 
> She held the position BEFORE the law was passed.  This means that the law intentionally targets people of faith.....I hope that she appeals to the SCOTUS......
> 
> And to be honest.....I really don't care what anyone on this or any forum thinks regarding this.....The day this country can pass a law that requires ME to have to alter My beliefs or behaviors is the day that that government needs to be abolished.
> 
> It spells the death of liberty.
Click to expand...









It doesn't matter.  If the judges rule in a way you think is wrong, or immoral, you resign your position and fight the fight in a legal way.  You don't assume you have all the power and ignore judicial rulings.  SHE was the one being dictatorial.


----------



## Darkwind

BlindBoo said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those supporting religious freedom are the sane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the freedom to believe in what ever mythology suits you.  Just stop imposing those superstitious beliefs on the rest of us.
Click to expand...

It is NOT being imposed on anyone....People who wanted licenses could get them anywhere but from her....They do not have the right to force someone else to provide them with something they already have access to.


----------



## LittleNipper

Lakhota said:


> Oh, what a beautiful sight.  She looks like a deranged Bible thumper.


She doesn't look any different than most people do today. When your college kid is approached for a good time I hope you've provided him or her with a few fundamentals, and the will to say NO!.


----------



## ogibillm

Darkwind said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> ummm, she's the one who is being tyrannical.  She is defying the rule of law and thus she should resign her position if she can't find a way to reconcile her beliefs with the law.  Period end of story.
> 
> 
> 
> No law can be made that violates a persons conscious.....Any law becomes un-Constititutional that requires a person to give up their deeply held beliefs...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can.  Laws like that are passed all of the time.  She can not be made to violate her religious beliefs, however, as she is a ELECTED OFFICIAL, she is bound to FOLLOW the LAW.  That is the oath she swore.
> 
> If she can't reconcile her beliefs with the oath she swore then her only option is to resign in protest.  Generals and business executives do it all the time and so should she.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except it only works that way in a dictatorial tyranny....
> 
> She held the position BEFORE the law was passed.  This means that the law intentionally targets people of faith.....I hope that she appeals to the SCOTUS......
> 
> And to be honest.....I really don't care what anyone on this or any forum thinks regarding this.....The day this country can pass a law that requires ME to have to alter My beliefs or behaviors is the day that that government needs to be abolished.
> 
> It spells the death of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> she held her position prior to the ratification of the 14th amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is NOT the 14th Amendment that is in jail for.....This reply of yours is completely inane.....
> 
> BTW...the 14th does NOT predate the 1st.....
Click to expand...

she's in jail for violation of a court order. that court order is based on her denial of equal treatment under the law - a right guaranteed in the 14th amendment. 
her first amendment rights do not allow her to violate the rights of others - and it especially doesn't give her the right to use her office to violate the rights of others.


----------



## Rotagilla

ogibillm said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> all three branches are irredeemably corrupt and only work for minorities and special interests...
> 
> 
> 
> lol. you keep fighting the civil war. those traitors believed as you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they were patriots fighting an invasion...like the patriots in 1776
> 
> ...like I said, though...all three branches are irredeemably corrupt and only work for minorities and special interests...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you really don't understand the word patriot if you think it describes traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is a traitor? the confederates?  They tried to peacefully withdraw from the union...How were they "traitors"?
> 
> Were the colonists in 1776 "traitors"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes. people who decide that they will rebel against their own country are traitors, not patriots.
> and you need a country in order to be a patriot. so our founders were not patriots prior to the adoption of the articles of confederation.
Click to expand...


LMAO..word games. So the colonists were traitors?..ok...fine..Knowing that tells me a lot about you..

Once again, the south didn't rebel...They tried to peacefully withdraw. The north sent troops and ships to invade and blockade the port.
Patriots always fight to repel invaders.


----------



## Darkwind

westwall said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> TYRANNY UPDATE:  Judge Orders Christian Woman to Jail because She Refuses to Violate her Faith
> 
> Christians,while I am NOT one of you I respect ANYONE who stands for their faith so much they are willing to be thrown in jail rather than bend to the tyrants rule deserves respect. This is without a doubt in my mind the beginning of the assault on christianity and those that believe in it and stand by its doctrines. Now just a few quotes for you all.
> 
> There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.
> Charles de Montesquieu
> 
> All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> This judges ruling is PROOF that neither he nor the plaintiffs are interested in "marriage" they are interested in this martyr violating her faith by approving these "marriages" The Kentucky Legislature has had 3 months to impeach Kim Davis why haven't they? The judge can rule her to be absent since his tyrannical ass just tossed a woman in jail for following her faith he will still not rule her absent. He is ALSO threatening to throw the rest of the clerks in court for following their faith as well.Its time to march on the court and give this tyrant a tyrants just desserts.
> 
> Oh and for any CLOWNS in here. This woman may have been married 4 times but she has also only been a christian for 4 years. GET OVER IT and stop hiding your bigotry trying to destroy her religious rights.
> 
> People this is what our forefathers FOUGHT FOR! Its WHY the USA was founded! STAND! FIGHT! RESIST!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ummm, she's the one who is being tyrannical.  She is defying the rule of law and thus she should resign her position if she can't find a way to reconcile her beliefs with the law.  Period end of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No law can be made that violates a persons conscious.....Any law becomes un-Constititutional that requires a person to give up their deeply held beliefs...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can.  Laws like that are passed all of the time.  She can not be made to violate her religious beliefs, however, as she is a ELECTED OFFICIAL, she is bound to FOLLOW the LAW.  That is the oath she swore.
> 
> If she can't reconcile her beliefs with the oath she swore then her only option is to resign in protest.  Generals and business executives do it all the time and so should she.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except it only works that way in a dictatorial tyranny....
> 
> She held the position BEFORE the law was passed.  This means that the law intentionally targets people of faith.....I hope that she appeals to the SCOTUS......
> 
> And to be honest.....I really don't care what anyone on this or any forum thinks regarding this.....The day this country can pass a law that requires ME to have to alter My beliefs or behaviors is the day that that government needs to be abolished.
> 
> It spells the death of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter.  If the judges rule in a way you think is wrong, or immoral, you resign your position and fight the fight in a legal way.  You don't assume you have all the power and ignore judicial rulings.  SHE was the one being dictatorial.
Click to expand...

No you do not.  

NEVER GIVE GROUND to tyranny.  She is doing it the right way...

Now a Go Fund Me account needs to be set up to fund a fight to the SCOTUS...


----------



## RodISHI

westwall said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> TYRANNY UPDATE:  Judge Orders Christian Woman to Jail because She Refuses to Violate her Faith
> 
> Christians,while I am NOT one of you I respect ANYONE who stands for their faith so much they are willing to be thrown in jail rather than bend to the tyrants rule deserves respect. This is without a doubt in my mind the beginning of the assault on christianity and those that believe in it and stand by its doctrines. Now just a few quotes for you all.
> 
> There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.
> Charles de Montesquieu
> 
> All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> This judges ruling is PROOF that neither he nor the plaintiffs are interested in "marriage" they are interested in this martyr violating her faith by approving these "marriages" The Kentucky Legislature has had 3 months to impeach Kim Davis why haven't they? The judge can rule her to be absent since his tyrannical ass just tossed a woman in jail for following her faith he will still not rule her absent. He is ALSO threatening to throw the rest of the clerks in court for following their faith as well.Its time to march on the court and give this tyrant a tyrants just desserts.
> 
> Oh and for any CLOWNS in here. This woman may have been married 4 times but she has also only been a christian for 4 years. GET OVER IT and stop hiding your bigotry trying to destroy her religious rights.
> 
> People this is what our forefathers FOUGHT FOR! Its WHY the USA was founded! STAND! FIGHT! RESIST!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ummm, she's the one who is being tyrannical.  She is defying the rule of law and thus she should resign her position if she can't find a way to reconcile her beliefs with the law.  Period end of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No law can be made that violates a persons conscious.....Any law becomes un-Constititutional that requires a person to give up their deeply held beliefs...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can.  Laws like that are passed all of the time.  She can not be made to violate her religious beliefs, however, as she is a ELECTED OFFICIAL, she is bound to FOLLOW the LAW.  That is the oath she swore.
> 
> If she can't reconcile her beliefs with the oath she swore then her only option is to resign in protest.  Generals and business executives do it all the time and so should she.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except it only works that way in a dictatorial tyranny....
> 
> She held the position BEFORE the law was passed.  This means that the law intentionally targets people of faith.....I hope that she appeals to the SCOTUS......
> 
> And to be honest.....I really don't care what anyone on this or any forum thinks regarding this.....The day this country can pass a law that requires ME to have to alter My beliefs or behaviors is the day that that government needs to be abolished.
> 
> It spells the death of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter.  If the judges rule in a way you think is wrong, or immoral, you resign your position and fight the fight in a legal way.  You don't assume you have all the power and ignore judicial rulings.  SHE was the one being dictatorial.
Click to expand...

It appears that what you are now saying is that anyone who stands on their faith cannot be in an elected positon?


----------



## g5000

Hey, tards.

They Kentucky General Assembly is only in session for 30 days in odd numbered years.  And only for 60 days in even numbered  years.

The next session begins in January.


----------



## Preacher

g5000 said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> TYRANNY UPDATE:  Judge Orders Christian Woman to Jail because She Refuses to Violate her Faith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The way I see it, a hypocritical bigoted tyrant has finally been dislodged.
> 
> But don't you worry, pants shitter.  She's going to be rich when you rubes send her your money.  That's what she is in this for.
> 
> "First time I've donated to a Democrat!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is still in power. You moron. That's my entire fucking point. He could have ordered her absent and then ANY Kentucky legislator could have brought up impeachment against her....why is no one willing to do so? You telling me in entire state of Kentucky there ain't one fucking person that doesn't like what she is doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could it be because the Kentucky General Assembly is not in session and you are too retarded to know this?
> 
> Yep.
Click to expand...

The legislature adjourned for the year in April. Only the governor can call them back in session.

Get to calling sparky. That useless fuck ain't doing his job.


----------



## Preacher

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released the following statement after a federal judge ordered the jailing of Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis because she declined to issue same-sex marriage licenses:

"Today we are witnessing what the four dissenting Supreme Court Justices warned of in the _Obergefell_ decision: religious liberty in America is in grave danger.

"While five justices on the Supreme Court created this dilemma, it is incumbent upon Congress, and in this case legislatures, to ensure orthodox religious beliefs are accommodated. Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear could solve this court-created conflict by immediately calling for a special legislative session and establishing statutory accommodations for clerks like Kim Davis. 

"Ultimately, this is about more than same-sex marriage licenses in Kentucky. It is about the ability of Christians and other religious people to serve in positions of public trust. If this is not resolved in a manner that accommodates the orthodox religious beliefs of Clerk Davis, this will, in effect, establish a reverse religious test barring those who hold biblical views of marriage from positions of public service. Such a religious test by proclamation or practice is wrong.

"Now a court is jailing someone over this because the governor failed to act. How hard is it to change a simple form to remove her name from it? Isn't that worth doing to keep someone out of jail because of what they believe? Governor Beshear must call for a special session of the legislature and grant an accommodation to Kim Davis.

"If governors and legislatures thought this threat to religious freedom would go away – the jailing of Kim Davis proves them wrong. The time to protect and accommodate religious liberty is now," concluded Perkins.


----------



## Darkwind

ogibillm said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> No law can be made that violates a persons conscious.....Any law becomes un-Constititutional that requires a person to give up their deeply held beliefs...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can.  Laws like that are passed all of the time.  She can not be made to violate her religious beliefs, however, as she is a ELECTED OFFICIAL, she is bound to FOLLOW the LAW.  That is the oath she swore.
> 
> If she can't reconcile her beliefs with the oath she swore then her only option is to resign in protest.  Generals and business executives do it all the time and so should she.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except it only works that way in a dictatorial tyranny....
> 
> She held the position BEFORE the law was passed.  This means that the law intentionally targets people of faith.....I hope that she appeals to the SCOTUS......
> 
> And to be honest.....I really don't care what anyone on this or any forum thinks regarding this.....The day this country can pass a law that requires ME to have to alter My beliefs or behaviors is the day that that government needs to be abolished.
> 
> It spells the death of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> she held her position prior to the ratification of the 14th amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is NOT the 14th Amendment that is in jail for.....This reply of yours is completely inane.....
> 
> BTW...the 14th does NOT predate the 1st.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> she's in jail for violation of a court order. that court order is based on her denial of equal treatment under the law - a right guaranteed in the 14th amendment.
> her first amendment rights do not allow her to violate the rights of others - and it especially doesn't give her the right to use her office to violate the rights of others.
Click to expand...

You cannot be denied equal treatment when that treatment can be had everywhere....Every clerk in every county BUT hers provides the licenses.....

The Judge is out of order.  The people of Kentucky need to fight to have him removed from the bench and the case appealed up.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

She is a fucking CLERK!  Part of her fucking JOB is to comply with the laws.  And THAT's the thing she has decided she cannot do?

Solution to this pressing problem jumps off the page.  Get a different job.

Instead of jailing her, how about firing her?


----------



## TheOldSchool

bear513 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> 
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love it even more, you will never break her bitch.....
Click to expand...

That's fine.  Let's just get someone in there who actually believes in doing their job.


----------



## guno

Lakhota said:


> Oh, what a beautiful sight.  She looks like a deranged Bible thumper - maybe an LDS type.





Lakhota said:


> She looks like a deranged Bible thumper -



Aren't they all


----------



## LittleNipper

TyroneSlothrop said:


> * Every Deputy Clerk But Kim Davis' Son Agree To Issue Licenses *


If everyone jumps off a bridge, does that make it right or profitable? Just because some guy would like to have sex with my son, doesn't mean I'd encourage it!


----------



## Darkwind

Odium said:


> WASHINGTON, Sept. 3, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released the following statement after a federal judge ordered the jailing of Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis because she declined to issue same-sex marriage licenses:
> 
> "Today we are witnessing what the four dissenting Supreme Court Justices warned of in the _Obergefell_ decision: religious liberty in America is in grave danger.
> 
> "While five justices on the Supreme Court created this dilemma, it is incumbent upon Congress, and in this case legislatures, to ensure orthodox religious beliefs are accommodated. Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear could solve this court-created conflict by immediately calling for a special legislative session and establishing statutory accommodations for clerks like Kim Davis.
> 
> "Ultimately, this is about more than same-sex marriage licenses in Kentucky. It is about the ability of Christians and other religious people to serve in positions of public trust. If this is not resolved in a manner that accommodates the orthodox religious beliefs of Clerk Davis, this will, in effect, establish a reverse religious test barring those who hold biblical views of marriage from positions of public service. Such a religious test by proclamation or practice is wrong.
> 
> "Now a court is jailing someone over this because the governor failed to act. How hard is it to change a simple form to remove her name from it? Isn't that worth doing to keep someone out of jail because of what they believe? Governor Beshear must call for a special session of the legislature and grant an accommodation to Kim Davis.
> 
> "If governors and legislatures thought this threat to religious freedom would go away – the jailing of Kim Davis proves them wrong. The time to protect and accommodate religious liberty is now," concluded Perkins.


Exactly right.  Except I submit that a religious test has already been established.  In direct violation of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.


----------



## g5000

IlarMeilyr said:


> She is a fucking CLERK!  Part of her fucking JOB is to comply with the laws.  And THAT's the thing she has decided she cannot do?
> 
> Solution to this pressing problem jumps off the page.  Get a different job.
> 
> Instead of jailing her, how about firing her?


She's an elected official.  She has to be impeached.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Vandalshandle said:


> ...for failure to obey court order of issuing marraige licenses to gay couples.
> 
> News from The Associated Press



Made her a martyr did they?

You sure that was a smart move?


----------



## Rotagilla

IlarMeilyr said:


> She is a fucking CLERK!  Part of her fucking JOB is to comply with the laws.  And THAT's the thing she has decided she cannot do?
> 
> Solution to this pressing problem jumps off the page.  Get a different job.
> 
> Instead of jailing her, how about firing her?


a unionized government employee?..fired??...yeah, right...


----------



## g5000

By the bible's definition, the woman hands out marriage licenses to adulterers *every single day*.

In exchange for money.

This little tyrant is not being bible-compliant in the slightest.  It's all a fucking ruse by a bigot using the Bible as cover.  What kind of shit storm do you think Jesus is going to bring down on this hypocrite's head on Judgment Day?

Yeah.

So go ahead and send your money to this deceiver at whose feet  you are worshipping.  You idiots have been led astray.


----------



## Preacher

One option, they say, would be to change the marriage license form to remove the name of the county clerk.

Another would be to have the state, not counties, issue marriage licenses.

Such a proposal was offered in July by 57 of Kentucky's 120 county clerks, who urged Gov. Steve Beshear to call the legislature into a special session to make the change.

Beshear said Tuesday that the legislature can address the issue, if it chooses, when it convenes next year. "I see no need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money calling a special session of the General Assembly when 117 of 120 county clerks are doing their jobs."

Two other county clerks, like Davis, are also declining to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Jesus christ Kentucky you got one incompetent mother fucker for Governor.


----------



## LittleNipper

guno said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, what a beautiful sight.  She looks like a deranged Bible thumper - maybe an LDS type.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> She looks like a deranged Bible thumper -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aren't they all
Click to expand...

Why is it OK to lump all those opposed to homosexual marriage into the same boat, but it is bias when we do it? Think about it.


----------



## Preacher

Ky House, Senate leaders pushing for legislative fix to same sex marriage standoff

This ALL could be fixed if that mental retard governor would get off his lazy incompetent ass.


----------



## mudwhistle

martybegan said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what will happen when a priest refuses to marry gays?  As for this gal, I tend to agree, you work for the government, this is your job... what happens thought when they try this in the private sector?  And they will, bet your ass that's next up.  I wonder if the "separation of church and state" nutters will be crying when the state meddles in the affairs of the church?
> 
> 
> 
> The state can't meddle in church affairs regarding weddings. Church may or may not perform ceremonies as they please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, forever. A church doesn't have to accept members that don't follow their doctrine and doesn't have to marry non-members, period.
> 
> You can pretend all you want that this is some kind of slippery slope but it simply is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, they will just go after their tax exempt status, and anything else than can to punish them.
Click to expand...

Yep....using the IRS like the Gestapo.


----------



## koshergrl

ogibillm said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no reason to call her a hog.  Is that why she should be jailed in your opinion?    Stay on topic.  Christians singled out for political prisioners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been spoon fed the facts of the case and yet you continue to lie about it.
> 
> Or are you just plain stupid?
> 
> Either way, quit being such a silly drama queen. She's not a martyr or a political prisoner.
> 
> She defied the decision of the Supreme Court of The United States. She is in contempt of court.
> 
> And no - Obama had nothing to do with it so don't even go there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't call me stupid fuckwad.  How do you like this getting personal?  My opinion is just as valid if not more so.  Half the country was against this court decision.  That doesn't settle anything when God is concerned.  Makes no difference is you believe in God or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> You saying that she is a martyr or political prisoner is indeed the words of an ignorant drama queen.
> 
> If you don't like the law, work to change it. Until then, neither you nor she are above the laws of the land.
> 
> If you want to live by the laws of some "god", Iraq has a spot for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your response is proof this is all about religious persecution and creation of a new class of political prisoners in this country.  Next yoo people will line up the boxcars to haul us off to prisoner camps for extermination.  You did it once before.  You are capable of it again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow. you really do go all in on the crazy, don't you?
> she does not have the right to deny services to the people of her county. her first amendment rights do not trump their 14th amendment rights. if her convictions prevent her from fulfilling her oath of office she can find new work.
Click to expand...

 
Wrong. Nobody has the right to force another to commit s


TheOldSchool said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> 
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love it even more, you will never break her bitch.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's fine.  Let's just get someone in there who actually believes in doing their job.
Click to expand...

 
The people elected her.

And the people support her. That's why they aren't going to impeach her. Wasted effort.


----------



## TheOldSchool

koshergrl said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have been spoon fed the facts of the case and yet you continue to lie about it.
> 
> Or are you just plain stupid?
> 
> Either way, quit being such a silly drama queen. She's not a martyr or a political prisoner.
> 
> She defied the decision of the Supreme Court of The United States. She is in contempt of court.
> 
> And no - Obama had nothing to do with it so don't even go there.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't call me stupid fuckwad.  How do you like this getting personal?  My opinion is just as valid if not more so.  Half the country was against this court decision.  That doesn't settle anything when God is concerned.  Makes no difference is you believe in God or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> You saying that she is a martyr or political prisoner is indeed the words of an ignorant drama queen.
> 
> If you don't like the law, work to change it. Until then, neither you nor she are above the laws of the land.
> 
> If you want to live by the laws of some "god", Iraq has a spot for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your response is proof this is all about religious persecution and creation of a new class of political prisoners in this country.  Next yoo people will line up the boxcars to haul us off to prisoner camps for extermination.  You did it once before.  You are capable of it again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow. you really do go all in on the crazy, don't you?
> she does not have the right to deny services to the people of her county. her first amendment rights do not trump their 14th amendment rights. if her convictions prevent her from fulfilling her oath of office she can find new work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. Nobody has the right to force another to commit s
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love it even more, you will never break her bitch.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's fine.  Let's just get someone in there who actually believes in doing their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people elected her.
> 
> And the people support her. That's why they aren't going to impeach her. Wasted effort.
Click to expand...

Then I hope she can adapt to prison life.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

g5000 said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is a fucking CLERK!  Part of her fucking JOB is to comply with the laws.  And THAT's the thing she has decided she cannot do?
> 
> Solution to this pressing problem jumps off the page.  Get a different job.
> 
> Instead of jailing her, how about firing her?
> 
> 
> 
> She's an elected official.  She has to be impeached.
Click to expand...


Good point.  I didn't realize she was an elected official.  

 Interestingly, in the ABSENCE of a County Clerk, judges or county executives in Kentucky may issue marriage licenses.  See,  http://www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/ib114.pdf

The County Clerk is now ABSENT!


----------



## Preacher

Well now that the mods wrecked a completely opposite fucking thread....thanks!


----------



## mudwhistle

Like I've repeatedly said.....Gays have the same right to being married and suffer through a very nasty and expensive divorce like anyone else.


----------



## g5000

Lakhota said:


> Oh, what a beautiful sight.  She looks like a deranged Bible thumper - maybe an LDS type.


It is offensive to associate her with the Bible.  She is a despicable hypocritical bigot hiding behind the Bible.


----------



## TheOldSchool

IlarMeilyr said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is a fucking CLERK!  Part of her fucking JOB is to comply with the laws.  And THAT's the thing she has decided she cannot do?
> 
> Solution to this pressing problem jumps off the page.  Get a different job.
> 
> Instead of jailing her, how about firing her?
> 
> 
> 
> She's an elected official.  She has to be impeached.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good point.  I didn't realize she was an elected official.
> 
> Interestingly, in the ABSENCE of a County Clerk, judges or county executives in Kentucky may issue marriage licenses.  See,  http://www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/ib114.pdf
> 
> The County Clerk is now ABSENT!
Click to expand...

Good news


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Vandalshandle said:


> ...for failure to obey court order of issuing marraige licenses to gay couples.
> 
> News from The Associated Press


She has only herself to blame.

“The judge later tried to keep Davis out of jail after all, saying she could go free if her staff agreed to comply with the law and she agreed not to interfere.

But Kim Davis rejected the offer, choosing jail instead.”

She need only allow her staff to issue the licenses, where her religious beliefs will in no way be 'compromised.'


----------



## Misty

Lakhota said:


> Oh, what a beautiful sight.  She looks like a deranged Bible thumper - maybe an LDS type.


This is her religion. Very unforgiving for a church. 

Apostolic Christian Church of America


----------



## mudwhistle

g5000 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, what a beautiful sight.  She looks like a deranged Bible thumper - maybe an LDS type.
> 
> 
> 
> It is offensive to associate her with the Bible.  She is a despicable hypocritical bigot hiding behind the Bible.
Click to expand...


What do you expect from a dyed in the wool Democrat.


----------



## Misty

The church she belongs to is a crazy Christian religion.

Please don't lump all Christians together. Many Christian don't care about gay marriage.

This religion is particular strict and crazy.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

As a guy named Connolly once observed, "If a gay man wants to marry a gay woman . . . ."


----------



## Uncensored2008

Rotagilla said:


> [
> 
> a unionized government employee?..fired??...yeah, right...



She is elected, cannot be fired.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Its fun watching the anti-equality folks' heads exploding.


----------



## Misty

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...for failure to obey court order of issuing marraige licenses to gay couples.
> 
> News from The Associated Press
> 
> 
> 
> She has only herself to blame.
> 
> “The judge later tried to keep Davis out of jail after all, saying she could go free if her staff agreed to comply with the law and she agreed not to interfere.
> 
> But Kim Davis rejected the offer, choosing jail instead.”
> 
> She need only allow her staff to issue the licenses, where her religious beliefs will in no way be 'compromised.'
Click to expand...

I knew someone had brainwashed this woman. Her pastor claims that if she had given in she would've been kicked out of the church.


----------



## Uncensored2008

TheOldSchool said:


> Then I hope she can adapt to prison life.



You won't seek to have her put to death?

"You have been found guilty of opposing teh ghey, you will DIE DIE DIE..."


----------



## Skylar

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...for failure to obey court order of issuing marraige licenses to gay couples.
> 
> News from The Associated Press
> 
> 
> 
> She has only herself to blame.
> 
> “The judge later tried to keep Davis out of jail after all, saying she could go free if her staff agreed to comply with the law and she agreed not to interfere.
> 
> But Kim Davis rejected the offer, choosing jail instead.”
> 
> She need only allow her staff to issue the licenses, where her religious beliefs will in no way be 'compromised.'
Click to expand...


Her religious beliefs are 'comprimised' if she can't use the State to force other people to follow them.


----------



## Katzndogz

Uncensored2008 said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then I hope she can adapt to prison life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You won't seek to have her put to death?
> 
> "You have been found guilty of opposing teh ghey, you will DIE DIE DIE..."
Click to expand...

That's coming.


----------



## Mac1958

That office has an absolute monopoly on marriage licenses.

A gay couple goes in for a marriage license, they have to come out with a marriage license.

I don't care who gives it to them, as long as it's a legal marriage license.
.


----------



## ABikerSailor

This woman should stay in jail until either (a) she agrees to issue licenses to gay couples to marry, or (b) she agrees to step down out of her office.

She's clearly incapable of doing her job by her outright refusal to do so, and therefore is a burden on the U.S. taxpayer because we're paying her for nothing.

She's also not a very good Christian, as she really doesn't understand some of the things that Jesus told us in the Bible......................

Matthew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

Now, in the discussion of this verse, Jesus was metaphorically telling us that is is better to arrive in Heaven missing an eye, than to allow that eye to continue to draw us into sin, therefore assuring us that our whole being will go to Hell.

In this woman's case, the part of her that is telling her to sin (according to her dogma), is her job where she is REQUIRED to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, so if her job is offending her, she should pluck it out of her life (resign from her post), so that she will not be caused to sin any longer.

In this case, the federal government and Jesus agree.


----------



## mudwhistle

Uncensored2008 said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> a unionized government employee?..fired??...yeah, right...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She is elected, cannot be fired.
Click to expand...

Is Drawn & Quartered out of the question???


----------



## mudwhistle

Mac1958 said:


> That office has an absolute monopoly on marriage licenses.
> 
> A gay couple goes in for a marriage license, they have to come out with a marriage license.
> 
> I don't care who gives it to them, as long as it's a legal marriage license.
> .


Hmmm.....cool...


----------



## TheOldSchool

Uncensored2008 said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then I hope she can adapt to prison life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You won't seek to have her put to death?
> 
> "You have been found guilty of opposing teh ghey, you will DIE DIE DIE..."
Click to expand...

No.  Democrats are not as gung ho about the death penalty as all you religiously moral people.


----------



## ABikerSailor

I don't want anything other than for her to show she's truly a Christian who follows the teachings of Christ and steps down from this job she's clearly incapable of holding.


----------



## Seawytch

BlindBoo said:


> Religious tyranny is coming to an end.  This is just one grumpy dinosaur pitching a fit.  I don't agree with jail, but if she refuses to do her job she should be fired.



The couples wanting to be married didn't want her jailed. They wanted her fined. The judge figured RW nuts would pay her fines with a "FundMyBigotry" account and said "nuh uh".


----------



## ABikerSailor

Seawytch said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religious tyranny is coming to an end.  This is just one grumpy dinosaur pitching a fit.  I don't agree with jail, but if she refuses to do her job she should be fired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The couples wanting to be married didn't want her jailed. They wanted her fined. The judge figured RW nuts would pay her fines with a "FundMyBigotry" account and said "nuh uh".
Click to expand...


Interestingly, I saw some of the reporters discussing this earlier today, and guess what?  She's INELIGIBLE for a GoFundMe campaign, because in the rules of the site, they refuse to be used for bigoted or racist reasons.

In this womans case, she's clearly a bigot.


----------



## Vandalshandle

I don't give a rat's ass what happens to her, as long as she is not free to harass and threaten her employees for following a federal court order.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

Luddly Neddite said:


> BTW, the others who defied the law were not elected and should be fired.
> 
> Don't do the job you were hired to do?
> 
> Go find a different job.


You want to kill their first born no doubt.  Are you a homo, per chance?  You're taking objections quite personally.


----------



## Seawytch

ABikerSailor said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religious tyranny is coming to an end.  This is just one grumpy dinosaur pitching a fit.  I don't agree with jail, but if she refuses to do her job she should be fired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The couples wanting to be married didn't want her jailed. They wanted her fined. The judge figured RW nuts would pay her fines with a "FundMyBigotry" account and said "nuh uh".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interestingly, I saw some of the reporters discussing this earlier today, and guess what?  She's INELIGIBLE for a GoFundMe campaign, because in the rules of the site, they refuse to be used for bigoted or racist reasons.
> 
> In this womans case, she's clearly a bigot.
Click to expand...


Then the Liberty Counsel would have paid. She wouldn't have. With jail, she does.


----------



## EriktheRed

Darkwind said:


> No law can be made that violates a persons conscious.....Any law becomes un-Constititutional that requires a person to give up their deeply held beliefs...




You're not really this stupid, right?


----------



## Seawytch

AvgGuyIA said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, the others who defied the law were not elected and should be fired.
> 
> Don't do the job you were hired to do?
> 
> Go find a different job.
> 
> 
> 
> You want to kill their first born no doubt.  Are you a homo, per chance?  You're taking objections quite personally.
Click to expand...


Nah...Christians would have stoned her for adultery back in the day. Gays just want her to issue licenses.


----------



## ogibillm

Rotagilla said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol. you keep fighting the civil war. those traitors believed as you do
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they were patriots fighting an invasion...like the patriots in 1776
> 
> ...like I said, though...all three branches are irredeemably corrupt and only work for minorities and special interests...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you really don't understand the word patriot if you think it describes traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is a traitor? the confederates?  They tried to peacefully withdraw from the union...How were they "traitors"?
> 
> Were the colonists in 1776 "traitors"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes. people who decide that they will rebel against their own country are traitors, not patriots.
> and you need a country in order to be a patriot. so our founders were not patriots prior to the adoption of the articles of confederation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO..word games. So the colonists were traitors?..ok...fine..Knowing that tells me a lot about you..
> 
> Once again, the south didn't rebel...They tried to peacefully withdraw. The north sent troops and ships to invade and blockade the port.
> Patriots always fight to repel invaders.
Click to expand...

Again, you don't understand the meaning of the word patriot. You keep applying it to traitors. You should probably stop using it


----------



## ogibillm

Darkwind said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can.  Laws like that are passed all of the time.  She can not be made to violate her religious beliefs, however, as she is a ELECTED OFFICIAL, she is bound to FOLLOW the LAW.  That is the oath she swore.
> 
> If she can't reconcile her beliefs with the oath she swore then her only option is to resign in protest.  Generals and business executives do it all the time and so should she.
> 
> 
> 
> Except it only works that way in a dictatorial tyranny....
> 
> She held the position BEFORE the law was passed.  This means that the law intentionally targets people of faith.....I hope that she appeals to the SCOTUS......
> 
> And to be honest.....I really don't care what anyone on this or any forum thinks regarding this.....The day this country can pass a law that requires ME to have to alter My beliefs or behaviors is the day that that government needs to be abolished.
> 
> It spells the death of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> she held her position prior to the ratification of the 14th amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is NOT the 14th Amendment that is in jail for.....This reply of yours is completely inane.....
> 
> BTW...the 14th does NOT predate the 1st.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> she's in jail for violation of a court order. that court order is based on her denial of equal treatment under the law - a right guaranteed in the 14th amendment.
> her first amendment rights do not allow her to violate the rights of others - and it especially doesn't give her the right to use her office to violate the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot be denied equal treatment when that treatment can be had everywhere....Every clerk in every county BUT hers provides the licenses.....
> 
> The Judge is out of order.  The people of Kentucky need to fight to have him removed from the bench and the case appealed up.
Click to expand...

so she's denying the citizens of her county equal treatment. 
and you forget - if she's allowed to discriminate what stops every other county?


----------



## EriktheRed

AvgGuyIA said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, the others who defied the law were not elected and should be fired.
> 
> Don't do the job you were hired to do?
> 
> Go find a different job.
> 
> 
> 
> You want to kill their first born no doubt.  Are you a homo, per chance?  You're taking objections quite personally.
Click to expand...



Just love the bittnerness.


----------



## Preacher

Defiant Kentucky clerk remains jailed after rejecting deal
Thug in the robe trying to bribe her. She refuses. #standwithkim!


----------



## RodISHI

ABikerSailor said:


> I don't want anything other than for her to show she's truly a Christian who follows the teachings of Christ and steps down from this job she's clearly incapable of holding.


She is not the one offended you are.


----------



## Preacher

Davis' lawyer, Roger Gannam, said it was the first time in history an American citizen has been jailed for believing that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. He compared her willingness to accept imprisonment to what Martin Luther King Jr. did to advance civil rights.

BINGO! Martyr for religious rights.


----------



## ogibillm

Odium said:


> Davis' lawyer, Roger Gannam, said it was the first time in history an American citizen has been jailed for believing that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. He compared her willingness to accept imprisonment to what Martin Luther King Jr. did to advance civil rights.
> 
> BINGO! Martyr for religious rights.


davis's lawyer is a liar. she is jailed for contempt of court.
and as i said before, mlk went to jail to protest injustice and oppression. she's going to jail to protest justice and equal rights.


----------



## Uncensored2008

mudwhistle said:


> Is Drawn & Quartered out of the question???



Not to the left.


----------



## HenryBHough

Creating martyrs usually doesn't end well.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Odium said:


> Davis' lawyer, Roger Gannam, said it was the first time in history an American citizen has been jailed for believing that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. He compared her willingness to accept imprisonment to what Martin Luther King Jr. did to advance civil rights.
> 
> BINGO! Martyr for religious rights.



Nope................sorry, but to be an actual martyr, you have to follow the teachings of your religion and dogma.

She's not doing that, because Jesus said that if your right eye offends thee, pluck it out and  throw it away, because it's better to enter Heaven missing an eye than to end up in Hell because you allowed your right eye to cause you to sin.

Here's the verse....................................

Matthew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

Now, in her case, it's not her right eye that is offending her, it's her job.  Why?  Because she feels like she's being forced to sin in issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.

So, she should pluck out her job (resign from her position), and get on with her life.

Even Jesus thinks she should resign.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

ABikerSailor said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Davis' lawyer, Roger Gannam, said it was the first time in history an American citizen has been jailed for believing that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. He compared her willingness to accept imprisonment to what Martin Luther King Jr. did to advance civil rights.
> 
> BINGO! Martyr for religious rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope................sorry, but to be an actual martyr, you have to follow the teachings of your religion and dogma.
> 
> She's not doing that, because Jesus said that if your right eye offends thee, pluck it out and  throw it away, because it's better to enter Heaven missing an eye than to end up in Hell because you allowed your right eye to cause you to sin.
> 
> Here's the verse....................................
> 
> Matthew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
> 
> Now, in her case, it's not her right eye that is offending her, it's her job.  Why?  Because she feels like she's being forced to sin in issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.
> 
> So, she should pluck out her job (resign from her position), and get on with her life.
> 
> Even Jesus thinks she should resign.
Click to expand...


Jesus would follow the Word and the Bible is clear that we are to follow human law *EXCEPT* when it violates God's law and the Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin, an abomination unto the Lord. God's law trumps human law


----------



## Rotagilla

ogibillm said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> they were patriots fighting an invasion...like the patriots in 1776
> 
> ...like I said, though...all three branches are irredeemably corrupt and only work for minorities and special interests...
> 
> 
> 
> you really don't understand the word patriot if you think it describes traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is a traitor? the confederates?  They tried to peacefully withdraw from the union...How were they "traitors"?
> 
> Were the colonists in 1776 "traitors"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes. people who decide that they will rebel against their own country are traitors, not patriots.
> and you need a country in order to be a patriot. so our founders were not patriots prior to the adoption of the articles of confederation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO..word games. So the colonists were traitors?..ok...fine..Knowing that tells me a lot about you..
> 
> Once again, the south didn't rebel...They tried to peacefully withdraw. The north sent troops and ships to invade and blockade the port.
> Patriots always fight to repel invaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you don't understand the meaning of the word patriot. You keep applying it to traitors. You should probably stop using it
Click to expand...


I know what I'm talking about...you can say "nuh uh" all you want. Won't change a thing. The truth is large.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ogibillm said:


> davis's lawyer is a liar. she is jailed for contempt of court.



She's a political prisoner, whether that fits your agenda or not.


----------



## Blackrook

It's already true that Christians are being killed, enslaved, and persecuted in countries like China, Cuba, and the Middle East.

Now the United States can join the club of gangster nations.


----------



## Preacher

ogibillm said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Davis' lawyer, Roger Gannam, said it was the first time in history an American citizen has been jailed for believing that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. He compared her willingness to accept imprisonment to what Martin Luther King Jr. did to advance civil rights.
> 
> BINGO! Martyr for religious rights.
> 
> 
> 
> davis's lawyer is a liar. she is jailed for contempt of court.
> and as i said before, mlk went to jail to protest injustice and oppression. she's going to jail to protest justice and equal rights.
Click to expand...

Wrong again.


----------



## Kondor3

ogibillm said:


> ...could it be that the kentucky legislatures is full of ignorant republicans that don't want to piss off their ignorant base?


As opposed to State Legislatures filled with ignorant Democrats, pandering to their Inner-City Great Unwashed, and the Fruit Loops?


----------



## Rotagilla

ogibillm said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except it only works that way in a dictatorial tyranny....
> 
> She held the position BEFORE the law was passed.  This means that the law intentionally targets people of faith.....I hope that she appeals to the SCOTUS......
> 
> And to be honest.....I really don't care what anyone on this or any forum thinks regarding this.....The day this country can pass a law that requires ME to have to alter My beliefs or behaviors is the day that that government needs to be abolished.
> 
> It spells the death of liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> she held her position prior to the ratification of the 14th amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is NOT the 14th Amendment that is in jail for.....This reply of yours is completely inane.....
> 
> BTW...the 14th does NOT predate the 1st.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> she's in jail for violation of a court order. that court order is based on her denial of equal treatment under the law - a right guaranteed in the 14th amendment.
> her first amendment rights do not allow her to violate the rights of others - and it especially doesn't give her the right to use her office to violate the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot be denied equal treatment when that treatment can be had everywhere....Every clerk in every county BUT hers provides the licenses.....
> 
> The Judge is out of order.  The people of Kentucky need to fight to have him removed from the bench and the case appealed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so she's denying the citizens of her county equal treatment.
> and you forget - if she's allowed to discriminate what stops every other county?
Click to expand...


affirmative action is race based discrimination against citizens ......by the government


----------



## Uncensored2008

Seawytch said:


> Then the Liberty Counsel would have paid. She wouldn't have. With jail, she does.



AND you have a political prisoner, with all that entails. 

Any claim that you are not at war to crush people of faith rings hollow.


----------



## ABikerSailor

SassyIrishLass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Davis' lawyer, Roger Gannam, said it was the first time in history an American citizen has been jailed for believing that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. He compared her willingness to accept imprisonment to what Martin Luther King Jr. did to advance civil rights.
> 
> BINGO! Martyr for religious rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope................sorry, but to be an actual martyr, you have to follow the teachings of your religion and dogma.
> 
> She's not doing that, because Jesus said that if your right eye offends thee, pluck it out and  throw it away, because it's better to enter Heaven missing an eye than to end up in Hell because you allowed your right eye to cause you to sin.
> 
> Here's the verse....................................
> 
> Matthew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
> 
> Now, in her case, it's not her right eye that is offending her, it's her job.  Why?  Because she feels like she's being forced to sin in issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.
> 
> So, she should pluck out her job (resign from her position), and get on with her life.
> 
> Even Jesus thinks she should resign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus would follow the Word and the Bible is clear that we are to follow human law *EXCEPT* when it violates God's law and the Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin, an abomination unto the Lord. God's law trumps human law
Click to expand...


No, because she has the ability to get another job, rather than feel like she's being forced to sin.

I guess you missed the whole meaning of what Jesus said, didn't you?


----------



## Preacher

ABikerSailor said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Davis' lawyer, Roger Gannam, said it was the first time in history an American citizen has been jailed for believing that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. He compared her willingness to accept imprisonment to what Martin Luther King Jr. did to advance civil rights.
> 
> BINGO! Martyr for religious rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope................sorry, but to be an actual martyr, you have to follow the teachings of your religion and dogma.
> 
> She's not doing that, because Jesus said that if your right eye offends thee, pluck it out and  throw it away, because it's better to enter Heaven missing an eye than to end up in Hell because you allowed your right eye to cause you to sin.
> 
> Here's the verse....................................
> 
> Matthew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
> 
> Now, in her case, it's not her right eye that is offending her, it's her job.  Why?  Because she feels like she's being forced to sin in issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.
> 
> So, she should pluck out her job (resign from her position), and get on with her life.
> 
> Even Jesus thinks she should resign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus would follow the Word and the Bible is clear that we are to follow human law *EXCEPT* when it violates God's law and the Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin, an abomination unto the Lord. God's law trumps human law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because she has the ability to get another job, rather than feel like she's being forced to sin.
> 
> I guess you missed the whole meaning of what Jesus said, didn't you?
Click to expand...

not a christian just support religious freedom


----------



## SassyIrishLass

ABikerSailor said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Davis' lawyer, Roger Gannam, said it was the first time in history an American citizen has been jailed for believing that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. He compared her willingness to accept imprisonment to what Martin Luther King Jr. did to advance civil rights.
> 
> BINGO! Martyr for religious rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope................sorry, but to be an actual martyr, you have to follow the teachings of your religion and dogma.
> 
> She's not doing that, because Jesus said that if your right eye offends thee, pluck it out and  throw it away, because it's better to enter Heaven missing an eye than to end up in Hell because you allowed your right eye to cause you to sin.
> 
> Here's the verse....................................
> 
> Matthew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
> 
> Now, in her case, it's not her right eye that is offending her, it's her job.  Why?  Because she feels like she's being forced to sin in issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.
> 
> So, she should pluck out her job (resign from her position), and get on with her life.
> 
> Even Jesus thinks she should resign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus would follow the Word and the Bible is clear that we are to follow human law *EXCEPT* when it violates God's law and the Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin, an abomination unto the Lord. God's law trumps human law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because she has the ability to get another job, rather than feel like she's being forced to sin.
> 
> I guess you missed the whole meaning of what Jesus said, didn't you?
Click to expand...


I didn't miss anything. The Bible is clear, it's a sin, the Bible is also clear we are to follow God's law over human law. You all don't care about two gaypers getting pretend married, you want blood. You're just pushing an agenda, nothing more and nothing less


----------



## westwall

RodISHI said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> ummm, she's the one who is being tyrannical.  She is defying the rule of law and thus she should resign her position if she can't find a way to reconcile her beliefs with the law.  Period end of story.
> 
> 
> 
> No law can be made that violates a persons conscious.....Any law becomes un-Constititutional that requires a person to give up their deeply held beliefs...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can.  Laws like that are passed all of the time.  She can not be made to violate her religious beliefs, however, as she is a ELECTED OFFICIAL, she is bound to FOLLOW the LAW.  That is the oath she swore.
> 
> If she can't reconcile her beliefs with the oath she swore then her only option is to resign in protest.  Generals and business executives do it all the time and so should she.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except it only works that way in a dictatorial tyranny....
> 
> She held the position BEFORE the law was passed.  This means that the law intentionally targets people of faith.....I hope that she appeals to the SCOTUS......
> 
> And to be honest.....I really don't care what anyone on this or any forum thinks regarding this.....The day this country can pass a law that requires ME to have to alter My beliefs or behaviors is the day that that government needs to be abolished.
> 
> It spells the death of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter.  If the judges rule in a way you think is wrong, or immoral, you resign your position and fight the fight in a legal way.  You don't assume you have all the power and ignore judicial rulings.  SHE was the one being dictatorial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It appears that what you are now saying is that anyone who stands on their faith cannot be in an elected positon?
Click to expand...








If their religion forces them to violate other peoples rights, that is correct.  If a Muslim told me that I couldn't do something based on their religious views I would likewise demand that they resign their position.  Other wise what you are advocating for is SHARIA law.

See how that works?


----------



## Uncensored2008

ABikerSailor said:


> No, because she has the ability to get another job, rather than feel like she's being forced to sin.
> 
> I guess you missed the whole meaning of what Jesus said, didn't you?



Thugs are always arrogant fools. She played you into holding her as a political prisoner. She has successfully stripped away the veneer of legitimacy you had. You are just another thug regime imposing dictates by force.

Oh, you think no one notices. Your type ALWAYS thinks no one notices.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Uncensored2008 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because she has the ability to get another job, rather than feel like she's being forced to sin.
> 
> I guess you missed the whole meaning of what Jesus said, didn't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thugs are always arrogant fools. She played you into holding her as a political prisoner. She has successfully stripped away the veneer of legitimacy you had. You are just another thug regime imposing dictates by force.
> 
> Oh, you think no one notices. Your type ALWAYS thinks no one notices.
Click to expand...


Actually, she's showing what a hypocrite she is.

Do you really think that Jesus would advocate for you keeping your job, if you felt that it was causing you to sin?

It says that in more than one place in the Bible btw.................


----------



## SassyIrishLass

ABikerSailor said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because she has the ability to get another job, rather than feel like she's being forced to sin.
> 
> I guess you missed the whole meaning of what Jesus said, didn't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thugs are always arrogant fools. She played you into holding her as a political prisoner. She has successfully stripped away the veneer of legitimacy you had. You are just another thug regime imposing dictates by force.
> 
> Oh, you think no one notices. Your type ALWAYS thinks no one notices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, she's showing what a hypocrite she is.
> 
> Do you really think that Jesus would advocate for you keeping your job, if you felt that it was causing you to sin?
> 
> It says that in more than one place in the Bible btw.................
Click to expand...


Jesus would advocate following God's law. It's really pretty simple, even for the simple minded


----------



## ogibillm

Uncensored2008 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> davis's lawyer is a liar. she is jailed for contempt of court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She's a political prisoner, whether that fits your agenda or not.
Click to expand...

you clearly don't understand what it means to be a political prisoner. she is definitely not a political prisoner. she is a wannabe tyrant that is facing the music for her oppression of other people.


----------



## ogibillm

Rotagilla said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> you really don't understand the word patriot if you think it describes traitors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is a traitor? the confederates?  They tried to peacefully withdraw from the union...How were they "traitors"?
> 
> Were the colonists in 1776 "traitors"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes. people who decide that they will rebel against their own country are traitors, not patriots.
> and you need a country in order to be a patriot. so our founders were not patriots prior to the adoption of the articles of confederation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO..word games. So the colonists were traitors?..ok...fine..Knowing that tells me a lot about you..
> 
> Once again, the south didn't rebel...They tried to peacefully withdraw. The north sent troops and ships to invade and blockade the port.
> Patriots always fight to repel invaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you don't understand the meaning of the word patriot. You keep applying it to traitors. You should probably stop using it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what I'm talking about...you can say "nuh uh" all you want. Won't change a thing. The truth is large.
Click to expand...

i know you believe what you say. it's just that what you believe doesn't match reality. you keep on believing it, though. keep that flame alive for traitors everywhere.


----------



## bodecea

Kondor3 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...could it be that the kentucky legislatures is full of ignorant republicans that don't want to piss off their ignorant base?
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to State Legislatures filled with ignorant Democrats, pandering to their Inner-City Great Unwashed, and the Fruit Loops?
Click to expand...

Davis is a Democrat....the Judge who jailed her is a Republican.


----------



## ogibillm

Odium said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Davis' lawyer, Roger Gannam, said it was the first time in history an American citizen has been jailed for believing that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. He compared her willingness to accept imprisonment to what Martin Luther King Jr. did to advance civil rights.
> 
> BINGO! Martyr for religious rights.
> 
> 
> 
> davis's lawyer is a liar. she is jailed for contempt of court.
> and as i said before, mlk went to jail to protest injustice and oppression. she's going to jail to protest justice and equal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.
Click to expand...

about which part? she's welcome to have her beliefs, she just can't use those beliefs to deny rights to other people. so that means she isn't in jail for her beliefs, she's there for disobeying a court order. 
and she is the oppressor here, not the oppressed. nobody is taking away her rights, but they are asking her to not impose her beliefs on others. she can't find it in her to respect the law and the rights of others, and that's what has landed her in jail.


----------



## ogibillm

Rotagilla said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> she held her position prior to the ratification of the 14th amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT the 14th Amendment that is in jail for.....This reply of yours is completely inane.....
> 
> BTW...the 14th does NOT predate the 1st.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> she's in jail for violation of a court order. that court order is based on her denial of equal treatment under the law - a right guaranteed in the 14th amendment.
> her first amendment rights do not allow her to violate the rights of others - and it especially doesn't give her the right to use her office to violate the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot be denied equal treatment when that treatment can be had everywhere....Every clerk in every county BUT hers provides the licenses.....
> 
> The Judge is out of order.  The people of Kentucky need to fight to have him removed from the bench and the case appealed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so she's denying the citizens of her county equal treatment.
> and you forget - if she's allowed to discriminate what stops every other county?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> affirmative action is race based discrimination against citizens ......by the government
Click to expand...

in your mind i'm sure that non-sequitr was somehow pertinent.


----------



## bodecea

SassyIrishLass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because she has the ability to get another job, rather than feel like she's being forced to sin.
> 
> I guess you missed the whole meaning of what Jesus said, didn't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thugs are always arrogant fools. She played you into holding her as a political prisoner. She has successfully stripped away the veneer of legitimacy you had. You are just another thug regime imposing dictates by force.
> 
> Oh, you think no one notices. Your type ALWAYS thinks no one notices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, she's showing what a hypocrite she is.
> 
> Do you really think that Jesus would advocate for you keeping your job, if you felt that it was causing you to sin?
> 
> It says that in more than one place in the Bible btw.................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus would advocate following God's law. It's really pretty simple, even for the simple minded
Click to expand...

So...she couldn't do her job and be a good christian.  Why didn't she resign?


----------



## ogibillm

SassyIrishLass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Davis' lawyer, Roger Gannam, said it was the first time in history an American citizen has been jailed for believing that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. He compared her willingness to accept imprisonment to what Martin Luther King Jr. did to advance civil rights.
> 
> BINGO! Martyr for religious rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope................sorry, but to be an actual martyr, you have to follow the teachings of your religion and dogma.
> 
> She's not doing that, because Jesus said that if your right eye offends thee, pluck it out and  throw it away, because it's better to enter Heaven missing an eye than to end up in Hell because you allowed your right eye to cause you to sin.
> 
> Here's the verse....................................
> 
> Matthew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
> 
> Now, in her case, it's not her right eye that is offending her, it's her job.  Why?  Because she feels like she's being forced to sin in issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.
> 
> So, she should pluck out her job (resign from her position), and get on with her life.
> 
> Even Jesus thinks she should resign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus would follow the Word and the Bible is clear that we are to follow human law *EXCEPT* when it violates God's law and the Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin, an abomination unto the Lord. God's law trumps human law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because she has the ability to get another job, rather than feel like she's being forced to sin.
> 
> I guess you missed the whole meaning of what Jesus said, didn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't miss anything. The Bible is clear, it's a sin, the Bible is also clear we are to follow God's law over human law. You all don't care about two gaypers getting pretend married, you want blood. You're just pushing an agenda, nothing more and nothing less
Click to expand...

so you're saying she should quit her job


----------



## OnePercenter

Uncensored2008 said:


> She's a political prisoner, whether that fits your agenda or not.



Bullshit! She's another ignorant Christian.


----------



## ABikerSailor

She's not in jail for her beliefs, she's in jail for being in contempt of a federal court order.

She can step out anytime, by simply agreeing to issue licenses or step down, either one of the two.

Until then?  Let her sit and stew.


----------



## OnePercenter

ogibillm said:


> so you're saying she should quit her job



She should be fired.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

bodecea said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because she has the ability to get another job, rather than feel like she's being forced to sin.
> 
> I guess you missed the whole meaning of what Jesus said, didn't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thugs are always arrogant fools. She played you into holding her as a political prisoner. She has successfully stripped away the veneer of legitimacy you had. You are just another thug regime imposing dictates by force.
> 
> Oh, you think no one notices. Your type ALWAYS thinks no one notices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, she's showing what a hypocrite she is.
> 
> Do you really think that Jesus would advocate for you keeping your job, if you felt that it was causing you to sin?
> 
> It says that in more than one place in the Bible btw.................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus would advocate following God's law. It's really pretty simple, even for the simple minded
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...she couldn't do her job and be a good christian.  Why didn't she resign?
Click to expand...


They changed the rules in the middle of the game. Why can't they accept the compromise where someone else issues homo pretend licences? Because that wouldn't suit the agenda being pursued would it?


----------



## Kondor3

bodecea said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...could it be that the kentucky legislatures is full of ignorant republicans that don't want to piss off their ignorant base?
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to State Legislatures filled with ignorant Democrats, pandering to their Inner-City Great Unwashed, and the Fruit Loops?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Davis is a Democrat....the Judge who jailed her is a Republican.
Click to expand...

Yeppers... DIxie Democrats and judges honor-bound to enforce a really bad (ruling at) law... ergo, the need to change it.


----------



## bodecea

ogibillm said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Davis' lawyer, Roger Gannam, said it was the first time in history an American citizen has been jailed for believing that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. He compared her willingness to accept imprisonment to what Martin Luther King Jr. did to advance civil rights.
> 
> BINGO! Martyr for religious rights.
> 
> 
> 
> davis's lawyer is a liar. she is jailed for contempt of court.
> and as i said before, mlk went to jail to protest injustice and oppression. she's going to jail to protest justice and equal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> about which part? she's welcome to have her beliefs, she just can't use those beliefs to deny rights to other people. so that means she isn't in jail for her beliefs, she's there for disobeying a court order.
> and she is the oppressor here, not the oppressed. nobody is taking away her rights, but they are asking her to not impose her beliefs on others. she can't find it in her to respect the law and the rights of others, and that's what has landed her in jail.
Click to expand...

Support for Kim Davis is support for christian sharia law.


----------



## Kondor3

OnePercenter said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you're saying she should quit her job
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She should be fired.
Click to expand...

She should receive a hero-medal.


----------



## westwall

bodecea said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Davis' lawyer, Roger Gannam, said it was the first time in history an American citizen has been jailed for believing that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. He compared her willingness to accept imprisonment to what Martin Luther King Jr. did to advance civil rights.
> 
> BINGO! Martyr for religious rights.
> 
> 
> 
> davis's lawyer is a liar. she is jailed for contempt of court.
> and as i said before, mlk went to jail to protest injustice and oppression. she's going to jail to protest justice and equal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> about which part? she's welcome to have her beliefs, she just can't use those beliefs to deny rights to other people. so that means she isn't in jail for her beliefs, she's there for disobeying a court order.
> and she is the oppressor here, not the oppressed. nobody is taking away her rights, but they are asking her to not impose her beliefs on others. she can't find it in her to respect the law and the rights of others, and that's what has landed her in jail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Support for Kim Davis is support for christian sharia law.
Click to expand...






HEY!  At least give me the credit for that as I came up with it first!


----------



## bodecea

SassyIrishLass said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because she has the ability to get another job, rather than feel like she's being forced to sin.
> 
> I guess you missed the whole meaning of what Jesus said, didn't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thugs are always arrogant fools. She played you into holding her as a political prisoner. She has successfully stripped away the veneer of legitimacy you had. You are just another thug regime imposing dictates by force.
> 
> Oh, you think no one notices. Your type ALWAYS thinks no one notices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, she's showing what a hypocrite she is.
> 
> Do you really think that Jesus would advocate for you keeping your job, if you felt that it was causing you to sin?
> 
> It says that in more than one place in the Bible btw.................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus would advocate following God's law. It's really pretty simple, even for the simple minded
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...she couldn't do her job and be a good christian.  Why didn't she resign?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They changed the rules in the middle of the game. Why can't they accept the compromise where someone else issues homo pretend licences? Because that wouldn't suit the agenda being pursued would it?
Click to expand...

Anyone who has a job who doesn't like when the job description changes is free to quit.   Support for Kim Davis is support for christian sharia law.


----------



## ABikerSailor

SassyIrishLass said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because she has the ability to get another job, rather than feel like she's being forced to sin.
> 
> I guess you missed the whole meaning of what Jesus said, didn't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thugs are always arrogant fools. She played you into holding her as a political prisoner. She has successfully stripped away the veneer of legitimacy you had. You are just another thug regime imposing dictates by force.
> 
> Oh, you think no one notices. Your type ALWAYS thinks no one notices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, she's showing what a hypocrite she is.
> 
> Do you really think that Jesus would advocate for you keeping your job, if you felt that it was causing you to sin?
> 
> It says that in more than one place in the Bible btw.................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus would advocate following God's law. It's really pretty simple, even for the simple minded
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...she couldn't do her job and be a good christian.  Why didn't she resign?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They changed the rules in the middle of the game. Why can't they accept the compromise where someone else issues homo pretend licences? Because that wouldn't suit the agenda being pursued would it?
Click to expand...


Got news for you, in the government, things and policies are changing ALL THE TIME!!!!

Every few months, when I was a PN in the U.S. Navy, we'd get in changes for the MILPERSMAN and PAYPERSMAN, and quite often they would be radical changes from what they had said before.

She's in a government job, regulations change all the time.  

She needs to either adjust and do her job, or step down and do something else.


----------



## ogibillm

OnePercenter said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She's a political prisoner, whether that fits your agenda or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! She's another ignorant Christian.
Click to expand...

being a christian really has nothing to do with it. she's jailed for disobeying a court order that simply required her to respect the rights of others. 
if she was a sheriff denying ccr permits she would be jailed. if she was a recorder of deeds and decided that women can't own property she would be jailed. 
she can't use her personal beliefs, no matter if they are grounded in religion, as a shield to deny citizens the rights and services due to them from her elected office.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

bodecea said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Davis' lawyer, Roger Gannam, said it was the first time in history an American citizen has been jailed for believing that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. He compared her willingness to accept imprisonment to what Martin Luther King Jr. did to advance civil rights.
> 
> BINGO! Martyr for religious rights.
> 
> 
> 
> davis's lawyer is a liar. she is jailed for contempt of court.
> and as i said before, mlk went to jail to protest injustice and oppression. she's going to jail to protest justice and equal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> about which part? she's welcome to have her beliefs, she just can't use those beliefs to deny rights to other people. so that means she isn't in jail for her beliefs, she's there for disobeying a court order.
> and she is the oppressor here, not the oppressed. nobody is taking away her rights, but they are asking her to not impose her beliefs on others. she can't find it in her to respect the law and the rights of others, and that's what has landed her in jail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Support for Kim Davis is support for christian sharia law.
Click to expand...


Christian sharia law is ludicrous. Sharia law is a Islamic and based on the Koran


----------



## Kondor3

bodecea said:


> ...Support for Kim Davis is support for christian sharia law.


The more you people try to equate a Christian disdain for homosexuality with Sharia Law, the more Americans you nudge towards the Opposing Corner.

Please carry on, _*exactly*_ as you're doing.


----------



## jon_berzerk

ABikerSailor said:


> She's not in jail for her beliefs, she's in jail for being in contempt of a federal court order.
> 
> She can step out anytime, by simply agreeing to issue licenses or step down, either one of the two.
> 
> Until then?  Let her sit and stew.



*She's not in jail for her beliefs, she's in jail for being in contempt of a federal court orde*r.

is not following a federal court order always a bad thing


----------



## SassyIrishLass

ABikerSailor said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thugs are always arrogant fools. She played you into holding her as a political prisoner. She has successfully stripped away the veneer of legitimacy you had. You are just another thug regime imposing dictates by force.
> 
> Oh, you think no one notices. Your type ALWAYS thinks no one notices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, she's showing what a hypocrite she is.
> 
> Do you really think that Jesus would advocate for you keeping your job, if you felt that it was causing you to sin?
> 
> It says that in more than one place in the Bible btw.................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus would advocate following God's law. It's really pretty simple, even for the simple minded
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...she couldn't do her job and be a good christian.  Why didn't she resign?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They changed the rules in the middle of the game. Why can't they accept the compromise where someone else issues homo pretend licences? Because that wouldn't suit the agenda being pursued would it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got news for you, in the government, things and policies are changing ALL THE TIME!!!!
> 
> Every few months, when I was a PN in the U.S. Navy, we'd get in changes for the MILPERSMAN and PAYPERSMAN, and quite often they would be radical changes from what they had said before.
> 
> She's in a government job, regulations change all the time.
> 
> She needs to either adjust and do her job, or step down and do something else.
Click to expand...


That's your opinion


----------



## westwall

SassyIrishLass said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Davis' lawyer, Roger Gannam, said it was the first time in history an American citizen has been jailed for believing that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. He compared her willingness to accept imprisonment to what Martin Luther King Jr. did to advance civil rights.
> 
> BINGO! Martyr for religious rights.
> 
> 
> 
> davis's lawyer is a liar. she is jailed for contempt of court.
> and as i said before, mlk went to jail to protest injustice and oppression. she's going to jail to protest justice and equal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> about which part? she's welcome to have her beliefs, she just can't use those beliefs to deny rights to other people. so that means she isn't in jail for her beliefs, she's there for disobeying a court order.
> and she is the oppressor here, not the oppressed. nobody is taking away her rights, but they are asking her to not impose her beliefs on others. she can't find it in her to respect the law and the rights of others, and that's what has landed her in jail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Support for Kim Davis is support for christian sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christian sharia law is ludicrous. Sharia law is a Islamic and based on the Koran
Click to expand...






And if you allow a Christian to impose her views on everyone else then you have also said that Sharia law can be imposed as well.  That's how it works.  You can't have one without the other.  That's why this country was founded on the principle that NO religion could impose its views on the PEOPLE.


----------



## ogibillm

SassyIrishLass said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because she has the ability to get another job, rather than feel like she's being forced to sin.
> 
> I guess you missed the whole meaning of what Jesus said, didn't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thugs are always arrogant fools. She played you into holding her as a political prisoner. She has successfully stripped away the veneer of legitimacy you had. You are just another thug regime imposing dictates by force.
> 
> Oh, you think no one notices. Your type ALWAYS thinks no one notices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, she's showing what a hypocrite she is.
> 
> Do you really think that Jesus would advocate for you keeping your job, if you felt that it was causing you to sin?
> 
> It says that in more than one place in the Bible btw.................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus would advocate following God's law. It's really pretty simple, even for the simple minded
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...she couldn't do her job and be a good christian.  Why didn't she resign?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They changed the rules in the middle of the game. Why can't they accept the compromise where someone else issues homo pretend licences? Because that wouldn't suit the agenda being pursued would it?
Click to expand...

the rules were not changed, just recognized.

and she did not take an oath promising to fulfill the role of her office in support of the laws and constitution so long as the law didn't change and cases weren't decided.


----------



## Katzndogz

What ever objection people have doesn't belong against the office.  Iy id against the couples themselves.


----------



## ABikerSailor

SassyIrishLass said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Davis' lawyer, Roger Gannam, said it was the first time in history an American citizen has been jailed for believing that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. He compared her willingness to accept imprisonment to what Martin Luther King Jr. did to advance civil rights.
> 
> BINGO! Martyr for religious rights.
> 
> 
> 
> davis's lawyer is a liar. she is jailed for contempt of court.
> and as i said before, mlk went to jail to protest injustice and oppression. she's going to jail to protest justice and equal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> about which part? she's welcome to have her beliefs, she just can't use those beliefs to deny rights to other people. so that means she isn't in jail for her beliefs, she's there for disobeying a court order.
> and she is the oppressor here, not the oppressed. nobody is taking away her rights, but they are asking her to not impose her beliefs on others. she can't find it in her to respect the law and the rights of others, and that's what has landed her in jail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Support for Kim Davis is support for christian sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christian sharia law is ludicrous. Sharia law is a Islamic and based on the Koran
Click to expand...


You're right, but apparently you missed the meaning.

Christians are as rigidly dogmatic and bigoted as many of those Muslims that they holler about so much.

They're not saying that Christians are Islamic, they are saying that Christians are as bigoted and dogmatic as those of other religions.

And sadly..................it's true.


----------



## Katzndogz

westwall said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> davis's lawyer is a liar. she is jailed for contempt of court.
> and as i said before, mlk went to jail to protest injustice and oppression. she's going to jail to protest justice and equal rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> about which part? she's welcome to have her beliefs, she just can't use those beliefs to deny rights to other people. so that means she isn't in jail for her beliefs, she's there for disobeying a court order.
> and she is the oppressor here, not the oppressed. nobody is taking away her rights, but they are asking her to not impose her beliefs on others. she can't find it in her to respect the law and the rights of others, and that's what has landed her in jail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Support for Kim Davis is support for christian sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christian sharia law is ludicrous. Sharia law is a Islamic and based on the Koran
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you allow a Christian to impose her views on everyone else then you have also said that Sharia law can be imposed as well.  That's how it works.  You can't have one without the other.
Click to expand...

She wasn't imposing her views on anyone but herself.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

westwall said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> davis's lawyer is a liar. she is jailed for contempt of court.
> and as i said before, mlk went to jail to protest injustice and oppression. she's going to jail to protest justice and equal rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> about which part? she's welcome to have her beliefs, she just can't use those beliefs to deny rights to other people. so that means she isn't in jail for her beliefs, she's there for disobeying a court order.
> and she is the oppressor here, not the oppressed. nobody is taking away her rights, but they are asking her to not impose her beliefs on others. she can't find it in her to respect the law and the rights of others, and that's what has landed her in jail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Support for Kim Davis is support for christian sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christian sharia law is ludicrous. Sharia law is a Islamic and based on the Koran
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you allow a Christian to impose her views on everyone else then you have also said that Sharia law can be imposed as well.  That's how it works.  You can't have one without the other.
Click to expand...


I posted earlier they should have accepted the compromise where her superior issued the license. It was a win win situation but nope....gotta push that agenda


----------



## bodecea

Kondor3 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you're saying she should quit her job
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She should be fired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She should receive a hero-medal.
Click to expand...

So you support christian sharia law.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Leave her in jail until she either recants, resigns or rots.


----------



## Kondor3

bodecea said:


> ...So you support christian sharia law.


There is no such thing.

However, in the interest of fairness, we should let you go out on a limb here, and define '_Christian Sharia Law_' for the audience.

Please proceed.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Odium said:


> Defiant Kentucky clerk remains jailed after rejecting deal
> Thug in the robe trying to bribe her. She refuses. #standwithkim!


Unfortunately there are other bigots with the same contempt for the Constitution and the law as Davis, as your post illustrates.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Kondor3 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...So you support christian sharia law.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing.
> 
> However, in the interest of fairness, we should let you go out on a limb here, and define '_Christian Sharia Law_' for the audience.
> 
> Please proceed.
Click to expand...



yeah lets see it 

--LOL


----------



## RodISHI

westwall said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> No law can be made that violates a persons conscious.....Any law becomes un-Constititutional that requires a person to give up their deeply held beliefs...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can.  Laws like that are passed all of the time.  She can not be made to violate her religious beliefs, however, as she is a ELECTED OFFICIAL, she is bound to FOLLOW the LAW.  That is the oath she swore.
> 
> If she can't reconcile her beliefs with the oath she swore then her only option is to resign in protest.  Generals and business executives do it all the time and so should she.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except it only works that way in a dictatorial tyranny....
> 
> She held the position BEFORE the law was passed.  This means that the law intentionally targets people of faith.....I hope that she appeals to the SCOTUS......
> 
> And to be honest.....I really don't care what anyone on this or any forum thinks regarding this.....The day this country can pass a law that requires ME to have to alter My beliefs or behaviors is the day that that government needs to be abolished.
> 
> It spells the death of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter.  If the judges rule in a way you think is wrong, or immoral, you resign your position and fight the fight in a legal way.  You don't assume you have all the power and ignore judicial rulings.  SHE was the one being dictatorial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It appears that what you are now saying is that anyone who stands on their faith cannot be in an elected positon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If their religion forces them to violate other peoples rights, that is correct.  If a Muslim told me that I couldn't do something based on their religious views I would likewise demand that they resign their position.  Other wise what you are advocating for is SHARIA law.
> 
> See how that works?
Click to expand...

The people voted her into hat position. Judges made up something that is no where written into the constitution and now she is expected to go with the flow with her name assigned to a document that was not in place when the people voted her into that position. 

I see how people capitulate so easily and give up; so many claim that they believe on the written Word and then they turn right around and what the Word says and do not stand on truth. I see when activist judges are out of control.

Now I see a woman who has true grit that refuses to be bullied by a few sick people who are more than willing to accept deviant behavior as a norm or fall away from the truth in favor of letting the unjust ride over those who disagree.

I see children in public schools assaulted with propaganda daily that all sorts of abhorrent behavior is perfectly acceptable, they really can't think or have a thought process of their own and Hitler was not really a bad guy after all.

I also see that if the people do not or are not willing to take a stand against this type of crap freedom and liberty will become a thing of the past here for a period of time until people are once again sick and tired of being ruled over by tyrants.

Then again the spirit told me that the rebellious children of Umm [sic]were brought forth and will accept their own destruction for this day and time in history.


----------



## ogibillm

Kondor3 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...So you support christian sharia law.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing.
> 
> However, in the interest of fairness, we should let you go out on a limb here, and define '_Christian Sharia Law_' for the audience.
> 
> Please proceed.
Click to expand...

so she wasn't imposing her religious beliefs on government offices? she wasn't using her office to treat people differently based on her religious law?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Odium said:


> Davis' lawyer, Roger Gannam, said it was the first time in history an American citizen has been jailed for believing that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. He compared her willingness to accept imprisonment to what Martin Luther King Jr. did to advance civil rights.
> 
> BINGO! Martyr for religious rights.


Comparing Davis to MLK is an insult to the work and memory of Dr. King.


----------



## ogibillm

RodISHI said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can.  Laws like that are passed all of the time.  She can not be made to violate her religious beliefs, however, as she is a ELECTED OFFICIAL, she is bound to FOLLOW the LAW.  That is the oath she swore.
> 
> If she can't reconcile her beliefs with the oath she swore then her only option is to resign in protest.  Generals and business executives do it all the time and so should she.
> 
> 
> 
> Except it only works that way in a dictatorial tyranny....
> 
> She held the position BEFORE the law was passed.  This means that the law intentionally targets people of faith.....I hope that she appeals to the SCOTUS......
> 
> And to be honest.....I really don't care what anyone on this or any forum thinks regarding this.....The day this country can pass a law that requires ME to have to alter My beliefs or behaviors is the day that that government needs to be abolished.
> 
> It spells the death of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter.  If the judges rule in a way you think is wrong, or immoral, you resign your position and fight the fight in a legal way.  You don't assume you have all the power and ignore judicial rulings.  SHE was the one being dictatorial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It appears that what you are now saying is that anyone who stands on their faith cannot be in an elected positon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If their religion forces them to violate other peoples rights, that is correct.  If a Muslim told me that I couldn't do something based on their religious views I would likewise demand that they resign their position.  Other wise what you are advocating for is SHARIA law.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people voted her into hat position. Judges made up something that is no where written into the constitution and now she is expected to go with the flow with her name assigned to a document that was not in place when the people voted her into that position.
> 
> I see how people capitulate so easily and give up; so many claim that they believe on the written Word and then they turn right around and what the Word says and do not stand on truth. I see when activist judges are out of control.
> 
> Now I see a woman who has true grit that refuses to be bullied by a few sick people who are more than willing to accept deviant behavior as a norm or fall away from the truth in favor of letting the unjust ride over those who disagree.
> 
> I see children in public schools assaulted with propaganda daily that all sorts of abhorrent behavior is perfectly acceptable, they really can't think or have a thought process of their own and Hitler was not really a bad guy after all.
> 
> I also see that if the people do not or are not willing to take a stand against this type of crap freedom and liberty will become a thing of the past here for a period of time until people are once again sick and tired of being ruled over by tyrants.
> 
> Then again the spirit told me that the rebellious children of Umm [sic]were brought forth and will accept their own destruction for this day and time in history.
Click to expand...

so you believe that she can use her office to impose her religious beliefs on the citizens of her county. you believe that the rights of those citizens are secondary to the first amendment rights of the county clerk?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Instead of calling it "Christian Sharia Law", how about we call it what it really is..........

"Christian dictatorial fascism".


----------



## Kondor3

ABikerSailor said:


> ...Unfortunately there are other bigots with the same contempt for the Constitution and the law as Davis, as your post illustrates.


The civil servant in question is _*not *_contemptuous of the Constitution.

She merely believes that five old lawyers in Washington DC have incorrectly interpreted it, in this narrow instance.

Thereby overturning centuries of American and English and Western European law, and religious beliefs, and public morals, and common sense.

And she refuses to be a part of that downward slide towards a degenerate, licentious, impure, unclean, filthy, effeminate, gutless, nutless, backbone-less, perverse society.


----------



## Kondor3

ogibillm said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...So you support christian sharia law.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing.
> 
> However, in the interest of fairness, we should let you go out on a limb here, and define '_Christian Sharia Law_' for the audience.
> 
> Please proceed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so she wasn't imposing her religious beliefs on government offices? she wasn't using her office to treat people differently based on her religious law?
Click to expand...

That is not the challenge to our colleague, here.

The challenge is to define '_Christian Sharia Law_'.

The audience is still waiting.


----------



## bodecea

Kondor3 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...So you support christian sharia law.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing.
> 
> However, in the interest of fairness, we should let you go out on a limb here, and define '_Christian Sharia Law_' for the audience.
> 
> Please proceed.
Click to expand...

There most certainly is christian sharia law and you support it.....and if you don't know what it is...*.it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Consititution.*


----------



## Kondor3

bodecea said:


> ...There most certainly is christian sharia law and you support it.....and if you don't know what it is....it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Consititution.


You merely protesting that such a thing exists, does not render it extant.

You cannot accuse someone of supporting a law unless you can *define* it and *articulate* that definition.

You still have not done so, your audience is still waiting, and you still have the floor.

Please proceed.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

bodecea said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...So you support christian sharia law.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing.
> 
> However, in the interest of fairness, we should let you go out on a limb here, and define '_Christian Sharia Law_' for the audience.
> 
> Please proceed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There most certainly is christian sharia law and you support it.....and if you don't know what it is...*.it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Consititution.*
Click to expand...


There is no such thing as Christian sharia law. Just stop already, it's stupid


----------



## bodecea

Kondor3 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...There most certainly is christian sharia law and you support it.....and if you don't know what it is....it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Consititution.
> 
> 
> 
> You merely protesting that such a thing exists, does not render it extant.
> 
> You cannot accuse someone of supporting a law unless you can *define* it and *articulate* that definition.
> 
> You still have not done so, your audience is still waiting, and you still have the floor.
> 
> Please proceed.
Click to expand...

Let me say it again for you:  *it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Constitution.*


----------



## bodecea

SassyIrishLass said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...So you support christian sharia law.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing.
> 
> However, in the interest of fairness, we should let you go out on a limb here, and define '_Christian Sharia Law_' for the audience.
> 
> Please proceed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There most certainly is christian sharia law and you support it.....and if you don't know what it is...*.it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Constitution.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as Christian sharia law. Just stop already, it's stupid
Click to expand...

And again....*it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Constitution.   *By supporting Kim Davis, you are supporting christian sharia law.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

g5000 said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> TYRANNY UPDATE:  Judge Orders Christian Woman to Jail because She Refuses to Violate her Faith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The way I see it, a hypocritical bigoted tyrant has finally been dislodged.
> 
> But don't you worry, pants shitter.  She's going to be rich when you rubes send her your money.  That's what she is in this for.
> 
> "First time I've donated to a Democrat!"
Click to expand...

Having religious convictions isn't bigoted.  You come off as the bigot.


----------



## Rotagilla

ogibillm said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is a traitor? the confederates?  They tried to peacefully withdraw from the union...How were they "traitors"?
> 
> Were the colonists in 1776 "traitors"?
> 
> 
> 
> yes. people who decide that they will rebel against their own country are traitors, not patriots.
> and you need a country in order to be a patriot. so our founders were not patriots prior to the adoption of the articles of confederation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO..word games. So the colonists were traitors?..ok...fine..Knowing that tells me a lot about you..
> 
> Once again, the south didn't rebel...They tried to peacefully withdraw. The north sent troops and ships to invade and blockade the port.
> Patriots always fight to repel invaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you don't understand the meaning of the word patriot. You keep applying it to traitors. You should probably stop using it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what I'm talking about...you can say "nuh uh" all you want. Won't change a thing. The truth is large.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i know you believe what you say. it's just that what you believe doesn't match reality. you keep on believing it, though. keep that flame alive for traitors everywhere.
Click to expand...


turn off the television and read some history.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

bodecea said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...So you support christian sharia law.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing.
> 
> However, in the interest of fairness, we should let you go out on a limb here, and define '_Christian Sharia Law_' for the audience.
> 
> Please proceed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There most certainly is christian sharia law and you support it.....and if you don't know what it is...*.it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Constitution.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as Christian sharia law. Just stop already, it's stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again....*it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Constitution.   *By supporting Kim Davis, you are supporting christian sharia law.
Click to expand...


again...there is no such thing as Christian sharia law, you can keep spewing it but that does not make it a fact


----------



## jon_berzerk

lame 

what a joke 

--LOL

no wonder you are not taken seriously 

--LOL


----------



## Dot Com

Vandalshandle said:


> ...for failure to obey court order of issuing marraige licenses to gay couples.
> 
> News from The Associated Press


there is justice in this world.


----------



## JOSweetHeart

Tipsycatlover said:


> She wasn't trying to impose her beliefs on anyone.  She was trying to keep other religious beliefs from being imposed on her.


A-M-E-N. To me, what she did is no different than what same gender couples were up to before getting married was made legal for them. They were together as much as they could be and nobody could stop them. If they can thumb their noses at what is and isn't legal, so can the rest of us.

God bless you and that woman always!!!

Holly


----------



## Rotagilla

ogibillm said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT the 14th Amendment that is in jail for.....This reply of yours is completely inane.....
> 
> BTW...the 14th does NOT predate the 1st.....
> 
> 
> 
> she's in jail for violation of a court order. that court order is based on her denial of equal treatment under the law - a right guaranteed in the 14th amendment.
> her first amendment rights do not allow her to violate the rights of others - and it especially doesn't give her the right to use her office to violate the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot be denied equal treatment when that treatment can be had everywhere....Every clerk in every county BUT hers provides the licenses.....
> 
> The Judge is out of order.  The people of Kentucky need to fight to have him removed from the bench and the case appealed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so she's denying the citizens of her county equal treatment.
> and you forget - if she's allowed to discriminate what stops every other county?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> affirmative action is race based discrimination against citizens ......by the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in your mind i'm sure that non-sequitr was somehow pertinent.
Click to expand...


you mentioned discrimination. I gave an example.


----------



## westwall

RodISHI said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can.  Laws like that are passed all of the time.  She can not be made to violate her religious beliefs, however, as she is a ELECTED OFFICIAL, she is bound to FOLLOW the LAW.  That is the oath she swore.
> 
> If she can't reconcile her beliefs with the oath she swore then her only option is to resign in protest.  Generals and business executives do it all the time and so should she.
> 
> 
> 
> Except it only works that way in a dictatorial tyranny....
> 
> She held the position BEFORE the law was passed.  This means that the law intentionally targets people of faith.....I hope that she appeals to the SCOTUS......
> 
> And to be honest.....I really don't care what anyone on this or any forum thinks regarding this.....The day this country can pass a law that requires ME to have to alter My beliefs or behaviors is the day that that government needs to be abolished.
> 
> It spells the death of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter.  If the judges rule in a way you think is wrong, or immoral, you resign your position and fight the fight in a legal way.  You don't assume you have all the power and ignore judicial rulings.  SHE was the one being dictatorial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It appears that what you are now saying is that anyone who stands on their faith cannot be in an elected positon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If their religion forces them to violate other peoples rights, that is correct.  If a Muslim told me that I couldn't do something based on their religious views I would likewise demand that they resign their position.  Other wise what you are advocating for is SHARIA law.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people voted her into hat position. Judges made up something that is no where written into the constitution and now she is expected to go with the flow with her name assigned to a document that was not in place when the people voted her into that position.
> 
> I see how people capitulate so easily and give up; so many claim that they believe on the written Word and then they turn right around and what the Word says and do not stand on truth. I see when activist judges are out of control.
> 
> Now I see a woman who has true grit that refuses to be bullied by a few sick people who are more than willing to accept deviant behavior as a norm or fall away from the truth in favor of letting the unjust ride over those who disagree.
> 
> I see children in public schools assaulted with propaganda daily that all sorts of abhorrent behavior is perfectly acceptable, they really can't think or have a thought process of their own and Hitler was not really a bad guy after all.
> 
> I also see that if the people do not or are not willing to take a stand against this type of crap freedom and liberty will become a thing of the past here for a period of time until people are once again sick and tired of being ruled over by tyrants.
> 
> Then again the spirit told me that the rebellious children of Umm [sic]were brought forth and will accept their own destruction for this day and time in history.
Click to expand...









And you still haven't addressed the central point which in this country is no religion shall take precedence over the law of this country.  If you allow a christian to impose her will on others then fully expect a duly elected Muslim to do likewise.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

RodISHI said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can.  Laws like that are passed all of the time.  She can not be made to violate her religious beliefs, however, as she is a ELECTED OFFICIAL, she is bound to FOLLOW the LAW.  That is the oath she swore.
> 
> If she can't reconcile her beliefs with the oath she swore then her only option is to resign in protest.  Generals and business executives do it all the time and so should she.
> 
> 
> 
> Except it only works that way in a dictatorial tyranny....
> 
> She held the position BEFORE the law was passed.  This means that the law intentionally targets people of faith.....I hope that she appeals to the SCOTUS......
> 
> And to be honest.....I really don't care what anyone on this or any forum thinks regarding this.....The day this country can pass a law that requires ME to have to alter My beliefs or behaviors is the day that that government needs to be abolished.
> 
> It spells the death of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter.  If the judges rule in a way you think is wrong, or immoral, you resign your position and fight the fight in a legal way.  You don't assume you have all the power and ignore judicial rulings.  SHE was the one being dictatorial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It appears that what you are now saying is that anyone who stands on their faith cannot be in an elected positon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If their religion forces them to violate other peoples rights, that is correct.  If a Muslim told me that I couldn't do something based on their religious views I would likewise demand that they resign their position.  Other wise what you are advocating for is SHARIA law.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people voted her into hat position. Judges made up something that is no where written into the constitution and now she is expected to go with the flow with her name assigned to a document that was not in place when the people voted her into that position.
> 
> I see how people capitulate so easily and give up; so many claim that they believe on the written Word and then they turn right around and what the Word says and do not stand on truth. I see when activist judges are out of control.
> 
> Now I see a woman who has true grit that refuses to be bullied by a few sick people who are more than willing to accept deviant behavior as a norm or fall away from the truth in favor of letting the unjust ride over those who disagree.
> 
> I see children in public schools assaulted with propaganda daily that all sorts of abhorrent behavior is perfectly acceptable, they really can't think or have a thought process of their own and Hitler was not really a bad guy after all.
> 
> I also see that if the people do not or are not willing to take a stand against this type of crap freedom and liberty will become a thing of the past here for a period of time until people are once again sick and tired of being ruled over by tyrants.
> 
> Then again the spirit told me that the rebellious children of Umm [sic]were brought forth and will accept their own destruction for this day and time in history.
Click to expand...

This is as ridiculous as it is ignorant and wrong.

The Supremacy Clause is very much 'part' of the Constitution, it was the Framers' intent that state and local governments be subordinate to Federal laws, subject to the rulings of Federal courts, with the Constitution and its case law binding on the states and local jurisdictions:

'The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." P.358 U. S. 18.

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it. P. 358 U. S. 18.' (_Cooper v. Aaron_)


----------



## Kondor3

bodecea said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...So you support christian sharia law.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing.
> 
> However, in the interest of fairness, we should let you go out on a limb here, and define '_Christian Sharia Law_' for the audience.
> 
> Please proceed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There most certainly is christian sharia law and you support it.....and if you don't know what it is...*.it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Constitution.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as Christian sharia law. Just stop already, it's stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again....*it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Constitution.   *By supporting Kim Davis, you are supporting christian sharia law.
Click to expand...

For more than 200 years, We the People have run the United States based upon a moral and sane interpretation of the US Constitution in this context, not Religion A or B.

*Very* recently, five (a bare-squeaker majority) old lawyers in Washington, DC, have chosen to RE-interpret the Constitution, in the service of sexual deviancy and perversity.

Americans who will stand-up to the Gay Mafia merely strive to bring-about a RETURN to that older and saner and time-honored interpretation of the US Constitution.

You may leave the gods out of it.

Epic Fail.

But thank you for playing.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

BlindBoo said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those supporting religious freedom are the sane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the freedom to believe in what ever mythology suits you.  Just stop imposing those superstitious beliefs on the rest of us.
Click to expand...

God laughs.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

AvgGuyIA said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those supporting religious freedom are the sane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the freedom to believe in what ever mythology suits you.  Just stop imposing those superstitious beliefs on the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God laughs.
Click to expand...


Yeah but He will get pissed and then it gets ugly, really ugly


----------



## bodecea

SassyIrishLass said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...So you support christian sharia law.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing.
> 
> However, in the interest of fairness, we should let you go out on a limb here, and define '_Christian Sharia Law_' for the audience.
> 
> Please proceed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There most certainly is christian sharia law and you support it.....and if you don't know what it is...*.it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Constitution.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as Christian sharia law. Just stop already, it's stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again....*it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Constitution.   *By supporting Kim Davis, you are supporting christian sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again...there is no such thing as Christian sharia law, you can keep spewing it but that does not make it a fact
Click to expand...

It is what you want...christian sharia law...running our country based on YOUR interpretation of what YOUR god wants....not on the U.S. Constitution.   That's why you support Kim Davis.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

ogibillm said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> No law can be made that violates a persons conscious.....Any law becomes un-Constititutional that requires a person to give up their deeply held beliefs...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can.  Laws like that are passed all of the time.  She can not be made to violate her religious beliefs, however, as she is a ELECTED OFFICIAL, she is bound to FOLLOW the LAW.  That is the oath she swore.
> 
> If she can't reconcile her beliefs with the oath she swore then her only option is to resign in protest.  Generals and business executives do it all the time and so should she.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except it only works that way in a dictatorial tyranny....
> 
> She held the position BEFORE the law was passed.  This means that the law intentionally targets people of faith.....I hope that she appeals to the SCOTUS......
> 
> And to be honest.....I really don't care what anyone on this or any forum thinks regarding this.....The day this country can pass a law that requires ME to have to alter My beliefs or behaviors is the day that that government needs to be abolished.
> 
> It spells the death of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> she held her position prior to the ratification of the 14th amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is NOT the 14th Amendment that is in jail for.....This reply of yours is completely inane.....
> 
> BTW...the 14th does NOT predate the 1st.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> she's in jail for violation of a court order. that court order is based on her denial of equal treatment under the law - a right guaranteed in the 14th amendment.
> her first amendment rights do not allow her to violate the rights of others - and it especially doesn't give her the right to use her office to violate the rights of others.
Click to expand...

She is in jail under religious percucution and a political prisoner.


----------



## bodecea

AvgGuyIA said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those supporting religious freedom are the sane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the freedom to believe in what ever mythology suits you.  Just stop imposing those superstitious beliefs on the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God laughs.
Click to expand...

The Goddess of Irony laughs.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

bodecea said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing.
> 
> However, in the interest of fairness, we should let you go out on a limb here, and define '_Christian Sharia Law_' for the audience.
> 
> Please proceed.
> 
> 
> 
> There most certainly is christian sharia law and you support it.....and if you don't know what it is...*.it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Constitution.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as Christian sharia law. Just stop already, it's stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again....*it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Constitution.   *By supporting Kim Davis, you are supporting christian sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again...there is no such thing as Christian sharia law, you can keep spewing it but that does not make it a fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is what you want...christian sharia law...running our country based on YOUR interpretation of what YOUR god wants....not on the U.S. Constitution.   That's why you support Kim Davis.
Click to expand...


Again....you're using a made up term. There is no such thing. Keep spewing it but it won't change the facts


----------



## mudwhistle

SassyIrishLass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Davis' lawyer, Roger Gannam, said it was the first time in history an American citizen has been jailed for believing that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. He compared her willingness to accept imprisonment to what Martin Luther King Jr. did to advance civil rights.
> 
> BINGO! Martyr for religious rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope................sorry, but to be an actual martyr, you have to follow the teachings of your religion and dogma.
> 
> She's not doing that, because Jesus said that if your right eye offends thee, pluck it out and  throw it away, because it's better to enter Heaven missing an eye than to end up in Hell because you allowed your right eye to cause you to sin.
> 
> Here's the verse....................................
> 
> Matthew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
> 
> Now, in her case, it's not her right eye that is offending her, it's her job.  Why?  Because she feels like she's being forced to sin in issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.
> 
> So, she should pluck out her job (resign from her position), and get on with her life.
> 
> Even Jesus thinks she should resign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus would follow the Word and the Bible is clear that we are to follow human law *EXCEPT* when it violates God's law and the Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin, an abomination unto the Lord. God's law trumps human law
Click to expand...

Fucken A...


----------



## bodecea

AvgGuyIA said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can.  Laws like that are passed all of the time.  She can not be made to violate her religious beliefs, however, as she is a ELECTED OFFICIAL, she is bound to FOLLOW the LAW.  That is the oath she swore.
> 
> If she can't reconcile her beliefs with the oath she swore then her only option is to resign in protest.  Generals and business executives do it all the time and so should she.
> 
> 
> 
> Except it only works that way in a dictatorial tyranny....
> 
> She held the position BEFORE the law was passed.  This means that the law intentionally targets people of faith.....I hope that she appeals to the SCOTUS......
> 
> And to be honest.....I really don't care what anyone on this or any forum thinks regarding this.....The day this country can pass a law that requires ME to have to alter My beliefs or behaviors is the day that that government needs to be abolished.
> 
> It spells the death of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> she held her position prior to the ratification of the 14th amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is NOT the 14th Amendment that is in jail for.....This reply of yours is completely inane.....
> 
> BTW...the 14th does NOT predate the 1st.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> she's in jail for violation of a court order. that court order is based on her denial of equal treatment under the law - a right guaranteed in the 14th amendment.
> her first amendment rights do not allow her to violate the rights of others - and it especially doesn't give her the right to use her office to violate the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is in jail under religious percucution and a political prisoner.
Click to expand...

Someone who is for christian sharia law would certainly agree with what you just said.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Kondor3 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...So you support christian sharia law.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing.
> 
> However, in the interest of fairness, we should let you go out on a limb here, and define '_Christian Sharia Law_' for the audience.
> 
> Please proceed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There most certainly is christian sharia law and you support it.....and if you don't know what it is...*.it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Constitution.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as Christian sharia law. Just stop already, it's stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again....*it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Constitution.   *By supporting Kim Davis, you are supporting christian sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For more than 200 years, We the People have run the United States based upon a moral and sane interpretation of the US Constitution in this context, not Religion A or B.
> 
> *Very* recently, five (a bare-squeaker majority) old lawyers in Washington, DC, have chosen to RE-interpret the Constitution, in the service of sexual deviancy and perversity.
> 
> Americans who will stand-up to the Gay Mafia merely strive to bring-about a RETURN to that older and saner and time-honored interpretation of the US Constitution.
> 
> You may leave the gods out of it.
> 
> Epic Fail.
> 
> But thank you for playing.
Click to expand...

No, the ignorant, ridiculous rhetoric about 'old lawyers' in Washington 'reinterpreting' the Constitution is actually the epic fail.


----------



## Kondor3

SassyIrishLass said:


> ...Again....you're using a made up term. There is no such thing. Keep spewing it but it won't change the facts


And the more they use it, the more Normal People they drive away, and into the arms of the Opposition... delicious.


----------



## ogibillm

SassyIrishLass said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...So you support christian sharia law.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing.
> 
> However, in the interest of fairness, we should let you go out on a limb here, and define '_Christian Sharia Law_' for the audience.
> 
> Please proceed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There most certainly is christian sharia law and you support it.....and if you don't know what it is...*.it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Constitution.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as Christian sharia law. Just stop already, it's stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again....*it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Constitution.   *By supporting Kim Davis, you are supporting christian sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again...there is no such thing as Christian sharia law, you can keep spewing it but that does not make it a fact
Click to expand...

is your objection to the idea that christians have rules about how to act and treat others or is your objection solely to the word 'sharia'?


----------



## bodecea

SassyIrishLass said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> There most certainly is christian sharia law and you support it.....and if you don't know what it is...*.it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Constitution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as Christian sharia law. Just stop already, it's stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again....*it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Constitution.   *By supporting Kim Davis, you are supporting christian sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again...there is no such thing as Christian sharia law, you can keep spewing it but that does not make it a fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is what you want...christian sharia law...running our country based on YOUR interpretation of what YOUR god wants....not on the U.S. Constitution.   That's why you support Kim Davis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again....you're using a made up term. There is no such thing. Keep spewing it but it won't change the facts
Click to expand...

The facts are that anyone who supports Kim Davis and what she did is a supporter of christian sharia law.   That is what she tried to put in place.


----------



## westwall

Kondor3 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...So you support christian sharia law.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing.
> 
> However, in the interest of fairness, we should let you go out on a limb here, and define '_Christian Sharia Law_' for the audience.
> 
> Please proceed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There most certainly is christian sharia law and you support it.....and if you don't know what it is...*.it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Constitution.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as Christian sharia law. Just stop already, it's stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again....*it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Constitution.   *By supporting Kim Davis, you are supporting christian sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For more than 200 years, We the People have run the United States based upon a moral and sane interpretation of the US Constitution in this context, not Religion A or B.
> 
> *Very* recently, five (a bare-squeaker majority) old lawyers in Washington, DC, have chosen to RE-interpret the Constitution, in the service of sexual deviancy and perversity.
> 
> Americans who will stand-up to the Gay Mafia merely strive to bring-about a RETURN to that older and saner and time-honored interpretation of the US Constitution.
> 
> You may lave the gods out of it.
> 
> Epic Fail.
> 
> But thank you for playing.
Click to expand...







The Declaration of Independence states that we have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  Where in the Constitution does it deny gay marriage?  Be specific.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

SassyIrishLass said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...So you support christian sharia law.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing.
> 
> However, in the interest of fairness, we should let you go out on a limb here, and define '_Christian Sharia Law_' for the audience.
> 
> Please proceed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There most certainly is christian sharia law and you support it.....and if you don't know what it is...*.it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Consititution.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as Christian sharia law. Just stop already, it's stupid
Click to expand...

Given your posting history, you're in no position to refer to anything as 'stupid.'


----------



## PaintMyHouse

AvgGuyIA said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can.  Laws like that are passed all of the time.  She can not be made to violate her religious beliefs, however, as she is a ELECTED OFFICIAL, she is bound to FOLLOW the LAW.  That is the oath she swore.
> 
> If she can't reconcile her beliefs with the oath she swore then her only option is to resign in protest.  Generals and business executives do it all the time and so should she.
> 
> 
> 
> Except it only works that way in a dictatorial tyranny....
> 
> She held the position BEFORE the law was passed.  This means that the law intentionally targets people of faith.....I hope that she appeals to the SCOTUS......
> 
> And to be honest.....I really don't care what anyone on this or any forum thinks regarding this.....The day this country can pass a law that requires ME to have to alter My beliefs or behaviors is the day that that government needs to be abolished.
> 
> It spells the death of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> she held her position prior to the ratification of the 14th amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is NOT the 14th Amendment that is in jail for.....This reply of yours is completely inane.....
> 
> BTW...the 14th does NOT predate the 1st.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> she's in jail for violation of a court order. that court order is based on her denial of equal treatment under the law - a right guaranteed in the 14th amendment.
> her first amendment rights do not allow her to violate the rights of others - and it especially doesn't give her the right to use her office to violate the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is in jail under religious percucution and a political prisoner.
Click to expand...

Nope, she's in jail because she can't understand that no one can serve two masters.  That and the fact that she's a useless **** who won't do her damn job.


----------



## RodISHI

westwall said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except it only works that way in a dictatorial tyranny....
> 
> She held the position BEFORE the law was passed.  This means that the law intentionally targets people of faith.....I hope that she appeals to the SCOTUS......
> 
> And to be honest.....I really don't care what anyone on this or any forum thinks regarding this.....The day this country can pass a law that requires ME to have to alter My beliefs or behaviors is the day that that government needs to be abolished.
> 
> It spells the death of liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter.  If the judges rule in a way you think is wrong, or immoral, you resign your position and fight the fight in a legal way.  You don't assume you have all the power and ignore judicial rulings.  SHE was the one being dictatorial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It appears that what you are now saying is that anyone who stands on their faith cannot be in an elected positon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If their religion forces them to violate other peoples rights, that is correct.  If a Muslim told me that I couldn't do something based on their religious views I would likewise demand that they resign their position.  Other wise what you are advocating for is SHARIA law.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people voted her into hat position. Judges made up something that is no where written into the constitution and now she is expected to go with the flow with her name assigned to a document that was not in place when the people voted her into that position.
> 
> I see how people capitulate so easily and give up; so many claim that they believe on the written Word and then they turn right around and what the Word says and do not stand on truth. I see when activist judges are out of control.
> 
> Now I see a woman who has true grit that refuses to be bullied by a few sick people who are more than willing to accept deviant behavior as a norm or fall away from the truth in favor of letting the unjust ride over those who disagree.
> 
> I see children in public schools assaulted with propaganda daily that all sorts of abhorrent behavior is perfectly acceptable, they really can't think or have a thought process of their own and Hitler was not really a bad guy after all.
> 
> I also see that if the people do not or are not willing to take a stand against this type of crap freedom and liberty will become a thing of the past here for a period of time until people are once again sick and tired of being ruled over by tyrants.
> 
> Then again the spirit told me that the rebellious children of Umm [sic]were brought forth and will accept their own destruction for this day and time in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you still haven't addressed the central point which in this country is no religion shall take precedence over the law of this country.  If you allow a christian to impose her will on others then fully expect a duly elected Muslim to do likewise.
Click to expand...

I did, sodomy does not take precedence over religion. It is not protected nor mention anywhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights; her God given rights are protected in Kentucky's Bill of Rights as a state and in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. Activist judges are not legislators.


----------



## mudwhistle

bodecea said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as Christian sharia law. Just stop already, it's stupid
> 
> 
> 
> And again....*it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Constitution.   *By supporting Kim Davis, you are supporting christian sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again...there is no such thing as Christian sharia law, you can keep spewing it but that does not make it a fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is what you want...christian sharia law...running our country based on YOUR interpretation of what YOUR god wants....not on the U.S. Constitution.   That's why you support Kim Davis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again....you're using a made up term. There is no such thing. Keep spewing it but it won't change the facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facts are that anyone who supports Kim Davis and what she did is a supporter of christian sharia law.   That is what she tried to put in place.
Click to expand...

I think if you learned to drop your anger and forgive people for their transgressions then you might be a happier person.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...So you support christian sharia law.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing.
> 
> However, in the interest of fairness, we should let you go out on a limb here, and define '_Christian Sharia Law_' for the audience.
> 
> Please proceed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There most certainly is christian sharia law and you support it.....and if you don't know what it is...*.it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Consititution.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as Christian sharia law. Just stop already, it's stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given your posting history, you're in no position to refer to anything as 'stupid.'
Click to expand...


Yeah? I don't give a rat's ass. How's that? Now go bother someone else, tool. You're a nothing


----------



## bodecea

Kondor3 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...So you support christian sharia law.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing.
> 
> However, in the interest of fairness, we should let you go out on a limb here, and define '_Christian Sharia Law_' for the audience.
> 
> Please proceed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There most certainly is christian sharia law and you support it.....and if you don't know what it is...*.it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Constitution.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as Christian sharia law. Just stop already, it's stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again....*it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Constitution.   *By supporting Kim Davis, you are supporting christian sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For more than 200 years, We the People have run the United States based upon a moral and sane interpretation of the US Constitution in this context, not Religion A or B.
> 
> *Very* recently, five (a bare-squeaker majority) old lawyers in Washington, DC, have chosen to RE-interpret the Constitution, in the service of sexual deviancy and perversity.
> 
> Americans who will stand-up to the Gay Mafia merely strive to bring-about a RETURN to that older and saner and time-honored interpretation of the US Constitution.
> 
> You may leave the gods out of it.
> 
> Epic Fail.
> 
> But thank you for playing.
Click to expand...

Blue laws - examples of christian sharia law that we have fortunately mostly gotten rid of.  People like you moan the loss of those days.   Now you support a government official who tried to reinstate a little bit of christian sharia in KY....didn't work.   Hurray for the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

bodecea said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as Christian sharia law. Just stop already, it's stupid
> 
> 
> 
> And again....*it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Constitution.   *By supporting Kim Davis, you are supporting christian sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again...there is no such thing as Christian sharia law, you can keep spewing it but that does not make it a fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is what you want...christian sharia law...running our country based on YOUR interpretation of what YOUR god wants....not on the U.S. Constitution.   That's why you support Kim Davis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again....you're using a made up term. There is no such thing. Keep spewing it but it won't change the facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facts are that anyone who supports Kim Davis and what she did is a supporter of christian sharia law.   That is what she tried to put in place.
Click to expand...


You can't put something into place that doesn't exist. Keep trying


----------



## RodISHI

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except it only works that way in a dictatorial tyranny....
> 
> She held the position BEFORE the law was passed.  This means that the law intentionally targets people of faith.....I hope that she appeals to the SCOTUS......
> 
> And to be honest.....I really don't care what anyone on this or any forum thinks regarding this.....The day this country can pass a law that requires ME to have to alter My beliefs or behaviors is the day that that government needs to be abolished.
> 
> It spells the death of liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter.  If the judges rule in a way you think is wrong, or immoral, you resign your position and fight the fight in a legal way.  You don't assume you have all the power and ignore judicial rulings.  SHE was the one being dictatorial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It appears that what you are now saying is that anyone who stands on their faith cannot be in an elected positon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If their religion forces them to violate other peoples rights, that is correct.  If a Muslim told me that I couldn't do something based on their religious views I would likewise demand that they resign their position.  Other wise what you are advocating for is SHARIA law.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people voted her into hat position. Judges made up something that is no where written into the constitution and now she is expected to go with the flow with her name assigned to a document that was not in place when the people voted her into that position.
> 
> I see how people capitulate so easily and give up; so many claim that they believe on the written Word and then they turn right around and what the Word says and do not stand on truth. I see when activist judges are out of control.
> 
> Now I see a woman who has true grit that refuses to be bullied by a few sick people who are more than willing to accept deviant behavior as a norm or fall away from the truth in favor of letting the unjust ride over those who disagree.
> 
> I see children in public schools assaulted with propaganda daily that all sorts of abhorrent behavior is perfectly acceptable, they really can't think or have a thought process of their own and Hitler was not really a bad guy after all.
> 
> I also see that if the people do not or are not willing to take a stand against this type of crap freedom and liberty will become a thing of the past here for a period of time until people are once again sick and tired of being ruled over by tyrants.
> 
> Then again the spirit told me that the rebellious children of Umm [sic]were brought forth and will accept their own destruction for this day and time in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is as ridiculous as it is ignorant and wrong.
> 
> The Supremacy Clause is very much 'part' of the Constitution, it was the Framers' intent that state and local governments be subordinate to Federal laws, subject to the rulings of Federal courts, with the Constitution and its case law binding on the states and local jurisdictions:
> 
> 'The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." P.358 U. S. 18.
> 
> No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it. P. 358 U. S. 18.' (_Cooper v. Aaron_)
Click to expand...

I don't see sodomy as a recognized protected act anywhere in that.


----------



## Kondor3

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No, the ignorant, ridiculous rhetoric about 'old lawyers' in Washington 'reinterpreting' the Constitution is actually the epic fail.


Hardly. Until very recently, large numbers of States had passed Defense of Marriage referenda, only to have them overturned.

Despite what recent polls suggest --- counting people who have given-up on fighting this, alongside actual supporters - the Courts act in contravention to the Will of the People.

The People are the ultimate sovereign in this land.

Court rulings are overturned all the time.

All it takes is a little imagination and the right advocate and a more favorably-constituted court.

If a bare majority of Old Farts on the Supreme Court have seen fit to put America through this sawmill, The People will find a way to correct this abomination.

This rumble is just getting started.

Meanwhile, the observation concerning an "Epic Fail", in connection with a challenge to define "Christian Sharia Law", stands.


----------



## westwall

RodISHI said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter.  If the judges rule in a way you think is wrong, or immoral, you resign your position and fight the fight in a legal way.  You don't assume you have all the power and ignore judicial rulings.  SHE was the one being dictatorial.
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that what you are now saying is that anyone who stands on their faith cannot be in an elected positon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If their religion forces them to violate other peoples rights, that is correct.  If a Muslim told me that I couldn't do something based on their religious views I would likewise demand that they resign their position.  Other wise what you are advocating for is SHARIA law.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people voted her into hat position. Judges made up something that is no where written into the constitution and now she is expected to go with the flow with her name assigned to a document that was not in place when the people voted her into that position.
> 
> I see how people capitulate so easily and give up; so many claim that they believe on the written Word and then they turn right around and what the Word says and do not stand on truth. I see when activist judges are out of control.
> 
> Now I see a woman who has true grit that refuses to be bullied by a few sick people who are more than willing to accept deviant behavior as a norm or fall away from the truth in favor of letting the unjust ride over those who disagree.
> 
> I see children in public schools assaulted with propaganda daily that all sorts of abhorrent behavior is perfectly acceptable, they really can't think or have a thought process of their own and Hitler was not really a bad guy after all.
> 
> I also see that if the people do not or are not willing to take a stand against this type of crap freedom and liberty will become a thing of the past here for a period of time until people are once again sick and tired of being ruled over by tyrants.
> 
> Then again the spirit told me that the rebellious children of Umm [sic]were brought forth and will accept their own destruction for this day and time in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you still haven't addressed the central point which in this country is no religion shall take precedence over the law of this country.  If you allow a christian to impose her will on others then fully expect a duly elected Muslim to do likewise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did, sodomy does not take precedence over religion. It is not protected nor mention anywhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights; her God given rights are protected in Kentucky's Bill of Rights as a state and in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. Activist judges are not legislators.
Click to expand...








Care to show me how a lesbian is going to be sodomizing her partner?  For that matter many hetero couples enjoy anal sex so there you go, you have now stated that all of them are criminals.  See how that works?


----------



## Kondor3

westwall said:


> ...The Declaration of Independence states that we have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  Where in the Constitution does it deny gay marriage?  Be specific.


This is immaterial to the challenge to define and articulate "_Christian Sharia Law_".

Nice attempt at deflection, though.

Not.


----------



## ogibillm

AvgGuyIA said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can.  Laws like that are passed all of the time.  She can not be made to violate her religious beliefs, however, as she is a ELECTED OFFICIAL, she is bound to FOLLOW the LAW.  That is the oath she swore.
> 
> If she can't reconcile her beliefs with the oath she swore then her only option is to resign in protest.  Generals and business executives do it all the time and so should she.
> 
> 
> 
> Except it only works that way in a dictatorial tyranny....
> 
> She held the position BEFORE the law was passed.  This means that the law intentionally targets people of faith.....I hope that she appeals to the SCOTUS......
> 
> And to be honest.....I really don't care what anyone on this or any forum thinks regarding this.....The day this country can pass a law that requires ME to have to alter My beliefs or behaviors is the day that that government needs to be abolished.
> 
> It spells the death of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> she held her position prior to the ratification of the 14th amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is NOT the 14th Amendment that is in jail for.....This reply of yours is completely inane.....
> 
> BTW...the 14th does NOT predate the 1st.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> she's in jail for violation of a court order. that court order is based on her denial of equal treatment under the law - a right guaranteed in the 14th amendment.
> her first amendment rights do not allow her to violate the rights of others - and it especially doesn't give her the right to use her office to violate the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is in jail under religious percucution and a political prisoner.
Click to expand...

she is not being religiously persecuted and she is not a political prisoner.


----------



## RodISHI

westwall said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that what you are now saying is that anyone who stands on their faith cannot be in an elected positon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If their religion forces them to violate other peoples rights, that is correct.  If a Muslim told me that I couldn't do something based on their religious views I would likewise demand that they resign their position.  Other wise what you are advocating for is SHARIA law.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people voted her into hat position. Judges made up something that is no where written into the constitution and now she is expected to go with the flow with her name assigned to a document that was not in place when the people voted her into that position.
> 
> I see how people capitulate so easily and give up; so many claim that they believe on the written Word and then they turn right around and what the Word says and do not stand on truth. I see when activist judges are out of control.
> 
> Now I see a woman who has true grit that refuses to be bullied by a few sick people who are more than willing to accept deviant behavior as a norm or fall away from the truth in favor of letting the unjust ride over those who disagree.
> 
> I see children in public schools assaulted with propaganda daily that all sorts of abhorrent behavior is perfectly acceptable, they really can't think or have a thought process of their own and Hitler was not really a bad guy after all.
> 
> I also see that if the people do not or are not willing to take a stand against this type of crap freedom and liberty will become a thing of the past here for a period of time until people are once again sick and tired of being ruled over by tyrants.
> 
> Then again the spirit told me that the rebellious children of Umm [sic]were brought forth and will accept their own destruction for this day and time in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you still haven't addressed the central point which in this country is no religion shall take precedence over the law of this country.  If you allow a christian to impose her will on others then fully expect a duly elected Muslim to do likewise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did, sodomy does not take precedence over religion. It is not protected nor mention anywhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights; her God given rights are protected in Kentucky's Bill of Rights as a state and in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. Activist judges are not legislators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to show me how a lesbian is going to be sodomizing her partner?  For that matter many hetero couples enjoy anal sex so there you go, you have now stated that all of them are criminals.  See how that works?
Click to expand...

No but you can do whatever you like in privacy. You do not have the right to pin your illnesses onto me. See how that works.


----------



## westwall

Kondor3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The Declaration of Independence states that we have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  Where in the Constitution does it deny gay marriage?  Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> This is immaterial to the challenge to define and articulate "_Christian Sharia Law_".
Click to expand...







I don't need to.  If you allow a christian to dictate law, then you are also allowing Muslims to do the same.  Do you understand?  Shouldn't be too hard.  It is simply a fact.


----------



## westwall

RodISHI said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> If their religion forces them to violate other peoples rights, that is correct.  If a Muslim told me that I couldn't do something based on their religious views I would likewise demand that they resign their position.  Other wise what you are advocating for is SHARIA law.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> 
> 
> The people voted her into hat position. Judges made up something that is no where written into the constitution and now she is expected to go with the flow with her name assigned to a document that was not in place when the people voted her into that position.
> 
> I see how people capitulate so easily and give up; so many claim that they believe on the written Word and then they turn right around and what the Word says and do not stand on truth. I see when activist judges are out of control.
> 
> Now I see a woman who has true grit that refuses to be bullied by a few sick people who are more than willing to accept deviant behavior as a norm or fall away from the truth in favor of letting the unjust ride over those who disagree.
> 
> I see children in public schools assaulted with propaganda daily that all sorts of abhorrent behavior is perfectly acceptable, they really can't think or have a thought process of their own and Hitler was not really a bad guy after all.
> 
> I also see that if the people do not or are not willing to take a stand against this type of crap freedom and liberty will become a thing of the past here for a period of time until people are once again sick and tired of being ruled over by tyrants.
> 
> Then again the spirit told me that the rebellious children of Umm [sic]were brought forth and will accept their own destruction for this day and time in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you still haven't addressed the central point which in this country is no religion shall take precedence over the law of this country.  If you allow a christian to impose her will on others then fully expect a duly elected Muslim to do likewise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did, sodomy does not take precedence over religion. It is not protected nor mention anywhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights; her God given rights are protected in Kentucky's Bill of Rights as a state and in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. Activist judges are not legislators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to show me how a lesbian is going to be sodomizing her partner?  For that matter many hetero couples enjoy anal sex so there you go, you have now stated that all of them are criminals.  See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No but you can do whatever you like in privacy. You do not have the right to pin your illnesses onto me. See how that works.
Click to expand...





And if a gay couple gets married how the hell does that affect YOU?


----------



## Kondor3

bodecea said:


> ...examples of christian sharia law...


You still haven't defined it.

Never mind failing to understand... the more you use it, the more people you drive into the opposing camp.

What a marvelous self-defeating strategy.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

westwall said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people voted her into hat position. Judges made up something that is no where written into the constitution and now she is expected to go with the flow with her name assigned to a document that was not in place when the people voted her into that position.
> 
> I see how people capitulate so easily and give up; so many claim that they believe on the written Word and then they turn right around and what the Word says and do not stand on truth. I see when activist judges are out of control.
> 
> Now I see a woman who has true grit that refuses to be bullied by a few sick people who are more than willing to accept deviant behavior as a norm or fall away from the truth in favor of letting the unjust ride over those who disagree.
> 
> I see children in public schools assaulted with propaganda daily that all sorts of abhorrent behavior is perfectly acceptable, they really can't think or have a thought process of their own and Hitler was not really a bad guy after all.
> 
> I also see that if the people do not or are not willing to take a stand against this type of crap freedom and liberty will become a thing of the past here for a period of time until people are once again sick and tired of being ruled over by tyrants.
> 
> Then again the spirit told me that the rebellious children of Umm [sic]were brought forth and will accept their own destruction for this day and time in history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you still haven't addressed the central point which in this country is no religion shall take precedence over the law of this country.  If you allow a christian to impose her will on others then fully expect a duly elected Muslim to do likewise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did, sodomy does not take precedence over religion. It is not protected nor mention anywhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights; her God given rights are protected in Kentucky's Bill of Rights as a state and in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. Activist judges are not legislators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to show me how a lesbian is going to be sodomizing her partner?  For that matter many hetero couples enjoy anal sex so there you go, you have now stated that all of them are criminals.  See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No but you can do whatever you like in privacy. You do not have the right to pin your illnesses onto me. See how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if a gay couple gets married how the hell does that affect YOU?
Click to expand...


It sure affected a certain baker and now a clerk.


----------



## bodecea

PaintMyHouse said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except it only works that way in a dictatorial tyranny....
> 
> She held the position BEFORE the law was passed.  This means that the law intentionally targets people of faith.....I hope that she appeals to the SCOTUS......
> 
> And to be honest.....I really don't care what anyone on this or any forum thinks regarding this.....The day this country can pass a law that requires ME to have to alter My beliefs or behaviors is the day that that government needs to be abolished.
> 
> It spells the death of liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> she held her position prior to the ratification of the 14th amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is NOT the 14th Amendment that is in jail for.....This reply of yours is completely inane.....
> 
> BTW...the 14th does NOT predate the 1st.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> she's in jail for violation of a court order. that court order is based on her denial of equal treatment under the law - a right guaranteed in the 14th amendment.
> her first amendment rights do not allow her to violate the rights of others - and it especially doesn't give her the right to use her office to violate the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is in jail under religious percucution and a political prisoner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, she's in jail because she can't understand that no one can serve two masters.  That and the fact that she's a useless **** who won't do her damn job.
Click to expand...

And benefitting from nepotism too.


----------



## Kondor3

westwall said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The Declaration of Independence states that we have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  Where in the Constitution does it deny gay marriage?  Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> This is immaterial to the challenge to define and articulate "_Christian Sharia Law_".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to.  If you allow a christian to dictate law, then you are also allowing Muslims to do the same.  Do you understand?  Shouldn't be too hard.  It is simply a fact.
Click to expand...

If you want to use the term _Christian Sharia Law_, and accuse folks of supporting it, you must first define it.

If you cannot define it, then it does not exist.

However, as I've said several times in the past couple of hours...

The more you silly folks use the term _Christian Sharia Law_, the more people you drive into the opposing camp.

Lovely... just lovely... keep it up... you can't help yourselves... you are your own worst enemy... as your adversaries benefit from it... and laugh at your myopia.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

We can only hope that conservatives subscribing to this thread in support of Davis make up a very tiny minority of the ridiculous right.


----------



## bodecea

mudwhistle said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again....*it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Constitution.   *By supporting Kim Davis, you are supporting christian sharia law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again...there is no such thing as Christian sharia law, you can keep spewing it but that does not make it a fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is what you want...christian sharia law...running our country based on YOUR interpretation of what YOUR god wants....not on the U.S. Constitution.   That's why you support Kim Davis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again....you're using a made up term. There is no such thing. Keep spewing it but it won't change the facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facts are that anyone who supports Kim Davis and what she did is a supporter of christian sharia law.   That is what she tried to put in place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think if you learned to drop your anger and forgive people for their transgressions then you might be a happier person.
Click to expand...

What anger?  I'm actually quite happy today.  It is a joy to see our U.S. Constitution in action....and our secular system put in place by our Founders work so well.  It doesn't always...Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson for examples.


----------



## bodecea

SassyIrishLass said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...So you support christian sharia law.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing.
> 
> However, in the interest of fairness, we should let you go out on a limb here, and define '_Christian Sharia Law_' for the audience.
> 
> Please proceed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There most certainly is christian sharia law and you support it.....and if you don't know what it is...*.it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Consititution.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as Christian sharia law. Just stop already, it's stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given your posting history, you're in no position to refer to anything as 'stupid.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah? I don't give a rat's ass. How's that? Now go bother someone else, tool. You're a nothing
Click to expand...

Gee, maybe if you learned to drop your anger.......


----------



## mudwhistle

bodecea said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> again...there is no such thing as Christian sharia law, you can keep spewing it but that does not make it a fact
> 
> 
> 
> It is what you want...christian sharia law...running our country based on YOUR interpretation of what YOUR god wants....not on the U.S. Constitution.   That's why you support Kim Davis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again....you're using a made up term. There is no such thing. Keep spewing it but it won't change the facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facts are that anyone who supports Kim Davis and what she did is a supporter of christian sharia law.   That is what she tried to put in place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think if you learned to drop your anger and forgive people for their transgressions then you might be a happier person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What anger?  I'm actually quite happy today.  It is a joy to see our U.S. Constitution in action....and our secular system put in place by our Founders work so well.  It doesn't always...Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson for examples.
Click to expand...



I guess pushing people around and making enemies gives you a real chubby.....but I don't relish in other people's misfortune. 

But that just the way I roll.


----------



## ogibillm

Kondor3 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...examples of christian sharia law...
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't defined it.
> 
> Never mind failing to understand... the more you use it, the more people you drive into the opposing camp.
> 
> What a marvelous self-defeating strategy.
Click to expand...

are you saying that christians do not have rules about how to behave and treat other people?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

bodecea said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing.
> 
> However, in the interest of fairness, we should let you go out on a limb here, and define '_Christian Sharia Law_' for the audience.
> 
> Please proceed.
> 
> 
> 
> There most certainly is christian sharia law and you support it.....and if you don't know what it is...*.it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Consititution.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as Christian sharia law. Just stop already, it's stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given your posting history, you're in no position to refer to anything as 'stupid.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah? I don't give a rat's ass. How's that? Now go bother someone else, tool. You're a nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee, maybe if you learned to drop your anger.......
Click to expand...


Don't start none, won't be none. A very simple concept.


----------



## westwall

SassyIrishLass said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you still haven't addressed the central point which in this country is no religion shall take precedence over the law of this country.  If you allow a christian to impose her will on others then fully expect a duly elected Muslim to do likewise.
> 
> 
> 
> I did, sodomy does not take precedence over religion. It is not protected nor mention anywhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights; her God given rights are protected in Kentucky's Bill of Rights as a state and in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. Activist judges are not legislators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to show me how a lesbian is going to be sodomizing her partner?  For that matter many hetero couples enjoy anal sex so there you go, you have now stated that all of them are criminals.  See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No but you can do whatever you like in privacy. You do not have the right to pin your illnesses onto me. See how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if a gay couple gets married how the hell does that affect YOU?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sure affected a certain baker and now a clerk.
Click to expand...







OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL!   They had to go OUT OF THEIR WAY to be affected.   How does a gay couple getting married AFFECT YOU!  How fucking simplistic do I need to get.  Does their getting married tear a hole in the space time continuum and you get sucked into it?

What possible affect does a gay couple have on you.


----------



## westwall

Kondor3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The Declaration of Independence states that we have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  Where in the Constitution does it deny gay marriage?  Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> This is immaterial to the challenge to define and articulate "_Christian Sharia Law_".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to.  If you allow a christian to dictate law, then you are also allowing Muslims to do the same.  Do you understand?  Shouldn't be too hard.  It is simply a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to use the term _Christian Sharia Law_, and accuse folks of supporting it, you must first define it.
> 
> If you cannot define it, then it does not exist.
> 
> However, as I've said several times in the past couple of hours...
> 
> The more you silly folks use the term _Christian Sharia Law_, the more people you drive into the opposing camp.
> 
> Lovely... just lovely... keep it up... you can't help yourselves... you are your own worst enemy... as your adversaries benefit from it... and laugh at your myopia.
Click to expand...








I didn't,  MORON!  Pay attention to who you are engaging.


----------



## mudwhistle

bodecea said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing.
> 
> However, in the interest of fairness, we should let you go out on a limb here, and define '_Christian Sharia Law_' for the audience.
> 
> Please proceed.
> 
> 
> 
> There most certainly is christian sharia law and you support it.....and if you don't know what it is...*.it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Consititution.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as Christian sharia law. Just stop already, it's stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given your posting history, you're in no position to refer to anything as 'stupid.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah? I don't give a rat's ass. How's that? Now go bother someone else, tool. You're a nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee, maybe if you learned to drop your anger.......
Click to expand...

I think that once one has the upper hand, how they handle it is an indication of their true character. 

So please, continue trying to crush these God fearing Christians like a jack-booted thug.


----------



## RodISHI

westwall said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people voted her into hat position. Judges made up something that is no where written into the constitution and now she is expected to go with the flow with her name assigned to a document that was not in place when the people voted her into that position.
> 
> I see how people capitulate so easily and give up; so many claim that they believe on the written Word and then they turn right around and what the Word says and do not stand on truth. I see when activist judges are out of control.
> 
> Now I see a woman who has true grit that refuses to be bullied by a few sick people who are more than willing to accept deviant behavior as a norm or fall away from the truth in favor of letting the unjust ride over those who disagree.
> 
> I see children in public schools assaulted with propaganda daily that all sorts of abhorrent behavior is perfectly acceptable, they really can't think or have a thought process of their own and Hitler was not really a bad guy after all.
> 
> I also see that if the people do not or are not willing to take a stand against this type of crap freedom and liberty will become a thing of the past here for a period of time until people are once again sick and tired of being ruled over by tyrants.
> 
> Then again the spirit told me that the rebellious children of Umm [sic]were brought forth and will accept their own destruction for this day and time in history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you still haven't addressed the central point which in this country is no religion shall take precedence over the law of this country.  If you allow a christian to impose her will on others then fully expect a duly elected Muslim to do likewise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did, sodomy does not take precedence over religion. It is not protected nor mention anywhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights; her God given rights are protected in Kentucky's Bill of Rights as a state and in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. Activist judges are not legislators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to show me how a lesbian is going to be sodomizing her partner?  For that matter many hetero couples enjoy anal sex so there you go, you have now stated that all of them are criminals.  See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No but you can do whatever you like in privacy. You do not have the right to pin your illnesses onto me. See how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if a gay couple gets married how the hell does that affect YOU?
Click to expand...

It alters the entire fabric of this society when you make an exception for an illness to over ride my faith and beliefs. Marriage is a religious institution. If the government wants to issue a license for people to whatever to one another then make a separate license with the governments name on it for they can share their deviant behavior but don't force others to lower their standards to that.

Gays used to tell me that they had a right to have sex on public ground and in public facilities. Today if I were in that same position according to many of the people that post on this board I should be thrown I jail if I tell them go do their thing in private or go rent a room. If I wanted to start a business of any kind by what you are saying judges can tell me I would be breaking their law. Again the deviants would call for me to be put in jail. If I deny access for them to my children today I'd once again be falsely arrested by some out of control judge for protecting the children God put into my charge against predators. And once again I would hope that the people when they hear the truth they would rise up and say enough and throw the out of control sickos out of their positions.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

westwall said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did, sodomy does not take precedence over religion. It is not protected nor mention anywhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights; her God given rights are protected in Kentucky's Bill of Rights as a state and in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. Activist judges are not legislators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to show me how a lesbian is going to be sodomizing her partner?  For that matter many hetero couples enjoy anal sex so there you go, you have now stated that all of them are criminals.  See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No but you can do whatever you like in privacy. You do not have the right to pin your illnesses onto me. See how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if a gay couple gets married how the hell does that affect YOU?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sure affected a certain baker and now a clerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL!   They had to go OUT OF THEIR WAY to be affected.   How does a gay couple getting married AFFECT YOU!  How fucking simplistic do I need to get.  Does their getting married tear a hole in the space time continuum and you get sucked into it?
> 
> What possible affect does a gay couple have on you.
Click to expand...


The homos went to the baker, it's also known some of these cases are setups. I don't care if they get pretend married, have at it, I've always said that. With that said I don't have to accept it as normal and I won't.


----------



## ogibillm

mudwhistle said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> There most certainly is christian sharia law and you support it.....and if you don't know what it is...*.it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Consititution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as Christian sharia law. Just stop already, it's stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given your posting history, you're in no position to refer to anything as 'stupid.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah? I don't give a rat's ass. How's that? Now go bother someone else, tool. You're a nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee, maybe if you learned to drop your anger.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that once one has the upper hand, how they handle it is an indication of their true character.
> 
> So please, continue trying to crush these God fearing Christians like a jack-booted thug.
Click to expand...

i wasn't aware that asking elected officials to obey the law and uphold their oaths was crushing God fearing Christians 'like a jack-booted thug'

if anything i would have thought that using the power of an elected office to impose one's personal religious beliefs on the community in defiance of the law was acting in a fascist fashion


----------



## ogibillm

SassyIrishLass said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to show me how a lesbian is going to be sodomizing her partner?  For that matter many hetero couples enjoy anal sex so there you go, you have now stated that all of them are criminals.  See how that works?
> 
> 
> 
> No but you can do whatever you like in privacy. You do not have the right to pin your illnesses onto me. See how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if a gay couple gets married how the hell does that affect YOU?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sure affected a certain baker and now a clerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL!   They had to go OUT OF THEIR WAY to be affected.   How does a gay couple getting married AFFECT YOU!  How fucking simplistic do I need to get.  Does their getting married tear a hole in the space time continuum and you get sucked into it?
> 
> What possible affect does a gay couple have on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homos went to the baker, it's also known some of these cases are setups. I don't care if they get pretend married, have at it, I've always said that. With that said I don't have to accept it as normal and I won't.
Click to expand...

and all anyone had to do was obey the law...


----------



## westwall

SassyIrishLass said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to show me how a lesbian is going to be sodomizing her partner?  For that matter many hetero couples enjoy anal sex so there you go, you have now stated that all of them are criminals.  See how that works?
> 
> 
> 
> No but you can do whatever you like in privacy. You do not have the right to pin your illnesses onto me. See how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if a gay couple gets married how the hell does that affect YOU?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sure affected a certain baker and now a clerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL!   They had to go OUT OF THEIR WAY to be affected.   How does a gay couple getting married AFFECT YOU!  How fucking simplistic do I need to get.  Does their getting married tear a hole in the space time continuum and you get sucked into it?
> 
> What possible affect does a gay couple have on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homos went to the baker, it's also known some of these cases are setups. I don't care if they get pretend married, have at it, I've always said that. With that said I don't have to accept it as normal and I won't.
Click to expand...








And they refused to BAKE A FUCKING CAKE!  The "homo's" weren't telling them to bend over!  They were trying to pay them money to bake a cake!  And you can't see the ridiculousness of this situation?

They weren't telling the bakers "you have to be gay to bake my cake!"   I do think that the State of Oregon has gone totally batshit crazy in the punishment they have handed out, that is the very definition of "cruel and unusual punishment".  But how in the hell a person can think that baking a cake is somehow violating their religious principles is beyond me.

That is a level of batshit crazy that I will never understand.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

westwall said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> No but you can do whatever you like in privacy. You do not have the right to pin your illnesses onto me. See how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if a gay couple gets married how the hell does that affect YOU?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sure affected a certain baker and now a clerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL!   They had to go OUT OF THEIR WAY to be affected.   How does a gay couple getting married AFFECT YOU!  How fucking simplistic do I need to get.  Does their getting married tear a hole in the space time continuum and you get sucked into it?
> 
> What possible affect does a gay couple have on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homos went to the baker, it's also known some of these cases are setups. I don't care if they get pretend married, have at it, I've always said that. With that said I don't have to accept it as normal and I won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they refused to BAKE A FUCKING CAKE!  The "homo's" weren't telling them to bend over!  They were trying to pay them money to bake a cake!  And you can't see the ridiculousness of this situation?
> 
> They weren't telling the bakers "you have to be gay to bake my cake!"   I do think that the State of Oregon has gone totally batshit crazy in the punishment they have handed out, that is the very definition of "cruel and unusual punishment".  But how in the hell a person can think that baking a cake is somehow violating their religious principles is beyond me.
> 
> That is a level of batshit crazy that I will never understand.
Click to expand...


Settle down, if you want to support the gaypers go ahead, just don't expect everyone to.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Shit, I just spit water on my screen.  Let me explain.  I looked to see tha language in the Oath of office for an elected official in Kentucky, and this is what I learned [warning, do not drink water, coffee, a soft drink, beer, wine or anything for the next minute or so]:

"I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."

Here's the link, I didn't make this up:

Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court | Page 53 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## ogibillm

RodISHI said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you still haven't addressed the central point which in this country is no religion shall take precedence over the law of this country.  If you allow a christian to impose her will on others then fully expect a duly elected Muslim to do likewise.
> 
> 
> 
> I did, sodomy does not take precedence over religion. It is not protected nor mention anywhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights; her God given rights are protected in Kentucky's Bill of Rights as a state and in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. Activist judges are not legislators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to show me how a lesbian is going to be sodomizing her partner?  For that matter many hetero couples enjoy anal sex so there you go, you have now stated that all of them are criminals.  See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No but you can do whatever you like in privacy. You do not have the right to pin your illnesses onto me. See how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if a gay couple gets married how the hell does that affect YOU?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It alters the entire fabric of this society when you make an exception for an illness to over ride my faith and beliefs. Marriage is a religious institution.
Click to expand...

 not exclusively. our government has been recognizing marriages for years without any religious involvement 





> If the government wants to issue a license for people to whatever to one another then make a separate license with the governments name on it for they can share their deviant behavior but don't force others to lower their standards to that.


 separate but equal, huh?



> Gays used to tell me that they had a right to have sex on public ground and in public facilities.


 no they didn't. 





> Today if I were in that same position according to many of the people that post on this board I should be thrown I jail if I tell them go do their thing in private or go rent a room.


 no, they wouldn't 





> If I wanted to start a business of any kind by what you are saying judges can tell me I would be breaking their law.


?





> Again the deviants would call for me to be put in jail. If I deny access for them to my children today I'd once again be falsely arrested by some out of control judge for protecting the children God put into my charge against predators.


 what the hell are you talking about? 





> And once again I would hope that the people when they hear the truth they would rise up and say enough and throw the out of control sickos out of their positions.


 what truth is that? that elected officials should be allowed to treat homosexuals differently?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

AvgGuyIA said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, the others who defied the law were not elected and should be fired.
> 
> Don't do the job you were hired to do?
> 
> Go find a different job.
> 
> 
> 
> You want to kill their first born no doubt.  Are you a homo, per chance?  You're taking objections quite personally.
Click to expand...



The laws are the same for her as for me and for her but you're right that I object to attacks on my Constitution and the equality my country was founded to defend and protect.

You and the other nutters are the ones all hysterical and playing drama queens with your silly "martyr" and " political prisoner" nonsense.

As for her kids, at least one is a bastard, another born of a different man than she was married to and she believes in The Sanity of Marriage and Marriage and Marriage and Marriage.

She belongs to hate group and  deserves what the law metes out to her.


----------



## RodISHI

westwall said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> No but you can do whatever you like in privacy. You do not have the right to pin your illnesses onto me. See how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if a gay couple gets married how the hell does that affect YOU?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sure affected a certain baker and now a clerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL!   They had to go OUT OF THEIR WAY to be affected.   How does a gay couple getting married AFFECT YOU!  How fucking simplistic do I need to get.  Does their getting married tear a hole in the space time continuum and you get sucked into it?
> 
> What possible affect does a gay couple have on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homos went to the baker, it's also known some of these cases are setups. I don't care if they get pretend married, have at it, I've always said that. With that said I don't have to accept it as normal and I won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they refused to BAKE A FUCKING CAKE!  The "homo's" weren't telling them to bend over!  They were trying to pay them money to bake a cake!  And you can't see the ridiculousness of this situation?
> 
> They weren't telling the bakers "you have to be gay to bake my cake!"   I do think that the State of Oregon has gone totally batshit crazy in the punishment they have handed out, that is the very definition of "cruel and unusual punishment".  But how in the hell a person can think that baking a cake is somehow violating their religious principles is beyond me.
> 
> That is a level of batshit crazy that I will never understand.
Click to expand...

And you do not see how ridiculous it is for a private business enterprise to be put out of business when they refuse to be a part of sanctifying such an arrangement; with something they totally disagree with according to their religious faith? Hell they could bake their own fucking cake.


----------



## bodecea

SassyIrishLass said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> There most certainly is christian sharia law and you support it.....and if you don't know what it is...*.it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Consititution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as Christian sharia law. Just stop already, it's stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given your posting history, you're in no position to refer to anything as 'stupid.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah? I don't give a rat's ass. How's that? Now go bother someone else, tool. You're a nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee, maybe if you learned to drop your anger.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't start none, won't be none. A very simple concept.
Click to expand...

As I said...if you learned to drop your anger, maybe you'd be a happier person.


----------



## Moonglow

She be gettin' 3 hots and a cot, some lovin' from her cell mates and plenty of time to pray, and what makes it SWEET! Is she is still getting paid from her job........


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Wry Catcher said:


> Shit, I just spit water on my screen.  Let me explain.  I looked to see tha language in the Oath of office for an elected official in Kentucky, and this is what I learned [warning, do not drink water, coffee, a soft drink, beer, wine or anything for the next minute or so]:
> 
> "I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."
> 
> Here's the link, I didn't make this up:
> 
> Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court | Page 53 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



That's hysterical but actually would be funnier if it weren't so damn backward.

No wonder they're living in the middle ages. Maybe they don't know the Constitution of the US does not say "equal except for gays, women, blacks, Jews, children".


----------



## RodISHI

ogibillm said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did, sodomy does not take precedence over religion. It is not protected nor mention anywhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights; her God given rights are protected in Kentucky's Bill of Rights as a state and in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. Activist judges are not legislators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to show me how a lesbian is going to be sodomizing her partner?  For that matter many hetero couples enjoy anal sex so there you go, you have now stated that all of them are criminals.  See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No but you can do whatever you like in privacy. You do not have the right to pin your illnesses onto me. See how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if a gay couple gets married how the hell does that affect YOU?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It alters the entire fabric of this society when you make an exception for an illness to over ride my faith and beliefs. Marriage is a religious institution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not exclusively. our government has been recognizing marriages for years without any religious involvement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the government wants to issue a license for people to whatever to one another then make a separate license with the governments name on it for they can share their deviant behavior but don't force others to lower their standards to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> separate but equal, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays used to tell me that they had a right to have sex on public ground and in public facilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today if I were in that same position according to many of the people that post on this board I should be thrown I jail if I tell them go do their thing in private or go rent a room.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they wouldn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I wanted to start a business of any kind by what you are saying judges can tell me I would be breaking their law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again the deviants would call for me to be put in jail. If I deny access for them to my children today I'd once again be falsely arrested by some out of control judge for protecting the children God put into my charge against predators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what the hell are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again I would hope that the people when they hear the truth they would rise up and say enough and throw the out of control sickos out of their positions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what truth is that? that elected officials should be allowed to treat homosexuals differently?
Click to expand...

I am not wasting my time by responding fully to your total ignorance.


----------



## bodecea

RodISHI said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if a gay couple gets married how the hell does that affect YOU?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sure affected a certain baker and now a clerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL!   They had to go OUT OF THEIR WAY to be affected.   How does a gay couple getting married AFFECT YOU!  How fucking simplistic do I need to get.  Does their getting married tear a hole in the space time continuum and you get sucked into it?
> 
> What possible affect does a gay couple have on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homos went to the baker, it's also known some of these cases are setups. I don't care if they get pretend married, have at it, I've always said that. With that said I don't have to accept it as normal and I won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they refused to BAKE A FUCKING CAKE!  The "homo's" weren't telling them to bend over!  They were trying to pay them money to bake a cake!  And you can't see the ridiculousness of this situation?
> 
> They weren't telling the bakers "you have to be gay to bake my cake!"   I do think that the State of Oregon has gone totally batshit crazy in the punishment they have handed out, that is the very definition of "cruel and unusual punishment".  But how in the hell a person can think that baking a cake is somehow violating their religious principles is beyond me.
> 
> That is a level of batshit crazy that I will never understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you do not see how ridiculous it is for a private business enterprise to be put out of business when they refuse to be a part of sanctifying such an arrangement; with something they totally disagree with according to their religious faith? Hell they could bake their own fucking cake.
Click to expand...

What you have a problem with is your state's Public Accommodation laws....laws that have been on the books for about 50 years now...laws that have occasionally protected christians from being discriminated against.  But...if you don't like PA laws, what are you actively doing to get them repealed in your state?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

bodecea said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as Christian sharia law. Just stop already, it's stupid
> 
> 
> 
> Given your posting history, you're in no position to refer to anything as 'stupid.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah? I don't give a rat's ass. How's that? Now go bother someone else, tool. You're a nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee, maybe if you learned to drop your anger.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't start none, won't be none. A very simple concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said...if you learned to drop your anger, maybe you'd be a happier person.
Click to expand...



I really don't think so.

There are some here who thrive on their hate and ignorance. She's one of those. 

If you want to incur her wrath, just call her on her stupidity. She can't take that. 

Note to sassy-whatever:  Don't like equality? Leave. Problem solved.


----------



## Moonglow

RodISHI said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to show me how a lesbian is going to be sodomizing her partner?  For that matter many hetero couples enjoy anal sex so there you go, you have now stated that all of them are criminals.  See how that works?
> 
> 
> 
> No but you can do whatever you like in privacy. You do not have the right to pin your illnesses onto me. See how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if a gay couple gets married how the hell does that affect YOU?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It alters the entire fabric of this society when you make an exception for an illness to over ride my faith and beliefs. Marriage is a religious institution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not exclusively. our government has been recognizing marriages for years without any religious involvement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the government wants to issue a license for people to whatever to one another then make a separate license with the governments name on it for they can share their deviant behavior but don't force others to lower their standards to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> separate but equal, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays used to tell me that they had a right to have sex on public ground and in public facilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today if I were in that same position according to many of the people that post on this board I should be thrown I jail if I tell them go do their thing in private or go rent a room.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they wouldn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I wanted to start a business of any kind by what you are saying judges can tell me I would be breaking their law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again the deviants would call for me to be put in jail. If I deny access for them to my children today I'd once again be falsely arrested by some out of control judge for protecting the children God put into my charge against predators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what the hell are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again I would hope that the people when they hear the truth they would rise up and say enough and throw the out of control sickos out of their positions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what truth is that? that elected officials should be allowed to treat homosexuals differently?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not wasting my time by responding fully to your total ignorance.
Click to expand...

You not into anal sex? Not fisting or double penetration....Just a finger or a part of the head....get her used to it...Don't forget the KY, unless you spit and rim.....


----------



## ogibillm

RodISHI said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if a gay couple gets married how the hell does that affect YOU?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sure affected a certain baker and now a clerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL!   They had to go OUT OF THEIR WAY to be affected.   How does a gay couple getting married AFFECT YOU!  How fucking simplistic do I need to get.  Does their getting married tear a hole in the space time continuum and you get sucked into it?
> 
> What possible affect does a gay couple have on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homos went to the baker, it's also known some of these cases are setups. I don't care if they get pretend married, have at it, I've always said that. With that said I don't have to accept it as normal and I won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they refused to BAKE A FUCKING CAKE!  The "homo's" weren't telling them to bend over!  They were trying to pay them money to bake a cake!  And you can't see the ridiculousness of this situation?
> 
> They weren't telling the bakers "you have to be gay to bake my cake!"   I do think that the State of Oregon has gone totally batshit crazy in the punishment they have handed out, that is the very definition of "cruel and unusual punishment".  But how in the hell a person can think that baking a cake is somehow violating their religious principles is beyond me.
> 
> That is a level of batshit crazy that I will never understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you do not see how ridiculous it is for a private business enterprise to be put out of business when they refuse to be a part of sanctifying such an arrangement; with something they totally disagree with according to their religious faith? Hell they could bake their own fucking cake.
Click to expand...

so you're cool with an establishment saying you can't eat there because you're christian? you're cool with the owners asking you if the anniversary you're celebrating is to your first spouse and kicking you out if it isn't? you're good with the bank giving you an interest rate, then changing that rate over the phone and then changing that rate when they find out your race/sex/religion?


----------



## ogibillm

RodISHI said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to show me how a lesbian is going to be sodomizing her partner?  For that matter many hetero couples enjoy anal sex so there you go, you have now stated that all of them are criminals.  See how that works?
> 
> 
> 
> No but you can do whatever you like in privacy. You do not have the right to pin your illnesses onto me. See how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if a gay couple gets married how the hell does that affect YOU?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It alters the entire fabric of this society when you make an exception for an illness to over ride my faith and beliefs. Marriage is a religious institution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not exclusively. our government has been recognizing marriages for years without any religious involvement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the government wants to issue a license for people to whatever to one another then make a separate license with the governments name on it for they can share their deviant behavior but don't force others to lower their standards to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> separate but equal, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays used to tell me that they had a right to have sex on public ground and in public facilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today if I were in that same position according to many of the people that post on this board I should be thrown I jail if I tell them go do their thing in private or go rent a room.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they wouldn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I wanted to start a business of any kind by what you are saying judges can tell me I would be breaking their law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again the deviants would call for me to be put in jail. If I deny access for them to my children today I'd once again be falsely arrested by some out of control judge for protecting the children God put into my charge against predators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what the hell are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again I would hope that the people when they hear the truth they would rise up and say enough and throw the out of control sickos out of their positions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what truth is that? that elected officials should be allowed to treat homosexuals differently?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not wasting my time by responding fully to your total ignorance.
Click to expand...

you waste your time by posting lies, why can't you respond to me calling you out on them?


----------



## Moonglow

Sodomy also include oral interaction of the genitals.....


----------



## Luddly Neddite

RodISHI said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to show me how a lesbian is going to be sodomizing her partner?  For that matter many hetero couples enjoy anal sex so there you go, you have now stated that all of them are criminals.  See how that works?
> 
> 
> 
> No but you can do whatever you like in privacy. You do not have the right to pin your illnesses onto me. See how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if a gay couple gets married how the hell does that affect YOU?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It alters the entire fabric of this society when you make an exception for an illness to over ride my faith and beliefs. Marriage is a religious institution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not exclusively. our government has been recognizing marriages for years without any religious involvement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the government wants to issue a license for people to whatever to one another then make a separate license with the governments name on it for they can share their deviant behavior but don't force others to lower their standards to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> separate but equal, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays used to tell me that they had a right to have sex on public ground and in public facilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today if I were in that same position according to many of the people that post on this board I should be thrown I jail if I tell them go do their thing in private or go rent a room.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they wouldn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I wanted to start a business of any kind by what you are saying judges can tell me I would be breaking their law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again the deviants would call for me to be put in jail. If I deny access for them to my children today I'd once again be falsely arrested by some out of control judge for protecting the children God put into my charge against predators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what the hell are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again I would hope that the people when they hear the truth they would rise up and say enough and throw the out of control sickos out of their positions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what truth is that? that elected officials should be allowed to treat homosexuals differently?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not wasting my time by responding fully to your total ignorance.
Click to expand...



But that IS the question. Why are you afraid to address it?

Should some groups or individuals be treated differently?

Where in the Constitution does it say that?

Is that what you want for the US?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Moonglow said:


> Sodomy also include oral interaction of the genitals.....




"interaction"???

OMG.

You bad little boy! Obviously, you are NO christian!

Is that kinda language allowed here?


----------



## Moonglow

I am not sure what they call boob play????


----------



## Moonglow

Luddly Neddite said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sodomy also include oral interaction of the genitals.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "interaction"???
> 
> OMG.
> 
> You bad little boy! Obviously, you are NO christian!
> 
> Is that kinda language allowed here?
Click to expand...

I've met a lot of preacher's daughters...(easy meat)..
I really should have said


----------



## bodecea

RodISHI said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to show me how a lesbian is going to be sodomizing her partner?  For that matter many hetero couples enjoy anal sex so there you go, you have now stated that all of them are criminals.  See how that works?
> 
> 
> 
> No but you can do whatever you like in privacy. You do not have the right to pin your illnesses onto me. See how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if a gay couple gets married how the hell does that affect YOU?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It alters the entire fabric of this society when you make an exception for an illness to over ride my faith and beliefs. Marriage is a religious institution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not exclusively. our government has been recognizing marriages for years without any religious involvement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the government wants to issue a license for people to whatever to one another then make a separate license with the governments name on it for they can share their deviant behavior but don't force others to lower their standards to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> separate but equal, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays used to tell me that they had a right to have sex on public ground and in public facilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today if I were in that same position according to many of the people that post on this board I should be thrown I jail if I tell them go do their thing in private or go rent a room.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they wouldn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I wanted to start a business of any kind by what you are saying judges can tell me I would be breaking their law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again the deviants would call for me to be put in jail. If I deny access for them to my children today I'd once again be falsely arrested by some out of control judge for protecting the children God put into my charge against predators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what the hell are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again I would hope that the people when they hear the truth they would rise up and say enough and throw the out of control sickos out of their positions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what truth is that? that elected officials should be allowed to treat homosexuals differently?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not wasting my time by responding fully to your total ignorance.
Click to expand...

Why can't you simply answer his question?


----------



## boedicca

NYcarbineer said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well they called Lincoln a tyrant too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYC pins the bogometer, como siempre.
> 
> The clerk is not preventing gays from getting married; she just doesn't want to participate in the process.  That doesn't keep them from getting a marriage license elsewhere or from someone else.
> 
> This is yet another instance of Tolerance not being enough.  One must Accept and Participate and given up Independent Thought.
> 
> Slavery is Freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, well turning black people away from your restaurant doesn't keep them from going to another neighborhood either.
> 
> Tyranny is when you abandon the democratic system you have in place and start letting one person make up their own set of laws.  In this case, this clerk is the one person.
Click to expand...


I guess you are okay with getting rid of the conscientious objector designation if we ever have a draft.

You also don't grok what "public accommodation" means in the context of the Civil Rights Act.


----------



## bodecea

AvgGuyIA said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, the others who defied the law were not elected and should be fired.
> 
> Don't do the job you were hired to do?
> 
> Go find a different job.
> 
> 
> 
> You want to kill their first born no doubt.  Are you a homo, per chance?  You're taking objections quite personally.
Click to expand...

Gee...so angry.  Maybe if you let go of your anger you might be a happier person....perhaps even clearer thinking....did you just put abortion and homosexuality together?


----------



## Moonglow

A religion should not control a country, much less a community...


----------



## bodecea

boedicca said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well they called Lincoln a tyrant too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYC pins the bogometer, como siempre.
> 
> The clerk is not preventing gays from getting married; she just doesn't want to participate in the process.  That doesn't keep them from getting a marriage license elsewhere or from someone else.
> 
> This is yet another instance of Tolerance not being enough.  One must Accept and Participate and given up Independent Thought.
> 
> Slavery is Freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, well turning black people away from your restaurant doesn't keep them from going to another neighborhood either.
> 
> Tyranny is when you abandon the democratic system you have in place and start letting one person make up their own set of laws.  In this case, this clerk is the one person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you are okay with getting rid of the conscientious objector designation if we ever have a draft.
> 
> You also don't grok what "public accommodation" means in the context of the Civil Rights Act.
Click to expand...

Do you know how much paperwork and investigative work is done for a CO designation?   And that many of them are denied anyways?   A CO candidate can't just say "Hey, my religious belief tells me not to do this".


----------



## Moonglow

We do not live as they did hundreds of years ago when religions would join ranks with the worst despots......having under their control, required tithing, which they collected like taxes, forcibly if needed......Religion has even joined the ranks of the Nazi's terror...tsk, ,tsk..


----------



## bodecea

Blackrook said:


> It's already true that Christians are being killed, enslaved, and persecuted in countries like China, Cuba, and the Middle East.
> 
> Now the United States can join the club of gangster nations.


That's something a supporter of Christian Sharia would say and agree to.


----------



## Bonzi

Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America," Ted Cruz said. “I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to chose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court opinion."


----------



## NYcarbineer

boedicca said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well they called Lincoln a tyrant too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYC pins the bogometer, como siempre.
> 
> The clerk is not preventing gays from getting married; she just doesn't want to participate in the process.  That doesn't keep them from getting a marriage license elsewhere or from someone else.
> 
> This is yet another instance of Tolerance not being enough.  One must Accept and Participate and given up Independent Thought.
> 
> Slavery is Freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, well turning black people away from your restaurant doesn't keep them from going to another neighborhood either.
> 
> Tyranny is when you abandon the democratic system you have in place and start letting one person make up their own set of laws.  In this case, this clerk is the one person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you are okay with getting rid of the conscientious objector designation if we ever have a draft.
> 
> You also don't grok what "public accommodation" means in the context of the Civil Rights Act.
Click to expand...

 
This woman was not drafted, you idiot.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Bonzi said:


> Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America," Ted Cruz said. “I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to chose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court opinion."



She was arrested for contempt of court.


----------



## NYcarbineer

This is not tyranny of the majority.  This is the Constitution protecting a minority.


----------



## bodecea

Rotagilla said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> she held her position prior to the ratification of the 14th amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT the 14th Amendment that is in jail for.....This reply of yours is completely inane.....
> 
> BTW...the 14th does NOT predate the 1st.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> she's in jail for violation of a court order. that court order is based on her denial of equal treatment under the law - a right guaranteed in the 14th amendment.
> her first amendment rights do not allow her to violate the rights of others - and it especially doesn't give her the right to use her office to violate the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot be denied equal treatment when that treatment can be had everywhere....Every clerk in every county BUT hers provides the licenses.....
> 
> The Judge is out of order.  The people of Kentucky need to fight to have him removed from the bench and the case appealed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so she's denying the citizens of her county equal treatment.
> and you forget - if she's allowed to discriminate what stops every other county?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> affirmative action is race based discrimination against citizens ......by the government
Click to expand...

Race based?  You sure about that?  Most who take advantage of AA are white women.


----------



## Bonzi

Davis became a Christian in 2011 after living apart from Christ in a sinful lifestyle that resulted in several divorces. She said in a statement earlier this week that it was her mother-in-law’s dying wish that she attend church, which led to her repentance and faith in Christ. Davis states that those who are now criticizing her are welcome to repent of their sin and be born again just as she did four years ago.
“All I can say to them is if they have a sordid past like what I had, they too can receive the cleansing and renewing, and they can start a fresh life and they can be different,” Davis told Starnes. “They don’t have to remain in their sin. There’s hope for tomorrow.”

Imprisoned Kentucky County Clerk Rejects Proposal to Let Deputies Issue 'Gay Marriage' Licenses


----------



## bodecea

Uncensored2008 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the Liberty Counsel would have paid. She wouldn't have. With jail, she does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AND you have a political prisoner, with all that entails.
> 
> Any claim that you are not at war to crush people of faith rings hollow.
Click to expand...

Just what a supporter of Christian Sharia law would say.


----------



## Tresha91203

Yay! Now we can jail those officials of sanctuary cities for refusing to do their jobs. Disobeying laws that were already in place when they took the job, unlike this woman who's job was changed after she took office (I assume). No?


----------



## bodecea

SassyIrishLass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Davis' lawyer, Roger Gannam, said it was the first time in history an American citizen has been jailed for believing that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. He compared her willingness to accept imprisonment to what Martin Luther King Jr. did to advance civil rights.
> 
> BINGO! Martyr for religious rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope................sorry, but to be an actual martyr, you have to follow the teachings of your religion and dogma.
> 
> She's not doing that, because Jesus said that if your right eye offends thee, pluck it out and  throw it away, because it's better to enter Heaven missing an eye than to end up in Hell because you allowed your right eye to cause you to sin.
> 
> Here's the verse....................................
> 
> Matthew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
> 
> Now, in her case, it's not her right eye that is offending her, it's her job.  Why?  Because she feels like she's being forced to sin in issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.
> 
> So, she should pluck out her job (resign from her position), and get on with her life.
> 
> Even Jesus thinks she should resign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus would follow the Word and the Bible is clear that we are to follow human law *EXCEPT* when it violates God's law and the Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin, an abomination unto the Lord. God's law trumps human law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because she has the ability to get another job, rather than feel like she's being forced to sin.
> 
> I guess you missed the whole meaning of what Jesus said, didn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't miss anything. The Bible is clear, it's a sin, the Bible is also clear we are to follow God's law over human law. You all don't care about two gaypers getting pretend married, you want blood. You're just pushing an agenda, nothing more and nothing less
Click to expand...

My goodness.  It is a tragedy that legalized gay marriage has adversely affected your life and perhaps your marriage so much.   Such a tragedy.  You simply aren't happy unless we have Christian sharia here...but, a thought....what if it's Jeremiah's version of Christian Sharia and not yours?   Oops.


----------



## Bonzi

“We should seek a balance between government’s responsibility to abide by the laws of our republic and allowing people to stand by their religious convictions,” Mr. Rubio said in a statement to The New York Times, his first public remarks on the case.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...government-should-respect-kim-daviss-beliefs/


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Bonzi said:


> Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America," Ted Cruz said. “I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to chose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court opinion."


No, your post is wrong, in addition to being ignorant.

The arrest was lawful and consistent with the Constitution, having nothing to do whatsoever with her religion.

That the likes of Cruz 'stands' with Davis, both exhibiting their ignorance of, and contempt for, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, comes as no surprise.

Davis would have been jailed if she were Muslim or Jewish, or a person free from faith – for whatever reason she might defy a lawful, Constitutional court order.


----------



## bodecea

Tresha91203 said:


> Yay! Now we can jail those officials of sanctuary cities for refusing to do their jobs. Disobeying laws that were already in place when they took the job, unlike this woman who's job was changed after she took office (I assume). No?


Agreed....wait...are they in contempt?


----------



## RodISHI

bodecea said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sure affected a certain baker and now a clerk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL!   They had to go OUT OF THEIR WAY to be affected.   How does a gay couple getting married AFFECT YOU!  How fucking simplistic do I need to get.  Does their getting married tear a hole in the space time continuum and you get sucked into it?
> 
> What possible affect does a gay couple have on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homos went to the baker, it's also known some of these cases are setups. I don't care if they get pretend married, have at it, I've always said that. With that said I don't have to accept it as normal and I won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they refused to BAKE A FUCKING CAKE!  The "homo's" weren't telling them to bend over!  They were trying to pay them money to bake a cake!  And you can't see the ridiculousness of this situation?
> 
> They weren't telling the bakers "you have to be gay to bake my cake!"   I do think that the State of Oregon has gone totally batshit crazy in the punishment they have handed out, that is the very definition of "cruel and unusual punishment".  But how in the hell a person can think that baking a cake is somehow violating their religious principles is beyond me.
> 
> That is a level of batshit crazy that I will never understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you do not see how ridiculous it is for a private business enterprise to be put out of business when they refuse to be a part of sanctifying such an arrangement; with something they totally disagree with according to their religious faith? Hell they could bake their own fucking cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you have a problem with is your state's Public Accommodation laws....laws that have been on the books for about 50 years now...laws that have occasionally protected christians from being discriminated against.  But...if you don't like PA laws, what are you actively doing to get them repealed in your state?
Click to expand...




ogibillm said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sure affected a certain baker and now a clerk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL!   They had to go OUT OF THEIR WAY to be affected.   How does a gay couple getting married AFFECT YOU!  How fucking simplistic do I need to get.  Does their getting married tear a hole in the space time continuum and you get sucked into it?
> 
> What possible affect does a gay couple have on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homos went to the baker, it's also known some of these cases are setups. I don't care if they get pretend married, have at it, I've always said that. With that said I don't have to accept it as normal and I won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they refused to BAKE A FUCKING CAKE!  The "homo's" weren't telling them to bend over!  They were trying to pay them money to bake a cake!  And you can't see the ridiculousness of this situation?
> 
> They weren't telling the bakers "you have to be gay to bake my cake!"   I do think that the State of Oregon has gone totally batshit crazy in the punishment they have handed out, that is the very definition of "cruel and unusual punishment".  But how in the hell a person can think that baking a cake is somehow violating their religious principles is beyond me.
> 
> That is a level of batshit crazy that I will never understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you do not see how ridiculous it is for a private business enterprise to be put out of business when they refuse to be a part of sanctifying such an arrangement; with something they totally disagree with according to their religious faith? Hell they could bake their own fucking cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you're cool with an establishment saying you can't eat there because you're christian? you're cool with the owners asking you if the anniversary you're celebrating is to your first spouse and kicking you out if it isn't? you're good with the bank giving you an interest rate, then changing that rate over the phone and then changing that rate when they find out your race/sex/religion?
Click to expand...

I am not cool with any of the gay agenda. The questions you are asking have nothing to do with issuing a marriage license.

Fact is Rod and I asked a gay couple where the best place to eat was when we were vacationing. They did not impose themselves upon us and we did not impose our beliefs on them. I don't wear a hat that says "I am a Christian you have to accept me". If you purposely go into an establishment to cause them trouble I would say they have a right to toss you out. If you are there to spend your money and they do not want it go somewhere else.

Banks? Hey they are corporations. Invest your money, buy up the stock and throw the executives out if that is the way they treat you.


----------



## bodecea

Tresha91203 said:


> Yay! Now we can jail those officials of sanctuary cities for refusing to do their jobs. Disobeying laws that were already in place when they took the job, unlike this woman who's job was changed after she took office (I assume). No?


So...what happens if your job description changes in someway?   Do you think your boss will accept you saying you're not doing the changes?


----------



## RodISHI

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America," Ted Cruz said. “I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to chose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court opinion."
> 
> 
> 
> No, your post is wrong, in addition to being ignorant.
> 
> The arrest was lawful and consistent with the Constitution, having nothing to do whatsoever with her religion.
> 
> That the likes of Cruz 'stands' with Davis, both exhibiting their ignorance of, and contempt for, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, comes as no surprise.
> 
> Davis would have been jailed if she were Muslim or Jewish, or a person free from faith – for whatever reason she might defy a lawful, Constitutional court order.
Click to expand...

He or she whatever the case may be is a liar Bonzi. Sodomy is not mention as a protected act in the Bill of Rights or Constitution. Judges do not make law legislators voted into office by the people do that.


----------



## bodecea

ABikerSailor said:


> Instead of calling it "Christian Sharia Law", how about we call it what it really is..........
> 
> "Christian dictatorial fascism".


Well, that's what sharia is.....in this case, Christian.


----------



## bodecea

Bonzi said:


> “We should seek a balance between government’s responsibility to abide by the laws of our republic and allowing people to stand by their religious convictions,” Mr. Rubio said in a statement to The New York Times, his first public remarks on the case.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...government-should-respect-kim-daviss-beliefs/


So...he wants partial christian sharia law.


----------



## Coyote

Kondor3 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the ignorant, ridiculous rhetoric about 'old lawyers' in Washington 'reinterpreting' the Constitution is actually the epic fail.
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly. Until very recently, large numbers of States had passed Defense of Marriage referenda, only to have them overturned.
> 
> Despite what recent polls suggest --- counting people who have given-up on fighting this, alongside actual supporters - the Courts act in contravention to the Will of the People.
> 
> The People are the ultimate sovereign in this land.
> 
> Court rulings are overturned all the time.
> 
> All it takes is a little imagination and the right advocate and a more favorably-constituted court.
> 
> If a bare majority of Old Farts on the Supreme Court have seen fit to put America through this sawmill, The People will find a way to correct this abomination.
> 
> This rumble is just getting started.
> 
> Meanwhile, the observation concerning an "Epic Fail", in connection with a challenge to define "Christian Sharia Law", stands.
Click to expand...


The Will of the People would appear to support same sex marriage: Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage

Methinks that the "people's representatives" might want to get in touch with "the people".


----------



## bodecea

RodISHI said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America," Ted Cruz said. “I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to chose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court opinion."
> 
> 
> 
> No, your post is wrong, in addition to being ignorant.
> 
> The arrest was lawful and consistent with the Constitution, having nothing to do whatsoever with her religion.
> 
> That the likes of Cruz 'stands' with Davis, both exhibiting their ignorance of, and contempt for, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, comes as no surprise.
> 
> Davis would have been jailed if she were Muslim or Jewish, or a person free from faith – for whatever reason she might defy a lawful, Constitutional court order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He or she whatever the case may be is a liar Bonzi. Sodomy is not mention as a protected act in the Bill of Rights or Constitution. Judges do not make law legislators voted into office by the people do that.
Click to expand...

Neither is any kind of sex.  But it IS fascinating that you want to stick your nose, so to speak, in the sex lives of others.


----------



## RodISHI

bodecea said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> No but you can do whatever you like in privacy. You do not have the right to pin your illnesses onto me. See how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if a gay couple gets married how the hell does that affect YOU?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It alters the entire fabric of this society when you make an exception for an illness to over ride my faith and beliefs. Marriage is a religious institution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not exclusively. our government has been recognizing marriages for years without any religious involvement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the government wants to issue a license for people to whatever to one another then make a separate license with the governments name on it for they can share their deviant behavior but don't force others to lower their standards to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> separate but equal, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays used to tell me that they had a right to have sex on public ground and in public facilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today if I were in that same position according to many of the people that post on this board I should be thrown I jail if I tell them go do their thing in private or go rent a room.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they wouldn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I wanted to start a business of any kind by what you are saying judges can tell me I would be breaking their law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again the deviants would call for me to be put in jail. If I deny access for them to my children today I'd once again be falsely arrested by some out of control judge for protecting the children God put into my charge against predators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what the hell are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again I would hope that the people when they hear the truth they would rise up and say enough and throw the out of control sickos out of their positions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what truth is that? that elected officials should be allowed to treat homosexuals differently?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not wasting my time by responding fully to your total ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't you simply answer his question?
Click to expand...

He already said he did not believe what I wrote why answer some little twit like that. I don't have to waste my time.


----------



## Bonzi

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America," Ted Cruz said. “I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to chose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court opinion."
> 
> 
> 
> No, your post is wrong, in addition to being ignorant.
> 
> The arrest was lawful and consistent with the Constitution, having nothing to do whatsoever with her religion.
> 
> That the likes of Cruz 'stands' with Davis, both exhibiting their ignorance of, and contempt for, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, comes as no surprise.
> 
> Davis would have been jailed if she were Muslim or Jewish, or a person free from faith – for whatever reason she might defy a lawful, Constitutional court order.
Click to expand...

 
Hey!  Take it up with Ted Cruz


----------



## Coyote

ogibillm said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except it only works that way in a dictatorial tyranny....
> 
> She held the position BEFORE the law was passed.  This means that the law intentionally targets people of faith.....I hope that she appeals to the SCOTUS......
> 
> And to be honest.....I really don't care what anyone on this or any forum thinks regarding this.....The day this country can pass a law that requires ME to have to alter My beliefs or behaviors is the day that that government needs to be abolished.
> 
> It spells the death of liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> she held her position prior to the ratification of the 14th amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is NOT the 14th Amendment that is in jail for.....This reply of yours is completely inane.....
> 
> BTW...the 14th does NOT predate the 1st.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> she's in jail for violation of a court order. that court order is based on her denial of equal treatment under the law - a right guaranteed in the 14th amendment.
> her first amendment rights do not allow her to violate the rights of others - and it especially doesn't give her the right to use her office to violate the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is in jail under religious percucution and a political prisoner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> she is not being religiously persecuted and she is not a political prisoner.
Click to expand...


Since when is someone who not only refuses to do her job but refuses to allow anyone else to step in and do it so she can act on her religious principles - a political prisoner?


----------



## RodISHI

Luddly Neddite said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> No but you can do whatever you like in privacy. You do not have the right to pin your illnesses onto me. See how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if a gay couple gets married how the hell does that affect YOU?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It alters the entire fabric of this society when you make an exception for an illness to over ride my faith and beliefs. Marriage is a religious institution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not exclusively. our government has been recognizing marriages for years without any religious involvement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the government wants to issue a license for people to whatever to one another then make a separate license with the governments name on it for they can share their deviant behavior but don't force others to lower their standards to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> separate but equal, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays used to tell me that they had a right to have sex on public ground and in public facilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today if I were in that same position according to many of the people that post on this board I should be thrown I jail if I tell them go do their thing in private or go rent a room.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they wouldn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I wanted to start a business of any kind by what you are saying judges can tell me I would be breaking their law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again the deviants would call for me to be put in jail. If I deny access for them to my children today I'd once again be falsely arrested by some out of control judge for protecting the children God put into my charge against predators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what the hell are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again I would hope that the people when they hear the truth they would rise up and say enough and throw the out of control sickos out of their positions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what truth is that? that elected officials should be allowed to treat homosexuals differently?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not wasting my time by responding fully to your total ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But that IS the question. Why are you afraid to address it?
> 
> Should some groups or individuals be treated differently?
> 
> Where in the Constitution does it say that?
> 
> Is that what you want for the US?
Click to expand...

Not afraid just not wasting effort.


----------



## bodecea

Bonzi said:


> Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America," Ted Cruz said. “I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to chose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court opinion."


If you study up on Ted Cruz and his father, it is no surprise that he is a BIG supporter of christian sharia....the more it pushes out Constitutional law, the better.


----------



## RodISHI

bodecea said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America," Ted Cruz said. “I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to chose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court opinion."
> 
> 
> 
> No, your post is wrong, in addition to being ignorant.
> 
> The arrest was lawful and consistent with the Constitution, having nothing to do whatsoever with her religion.
> 
> That the likes of Cruz 'stands' with Davis, both exhibiting their ignorance of, and contempt for, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, comes as no surprise.
> 
> Davis would have been jailed if she were Muslim or Jewish, or a person free from faith – for whatever reason she might defy a lawful, Constitutional court order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He or she whatever the case may be is a liar Bonzi. Sodomy is not mention as a protected act in the Bill of Rights or Constitution. Judges do not make law legislators voted into office by the people do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither is any kind of sex.  But it IS fascinating that you want to stick your nose, so to speak, in the sex lives of others.
Click to expand...

I am not sticking my nose into your sex life. Do your thing if you choose just don't expect me to agree with it when yo put it out into the public view.


----------



## bodecea

RodISHI said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if a gay couple gets married how the hell does that affect YOU?
> 
> 
> 
> It alters the entire fabric of this society when you make an exception for an illness to over ride my faith and beliefs. Marriage is a religious institution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not exclusively. our government has been recognizing marriages for years without any religious involvement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the government wants to issue a license for people to whatever to one another then make a separate license with the governments name on it for they can share their deviant behavior but don't force others to lower their standards to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> separate but equal, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays used to tell me that they had a right to have sex on public ground and in public facilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today if I were in that same position according to many of the people that post on this board I should be thrown I jail if I tell them go do their thing in private or go rent a room.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they wouldn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I wanted to start a business of any kind by what you are saying judges can tell me I would be breaking their law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again the deviants would call for me to be put in jail. If I deny access for them to my children today I'd once again be falsely arrested by some out of control judge for protecting the children God put into my charge against predators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what the hell are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again I would hope that the people when they hear the truth they would rise up and say enough and throw the out of control sickos out of their positions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what truth is that? that elected officials should be allowed to treat homosexuals differently?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not wasting my time by responding fully to your total ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But that IS the question. Why are you afraid to address it?
> 
> Should some groups or individuals be treated differently?
> 
> Where in the Constitution does it say that?
> 
> Is that what you want for the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not afraid just not wasting effort.
Click to expand...

Right.....


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Bonzi said:


> “We should seek a balance between government’s responsibility to abide by the laws of our republic and allowing people to stand by their religious convictions,” Mr. Rubio said in a statement to The New York Times, his first public remarks on the case.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...government-should-respect-kim-daviss-beliefs/


At least Rubio and other conservatives are consistent in their ignorance of the law.

Again, the arrest had nothing to do with Davis' faith, it had to do with her refusal to obey a lawful court order.

Davis could have simply had her staff issue the licenses, relieving her of any 'religious conflict.'

That many on the reprehensible right such as Cruz and Rubio are attempting to contrive a 'controversy' where none exists for some perceived political gain also comes as no surprise.


----------



## bodecea

RodISHI said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America," Ted Cruz said. “I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to chose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court opinion."
> 
> 
> 
> No, your post is wrong, in addition to being ignorant.
> 
> The arrest was lawful and consistent with the Constitution, having nothing to do whatsoever with her religion.
> 
> That the likes of Cruz 'stands' with Davis, both exhibiting their ignorance of, and contempt for, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, comes as no surprise.
> 
> Davis would have been jailed if she were Muslim or Jewish, or a person free from faith – for whatever reason she might defy a lawful, Constitutional court order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He or she whatever the case may be is a liar Bonzi. Sodomy is not mention as a protected act in the Bill of Rights or Constitution. Judges do not make law legislators voted into office by the people do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither is any kind of sex.  But it IS fascinating that you want to stick your nose, so to speak, in the sex lives of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sticking my nose into your sex life. Do your thing if you choose just don't expect me to agree with it when yo put it out into the public view.
Click to expand...

You go on about sodomy not being legal or in the Constitution.  Ok, how do you enforce any law against sodomy then?   And I've a ton more hetero sex out in public view than any gay sex.  Half the commercials on tv are based on the premise that sex sells.


----------



## Moonglow

Bonzi said:


> Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America," Ted Cruz said. “I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to chose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court opinion."


I was not on account of her religion...She's a sinner and no room to judge...


----------



## RodISHI

bodecea said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America," Ted Cruz said. “I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to chose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court opinion."
> 
> 
> 
> No, your post is wrong, in addition to being ignorant.
> 
> The arrest was lawful and consistent with the Constitution, having nothing to do whatsoever with her religion.
> 
> That the likes of Cruz 'stands' with Davis, both exhibiting their ignorance of, and contempt for, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, comes as no surprise.
> 
> Davis would have been jailed if she were Muslim or Jewish, or a person free from faith – for whatever reason she might defy a lawful, Constitutional court order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He or she whatever the case may be is a liar Bonzi. Sodomy is not mention as a protected act in the Bill of Rights or Constitution. Judges do not make law legislators voted into office by the people do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither is any kind of sex.  But it IS fascinating that you want to stick your nose, so to speak, in the sex lives of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sticking my nose into your sex life. Do your thing if you choose just don't expect me to agree with it when yo put it out into the public view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You go on about sodomy not being legal or in the Constitution.  Ok, how do you enforce any law against sodomy then?   And I've a ton more hetero sex out in public view than any gay sex.  Half the commercials on tv are based on the premise that sex sells.
Click to expand...

Sodomy is not protected under the Constitution therefore the marriage of it is not either. I don't have or watch a TV, haven't for years. Did not have one when the children were little either.
I have no intention of enforcing any laws on your sexual deviance. There is a though God's law and that you will to take up with the spirit in your self if you like.


----------



## bodecea

mudwhistle said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> There most certainly is christian sharia law and you support it.....and if you don't know what it is...*.it is running our country thru your interpretation of what your god wants....NOT on the U.S. Consititution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as Christian sharia law. Just stop already, it's stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given your posting history, you're in no position to refer to anything as 'stupid.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah? I don't give a rat's ass. How's that? Now go bother someone else, tool. You're a nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee, maybe if you learned to drop your anger.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that once one has the upper hand, how they handle it is an indication of their true character.
> 
> So please, continue trying to crush these God fearing Christians like a jack-booted thug.
Click to expand...

Not letting christians dictate how to enforce or not enforce our nation's laws is fighting christian sharia.  You support christian sharia.....oh, and in case you forgot the definition..._.it is wanting to run our country thru YOUR interpretation of what YOUR god wants, not the U.S. Constitution._


----------



## Moonglow

bodecea said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America," Ted Cruz said. “I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to chose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court opinion."
> 
> 
> 
> No, your post is wrong, in addition to being ignorant.
> 
> The arrest was lawful and consistent with the Constitution, having nothing to do whatsoever with her religion.
> 
> That the likes of Cruz 'stands' with Davis, both exhibiting their ignorance of, and contempt for, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, comes as no surprise.
> 
> Davis would have been jailed if she were Muslim or Jewish, or a person free from faith – for whatever reason she might defy a lawful, Constitutional court order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He or she whatever the case may be is a liar Bonzi. Sodomy is not mention as a protected act in the Bill of Rights or Constitution. Judges do not make law legislators voted into office by the people do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither is any kind of sex.  But it IS fascinating that you want to stick your nose, so to speak, in the sex lives of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sticking my nose into your sex life. Do your thing if you choose just don't expect me to agree with it when yo put it out into the public view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You go on about sodomy not being legal or in the Constitution.  Ok, how do you enforce any law against sodomy then?   And I've a ton more hetero sex out in public view than any gay sex.  Half the commercials on tv are based on the premise that sex sells.
Click to expand...

16" double headed dildo for you?


----------



## bodecea

RodISHI said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, your post is wrong, in addition to being ignorant.
> 
> The arrest was lawful and consistent with the Constitution, having nothing to do whatsoever with her religion.
> 
> That the likes of Cruz 'stands' with Davis, both exhibiting their ignorance of, and contempt for, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, comes as no surprise.
> 
> Davis would have been jailed if she were Muslim or Jewish, or a person free from faith – for whatever reason she might defy a lawful, Constitutional court order.
> 
> 
> 
> He or she whatever the case may be is a liar Bonzi. Sodomy is not mention as a protected act in the Bill of Rights or Constitution. Judges do not make law legislators voted into office by the people do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither is any kind of sex.  But it IS fascinating that you want to stick your nose, so to speak, in the sex lives of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sticking my nose into your sex life. Do your thing if you choose just don't expect me to agree with it when yo put it out into the public view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You go on about sodomy not being legal or in the Constitution.  Ok, how do you enforce any law against sodomy then?   And I've a ton more hetero sex out in public view than any gay sex.  Half the commercials on tv are based on the premise that sex sells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sodomy is not protected under the Constitution therefore the marriage of it is not either. I don't have or watch a TV, haven't for years. Did not have one when the children were little either.
> I have no intention of enforcing any laws on your sexual deviance. There is a though God's law and that you will to take up with the spirit in your self if you like.
Click to expand...

Wait...so you are saying that any marriage that has sodomy isn't protected?  What about all those straight couples that commit sodomy.....a lot?   Who's  gonna enforce this?  Who's gonna peak into everyone's bedroom?   You?


----------



## Moonglow

RodISHI said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, your post is wrong, in addition to being ignorant.
> 
> The arrest was lawful and consistent with the Constitution, having nothing to do whatsoever with her religion.
> 
> That the likes of Cruz 'stands' with Davis, both exhibiting their ignorance of, and contempt for, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, comes as no surprise.
> 
> Davis would have been jailed if she were Muslim or Jewish, or a person free from faith – for whatever reason she might defy a lawful, Constitutional court order.
> 
> 
> 
> He or she whatever the case may be is a liar Bonzi. Sodomy is not mention as a protected act in the Bill of Rights or Constitution. Judges do not make law legislators voted into office by the people do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither is any kind of sex.  But it IS fascinating that you want to stick your nose, so to speak, in the sex lives of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sticking my nose into your sex life. Do your thing if you choose just don't expect me to agree with it when yo put it out into the public view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You go on about sodomy not being legal or in the Constitution.  Ok, how do you enforce any law against sodomy then?   And I've a ton more hetero sex out in public view than any gay sex.  Half the commercials on tv are based on the premise that sex sells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sodomy is not protected under the Constitution therefore the marriage of it is not either. I don't have or watch a TV, haven't for years. Did not have one when the children were little either.
> I have no intention of enforcing any laws on your sexual deviance. There is a though God's law and that you will to take up with the spirit in your self if you like.
Click to expand...

So it's the missionary position with a sheet dividing the spouses, and the sheet has a hole cut at the place of a religiously sanctioned location....???


----------



## bodecea

Moonglow said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, your post is wrong, in addition to being ignorant.
> 
> The arrest was lawful and consistent with the Constitution, having nothing to do whatsoever with her religion.
> 
> That the likes of Cruz 'stands' with Davis, both exhibiting their ignorance of, and contempt for, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, comes as no surprise.
> 
> Davis would have been jailed if she were Muslim or Jewish, or a person free from faith – for whatever reason she might defy a lawful, Constitutional court order.
> 
> 
> 
> He or she whatever the case may be is a liar Bonzi. Sodomy is not mention as a protected act in the Bill of Rights or Constitution. Judges do not make law legislators voted into office by the people do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither is any kind of sex.  But it IS fascinating that you want to stick your nose, so to speak, in the sex lives of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sticking my nose into your sex life. Do your thing if you choose just don't expect me to agree with it when yo put it out into the public view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You go on about sodomy not being legal or in the Constitution.  Ok, how do you enforce any law against sodomy then?   And I've a ton more hetero sex out in public view than any gay sex.  Half the commercials on tv are based on the premise that sex sells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 16" double headed dildo for you?
Click to expand...

Damn!   What is it with you guys thinking we need a dick?  even a fake one?


----------



## Moonglow

bodecea said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> He or she whatever the case may be is a liar Bonzi. Sodomy is not mention as a protected act in the Bill of Rights or Constitution. Judges do not make law legislators voted into office by the people do that.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is any kind of sex.  But it IS fascinating that you want to stick your nose, so to speak, in the sex lives of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sticking my nose into your sex life. Do your thing if you choose just don't expect me to agree with it when yo put it out into the public view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You go on about sodomy not being legal or in the Constitution.  Ok, how do you enforce any law against sodomy then?   And I've a ton more hetero sex out in public view than any gay sex.  Half the commercials on tv are based on the premise that sex sells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 16" double headed dildo for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn!   What is it with you guys thinking we need a dick?  even a fake one?
Click to expand...

I see, you have big hands, okay....Just asking......Jodie Foster fist?


----------



## bodecea

mudwhistle said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is what you want...christian sharia law...running our country based on YOUR interpretation of what YOUR god wants....not on the U.S. Constitution.   That's why you support Kim Davis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again....you're using a made up term. There is no such thing. Keep spewing it but it won't change the facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facts are that anyone who supports Kim Davis and what she did is a supporter of christian sharia law.   That is what she tried to put in place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think if you learned to drop your anger and forgive people for their transgressions then you might be a happier person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What anger?  I'm actually quite happy today.  It is a joy to see our U.S. Constitution in action....and our secular system put in place by our Founders work so well.  It doesn't always...Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson for examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess pushing people around and making enemies gives you a real chubby.....but I don't relish in other people's misfortune.
> 
> But that just the way I roll.
Click to expand...

I don't get chubby's...that's YOUR fantasy.  But, you know....if you learned to drop your anger and all.......


----------



## Tresha91203

bodecea said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yay! Now we can jail those officials of sanctuary cities for refusing to do their jobs. Disobeying laws that were already in place when they took the job, unlike this woman who's job was changed after she took office (I assume). No?
> 
> 
> 
> So...what happens if your job description changes in someway?   Do you think your boss will accept you saying you're not doing the changes?
Click to expand...


No. I don't. If I were in her position with her beliefs, I would have resigned in protest or, if I could not afford to do so, agreed to some sort of termination proceedings that would allow me time to find a job or collect unemployment. She may not have had the latter option as an elected official. I don't know. I just can't stand the outrage over someone not doing their sworn duty except when it is a law they don't like. 

If the Mayor of San Fran were in jail for not enforcing the laws he swore to uphold, I would have said, "Good. Now we can jail that Ky CoC." It is the "I can but you are an $@×÷% when you do" that grates me.


----------



## bodecea

Moonglow said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is any kind of sex.  But it IS fascinating that you want to stick your nose, so to speak, in the sex lives of others.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sticking my nose into your sex life. Do your thing if you choose just don't expect me to agree with it when yo put it out into the public view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You go on about sodomy not being legal or in the Constitution.  Ok, how do you enforce any law against sodomy then?   And I've a ton more hetero sex out in public view than any gay sex.  Half the commercials on tv are based on the premise that sex sells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 16" double headed dildo for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn!   What is it with you guys thinking we need a dick?  even a fake one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see, you have big hands, okay....Just asking......Jodie Foster fist?
Click to expand...

Now don't you go dissing Jodie Foster!


----------



## RodISHI

bodecea said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> He or she whatever the case may be is a liar Bonzi. Sodomy is not mention as a protected act in the Bill of Rights or Constitution. Judges do not make law legislators voted into office by the people do that.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is any kind of sex.  But it IS fascinating that you want to stick your nose, so to speak, in the sex lives of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sticking my nose into your sex life. Do your thing if you choose just don't expect me to agree with it when yo put it out into the public view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You go on about sodomy not being legal or in the Constitution.  Ok, how do you enforce any law against sodomy then?   And I've a ton more hetero sex out in public view than any gay sex.  Half the commercials on tv are based on the premise that sex sells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sodomy is not protected under the Constitution therefore the marriage of it is not either. I don't have or watch a TV, haven't for years. Did not have one when the children were little either.
> I have no intention of enforcing any laws on your sexual deviance. There is a though God's law and that you will to take up with the spirit in your self if you like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait...so you are saying that any marriage that has sodomy isn't protected?  What about all those straight couples that commit sodomy.....a lot?   Who's  gonna enforce this?  Who's gonna peak into everyone's bedroom?   You?
Click to expand...

No and now you are truly being ridiculous.


----------



## Moonglow

bodecea said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sticking my nose into your sex life. Do your thing if you choose just don't expect me to agree with it when yo put it out into the public view.
> 
> 
> 
> You go on about sodomy not being legal or in the Constitution.  Ok, how do you enforce any law against sodomy then?   And I've a ton more hetero sex out in public view than any gay sex.  Half the commercials on tv are based on the premise that sex sells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 16" double headed dildo for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn!   What is it with you guys thinking we need a dick?  even a fake one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see, you have big hands, okay....Just asking......Jodie Foster fist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now don't you go dissing Jodie Foster!
Click to expand...

I can see why I never liked her, I would never have a chance to bury the bone in her yard.....


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Tipsycatlover said:


> If there is anger,  it is misplaced to direct it against the city offices.  Direct that anger against the ones who deserve it.  The gay couples themselves.



First of all tipsyloon, she is a county clerk.
Secondly, it's not the gays fault she is a retard.
Retardation seems to afflict some types of people more than others. Hmm.


----------



## Kondor3

Coyote said:


> ...The Will of the People would appear to support same sex marriage: Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage
> 
> Methinks that the "people's representatives" might want to get in touch with "the people".


Scenario:

1. the recent SCOTUS ruling is reversed

2. States begin to pass Defense of Marriage -type referenda and statute once again.

3. this time, those referenda and statute _withstand_ judicial scrutiny, with a more tradition-sympathetic court

=======================================

People were dead-set against homosexual marriage for a very long time, until very, very recently, according to various polls.

People began to give-up on defending the sanctity of marriage, as it became increasingly clear, that their own government was out to torpedo it.

Latter-day polls reflect this giving-up, if-you-can't-fight-'em-join-'em, taking-the-path-of-least-resistance approach - exhausted after years of fighting the good fight.

If some backbone were once again injected into this fight, along with some realistic prospect of actually winning, and reversing this perversion, those Polls would change.

In a heartbeat.

That is what will be required, in any Next Round of the Battle, in which the country is now engaged.

And, given that the only polls that truly count, are the ballot box, and given that State after State had formerly passed Defense of Marriage -like referenda or legislation - only to have them struck-down by activist judges...

The *TRUE* polling track-record (all those referenda and statute) do not support your conclusion, in this regard.

America needs to find its backbone again, in this matter.

We may be seeing the opening gambit of just such a thing, this very day.


----------



## bodecea

RodISHI said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is any kind of sex.  But it IS fascinating that you want to stick your nose, so to speak, in the sex lives of others.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sticking my nose into your sex life. Do your thing if you choose just don't expect me to agree with it when yo put it out into the public view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You go on about sodomy not being legal or in the Constitution.  Ok, how do you enforce any law against sodomy then?   And I've a ton more hetero sex out in public view than any gay sex.  Half the commercials on tv are based on the premise that sex sells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sodomy is not protected under the Constitution therefore the marriage of it is not either. I don't have or watch a TV, haven't for years. Did not have one when the children were little either.
> I have no intention of enforcing any laws on your sexual deviance. There is a though God's law and that you will to take up with the spirit in your self if you like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait...so you are saying that any marriage that has sodomy isn't protected?  What about all those straight couples that commit sodomy.....a lot?   Who's  gonna enforce this?  Who's gonna peak into everyone's bedroom?   You?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No and now you are truly being ridiculous.
Click to expand...

You realize that every kind of sex except the missionary position is defined as sodomy, right?   You like a little oral?  Too bad...it's sodomy and your marriage is no longer protected.


----------



## Moonglow

That is the role of the Feds, to right the wrong of democracy...


----------



## bodecea

Kondor3 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The Will of the People would appear to support same sex marriage: Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage
> 
> Methinks that the "people's representatives" might want to get in touch with "the people".
> 
> 
> 
> Scenario:
> 
> 1. the recent SCOTUS ruling is reverse
> 
> 2. States begin to pass Defense of Marriage -type referenda and statute once again.
> 
> 3. this time, those referenda and statute _withstand_ judicial scrutiny, with a more tradition-sympathetic court
> 
> People were dead-set against homosexual marriage for a very long time, until very, very recently, according to various polls.
> 
> People began to give-up on defensing the sanctity of marriage, as it became increasingly clear, that their own government was out to torpedo it.
> 
> Latter-day polls reflect this giving-up, if-you-can't-fight-'em-join-'em, taking-the-path-of-least-resistance approach - exhausted after years of fighting the good fight.
> 
> If some backbone were once again injected into this fight, along with some realistic prospect of actually winning, and reversing this perversion, those Polls would change.
> 
> In a heartbeat.
> 
> That is what will be required, in any Next Round of the Battle, in which the country is now engaged.
> 
> And, given that the only polls that truly count, are the ballot box, and given that State after State had formerly passed Defense of Marriage -like referenda or legislation - only to have them struck-down by activist judges...
> 
> The TRUE polling track-record (all those referenda and statute) do not support your conclusion, in this regard.
> 
> America needs to find its backbone again, in this matter.
> 
> We may be seeing the opening gambit of just such a thing, this very day.
Click to expand...

And...just for chuckles....what timeframe are you giving this scenario?


----------



## Kondor3

westwall said:


> ...I didn't,  MORON!  Pay attention to who you are engaging.


Damned feeble...


----------



## playtime




----------



## Kondor3

bodecea said:


> ...And...just for chuckles....what timeframe are you giving this scenario?


Who-the-hell knows?

I don't have a crystal ball.

I merely show you what needs to be done, in order to reverse this latest round of Liberal Aberrations.

I can tell you that vast and increasing numbers of your countrymen have pretty much had it with Liberals for a while, and are about ready to give the other guys another turn.

And, (1) if that happens, and (2) we get a hard-ass in the White House, then the odds improve dramatically, that things will be set right, once again.

As to whether it truly *WILL* happen, or the *TIMING*... hell... I don't know... anymore than you do.


----------



## Kondor3

ogibillm said:


> ...all anyone had to do was obey the law...


A bad law, or, more properly, a bad interpretation of law... favoring sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality)... anathema to most decent folk.


----------



## bodecea

Kondor3 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...And...just for chuckles....what timeframe are you giving this scenario?
> 
> 
> 
> Who-the-hell knows?
> 
> *I don't have a crystal ball.*
> 
> I merely show you what needs to be done, in order to reverse this latest round of Liberal Aberrations.
> 
> I can tell you that vast and increasing numbers of your countrymen have pretty much had it with Liberals for a while, and are about ready to give the other guys another turn.
> 
> And, (1) if that happens, and (2) we get a hard-ass in the White House, then the odds improve dramatically, that things will be set right, once again.
> 
> As to whether it truly WILL happen, or the TIMING... hell... I don't know... anymore than you do.
Click to expand...

You don't?  After that long winded post giving a scenario of the future?   Damn, you disappoint me.   Or could this just be you blowing smoke?


----------



## Coyote

Kondor3 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The Will of the People would appear to support same sex marriage: Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage
> 
> Methinks that the "people's representatives" might want to get in touch with "the people".
> 
> 
> 
> Scenario:
> 
> 1. the recent SCOTUS ruling is reverse
> 
> 2. States begin to pass Defense of Marriage -type referenda and statute once again.
> 
> 3. this time, those referenda and statute _withstand_ judicial scrutiny, with a more tradition-sympathetic court
> 
> People were dead-set against homosexual marriage for a very long time, until very, very recently, according to various polls.
> 
> People began to give-up on defensing the sanctity of marriage, as it became increasingly clear, that their own government was out to torpedo it.
> 
> Latter-day polls reflect this giving-up, if-you-can't-fight-'em-join-'em, taking-the-path-of-least-resistance approach - exhausted after years of fighting the good fight.
> 
> If some backbone were once again injected into this fight, along with some realistic prospect of actually winning, and reversing this perversion, those Polls would change.
> 
> In a heartbeat.
> 
> That is what will be required, in any Next Round of the Battle, in which the country is now engaged.
> 
> And, given that the only polls that truly count, are the ballot box, and given that State after State had formerly passed Defense of Marriage -like referenda or legislation - only to have them struck-down by activist judges...
> 
> The TRUE polling track-record (all those referenda and statute) do not support your conclusion, in this regard.
> 
> America needs to find its backbone again, in this matter.
> 
> We may be seeing the opening gambit of just such a thing, this very day.
Click to expand...


Support for same sex marriage has grown as a new generation of Americans enter adulthood.  More than half the American population supports it.  The Supreme Court is not acting against the will of the people - but, more importantly - the will of the people should have NO bearing on the Supreme Court decisions.  Rights should not be held hostage to popular appeal.  That ruling is unlikely to be reversed.


----------



## bodecea

Kondor3 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...all anyone had to do was obey the law...
> 
> 
> 
> A bad law, or, more properly, a bad interpretation of law... favoring sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality)... anathema to most decent folk.
Click to expand...

Choose not to be gay then.  Problem solved.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

AvgGuyIA said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> This Clerk is not keeping gays from getting married.  They can find any one of many other Clerks that will sign the licenses.  Their purpose here is *make her* sign the licenses just to say "We won!" again.   That was the sole purpose for pushing for the redefinition of the word 'marriage'.
> 
> Insecure fucking idiots!
> 
> 
> 
> It's all about normalizing faggotry and forcing everyone to accept it by judicial fiat.  That's no way to run a Society.  We are free people and not to be forced into shit we disagree with.  That is what is behind this fight.  Liberal's want to force their ideology on us.  There is going to be pushback.
Click to expand...


I'm sure that's what the lunch counter crackers said when they found out they had to serve blacks too. Well here we are today and they are nowhere to be found. Enjoy the afterglow while someone still gives a fuck.


----------



## Kondor3

bodecea said:


> ...You don't?  After that long winded post giving a scenario of the future?   Damn, you disappoint me.   Or could this just be you blowing smoke?


Always glad to disappoint you. All part of the friendly service. No extra charge.

The post outlined exactly what it needed to outline - the approach vector for reversing recent Gay Mafia gains.

It made no pretense of having a 'lock' on whether or not such conditions would actually materialize.

It made no pretense of having insight into the timing for any such undertakings.

The rest is your own invention.


----------



## RodISHI

bodecea said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sticking my nose into your sex life. Do your thing if you choose just don't expect me to agree with it when yo put it out into the public view.
> 
> 
> 
> You go on about sodomy not being legal or in the Constitution.  Ok, how do you enforce any law against sodomy then?   And I've a ton more hetero sex out in public view than any gay sex.  Half the commercials on tv are based on the premise that sex sells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sodomy is not protected under the Constitution therefore the marriage of it is not either. I don't have or watch a TV, haven't for years. Did not have one when the children were little either.
> I have no intention of enforcing any laws on your sexual deviance. There is a though God's law and that you will to take up with the spirit in your self if you like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait...so you are saying that any marriage that has sodomy isn't protected?  What about all those straight couples that commit sodomy.....a lot?   Who's  gonna enforce this?  Who's gonna peak into everyone's bedroom?   You?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No and now you are truly being ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You realize that every kind of sex except the missionary position is defined as sodomy, right?   You like a little oral?  Too bad...it's sodomy and your marriage is no longer protected.
Click to expand...

Actually Bodecca you are in error as Sodomites are a little more than what the New English defines. But hey that is okay. You have a right to think what you like, do what you like or whatever. You merely do not have a right to impose your beliefs over the top of mine. Have a good evening I am finished with this conversation.


----------



## Kondor3

bodecea said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...all anyone had to do was obey the law...
> 
> 
> 
> A bad law, or, more properly, a bad interpretation of law... favoring sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality)... anathema to most decent folk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Choose not to be gay then.  Problem solved.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Folks are still required by law to associate with such unclean beasts in public life, in order to conduct business.

The problem will be solved when the requirement is abolished.

A highly desirable outcome, and a goal, for the Opposition to work towards.


----------



## mudwhistle

bodecea said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as Christian sharia law. Just stop already, it's stupid
> 
> 
> 
> Given your posting history, you're in no position to refer to anything as 'stupid.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah? I don't give a rat's ass. How's that? Now go bother someone else, tool. You're a nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee, maybe if you learned to drop your anger.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that once one has the upper hand, how they handle it is an indication of their true character.
> 
> So please, continue trying to crush these God fearing Christians like a jack-booted thug.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not letting christians dictate how to enforce or not enforce our nation's laws is fighting christian sharia.  You support christian sharia.....oh, and in case you forgot the definition..._.it is wanting to run our country thru YOUR interpretation of what YOUR god wants, not the U.S. Constitution._
Click to expand...

Like I said.....Obama picks and chooses which laws he wants to obey or enforce.....so we can't blame others for doing the same exact thing. 

You want everyone to obey the letter of the law......except when you think the law is bullshit. 

So deal with it.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Bonzi said:


> Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America," Ted Cruz said. “I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to chose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court opinion."



Ted Cruz is wrong.

She was placed in jail for not doing her job as a public official and ordering her subordinates not to do theirs.

She could have easily avoided jail.  Do her job as the law requires or resign.  She choose to go to jail instead just so the gays couldn't get a marriage license.


>>>>


----------



## bodecea

RodISHI said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> You go on about sodomy not being legal or in the Constitution.  Ok, how do you enforce any law against sodomy then?   And I've a ton more hetero sex out in public view than any gay sex.  Half the commercials on tv are based on the premise that sex sells.
> 
> 
> 
> Sodomy is not protected under the Constitution therefore the marriage of it is not either. I don't have or watch a TV, haven't for years. Did not have one when the children were little either.
> I have no intention of enforcing any laws on your sexual deviance. There is a though God's law and that you will to take up with the spirit in your self if you like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait...so you are saying that any marriage that has sodomy isn't protected?  What about all those straight couples that commit sodomy.....a lot?   Who's  gonna enforce this?  Who's gonna peak into everyone's bedroom?   You?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No and now you are truly being ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You realize that every kind of sex except the missionary position is defined as sodomy, right?   You like a little oral?  Too bad...it's sodomy and your marriage is no longer protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually Bodecca you are in error as Sodomites are a little more than what the New English defines. But hey that is okay. You have a right to think what you like, do what you like or whatever. You merely do not have a right to impose your beliefs over the top of mine. Have a good evening I am finished with this conversation.
Click to expand...

Sodomy is everything except for missionary.  Just like other christian sharia supporters, you don't get to change definitions willy nilly.


----------



## BlueGin

martybegan said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MLK wasn't getting himself arrested so he could discriminate against black people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm talking methods, not reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why did you post "injustice of the system" as the only injustice being done is being done by her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SHE perceives an injustice, I actually think she is in the wrong.
> 
> I just like seeing government have to go through the motions of force instead of a person just knuckling under and complying.
Click to expand...

I agree


----------



## westwall

Kondor3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I didn't,  MORON!  Pay attention to who you are engaging.
> 
> 
> 
> Damned feeble...
Click to expand...








Yes, your complete lack of ability to pay attention to who, and what they are saying is feeble indeed.  But, as they say, once you have figured out you have a problem, and admitted it, you are on your way to recovery.  Congratulations, you might figure it out someday.


----------



## westwall

RodISHI said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if a gay couple gets married how the hell does that affect YOU?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sure affected a certain baker and now a clerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL!   They had to go OUT OF THEIR WAY to be affected.   How does a gay couple getting married AFFECT YOU!  How fucking simplistic do I need to get.  Does their getting married tear a hole in the space time continuum and you get sucked into it?
> 
> What possible affect does a gay couple have on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homos went to the baker, it's also known some of these cases are setups. I don't care if they get pretend married, have at it, I've always said that. With that said I don't have to accept it as normal and I won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they refused to BAKE A FUCKING CAKE!  The "homo's" weren't telling them to bend over!  They were trying to pay them money to bake a cake!  And you can't see the ridiculousness of this situation?
> 
> They weren't telling the bakers "you have to be gay to bake my cake!"   I do think that the State of Oregon has gone totally batshit crazy in the punishment they have handed out, that is the very definition of "cruel and unusual punishment".  But how in the hell a person can think that baking a cake is somehow violating their religious principles is beyond me.
> 
> That is a level of batshit crazy that I will never understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you do not see how ridiculous it is for a private business enterprise to be put out of business when they refuse to be a part of sanctifying such an arrangement; with something they totally disagree with according to their religious faith? Hell they could bake their own fucking cake.
Click to expand...







I already said I thought the punishment to be ridiculous.  Are you blind?  However you still haven't been able to tell me how baking a cake for a gay wedding, affects the baker.


----------



## BluePhantom

TheOldSchool said:


> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.




That would be her dream come true.  She will start a gofundme account and gather triple the fine and make a profit from it


----------



## RodISHI

westwall said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sure affected a certain baker and now a clerk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL!   They had to go OUT OF THEIR WAY to be affected.   How does a gay couple getting married AFFECT YOU!  How fucking simplistic do I need to get.  Does their getting married tear a hole in the space time continuum and you get sucked into it?
> 
> What possible affect does a gay couple have on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homos went to the baker, it's also known some of these cases are setups. I don't care if they get pretend married, have at it, I've always said that. With that said I don't have to accept it as normal and I won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they refused to BAKE A FUCKING CAKE!  The "homo's" weren't telling them to bend over!  They were trying to pay them money to bake a cake!  And you can't see the ridiculousness of this situation?
> 
> They weren't telling the bakers "you have to be gay to bake my cake!"   I do think that the State of Oregon has gone totally batshit crazy in the punishment they have handed out, that is the very definition of "cruel and unusual punishment".  But how in the hell a person can think that baking a cake is somehow violating their religious principles is beyond me.
> 
> That is a level of batshit crazy that I will never understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you do not see how ridiculous it is for a private business enterprise to be put out of business when they refuse to be a part of sanctifying such an arrangement; with something they totally disagree with according to their religious faith? Hell they could bake their own fucking cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already said I thought the punishment to be ridiculous.  Are you blind?  However you still haven't been able to tell me how baking a cake for a gay wedding, affects the baker.
Click to expand...

Yes I did.

But I will go even a lil further for you westwall. A small privately held Christian business owner providing personal services has the right to not go along. The same sex couple can bake their own cake or hit a corporation to get their cake or go start their own little cake business. If one of these same sex couples asked me to paint a painting or provide a sculpture for them and I said no I'm not interested in doing such for you should they have the right to sue me?


----------



## AceRothstein

Can they send her to Guantanamo?


----------



## Flopper

asaratis said:


> This Clerk is not keeping gays from getting married.  They can find any one of many other Clerks that will sign the licenses.  Their purpose here is *make her* sign the licenses just to say "We won!" again.   That was the sole purpose for pushing for the redefinition of the word 'marriage'.
> 
> Insecure fucking idiots!


Why should a gay couple have to go to another county for a marriage license if gay marriage has been declared legal throughout the country by the courts?  Your argument is the same one used when the courts struct down segregation in businesses open to public.  The blacks can go to some other motel, restaurant, or store.


----------



## westwall

RodISHI said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL!   They had to go OUT OF THEIR WAY to be affected.   How does a gay couple getting married AFFECT YOU!  How fucking simplistic do I need to get.  Does their getting married tear a hole in the space time continuum and you get sucked into it?
> 
> What possible affect does a gay couple have on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The homos went to the baker, it's also known some of these cases are setups. I don't care if they get pretend married, have at it, I've always said that. With that said I don't have to accept it as normal and I won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they refused to BAKE A FUCKING CAKE!  The "homo's" weren't telling them to bend over!  They were trying to pay them money to bake a cake!  And you can't see the ridiculousness of this situation?
> 
> They weren't telling the bakers "you have to be gay to bake my cake!"   I do think that the State of Oregon has gone totally batshit crazy in the punishment they have handed out, that is the very definition of "cruel and unusual punishment".  But how in the hell a person can think that baking a cake is somehow violating their religious principles is beyond me.
> 
> That is a level of batshit crazy that I will never understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you do not see how ridiculous it is for a private business enterprise to be put out of business when they refuse to be a part of sanctifying such an arrangement; with something they totally disagree with according to their religious faith? Hell they could bake their own fucking cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already said I thought the punishment to be ridiculous.  Are you blind?  However you still haven't been able to tell me how baking a cake for a gay wedding, affects the baker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I did.
> 
> But I will go even a lil further for you westwall. A small privately held Christian business owner providing personal services has the right to not go along. The same sex couple can bake their own cake or hit a corporation to get their cake or go start their own little cake business. If one of these same sex couples asked me to paint a painting or provide a sculpture for them and I said no I'm not interested in doing such for you should they have the right to sue me?
Click to expand...







No, they shouldn't.  I don't believe that government should be able to compel anyone to do anything.  However, the clerk is a government official which means she is OBLIGATED to follow the laws of the land.  To do otherwise, IS tyranny.


----------



## westwall

Flopper said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> This Clerk is not keeping gays from getting married.  They can find any one of many other Clerks that will sign the licenses.  Their purpose here is *make her* sign the licenses just to say "We won!" again.   That was the sole purpose for pushing for the redefinition of the word 'marriage'.
> 
> Insecure fucking idiots!
> 
> 
> 
> Why should a gay couple have to go to another county for a marriage license if gay marriage has been declared legal throughout the country by the courts?  Your argument is  same one used when the courts struct down segregation in businesses open to public.  The blacks can go to some other motel, restaurant, or store.
Click to expand...







How about asking the even bigger question.  Why should anyone be required to get a license from the government to marry?  That to me is the ultimate question.  How the hell did we the people ever allow the government to become involved in that?


----------



## frigidweirdo

westwall said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> This Clerk is not keeping gays from getting married.  They can find any one of many other Clerks that will sign the licenses.  Their purpose here is *make her* sign the licenses just to say "We won!" again.   That was the sole purpose for pushing for the redefinition of the word 'marriage'.
> 
> Insecure fucking idiots!
> 
> 
> 
> Why should a gay couple have to go to another county for a marriage license if gay marriage has been declared legal throughout the country by the courts?  Your argument is  same one used when the courts struct down segregation in businesses open to public.  The blacks can go to some other motel, restaurant, or store.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about asking the even bigger question.  Why should anyone be required to get a license from the government to marry?  That to me is the ultimate question.  How the hell did we the people ever allow the government to become involved in that?
Click to expand...


Maybe to get the government benefits of being married.


----------



## TheOldSchool

BluePhantom said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be her dream come true.  She will start a gofundme account and gather triple the fine and make a profit from it
Click to expand...

GoFundMe stated a long time ago they wouldn't allow fundraisers for criminals.

But that said, if religious nutters want to fund the state's budget while this dumb broad is in jail then I have no problem with that.


----------



## westwall

frigidweirdo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> This Clerk is not keeping gays from getting married.  They can find any one of many other Clerks that will sign the licenses.  Their purpose here is *make her* sign the licenses just to say "We won!" again.   That was the sole purpose for pushing for the redefinition of the word 'marriage'.
> 
> Insecure fucking idiots!
> 
> 
> 
> Why should a gay couple have to go to another county for a marriage license if gay marriage has been declared legal throughout the country by the courts?  Your argument is  same one used when the courts struct down segregation in businesses open to public.  The blacks can go to some other motel, restaurant, or store.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about asking the even bigger question.  Why should anyone be required to get a license from the government to marry?  That to me is the ultimate question.  How the hell did we the people ever allow the government to become involved in that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe to get the government benefits of being married.
Click to expand...









Licenses to marry are like being forced to get a license for a dog.  They make no sense.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

WESTWALL SAID: 

'Why should anyone be required to get a license from the government to marry?"

Because marriage is contract law, written by the states and administered by state courts – the license indicates the couple is eligible to enter into the marriage contract, a contract in which the state also participates, where the license documents that binding agreement.

Issues such as legal separation, divorce, marital assets, child custody, and child support are resolved in the context of marriage and family civil law; marriage cannot be made 'separate' from government because the state writes the law that makes the marriage contract legal and enforceable.


----------



## RodISHI

westwall said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The homos went to the baker, it's also known some of these cases are setups. I don't care if they get pretend married, have at it, I've always said that. With that said I don't have to accept it as normal and I won't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they refused to BAKE A FUCKING CAKE!  The "homo's" weren't telling them to bend over!  They were trying to pay them money to bake a cake!  And you can't see the ridiculousness of this situation?
> 
> They weren't telling the bakers "you have to be gay to bake my cake!"   I do think that the State of Oregon has gone totally batshit crazy in the punishment they have handed out, that is the very definition of "cruel and unusual punishment".  But how in the hell a person can think that baking a cake is somehow violating their religious principles is beyond me.
> 
> That is a level of batshit crazy that I will never understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you do not see how ridiculous it is for a private business enterprise to be put out of business when they refuse to be a part of sanctifying such an arrangement; with something they totally disagree with according to their religious faith? Hell they could bake their own fucking cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already said I thought the punishment to be ridiculous.  Are you blind?  However you still haven't been able to tell me how baking a cake for a gay wedding, affects the baker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I did.
> 
> But I will go even a lil further for you westwall. A small privately held Christian business owner providing personal services has the right to not go along. The same sex couple can bake their own cake or hit a corporation to get their cake or go start their own little cake business. If one of these same sex couples asked me to paint a painting or provide a sculpture for them and I said no I'm not interested in doing such for you should they have the right to sue me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they shouldn't.  I don't believe that government should be able to compel anyone to do anything.  However, the clerk is a government official which means she is OBLIGATED to follow the laws of the land.  To do otherwise, IS tyranny.
Click to expand...

The supreme court made up their rulings after she was already elected to that position by the people of that county. It is not like she took the job prior to the latest decisions. Her objection is that it is her name on that document that she is unwilling to issue. If it were my name I may very well do the same.


----------



## westwall

RodISHI said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they refused to BAKE A FUCKING CAKE!  The "homo's" weren't telling them to bend over!  They were trying to pay them money to bake a cake!  And you can't see the ridiculousness of this situation?
> 
> They weren't telling the bakers "you have to be gay to bake my cake!"   I do think that the State of Oregon has gone totally batshit crazy in the punishment they have handed out, that is the very definition of "cruel and unusual punishment".  But how in the hell a person can think that baking a cake is somehow violating their religious principles is beyond me.
> 
> That is a level of batshit crazy that I will never understand.
> 
> 
> 
> And you do not see how ridiculous it is for a private business enterprise to be put out of business when they refuse to be a part of sanctifying such an arrangement; with something they totally disagree with according to their religious faith? Hell they could bake their own fucking cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already said I thought the punishment to be ridiculous.  Are you blind?  However you still haven't been able to tell me how baking a cake for a gay wedding, affects the baker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I did.
> 
> But I will go even a lil further for you westwall. A small privately held Christian business owner providing personal services has the right to not go along. The same sex couple can bake their own cake or hit a corporation to get their cake or go start their own little cake business. If one of these same sex couples asked me to paint a painting or provide a sculpture for them and I said no I'm not interested in doing such for you should they have the right to sue me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they shouldn't.  I don't believe that government should be able to compel anyone to do anything.  However, the clerk is a government official which means she is OBLIGATED to follow the laws of the land.  To do otherwise, IS tyranny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The supreme court made up their rulings after she was already elected to that position by the people of that county. It is not like she took the job prior to the latest decisions. Her objection is that it is her name on that document that she is unwilling to issue. If it were my name I may very well do the same.
Click to expand...







That doesn't make a bit of difference.  Ex Post Facto laws are only applicable to criminal cases and anything that will cost a person money to comply with the new law.  The PEOPLE are grandfathered.....NOT the government.  She is a part of the government.  If she feels this strongly her only option is to resign her position as a protest.  Happens all the time.


----------



## BlindBoo

Darkwind said:


> It is NOT being imposed on anyone..



She said she was acting on Gods authority.


----------



## Asclepias

westwall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> This Clerk is not keeping gays from getting married.  They can find any one of many other Clerks that will sign the licenses.  Their purpose here is *make her* sign the licenses just to say "We won!" again.   That was the sole purpose for pushing for the redefinition of the word 'marriage'.
> 
> Insecure fucking idiots!
> 
> 
> 
> Why should a gay couple have to go to another county for a marriage license if gay marriage has been declared legal throughout the country by the courts?  Your argument is  same one used when the courts struct down segregation in businesses open to public.  The blacks can go to some other motel, restaurant, or store.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about asking the even bigger question.  Why should anyone be required to get a license from the government to marry?  That to me is the ultimate question.  How the hell did we the people ever allow the government to become involved in that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe to get the government benefits of being married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Licenses to marry are like being forced to get a license for a dog.  They make no sense.
Click to expand...

Neither do cell phones but most people have their exterior tracking chip and they actually pay for them.


----------



## frigidweirdo

westwall said:


> Licenses to marry are like being forced to get a license for a dog.  They make no sense.



Well marriage doesn't make sense either. Why do people feel the need to marry? Often people see it as security, false security. Seeing as 40% of first marriages end in divorce, a marriage doesn't offer anything. Doesn't stop cheating, doesn't stop problems, often causes problems. 

I've been in relationships where the person suddenly gets complacent and then it goes downhill from there. 

I've known someone whose parents never got married and they're still together 30 years later.

Marriage doesn't do anything except for give legal guarantees, like with inheritance and tax breaks and so on.

There was a gay couple, one guy adopted the other one so they could get most of this legal stuff. Then they had to unadopt so they could get married now that gay marriage is legal. It wasn't the marriage that was important, it was the being together. 

The license is merely a way of giving many people what they seek from marriage. The feeling of security, the ritual, the telling everyone how much they love each other, the looking like a princess, the same surname (in various Western cultures) and so on.


----------



## David_42

Why are right wingers so scared of sodomy? Missionary gets boring after awhile, and dat ass is available


----------



## BlindBoo

SassyIrishLass said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those supporting religious freedom are the sane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the freedom to believe in what ever mythology suits you.  Just stop imposing those superstitious beliefs on the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God laughs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah but He will get pissed and then it gets ugly, really ugly
Click to expand...


Nah, She doesn't get pissed.


----------



## Debra K

Odium said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> i find it funny that the op believes tyranny is jailing a public servant for contempt but that same public servant unilaterally denying services to citizens she disagrees with is not tyrannical.
> 
> 
> 
> The tyrant is trampling on her first amendment rights. Plain and simple. If he dislikes her choices so much why has the Kentucky Legislature in 3 months not impeached and removed her? Hmmmm?
Click to expand...


Odium:  The state legislature is not in session.  It does not convene until January.


----------



## westwall

frigidweirdo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Licenses to marry are like being forced to get a license for a dog.  They make no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well marriage doesn't make sense either. Why do people feel the need to marry? Often people see it as security, false security. Seeing as 40% of first marriages end in divorce, a marriage doesn't offer anything. Doesn't stop cheating, doesn't stop problems, often causes problems.
> 
> I've been in relationships where the person suddenly gets complacent and then it goes downhill from there.
> 
> I've known someone whose parents never got married and they're still together 30 years later.
> 
> Marriage doesn't do anything except for give legal guarantees, like with inheritance and tax breaks and so on.
> 
> There was a gay couple, one guy adopted the other one so they could get most of this legal stuff. Then they had to unadopt so they could get married now that gay marriage is legal. It wasn't the marriage that was important, it was the being together.
> 
> The license is merely a way of giving many people what they seek from marriage. The feeling of security, the ritual, the telling everyone how much they love each other, the looking like a princess, the same surname (in various Western cultures) and so on.
Click to expand...






What do you care?  If it doesn't affect you your opinion truly doesn't matter now does it?


----------



## frigidweirdo

westwall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Licenses to marry are like being forced to get a license for a dog.  They make no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well marriage doesn't make sense either. Why do people feel the need to marry? Often people see it as security, false security. Seeing as 40% of first marriages end in divorce, a marriage doesn't offer anything. Doesn't stop cheating, doesn't stop problems, often causes problems.
> 
> I've been in relationships where the person suddenly gets complacent and then it goes downhill from there.
> 
> I've known someone whose parents never got married and they're still together 30 years later.
> 
> Marriage doesn't do anything except for give legal guarantees, like with inheritance and tax breaks and so on.
> 
> There was a gay couple, one guy adopted the other one so they could get most of this legal stuff. Then they had to unadopt so they could get married now that gay marriage is legal. It wasn't the marriage that was important, it was the being together.
> 
> The license is merely a way of giving many people what they seek from marriage. The feeling of security, the ritual, the telling everyone how much they love each other, the looking like a princess, the same surname (in various Western cultures) and so on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you care?  If it doesn't affect you your opinion truly doesn't matter now does it?
Click to expand...


You're a mod and senior staff member on a message board, and you're opinion is that if it doesn't affect you then your opinion doesn't matter.

So, if I talk about WW2 with you, then our opinions don't matter because WW2 is history, and doesn't affect us at all anyway. Same goes with anything in the past that has no relation with the future.

Which then makes such a message board almost meaningless, which means only trolls would be on here, well, that's pretty close to the mark already.

But I'm still not sure why you think it doesn't affect me. It does. So.....


----------



## aris2chat

frigidweirdo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Licenses to marry are like being forced to get a license for a dog.  They make no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well marriage doesn't make sense either. Why do people feel the need to marry? Often people see it as security, false security. Seeing as 40% of first marriages end in divorce, a marriage doesn't offer anything. Doesn't stop cheating, doesn't stop problems, often causes problems.
> 
> I've been in relationships where the person suddenly gets complacent and then it goes downhill from there.
> 
> I've known someone whose parents never got married and they're still together 30 years later.
> 
> Marriage doesn't do anything except for give legal guarantees, like with inheritance and tax breaks and so on.
> 
> There was a gay couple, one guy adopted the other one so they could get most of this legal stuff. Then they had to unadopt so they could get married now that gay marriage is legal. It wasn't the marriage that was important, it was the being together.
> 
> The license is merely a way of giving many people what they seek from marriage. The feeling of security, the ritual, the telling everyone how much they love each other, the looking like a princess, the same surname (in various Western cultures) and so on.
Click to expand...


It is legal agreement and licenses are issued by the state.  A person's religion has nothing to do with it.

The clerk should have followed the law.  She is not being asked to perform the marriage ceremony in her church.

Her job required her to issue the license without prejudice under the law of the US.

Now she will spend an undetermined time in jail, and possibly her son will soon be there as well.


----------



## HUGGY

*Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court*


----------



## barry1960

aris2chat said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Licenses to marry are like being forced to get a license for a dog.  They make no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well marriage doesn't make sense either. Why do people feel the need to marry? Often people see it as security, false security. Seeing as 40% of first marriages end in divorce, a marriage doesn't offer anything. Doesn't stop cheating, doesn't stop problems, often causes problems.
> 
> I've been in relationships where the person suddenly gets complacent and then it goes downhill from there.
> 
> I've known someone whose parents never got married and they're still together 30 years later.
> 
> Marriage doesn't do anything except for give legal guarantees, like with inheritance and tax breaks and so on.
> 
> There was a gay couple, one guy adopted the other one so they could get most of this legal stuff. Then they had to unadopt so they could get married now that gay marriage is legal. It wasn't the marriage that was important, it was the being together.
> 
> The license is merely a way of giving many people what they seek from marriage. The feeling of security, the ritual, the telling everyone how much they love each other, the looking like a princess, the same surname (in various Western cultures) and so on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is legal agreement and licenses are issued by the state.  A person's religion has nothing to do with it.
> 
> The clerk should have followed the law.  She is not being asked to perform the marriage ceremony in her church.
> 
> Her job required her to issue the license without prejudice under the law of the US.
> 
> Now she will spend an undetermined time in jail, and possibly her son will soon be there as well.
Click to expand...


----------



## Bonzi

mudwhistle said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given your posting history, you're in no position to refer to anything as 'stupid.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah? I don't give a rat's ass. How's that? Now go bother someone else, tool. You're a nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee, maybe if you learned to drop your anger.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that once one has the upper hand, how they handle it is an indication of their true character.
> 
> So please, continue trying to crush these God fearing Christians like a jack-booted thug.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not letting christians dictate how to enforce or not enforce our nation's laws is fighting christian sharia.  You support christian sharia.....oh, and in case you forgot the definition..._.it is wanting to run our country thru YOUR interpretation of what YOUR god wants, not the U.S. Constitution._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said.....Obama picks and chooses which laws he wants to obey or enforce.....so we can't blame others for doing the same exact thing.
> 
> You want everyone to obey the letter of the law......except when you think the law is bullshit.
> 
> So deal with it.
Click to expand...


----------



## Bonzi

Talked to hubby about this last night, he said she needs to stop, she's giving Christians a bad name....


----------



## Bonzi

bodecea said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> He or she whatever the case may be is a liar Bonzi. Sodomy is not mention as a protected act in the Bill of Rights or Constitution. Judges do not make law legislators voted into office by the people do that.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is any kind of sex.  But it IS fascinating that you want to stick your nose, so to speak, in the sex lives of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sticking my nose into your sex life. Do your thing if you choose just don't expect me to agree with it when yo put it out into the public view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You go on about sodomy not being legal or in the Constitution.  Ok, how do you enforce any law against sodomy then?   And I've a ton more hetero sex out in public view than any gay sex.  Half the commercials on tv are based on the premise that sex sells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 16" double headed dildo for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn!   What is it with you guys thinking we need a dick?  even a fake one?
Click to expand...

 
I'm not even gay and will THANK YOU for that!  It gets OLD!!!


----------



## Bonzi

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> “We should seek a balance between government’s responsibility to abide by the laws of our republic and allowing people to stand by their religious convictions,” Mr. Rubio said in a statement to The New York Times, his first public remarks on the case.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...government-should-respect-kim-daviss-beliefs/
> 
> 
> 
> At least Rubio and other conservatives are consistent in their ignorance of the law.
> 
> Again, the arrest had nothing to do with Davis' faith, it had to do with her refusal to obey a lawful court order.
> 
> Davis could have simply had her staff issue the licenses, relieving her of any 'religious conflict.'
> 
> That many on the reprehensible right such as Cruz and Rubio are attempting to contrive a 'controversy' where none exists for some perceived political gain also comes as no surprise.
Click to expand...

 
Not sure/don't think Trump or Carson have weighed in on this ? - steering clear...?


----------



## barry1960

I think that this is an interesting problem for which there is a solution. First, gays are allowed to marry so the state should sanction it. That includes this county. My guess is that homosexuals are flocking to this county to force the issue. Davis attorney suggested a reasonable compromise. Strike the clerk's name from the certificate and process the marriage license. Davis conscience is clear and gays get married. Seems reasonable since her taking office pre-dates the SCOTUS decision. No need to fill our jails with a non-criminals. There is better use of tax payer money. No need to jail her unless the motivation was persecution. Judge spoke as much when he stated she would be jailed until she changed her conviction. I understand gays right to marry in this country on the basis of the supreme court decision. However I see a progression. First the enforcement of gay marriage on government officials. Second, the enforcement of providing wedding related services to homosexuals such as baking cakes etc. Finally, attempting to force Christian churches to marriage homosexuals despite their religious convictions and then a limitation on free speech for those churches that would label homosexuality a sin. Strangely Islamic churches will be exempt from such. No doubt that the gay community has an agenda that they will push and the religious convictions of Christians will be steamrolled. A balance should be struck between homosexual rights and first amendment rights. Funny how a court clerk who refuse to discharge a part of her duties is jailed, but a mayor of a sanctuary city can refuse to enforce immigration law. I have mixed feeling on immigration, but the inconsistency is clear.


----------



## westwall

frigidweirdo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Licenses to marry are like being forced to get a license for a dog.  They make no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well marriage doesn't make sense either. Why do people feel the need to marry? Often people see it as security, false security. Seeing as 40% of first marriages end in divorce, a marriage doesn't offer anything. Doesn't stop cheating, doesn't stop problems, often causes problems.
> 
> I've been in relationships where the person suddenly gets complacent and then it goes downhill from there.
> 
> I've known someone whose parents never got married and they're still together 30 years later.
> 
> Marriage doesn't do anything except for give legal guarantees, like with inheritance and tax breaks and so on.
> 
> There was a gay couple, one guy adopted the other one so they could get most of this legal stuff. Then they had to unadopt so they could get married now that gay marriage is legal. It wasn't the marriage that was important, it was the being together.
> 
> The license is merely a way of giving many people what they seek from marriage. The feeling of security, the ritual, the telling everyone how much they love each other, the looking like a princess, the same surname (in various Western cultures) and so on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you care?  If it doesn't affect you your opinion truly doesn't matter now does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a mod and senior staff member on a message board, and you're opinion is that if it doesn't affect you then your opinion doesn't matter.
> 
> So, if I talk about WW2 with you, then our opinions don't matter because WW2 is history, and doesn't affect us at all anyway. Same goes with anything in the past that has no relation with the future.
> 
> Which then makes such a message board almost meaningless, which means only trolls would be on here, well, that's pretty close to the mark already.
> 
> But I'm still not sure why you think it doesn't affect me. It does. So.....
Click to expand...






No, we're talking about laws and personal relations that are occurring NOW.  Thus your opinion doesn't matter how they choose to lead THEIR lives.

And who are you calling OLD junior!


----------



## frigidweirdo

westwall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Licenses to marry are like being forced to get a license for a dog.  They make no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well marriage doesn't make sense either. Why do people feel the need to marry? Often people see it as security, false security. Seeing as 40% of first marriages end in divorce, a marriage doesn't offer anything. Doesn't stop cheating, doesn't stop problems, often causes problems.
> 
> I've been in relationships where the person suddenly gets complacent and then it goes downhill from there.
> 
> I've known someone whose parents never got married and they're still together 30 years later.
> 
> Marriage doesn't do anything except for give legal guarantees, like with inheritance and tax breaks and so on.
> 
> There was a gay couple, one guy adopted the other one so they could get most of this legal stuff. Then they had to unadopt so they could get married now that gay marriage is legal. It wasn't the marriage that was important, it was the being together.
> 
> The license is merely a way of giving many people what they seek from marriage. The feeling of security, the ritual, the telling everyone how much they love each other, the looking like a princess, the same surname (in various Western cultures) and so on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you care?  If it doesn't affect you your opinion truly doesn't matter now does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a mod and senior staff member on a message board, and you're opinion is that if it doesn't affect you then your opinion doesn't matter.
> 
> So, if I talk about WW2 with you, then our opinions don't matter because WW2 is history, and doesn't affect us at all anyway. Same goes with anything in the past that has no relation with the future.
> 
> Which then makes such a message board almost meaningless, which means only trolls would be on here, well, that's pretty close to the mark already.
> 
> But I'm still not sure why you think it doesn't affect me. It does. So.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we're talking about laws and personal relations that are occurring NOW.  Thus your opinion doesn't matter how they choose to lead THEIR lives.
> 
> And who are you calling OLD junior!
Click to expand...


Well it does matter, society is based on morals, and morals are, or at least were, protected by people talking. Things have changed, but still...... People can do what they like, they can choose to think how they like, and I can say what I like and they can choose to read what I write and they can choose to ignore it or not.


----------



## BULLDOG

barry1960 said:


> I think that this is an interesting problem for which there is a solution. First, gays are allowed to marry so the state should sanction it. That includes this county. My guess is that homosexuals are flocking to this county to force the issue. Davis attorney suggested a reasonable compromise. Strike the clerk's name from the certificate and process the marriage license. Davis conscience is clear and gays get married. Seems reasonable since her taking office pre-dates the SCOTUS decision. No need to fill our jails with a non-criminals. There is better use of tax payer money. No need to jail her unless the motivation was persecution. Judge spoke as much when he stated she would be jailed until she changed her conviction. I understand gays right to marry in this country on the basis of the supreme court decision. However I see a progression. First the enforcement of gay marriage on government officials. Second, the enforcement of providing wedding related services to homosexuals such as baking cakes etc. Finally, attempting to force Christian churches to marriage homosexuals despite their religious convictions and then a limitation on free speech for those churches that would label homosexuality a sin. Strangely Islamic churches will be exempt from such. No doubt that the gay community has an agenda that they will push and the religious convictions of Christians will be steamrolled. A balance should be struck between homosexual rights and first amendment rights. Funny how a court clerk who refuse to discharge a part of her duties is jailed, but a mayor of a sanctuary city can refuse to enforce immigration law. I have mixed feeling on immigration, but the inconsistency is clear.




Churches have and still do deny performing marriages to strait couples for a wide variety of reasons. There has never been a single effort to sue a church to perform a marriage that it didn't want to perform. Your claim that that will change is just fear mongering, and you know it.


----------



## Bonzi

BULLDOG said:


> barry1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that this is an interesting problem for which there is a solution. First, gays are allowed to marry so the state should sanction it. That includes this county. My guess is that homosexuals are flocking to this county to force the issue. Davis attorney suggested a reasonable compromise. Strike the clerk's name from the certificate and process the marriage license. Davis conscience is clear and gays get married. Seems reasonable since her taking office pre-dates the SCOTUS decision. No need to fill our jails with a non-criminals. There is better use of tax payer money. No need to jail her unless the motivation was persecution. Judge spoke as much when he stated she would be jailed until she changed her conviction. I understand gays right to marry in this country on the basis of the supreme court decision. However I see a progression. First the enforcement of gay marriage on government officials. Second, the enforcement of providing wedding related services to homosexuals such as baking cakes etc. Finally, attempting to force Christian churches to marriage homosexuals despite their religious convictions and then a limitation on free speech for those churches that would label homosexuality a sin. Strangely Islamic churches will be exempt from such. No doubt that the gay community has an agenda that they will push and the religious convictions of Christians will be steamrolled. A balance should be struck between homosexual rights and first amendment rights. Funny how a court clerk who refuse to discharge a part of her duties is jailed, but a mayor of a sanctuary city can refuse to enforce immigration law. I have mixed feeling on immigration, but the inconsistency is clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches have and still do deny performing marriages to strait couples for a wide variety of reasons. There has never been a single effort to sue a church to perform a marriage that it didn't want to perform. Your claim that that will change is just fear mongering, and you know it.
Click to expand...

 
Hubby and I had a few churches turn us down, because he has been married twice before.
I didn't feel discriminated against.
Why would you want someone to marry you that didn't want to?
On the same line, I could never understand people wanting spouses or lovers back that don't want them...?
I wish someone could explain THAT to me!


----------



## TemplarKormac

Let's put this in terms everyone can understand.

Kim Davis has all rights to believe what she wants to believe. But she cannot "exercise" her religion as an employee of the Government of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, it is unconstitutional! FACT.

The Constitution forbids government from endorsing religion or engaging in any behavior that does so. When you do what Kim Davis has done, you have breached the Constitution. What I see people doing is clinging  onto one part of the First Amendment while ignoring the other. "Government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." FACT.

The Government also has rights under the constitution. You cannot make government endorse religious beliefs. It has a constitutional right not to endorse religion in its administration, and is obligated not to. FACT. 

When you swear an oath of office which involves doing so impartially, you must do so impartially. If you have been elected to office, you have been elected by and on the good faith of your constituents. When you violate that good faith, when you stop fulfilling your duties for which you have been elected, you breach the oath you swore to them to uphold the law and that office. FACT.

By all merit, Kim Davis not allowing her deputies to issue licenses was her imposing her religious beliefs on her deputies, which is unconstitutional and a breach of oath. FACT.

The law (Section 228 of the Kentucky Constitution) that Davis was sworn to obey was not crafted with any caveats, it was crafted to ensure obedience. She broke that law. FACT. 

There is no law which says anyone has a right to marry, but there are laws forbidding government from endorsing the marital practices of one religion over others. FACT.

The 14th Amendment comes into play here. You cannot make laws which benefit one group while disparaging another. People born and naturalized in the United States shall be subject to its jurisdiction and that of the states wherein they reside. When you deny licenses to gay couples you violate the 14th Amendment. In general if you deny straight couples licenses, you are doing likewise. FACT.


----------



## Bonzi

This reminds me of the "wedding cake" controversy in a way.
People can and do break the law.
If they do it knowingly, the have the RIGHT (yes, the RIGHT) to do it if they are willing to do the TIME - take the punishment that goes along with it.

We are not puppets.


----------



## BULLDOG

Bonzi said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> barry1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that this is an interesting problem for which there is a solution. First, gays are allowed to marry so the state should sanction it. That includes this county. My guess is that homosexuals are flocking to this county to force the issue. Davis attorney suggested a reasonable compromise. Strike the clerk's name from the certificate and process the marriage license. Davis conscience is clear and gays get married. Seems reasonable since her taking office pre-dates the SCOTUS decision. No need to fill our jails with a non-criminals. There is better use of tax payer money. No need to jail her unless the motivation was persecution. Judge spoke as much when he stated she would be jailed until she changed her conviction. I understand gays right to marry in this country on the basis of the supreme court decision. However I see a progression. First the enforcement of gay marriage on government officials. Second, the enforcement of providing wedding related services to homosexuals such as baking cakes etc. Finally, attempting to force Christian churches to marriage homosexuals despite their religious convictions and then a limitation on free speech for those churches that would label homosexuality a sin. Strangely Islamic churches will be exempt from such. No doubt that the gay community has an agenda that they will push and the religious convictions of Christians will be steamrolled. A balance should be struck between homosexual rights and first amendment rights. Funny how a court clerk who refuse to discharge a part of her duties is jailed, but a mayor of a sanctuary city can refuse to enforce immigration law. I have mixed feeling on immigration, but the inconsistency is clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches have and still do deny performing marriages to strait couples for a wide variety of reasons. There has never been a single effort to sue a church to perform a marriage that it didn't want to perform. Your claim that that will change is just fear mongering, and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hubby and I had a few churches turn us down, because he has been married twice before.
> I didn't feel discriminated against.
> Why would you want someone to marry you that didn't want to?
> On the same line, I could never understand people wanting spouses or lovers back that don't want them...?
> I wish someone could explain THAT to me!
Click to expand...



Lots of possible reasons. The fear of being alone is greater than the humiliation of being with someone who just doesn't like you. The hope that just one great night will make everything good again. Or some are just too crazy to move on.


----------



## Bonzi

BULLDOG said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> barry1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that this is an interesting problem for which there is a solution. First, gays are allowed to marry so the state should sanction it. That includes this county. My guess is that homosexuals are flocking to this county to force the issue. Davis attorney suggested a reasonable compromise. Strike the clerk's name from the certificate and process the marriage license. Davis conscience is clear and gays get married. Seems reasonable since her taking office pre-dates the SCOTUS decision. No need to fill our jails with a non-criminals. There is better use of tax payer money. No need to jail her unless the motivation was persecution. Judge spoke as much when he stated she would be jailed until she changed her conviction. I understand gays right to marry in this country on the basis of the supreme court decision. However I see a progression. First the enforcement of gay marriage on government officials. Second, the enforcement of providing wedding related services to homosexuals such as baking cakes etc. Finally, attempting to force Christian churches to marriage homosexuals despite their religious convictions and then a limitation on free speech for those churches that would label homosexuality a sin. Strangely Islamic churches will be exempt from such. No doubt that the gay community has an agenda that they will push and the religious convictions of Christians will be steamrolled. A balance should be struck between homosexual rights and first amendment rights. Funny how a court clerk who refuse to discharge a part of her duties is jailed, but a mayor of a sanctuary city can refuse to enforce immigration law. I have mixed feeling on immigration, but the inconsistency is clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches have and still do deny performing marriages to strait couples for a wide variety of reasons. There has never been a single effort to sue a church to perform a marriage that it didn't want to perform. Your claim that that will change is just fear mongering, and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hubby and I had a few churches turn us down, because he has been married twice before.
> I didn't feel discriminated against.
> Why would you want someone to marry you that didn't want to?
> On the same line, I could never understand people wanting spouses or lovers back that don't want them...?
> I wish someone could explain THAT to me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of possible reasons. The fear of being alone is greater than the humiliation of being with someone who just doesn't like you. The hope that just one great night will make everything good again. Or some are just too crazy to move on.
Click to expand...

 
I guess that's why I don't get it because I have NO problem being alone.... just hard to fathom someone staying with me knowing they are miserable.  Kinda selfish, no?


----------



## BULLDOG

Bonzi said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> barry1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that this is an interesting problem for which there is a solution. First, gays are allowed to marry so the state should sanction it. That includes this county. My guess is that homosexuals are flocking to this county to force the issue. Davis attorney suggested a reasonable compromise. Strike the clerk's name from the certificate and process the marriage license. Davis conscience is clear and gays get married. Seems reasonable since her taking office pre-dates the SCOTUS decision. No need to fill our jails with a non-criminals. There is better use of tax payer money. No need to jail her unless the motivation was persecution. Judge spoke as much when he stated she would be jailed until she changed her conviction. I understand gays right to marry in this country on the basis of the supreme court decision. However I see a progression. First the enforcement of gay marriage on government officials. Second, the enforcement of providing wedding related services to homosexuals such as baking cakes etc. Finally, attempting to force Christian churches to marriage homosexuals despite their religious convictions and then a limitation on free speech for those churches that would label homosexuality a sin. Strangely Islamic churches will be exempt from such. No doubt that the gay community has an agenda that they will push and the religious convictions of Christians will be steamrolled. A balance should be struck between homosexual rights and first amendment rights. Funny how a court clerk who refuse to discharge a part of her duties is jailed, but a mayor of a sanctuary city can refuse to enforce immigration law. I have mixed feeling on immigration, but the inconsistency is clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches have and still do deny performing marriages to strait couples for a wide variety of reasons. There has never been a single effort to sue a church to perform a marriage that it didn't want to perform. Your claim that that will change is just fear mongering, and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hubby and I had a few churches turn us down, because he has been married twice before.
> I didn't feel discriminated against.
> Why would you want someone to marry you that didn't want to?
> On the same line, I could never understand people wanting spouses or lovers back that don't want them...?
> I wish someone could explain THAT to me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of possible reasons. The fear of being alone is greater than the humiliation of being with someone who just doesn't like you. The hope that just one great night will make everything good again. Or some are just too crazy to move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess that's why I don't get it because I have NO problem being alone.... just hard to fathom someone staying with me knowing they are miserable.  Kinda selfish, no?
Click to expand...



I guess, but I prefer to think of it as desperately confused about what the sane course might be.


----------



## EriktheRed

Kondor3 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The Will of the People would appear to support same sex marriage: Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage
> 
> Methinks that the "people's representatives" might want to get in touch with "the people".
> 
> 
> 
> Scenario:
> 
> 1. the recent SCOTUS ruling is reversed
> 
> 2. States begin to pass Defense of Marriage -type referenda and statute once again.
> 
> 3. this time, those referenda and statute _withstand_ judicial scrutiny, with a more tradition-sympathetic court
> 
> =======================================
> 
> People were dead-set against homosexual marriage for a very long time, until very, very recently, according to various polls.
> 
> People began to give-up on defending the sanctity of marriage, as it became increasingly clear, that their own government was out to torpedo it.
> 
> Latter-day polls reflect this giving-up, if-you-can't-fight-'em-join-'em, taking-the-path-of-least-resistance approach - exhausted after years of fighting the good fight.
> 
> If some backbone were once again injected into this fight, along with some realistic prospect of actually winning, and reversing this perversion, those Polls would change.
> 
> In a heartbeat.
> 
> That is what will be required, in any Next Round of the Battle, in which the country is now engaged.
> 
> And, given that the only polls that truly count, are the ballot box, and given that State after State had formerly passed Defense of Marriage -like referenda or legislation - only to have them struck-down by activist judges...
> 
> The *TRUE* polling track-record (all those referenda and statute) do not support your conclusion, in this regard.
> 
> America needs to find its backbone again, in this matter.
> 
> We may be seeing the opening gambit of just such a thing, this very day.
Click to expand...



Yeah, unskew those polls!


----------



## Ravi

Muhammed said:


> I would LMAO if the judge got fried by lightning or some other unfortunate accident.


Many of your fellow fundie Muslims would.


----------



## Kondor3

westwall said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I didn't,  MORON!  Pay attention to who you are engaging.
> 
> 
> 
> Damned feeble...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, your complete lack of ability to pay attention to who, and what they are saying is feeble indeed.  But, as they say, once you have figured out you have a problem, and admitted it, you are on your way to recovery.  Congratulations, you might figure it out someday.
Click to expand...

Are you done pissing on your own shoe,yet?

Can we get back to the topic at hand?


----------



## AvgGuyIA

TemplarKormac said:


> Let's put this in terms everyone can understand.
> 
> Kim Davis has all rights to believe what she wants to believe. But she cannot "exercise" her religion as an employee of the Government of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, it is unconstitutional! FACT.
> 
> The Constitution forbids government from endorsing religion or engaging in any behavior that does so. When you do what Kim Davis has done, you have breached the Constitution. What I see people doing is clinging  onto one part of the First Amendment while ignoring the other. "Government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." FACT.
> 
> The Government also has rights under the constitution. You cannot make government endorse religious beliefs. It has a constitutional right not to endorse religion in its administration, and is obligated not to. FACT.
> 
> When you swear an oath of office which involves doing so impartially, you must do so impartially. If you have been elected to office, you have been elected by and on the good faith of your constituents. When you violate that good faith, when you stop fulfilling your duties for which you have been elected, you breach the oath you swore to them to uphold the law and that office. FACT.
> 
> By all merit, Kim Davis not allowing her deputies to issue licenses was her imposing her religious beliefs on her deputies, which is unconstitutional and a breach of oath. FACT.
> 
> The law (Section 228 of the Kentucky Constitution) that Davis was sworn to obey was not crafted with any caveats, it was crafted to ensure obedience. She broke that law. FACT.
> 
> There is no law which says anyone has a right to marry, but there are laws forbidding government from endorsing the marital practices of one religion over others. FACT.
> 
> The 14th Amendment comes into play here. You cannot make laws which benefit one group while disparaging another. People born and naturalized in the United States shall be subject to its jurisdiction and that of the states wherein they reside. When you deny licenses to gay couples you violate the 14th Amendment. In general if you deny straight couples licenses, you are doing likewise. FACT.


Translation:  A man can now walk into a County Clerk's office and demand a marriage license for him and his goat.   PETA says animals have rights too.  And you know we all have to bow down to whatever a liberal group wants.  This slippery slope never ends.


----------



## Kondor3

EriktheRed said:


> ...Yeah, unskew those polls!


Oh, I have no doubt that the polls du jour are reasonably accurate.

It's just that we're dealing with a population that overwhelmingly voted for Defense of Marriage -type referenda and statute, no more than a few years ago.

And, having had their Will overridden by activist judges, time and again, people eventually throw up their hands, and give up, being unwilling to invest more emotion in the effort.

This is a state of affairs that the Gay Mafia has long cultivated, a state that provided them the opening they needed to win several recent legal victories, and a state of affairs that they wish to perpetuate ad infinitum, if they can get away with it.

Well, they can't.

The Nation and its People may - or may not - decide to set right this (so far, temporary) abomination, but...

It's entirely possible - even probable, if a more conservative Administration joins a more conservative Congress.

That possibility is one of the reasons why Americans are beginning to look forward to the advent of such an Administration and Congress.

A little arm-twisting of the Supreme Court, inserting a more Conservative justice or two on the bench, a fresh and imaginative approach-vector for the next-round legal assault, a resubmit, and the persistence to see the thing through to its necessary and far happier legal outcome, and righteousness and sanity will once again dominate our public life.

For now, the issue can be put on the back-burner until that new Administration and Congress are sworn-in, so as not to over-excite the Libertines.

Once in power, however, the fun can begin...


----------



## mudwhistle

bodecea said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Woman is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spell "MARTYR"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I can.   If she thinks she's a martyr, I'm sure she gets all tingly about it.....Lester Maddox and George Wallace thought they were martyrs too.
Click to expand...

I know this is way out in left field.....but there are some actual Christians that believe in following their convictions. They aren't all out to get the Gheys or throw black people in jail. If this woman was a Muslim this would never be questioned. But because she's a Christian she has to obey the law from the most corrupt city in our country. (Washington D.C.)


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

TemplarKormac said:


> Let's put this in terms everyone can understand.
> 
> Kim Davis has all rights to believe what she wants to believe. But she cannot "exercise" her religion as an employee of the Government of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, it is unconstitutional! FACT.
> 
> The Constitution forbids government from endorsing religion or engaging in any behavior that does so. When you do what Kim Davis has done, you have breached the Constitution. What I see people doing is clinging  onto one part of the First Amendment while ignoring the other. "Government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." FACT.
> 
> The Government also has rights under the constitution. You cannot make government endorse religious beliefs. It has a constitutional right not to endorse religion in its administration, and is obligated not to. FACT.
> 
> When you swear an oath of office which involves doing so impartially, you must do so impartially. If you have been elected to office, you have been elected by and on the good faith of your constituents. When you violate that good faith, when you stop fulfilling your duties for which you have been elected, you breach the oath you swore to them to uphold the law and that office. FACT.
> 
> By all merit, Kim Davis not allowing her deputies to issue licenses was her imposing her religious beliefs on her deputies, which is unconstitutional and a breach of oath. FACT.
> 
> The law (Section 228 of the Kentucky Constitution) that Davis was sworn to obey was not crafted with any caveats, it was crafted to ensure obedience. She broke that law. FACT.
> 
> There is no law which says anyone has a right to marry, but there are laws forbidding government from endorsing the marital practices of one religion over others. FACT.
> 
> The 14th Amendment comes into play here. You cannot make laws which benefit one group while disparaging another. People born and naturalized in the United States shall be subject to its jurisdiction and that of the states wherein they reside. When you deny licenses to gay couples you violate the 14th Amendment. In general if you deny straight couples licenses, you are doing likewise. FACT.


There are no First or 14th Amendment issues at stake; no government – Federal, state, local – is seeking to disadvantage Davis because of her faith or who she is.

The only Constitutional issue in play is Article VI and its jurisprudence – that's what everyone needs to understand.


----------



## Kondor3

Bonzi said:


> Talked to hubby about this last night, he said she needs to stop, she's giving Christians a bad name....


A Christian that refuses to give-in to Wiickedness and stands-up for Righteousness can never give Christians a bad name. Your husband is wrong. And so are you.


----------



## Kondor3

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's put this in terms everyone can understand.
> 
> Kim Davis has all rights to believe what she wants to believe. But she cannot "exercise" her religion as an employee of the Government of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, it is unconstitutional! FACT.
> 
> The Constitution forbids government from endorsing religion or engaging in any behavior that does so. When you do what Kim Davis has done, you have breached the Constitution. What I see people doing is clinging  onto one part of the First Amendment while ignoring the other. "Government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." FACT.
> 
> The Government also has rights under the constitution. You cannot make government endorse religious beliefs. It has a constitutional right not to endorse religion in its administration, and is obligated not to. FACT.
> 
> When you swear an oath of office which involves doing so impartially, you must do so impartially. If you have been elected to office, you have been elected by and on the good faith of your constituents. When you violate that good faith, when you stop fulfilling your duties for which you have been elected, you breach the oath you swore to them to uphold the law and that office. FACT.
> 
> By all merit, Kim Davis not allowing her deputies to issue licenses was her imposing her religious beliefs on her deputies, which is unconstitutional and a breach of oath. FACT.
> 
> The law (Section 228 of the Kentucky Constitution) that Davis was sworn to obey was not crafted with any caveats, it was crafted to ensure obedience. She broke that law. FACT.
> 
> There is no law which says anyone has a right to marry, but there are laws forbidding government from endorsing the marital practices of one religion over others. FACT.
> 
> The 14th Amendment comes into play here. You cannot make laws which benefit one group while disparaging another. People born and naturalized in the United States shall be subject to its jurisdiction and that of the states wherein they reside. When you deny licenses to gay couples you violate the 14th Amendment. In general if you deny straight couples licenses, you are doing likewise. FACT.
> 
> 
> 
> There are no First or 14th Amendment issues at stake; no government – Federal, state, local – is seeking to disadvantage Davis because of her faith or who she is.
> 
> The only Constitutional issue in play is Article VI and its jurisprudence – that's what everyone needs to understand.
Click to expand...

It's all a matter of spin... the approach-vector... the angle of attack...


----------



## sealybobo

Claudette said:


> Good. Woman is an idiot.


If she just quits this all goes away. She can go back to destroying her 4th marriage.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

BULLDOG said:


> Churches have and still do deny performing marriages to strait couples for a wide variety of reasons. There has never been a single effort to sue a church to perform a marriage that it didn't want to perform. Your claim that that will change is just fear mongering, and you know it.


Slippery slope says it will happen.  Gay agenda has said 14th trumps the 1st amendment and whacko liberal judges will enforce it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Bonzi said:


> This reminds me of the "wedding cake" controversy in a way.
> People can and do break the law.
> If they do it knowingly, the have the RIGHT (yes, the RIGHT) to do it if they are willing to do the TIME - take the punishment that goes along with it.
> 
> We are not puppets.


This has nothing to do with Commerce Clause jurisprudence or public accommodations laws, there is no similarity whatsoever; Davis does not have the 'right' to defy the Constitution, the courts, and the rule of law – whether she's willing to 'take the punishment' or not. 

And it has nothing to do with 'being a puppet' - Davis or anyone else is at liberty to resign.


----------



## DigitalDrifter

Dimocrats should take their elected positions more seriously:



> *She Was Elected To Her Position: *Davis, a Democrat, won a 2014 election for Rowan County clerk handily — 53 percent to 46 percent.



Here's What We Know About The Kentucky Clerk Refusing Marriage Licenses


----------



## AvgGuyIA

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> This reminds me of the "wedding cake" controversy in a way.
> People can and do break the law.
> If they do it knowingly, the have the RIGHT (yes, the RIGHT) to do it if they are willing to do the TIME - take the punishment that goes along with it.
> 
> We are not puppets.
> 
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with Commerce Clause jurisprudence or public accommodations laws, there is no similarity whatsoever; Davis does not have the 'right' to defy the Constitution, the courts, and the rule of law – whether she's willing to 'take the punishment' or not.
> 
> And it has nothing to do with 'being a puppet' - Davis or anyone else is at liberty to resign.
Click to expand...

Do mayors in sanctuary cities have the right by defy immigration laws?  Name one serving jail time.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

KONDOR3 SAID: 

"And, having had their Will overridden by activist judges, time and again, people eventually throw up their hands, and give up, being unwilling to invest more emotion in the effort."

Nonsense.

This has nothing to do with 'activist judges,' the notion is ignorant idiocy.

And if the efforts of those seeking to disadvantage others through force of law are time and again having those laws invalidated by the courts, they need to realize the problem is with them, not the Constitution, its case law, or the courts.


----------



## LittleNipper

g5000 said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is a fucking CLERK!  Part of her fucking JOB is to comply with the laws.  And THAT's the thing she has decided she cannot do?
> 
> Solution to this pressing problem jumps off the page.  Get a different job.
> 
> Instead of jailing her, how about firing her?
> 
> 
> 
> She's an elected official.  She has to be impeached.
Click to expand...

When she was "elected" the laws in effect were DIFFERENT. Now she is expected to abide by a new set of rules that seriously transgress her beliefs.


----------



## mudwhistle

bodecea said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> 
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my yes.  Compare her to Martin Luther King.  This will be wonderful.
Click to expand...

And yet you compare marriage between people of the same sex a civil right situation rivaling slavery.

Personally, I think marriage in the gay community most likely will lead to nasty and expensive divorces in greater numbers than with straights. I'm sure you'll argue that point with me.

Why you have to be married and not just a legal partnership seems confusing to me on some levels.

Now, if you find out you can't get along with your spouse, you have to pay thousands of dollars to ditch them.

The only reason I can figure that you'd want this so bad, is because you feel in some way that it makes it socially acceptable. I guess you'll have to kill off all of the closed-minded Christians and Muslims in the world for that to happen. Include most of the Hispanics in America in that group as well. There goes your chances of winning an election, huh?

But what you have to do to others to get what you want isn't what I would call friendly and accepting.

Somebody disagrees with you and they become targets to what has become essentially domestic political terrorism. Winning hearts and minds, right?


----------



## mudwhistle

sealybobo said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Woman is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> If she just quits this all goes away. She can go back to destroying her 4th marriage.
Click to expand...

But she doesn't have time to destroy her 4th marriage till after she quits.


----------



## mudwhistle

AvgGuyIA said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> This reminds me of the "wedding cake" controversy in a way.
> People can and do break the law.
> If they do it knowingly, the have the RIGHT (yes, the RIGHT) to do it if they are willing to do the TIME - take the punishment that goes along with it.
> 
> We are not puppets.
> 
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with Commerce Clause jurisprudence or public accommodations laws, there is no similarity whatsoever; Davis does not have the 'right' to defy the Constitution, the courts, and the rule of law – whether she's willing to 'take the punishment' or not.
> 
> And it has nothing to do with 'being a puppet' - Davis or anyone else is at liberty to resign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do mayors in sanctuary cities have the right by defy immigration laws?  Name one serving jail time.
Click to expand...

That's different. The left can disobey any laws they feel are prejudice to protected classes.


----------



## WinterBorn

martybegan said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> 
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
Click to expand...


Of course she did.   She knows she will be making some big bank off this fiasco.


----------



## Kondor3

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> KONDOR3 SAID:
> 
> "And, having had their Will overridden by activist judges, time and again, people eventually throw up their hands, and give up, being unwilling to invest more emotion in the effort."
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> This has nothing to do with 'activist judges,' the notion is ignorant idiocy. ...


Thank you for your feedback.



> ...And if the efforts of those seeking to disadvantage others through force of law are time and again having those laws invalidated by the courts, they need to realize the problem is with them, not the Constitution, its case law, or the courts.


The majority of Americans who voted for Defense of Marriage -style referenda and statute in various States in recent years, are merely seeking to suppress sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality) in the public life of the Nation, in order to combat the degeneracy which will set in, if this filth is allowed to fester.


----------



## WinterBorn

martybegan said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, an elected official refusing to do their job is a little problematic...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would really be problematic is her being re-elected after all this.
> 
> What can the feds do then?
Click to expand...


Enforce the law.


----------



## WinterBorn

bodecea said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, an elected official refusing to do their job is a little problematic...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would really be problematic is her being re-elected after all this.
> 
> What can the feds do then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did they do with that State Supreme Court Justice in Alabama?
Click to expand...


Exactly.


----------



## WinterBorn

AvgGuyIA said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...for failure to obey court order of issuing marraige licenses to gay couples.
> 
> News from The Associated Press
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's and the Democrat Party's first political prisoner.  We are no longer free Americans.  The transfer of our rights is now whatever democrats tell us.  The transformation is complete.
Click to expand...


Jeez, spare us the dramatics.   This is not a transformation.   This is a woman who ignored court orders.  That has been illegal far longer than Obama has been in office.


----------



## WinterBorn

Tipsycatlover said:


> The people of this community should punish the ones directly responsible.  The gay couples themselves should get some community involvement.



Oh fuck you.   The gay couple should get some "community involvement"?   Punish the gay couple because this wench CHOSE to ignore and violate the orders of the courts?    Next you will call for stoning adulterers?


----------



## WinterBorn

Tipsycatlover said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people of this community should punish the ones directly responsible.  The gay couples themselves should get some community involvement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. The RW never can seem to round up vigilantes when they really need them.....
> 
> Somebody get Clive Bundy on the phone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Real vigilantes work quite differently.  However, the law has failed.   The only thing left is covert vigilanteism.
Click to expand...


So let me get this straight.   Because the SCOTUS ruled that gays will be allowed to marry, and this woman defied the orders of the courts, you now advocate physical violence against people who have done no one ANY harm??

If you can't see the lunacy in that, you are beyond help.

And, obviously, there will not be "covert vigilanteism" against all gay couples.   So the idea is to hurt some and scare the rest of them into complying?


----------



## Preacher

Debra K said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> i find it funny that the op believes tyranny is jailing a public servant for contempt but that same public servant unilaterally denying services to citizens she disagrees with is not tyrannical.
> 
> 
> 
> The tyrant is trampling on her first amendment rights. Plain and simple. If he dislikes her choices so much why has the Kentucky Legislature in 3 months not impeached and removed her? Hmmmm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odium:  The state legislature is not in session.  It does not convene until January.
Click to expand...

I know this. The only way they can go back into session is for the incompetent governor to ask them to. He refuses even though BOTH heads of the parties want to.


----------



## WinterBorn

Hossfly said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Let's let her go back to work on the condition that God pays her from now on instead of taxpayers.  Think she'd agree to that?  (he-hee-hee)
> 
> I'd back her if she had made that stand and refused her pay based on her religious beliefs.
> 
> Fucking hypocrite.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God should pay her????
> 
> No problem........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After all is said and done, God is on her side, no matter what heathens think or say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if he is then her god is entirely unworthy of praise...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dick sucking and carpet munching is praiseworthy? No thanks.
Click to expand...


I have been praised for my carpet munching skills numerous times.


----------



## WinterBorn

Flopper said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I can.   If she thinks she's a martyr, I'm sure she gets all tingly about it.....Lester Maddox and George Wallace thought they were martyrs too.
> 
> 
> 
> So do all terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh.....So now she's a terrorist.
> 
> Lol.
> 
> Too bad she's a Democrat......not a Republican.
> 
> Then guys would have something to actually bitch about.
> 
> Like I said before.......quit being assholes and go to another county.
> 
> But No!!
> 
> You want to force your sexuality down everyone's throats.
> 
> I learned a long time ago that you get more bees with honey, not with vinegar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her religious views are closer to the terrorists than to the views of the overwhelming majority of the Democrat party.  If she's a Democrat, then she needs to gtfo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound exactly like the Strawman you guys claim is a conservative.
> 
> So you want Democrats you don't agree with to leave. Get the fuck out.
> 
> Lmao!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her failure to issue marriage licenses is based on religious not political grounds.  I think she has made that quite clear.
Click to expand...


And she was ordered by the courts to issue marriage licenses.  Her refusal to do so is contempt of court.

She could have resigned from her position at any time.


----------



## Kondor3

WinterBorn said:


> ...And she was ordered by the courts to issue marriage licenses...


Yes. Ordered by the courts to legitimize and mainstream an unclean, filthy, wicked thing.



> ...Her refusal to do so is contempt of court...


True. Any court that requires a citizen to legitimize and mainstream wickedness (homosexuality) is *worthy* of contempt.



> ...She could have resigned from her position at any time.


True.

She didn't.

She is intentionally sacrificing herself in protest against Runaway Judicial Activism and the recent legal victories of the Gay Mafia.

Gutsy move, Ms. Davis - salude - thank you - and God bless.


----------



## WinterBorn

Kondor3 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...And she was ordered by the courts to issue marriage licenses...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Ordered by the courts to legitimize and mainstream an unclean, filthy, wicked thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Her refusal to do so is contempt of court...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True. Any court that requires a citizen to legitimize and mainstream wickedness (homosexuality) is *worthy* of contempt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...She could have resigned from her position at any time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True.
> 
> She didn't.
> 
> She is intentionally sacrificing herself in protest against Runaway Judicial Activism and the recent legal victories of the Gay Mafia.
> 
> Gutsy move, Ms. Davis - salude - thank you - and God bless.
Click to expand...


All your "unclean, filthy, wicked" nonsense is based on your religious beliefs.  That is not what we base our laws on.  In fact, the US Constitution forbids it.  If we allow your, then we would have to allow the muslims to demand all women wear burkhas.  

Oh, and I truly think this woman is not sacrificing herself for any moral reason.    If a pizza parlor can get $1 million for just SAYING they wouldn't cater a wedding they had never been asked to cater, how much money do you think this woman will get?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Remember when feminist leftists used to say






Odd we aren't hearing that anymore.


----------



## Seawytch

mudwhistle said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given your posting history, you're in no position to refer to anything as 'stupid.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah? I don't give a rat's ass. How's that? Now go bother someone else, tool. You're a nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee, maybe if you learned to drop your anger.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that once one has the upper hand, how they handle it is an indication of their true character.
> 
> So please, continue trying to crush these God fearing Christians like a jack-booted thug.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not letting christians dictate how to enforce or not enforce our nation's laws is fighting christian sharia.  You support christian sharia.....oh, and in case you forgot the definition..._.it is wanting to run our country thru YOUR interpretation of what YOUR god wants, not the U.S. Constitution._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said.....Obama picks and chooses which laws he wants to obey or enforce.....so we can't blame others for doing the same exact thing.
> 
> You want everyone to obey the letter of the law......except when you think the law is bullshit.
> 
> So deal with it.
Click to expand...


If the President had been taken to court, lost, continued to violate the law, lost on appeal, and _*still *_continued to violate the law...you might have a semi valid argument. You don't so you're just whining about the black guy President, in a completely non sequitur rant.


----------



## WorldWatcher

LittleNipper said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is a fucking CLERK!  Part of her fucking JOB is to comply with the laws.  And THAT's the thing she has decided she cannot do?
> 
> Solution to this pressing problem jumps off the page.  Get a different job.
> 
> Instead of jailing her, how about firing her?
> 
> 
> 
> She's an elected official.  She has to be impeached.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When she was "elected" the laws in effect were DIFFERENT. Now she is expected to abide by a new set of rules that seriously transgress her beliefs.
Click to expand...


That is correct.


>>>>


----------



## Seawytch

RodISHI said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL!   They had to go OUT OF THEIR WAY to be affected.   How does a gay couple getting married AFFECT YOU!  How fucking simplistic do I need to get.  Does their getting married tear a hole in the space time continuum and you get sucked into it?
> 
> What possible affect does a gay couple have on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The homos went to the baker, it's also known some of these cases are setups. I don't care if they get pretend married, have at it, I've always said that. With that said I don't have to accept it as normal and I won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they refused to BAKE A FUCKING CAKE!  The "homo's" weren't telling them to bend over!  They were trying to pay them money to bake a cake!  And you can't see the ridiculousness of this situation?
> 
> They weren't telling the bakers "you have to be gay to bake my cake!"   I do think that the State of Oregon has gone totally batshit crazy in the punishment they have handed out, that is the very definition of "cruel and unusual punishment".  But how in the hell a person can think that baking a cake is somehow violating their religious principles is beyond me.
> 
> That is a level of batshit crazy that I will never understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you do not see how ridiculous it is for a private business enterprise to be put out of business when they refuse to be a part of sanctifying such an arrangement; with something they totally disagree with according to their religious faith? Hell they could bake their own fucking cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already said I thought the punishment to be ridiculous.  Are you blind?  However you still haven't been able to tell me how baking a cake for a gay wedding, affects the baker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I did.
> 
> But I will go even a lil further for you westwall. A small privately held Christian business owner providing personal services has the right to not go along. The same sex couple can bake their own cake or hit a corporation to get their cake or go start their own little cake business. If one of these same sex couples asked me to paint a painting or provide a sculpture for them and I said no I'm not interested in doing such for you should they have the right to sue me?
Click to expand...


And in 30 states that little baker isn't required to bake the cake. 

Are you aware that in all 50 states the gay baker cannot refuse to bake a cake for a Christian because they are a Christian?

Work on that law before you go after state laws, eh?


----------



## Kondor3

WinterBorn said:


> ...All your "unclean, filthy, wicked" nonsense...


Not nonsense.

Truth.



> ...is based on your religious beliefs...


Nope.



> ...That is not what we base our laws on...


Horseshit.

Our laws are an amalgamation of ancient Greek, Roman and Western European and English secular and canon law, as evolved over the millennia, and largely secularized.

Our laws reflect Western European culture and tradition and historical moral beliefs with respect to the sanctity of marriage and the abomination known as homosexuality.

We are, in fact, a 'Secularized Christian Country', as evidenced by the manner and tone of our laws, which reflect that historical morality, even though its basis is so far back in time that the Historically Insensitive and Unaware have no clue about its origins and composition.

And, until very recently, laws against homosexual acts and the suppression of such filth in public life was a very real and integral part of the American Conscience.

Until homosexual political activism forced the hand of our Judiciary, to interpret the Constitution in their favor, anyway.



> ...In fact, the US Constitution forbids it...


True, at least to some extent; at least openly.



> ...If we allow your, then we would have to allow the muslims to demand all women wear burkhas...


True.

On paper.

In practice, not really.

This is a Christian -leaning country, not a Muslim one.

If-and-when push-comes-to-shove, we'll simpy be hypocritical and inconsistent and unfair, treating Christian tradition far more favorably than Islamic tradition.

9-11 caused that to be cut into stone, fairness be damned.



> ...Oh, and I truly think this woman is not sacrificing herself for any moral reason...


Yes.

It is obvious that you think that way.

Others (myself included) think differently, and believe you to be wrong.



> ... If a pizza parlor can get $1 million for just SAYING they wouldn't cater a wedding they had never been asked to cater, how much money do you think this woman will get?


Irrelevant and self-serving baseless speculation.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

mudwhistle said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> This reminds me of the "wedding cake" controversy in a way.
> People can and do break the law.
> If they do it knowingly, the have the RIGHT (yes, the RIGHT) to do it if they are willing to do the TIME - take the punishment that goes along with it.
> 
> We are not puppets.
> 
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with Commerce Clause jurisprudence or public accommodations laws, there is no similarity whatsoever; Davis does not have the 'right' to defy the Constitution, the courts, and the rule of law – whether she's willing to 'take the punishment' or not.
> 
> And it has nothing to do with 'being a puppet' - Davis or anyone else is at liberty to resign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do mayors in sanctuary cities have the right by defy immigration laws?  Name one serving jail time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's different. The left can disobey any laws they feel are prejudice to protected classes.
Click to expand...

Hypocritical ain't it?  No liberal will answer why it's okay for mayors to defy immigration laws.  Their argument that Davis defied the law falls on deaf ears.


----------



## bodecea

Kondor3 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...And she was ordered by the courts to issue marriage licenses...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Ordered by the courts to legitimize and mainstream an unclean, filthy, wicked thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Her refusal to do so is contempt of court...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True. Any court that requires a citizen to legitimize and mainstream wickedness (homosexuality) is *worthy* of contempt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...She could have resigned from her position at any time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True.
> 
> She didn't.
> 
> She is intentionally sacrificing herself in protest against Runaway Judicial Activism and the recent legal victories of the Gay Mafia.
> 
> Gutsy move, Ms. Davis - salude - thank you - and God bless.
Click to expand...

Yes...we know you support Christian Sharia.....putting your interpretation of your religion before the U.S. Constitution and our secular laws.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

WinterBorn said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, an elected official refusing to do their job is a little problematic...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would really be problematic is her being re-elected after all this.
> 
> What can the feds do then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enforce the law.
Click to expand...

Enforce immigration law against mayors in sanctuary cities?


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Remember when feminist leftists used to say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odd we aren't hearing that anymore.


Sure we're hearing it.  Maybe you aren't listening.......you're too busy killing neighbors' cats.


----------



## bodecea

AvgGuyIA said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, an elected official refusing to do their job is a little problematic...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would really be problematic is her being re-elected after all this.
> 
> What can the feds do then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enforce the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enforce immigration law against mayors in sanctuary cities?
Click to expand...

Do it then.   Right now, no one is pushing them to comply.  All it takes is a citizen, you?, to force the issue by filling a case for them to follow the federal law.  Get off your ass and do it.


----------



## WinterBorn

AvgGuyIA said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, an elected official refusing to do their job is a little problematic...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would really be problematic is her being re-elected after all this.
> 
> What can the feds do then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enforce the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enforce immigration law against mayors in sanctuary cities?
Click to expand...


I'm all for it.   But your "they do it too!" complaint is ridiculous.


----------



## Bonzi

Running a country by Christian principles doesn't force people to be Christian.. fyi...


----------



## WinterBorn

Bonzi said:


> Running a country by Christian principles doesn't force people to be Christian.. fyi...



No it doesn't.  But trying to violate the law in favor of biblical law is unconstitutional.   And a county clerk does not get to decide such issues.


----------



## Ravi

WinterBorn said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Running a country by Christian principles doesn't force people to be Christian.. fyi...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  But trying to violate the law in favor of biblical law is unconstitutional.   And a county clerk does not get to decide such issues.
Click to expand...

Maybe if it were Sharia law she'd get the concept.


----------



## bodecea

Kondor3 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...All your "unclean, filthy, wicked" nonsense...
> 
> 
> 
> Not nonsense.
> 
> Truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...is based on your religious beliefs...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...That is not what we base our laws on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Horseshit.
> 
> Our laws are an amalgamation of ancient Greek, Roman and Western European and English secular and canon law, as evolved over the millennia, and largely secularized.
> 
> Our laws reflect Western European culture and tradition and historical moral beliefs with respect to the sanctity of marriage and the abomination known as homosexuality.
> 
> We are, in fact, a 'Secularized Christian Country', as evidenced by the manner and tone of our laws, which reflect that historical morality, even though its basis is so far back in time that the Historically Insensitive and Unaware have no clue about its origins and composition.
> 
> And, until very recently, laws against homosexual acts and the suppression of such filth in public life was a very real and integral part of the American Conscience.
> 
> Until homosexual political activism forced the hand of our Judiciary, to interpret the Constitution in their favor, anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...In fact, the US Constitution forbids it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, at least to some extent; at least openly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...If we allow your, then we would have to allow the muslims to demand all women wear burkhas...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True.
> 
> On paper.
> 
> In practice, not really.
> 
> This is a Christian -leaning country, not a Muslim one.
> 
> If-and-when push-comes-to-shove, we'll simpy be hypocritical and inconsistent and unfair, treating Christian tradition far more favorably than Islamic tradition.
> 
> 9-11 caused that to be cut into stone, fairness be damned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Oh, and I truly think this woman is not sacrificing herself for any moral reason...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> It is obvious that you think that way.
> 
> Others (myself included) think differently, and believe you to be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... If a pizza parlor can get $1 million for just SAYING they wouldn't cater a wedding they had never been asked to cater, how much money do you think this woman will get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant and self-serving baseless speculation.
Click to expand...

I see that you continue to advocate for Christian Sharia law to supercede our Constitutional law.


----------



## bodecea

Bonzi said:


> Running a country by Christian principles doesn't force people to be Christian.. fyi...


Let's alter this slightly for you:
"Running a country by Muslim principles doesn't force people to be Muslim...fyi..."

How does that sound to you?


----------



## mudwhistle

WinterBorn said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people of this community should punish the ones directly responsible.  The gay couples themselves should get some community involvement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh fuck you.   The gay couple should get some "community involvement"?   Punish the gay couple because this wench CHOSE to ignore and violate the orders of the courts?    Next you will call for stoning adulterers?
Click to expand...

Nope......that's what Muslims do. Even today. But you on the left think they should have Sharia Law zones in America.

If you knew the scriptures you'd know that Jesus believed in the forgiveness of sin. ....thus so does anyone who believes he is the son of God.


----------



## mudwhistle

WinterBorn said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people of this community should punish the ones directly responsible.  The gay couples themselves should get some community involvement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. The RW never can seem to round up vigilantes when they really need them.....
> 
> Somebody get Clive Bundy on the phone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Real vigilantes work quite differently.  However, the law has failed.   The only thing left is covert vigilanteism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight.   Because the SCOTUS ruled that gays will be allowed to marry, and this woman defied the orders of the courts, you now advocate physical violence against people who have done no one ANY harm??
> 
> If you can't see the lunacy in that, you are beyond help.
> 
> And, obviously, there will not be "covert vigilanteism" against all gay couples.   So the idea is to hurt some and scare the rest of them into complying?
Click to expand...


Yup, instead of going around her.....make an example of her so nobody else dares to question your authority.


----------



## mudwhistle

bodecea said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...And she was ordered by the courts to issue marriage licenses...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Ordered by the courts to legitimize and mainstream an unclean, filthy, wicked thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Her refusal to do so is contempt of court...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True. Any court that requires a citizen to legitimize and mainstream wickedness (homosexuality) is *worthy* of contempt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...She could have resigned from her position at any time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True.
> 
> She didn't.
> 
> She is intentionally sacrificing herself in protest against Runaway Judicial Activism and the recent legal victories of the Gay Mafia.
> 
> Gutsy move, Ms. Davis - salude - thank you - and God bless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...we know you support Christian Sharia.....putting your interpretation of your religion before the U.S. Constitution and our secular laws.
Click to expand...


And we know you support Muslim Sharia.


----------



## ogibillm

AvgGuyIA said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches have and still do deny performing marriages to strait couples for a wide variety of reasons. There has never been a single effort to sue a church to perform a marriage that it didn't want to perform. Your claim that that will change is just fear mongering, and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Slippery slope says it will happen.  Gay agenda has said 14th trumps the 1st amendment and whacko liberal judges will enforce it.
Click to expand...

who has said the 14th amendment trumps the first?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Now she says that she would be ok with her office issuing marriage certificates, if they were to simply take her name off of the certificates. Unfortunately, the county clerk's name must appear on them, according to Kentucky law. My suggestion to her would be to have her name removed from her paychecks, instead.


----------



## Asclepias

ogibillm said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches have and still do deny performing marriages to strait couples for a wide variety of reasons. There has never been a single effort to sue a church to perform a marriage that it didn't want to perform. Your claim that that will change is just fear mongering, and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Slippery slope says it will happen.  Gay agenda has said 14th trumps the 1st amendment and whacko liberal judges will enforce it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who has said the 14th amendment trumps the first?
Click to expand...

He has to pretend someone said that because he is too dumb to realize freedom of speech doesnt mean you dont have to do your job.


----------



## Vandalshandle

This case is not without precedent. A few years ago, a cab driver in Minneapolis refused to pick up a guy at the airport who was carrying a sealed container of alcohol, because the cab driver was a Muslim. The guy took him to court, and the court told the cab driver that he if he holds himself forth as a cab driver, he can not refuse to pick up someone because of religious beliefs.


----------



## Skylar

Vandalshandle said:


> This case is not without precedent. A few years ago, a cab driver in Minneapolis refused to pick up a guy at the airport who was carrying a sealed container of alcohol, because the cab driver was a Muslim. The guy took him to court, and the court told the cab driver that he if he holds himself forth as a cab driver, he can not refuse to pick up someone because of religious beliefs.



Yeah but that was a Muslim. This is a Christian. So obviously the standards are different.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ABikerSailor said:


> Actually, she's showing what a hypocrite she is.
> 
> Do you really think that Jesus would advocate for you keeping your job, if you felt that it was causing you to sin?
> 
> It says that in more than one place in the Bible btw.................



It's amusing that oppressors always use the same lines.

You have sunk to taking political prisoners. When you do this, you make martyrs of them. The homosexual lobby is not the first group to impose their views on an unwilling people through force. You simply have failed to learn from history what the result of these types of acts is.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Vandalshandle said:


> This case is not without precedent. A few years ago, a cab driver in Minneapolis refused to pick up a guy at the airport who was carrying a sealed container of alcohol, because the cab driver was a Muslim. The guy took him to court, and the court told the cab driver that he if he holds himself forth as a cab driver, he can not refuse to pick up someone because of religious beliefs.



The driver should have appealed it to the SCOTUS. The insidious nature of public accommodation laws is they trample the liberty of people to engage in trade with whom they please. Forcing the cabbie to violate his religious beliefs is obscene.


----------



## Skylar

Uncensored2008 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, she's showing what a hypocrite she is.
> 
> Do you really think that Jesus would advocate for you keeping your job, if you felt that it was causing you to sin?
> 
> It says that in more than one place in the Bible btw.................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amusing that oppressors always use the same lines.
> 
> You have sunk to taking political prisoners. When you do this, you make martyrs of them. The homosexual lobby is not the first group to impose their views on an unwilling people through force. You simply have failed to learn from history what the result of these types of acts is.
Click to expand...


Impose your views....like use your office to force people to follow your religion, as Kim Davis is doing?

Yeah, that dog won't hunt. Kim Davis has no authority to make up 'religious tests' that people have to pass before they can receive state services.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Skylar said:


> Yeah but that was a Muslim. This is a Christian. So obviously the standards are different.



How old were you when you were diagnosed as mentally retarded?


----------



## Asclepias

Uncensored2008 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah but that was a Muslim. This is a Christian. So obviously the standards are different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How old were you when you were diagnosed as mentally retarded?
Click to expand...

What made you think everyone is diagnosed as mentally retarded just because you were?


----------



## Skylar

Uncensored2008 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah but that was a Muslim. This is a Christian. So obviously the standards are different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How old were you when you were diagnosed as mentally retarded?
Click to expand...


If this were a Muslim judge refusing to rule in a manner inconsistent with Sharia, your ilk would shit their pants. But since its a Christian refusing to issue any license unless those receiving it can pass her religious test......you're down. 

Um, no. Using the government to force people to follow your religion is government establishment of religion. Which is explicitly forbidden by the 1st amendment.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Skylar said:


> Impose your views....like use your office to force people to follow your religion, as Kim Davis is doing?
> 
> Yeah, that dog won't hunt. Kim Davis has no authority to make up 'religious tests' that people have to pass before they can receive state services.



The counter-culture, in the war to utterly destroy the foundational fabric of the nation, has redefined the meaning of the institution of marriage. Davis has resisted the redefinition. Whether I agree or disagree, the acts of the ruling counter-culture in imprisoning her follow the same pattern of the imprisonment of countless political prisoners before her.

Any student of history will tell you, this will not end well for you.


----------



## Skylar

Uncensored2008 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Impose your views....like use your office to force people to follow your religion, as Kim Davis is doing?
> 
> Yeah, that dog won't hunt. Kim Davis has no authority to make up 'religious tests' that people have to pass before they can receive state services.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The counter-culture, in the war to utterly destroy the foundational fabric of the nation, has redefined the meaning of the institution of marriage. Davis has resisted the redefinition. Whether I agree or disagree, the acts of the ruling counter-culture in imprisoning her follow the same pattern of the imprisonment of countless political prisoners before her.
Click to expand...


The foundation fabric of our nation is hardly 'destroyed', drama queen. People by the thousands still get married every day. If the strength of your marriage is based _on your ability to deny marriage to someone else._....then your marriage already had problems. 

Kim Davis does not have the authority to use her office to impose her religion on other people. Nor can she create religious tests that eligibile citizens must 'pass' in order to receive state services. 

She simply lacks the authority.



> Any student of history will tell you, this will not end well for you.



As any student of history will tell you, bigotry doesn't fair well. When clerks refused to abide the law and issue marriage licenses to interracial couples, they were removed. 

Society kept right on truckin. Bigots are a historical speed bump. And history doesn't treat them well.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Skylar said:


> If this were a Muslim judge refusing to rule in a manner inconsistent with Sharia, your ilk would shit their pants. But since its a Christian refusing to issue any license unless those receiving it can pass her religious test......you're down.
> 
> Um, no. Using the government to force people to follow your religion is government establishment of religion. Which is explicitly forbidden by the 1st amendment.



You've jumped the rails entirely and can't even connect to the subject at hand.

This has nothing to do with religious law. The SCOTUS declared new law that alters a 5000 year institution. The clerk has declared an unwillingness to accede to the newspeak doublethink definition imposed by the regime.  

Oh, and a Muslim judge would stone homosexuals to death. You leftists are amusing, in your hatred for Christians you create this fantasy that your Muslim allies have the same beliefs as you do. You are aligned with Islam because you share a joint hatred of America, but Muslims put homosexuals to death.

{
Three Iranian men have been executed after being found guilty of charges related to homosexuality, according to a semi-official news agency.

The men, only identified by their initials, were hanged on Sunday in the south-western city of Ahvaz, the capital of Iran's Khuzestan province.

"The three convicts were sentenced to death based on the articles 108 and 110 of Iran's Islamic penal code, for acts against the sharia law and bad deeds," the Isna agency quoted a judiciary official in Khuzestan as saying.}

Iran executes three men on homosexuality charges

Iran, isn't that the country getting the Obamanuke?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Skylar said:


> The foundation fabric of our nation is hardly 'destroyed', drama queen. People by the thousands still get married every day. If the strength of your marriage is based _on your ability to deny marriage to someone else._....then your marriage already had problems.
> 
> Kim Davis does not have the authority to use her office to impose her religion on other people. Nor can she create religious tests that eligibile citizens must 'pass' in order to receive state services.
> 
> She simply lacks the authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any student of history will tell you, this will not end well for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As any student of history will tell you, bigotry doesn't fair well. When clerks refused to abide the law and issue marriage licenses to interracial couples, they were removed.
> 
> Society kept right on truckin. Bigots are a historical speed bump. And history doesn't treat them well.
Click to expand...


You have a political prisoner sitting in a cell. Pretend all you like that you are the ones oppressed - while a political prisoner rots on your jails for failing to bow to you.


----------



## Skylar

> -- The actions of a justice of the peace in Louisiana who refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple have prompted some top officials, including Gov. Bobby Jindal, to call for his dismissal....
> 
> 
> ......"Not only does [Bardwell's] decision directly contradict Supreme Court rulings, it is an example of the ugly bigotry that divided our country for too long," she said.
> 
> Governor calls for firing of justice in interracial marriage case - CNN.com



And society kept right on truckin. Your ilk are a historic skid mark, Uncen. And treated with as much disdain historically.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ogibillm said:


> you clearly don't understand what it means to be a political prisoner. she is definitely not a political prisoner. she is a wannabe tyrant that is facing the music for her oppression of other people.



I believe those are the exact words South Africa used regarding Mandela...


----------



## Uncensored2008

OnePercenter said:


> Bullshit! She's another ignorant Christian.



Perhaps the regime will execute her? In public.


----------



## Skylar

Uncensored2008 said:


> This has nothing to do with religious law.



Says you. Kim Davis on the other hand says this is explicitly about her religion:



> In addition to my desire to serve the people of Rowan County, I owe my life to Jesus Christ who loves me and gave His life for me. Following the death of my godly mother-in-law over four years ago, I went to church to fulfill her dying wish. There I heard a message of grace and forgiveness and surrendered my life to Jesus Christ. I am not perfect. No one is. But I am forgiven and I love my Lord and must be obedient to Him and to the Word of God.
> 
> I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage.
> 
> Kim Davis
> Davis Releases Statement, Lawyer Acknowledges Divorces



You insists i ignore Kim Davis on her own motivations and instead accept whatever nonsense you make up. pretending to speak for her. Um, no.* You're nobody in this scenario. Your personal justifications are irrelevant. *

Davis has stated her religion that motivates her denial of marriage licenses. And she lacks the authority to impose her religion on people using the power of the State.


----------



## David_42

Uncensored2008 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! She's another ignorant Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the regime will execute her? In public.
Click to expand...

Dude, you're hysterical.


----------



## Skylar

Uncensored2008 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The foundation fabric of our nation is hardly 'destroyed', drama queen. People by the thousands still get married every day. If the strength of your marriage is based _on your ability to deny marriage to someone else._....then your marriage already had problems.
> 
> Kim Davis does not have the authority to use her office to impose her religion on other people. Nor can she create religious tests that eligibile citizens must 'pass' in order to receive state services.
> 
> She simply lacks the authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any student of history will tell you, this will not end well for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As any student of history will tell you, bigotry doesn't fair well. When clerks refused to abide the law and issue marriage licenses to interracial couples, they were removed.
> 
> Society kept right on truckin. Bigots are a historical speed bump. And history doesn't treat them well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a political prisoner sitting in a cell. Pretend all you like that you are the ones oppressed - while a political prisoner rots on your jails for failing to bow to you.
Click to expand...


Nope. We have a woman who tried to use State authority to force unwilling people to obey her religion.....and was checked by the courts.

The moment she agrees not to abuse her office, she goes free. Or the moment she loses her office. Which ever comes first.


----------



## airplanemechanic

Luddly Neddite said:


> AS you well know, its the other way around.
> 
> You fundie nutters want to _"force your sexuality down everyone's throats"_.
> 
> You have every right to believe as you wish.
> 
> You do not have the right to "force your sexuality down everyone's throats".
> 
> Just deal with it and go back to living your own life.
> 
> MYOB



Then why force her to marry gay people against her religious beliefs? Sounds like the definition of "forcing sexuality down someones throat" if you ask me.

Or does it only apply when its sexuality that liberals are forcing down someones throat?


----------



## Skylar

David_42 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! She's another ignorant Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the regime will execute her? In public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, you're hysterical.
Click to expand...


Its just panty shitting hysterics with these folks. A state official can't make up religious tests for eligible citizens to receive state services. 

Its the state establishment of religion. And explicitly forbidden by the 1st amendment.


----------



## Esmeralda

airplanemechanic said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> AS you well know, its the other way around.
> 
> You fundie nutters want to _"force your sexuality down everyone's throats"_.
> 
> You have every right to believe as you wish.
> 
> You do not have the right to "force your sexuality down everyone's throats".
> 
> Just deal with it and go back to living your own life.
> 
> MYOB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why force her to marry gay people against her religious beliefs? Sounds like the definition of "forcing sexuality down someones throat" if you ask me.
> 
> Or does it only apply when its sexuality that liberals are forcing down someones throat?
Click to expand...

No one is forcing her to work in that job. She can get another job.  She can work for a  church instead of for the state. We live in a country that is based on separation of church and state.  If working for the state is against her religious values, then she should not work for the state.


----------



## Skylar

airplanemechanic said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> AS you well know, its the other way around.
> 
> You fundie nutters want to _"force your sexuality down everyone's throats"_.
> 
> You have every right to believe as you wish.
> 
> You do not have the right to "force your sexuality down everyone's throats".
> 
> Just deal with it and go back to living your own life.
> 
> MYOB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why force her to marry gay people against her religious beliefs? Sounds like the definition of "forcing sexuality down someones throat" if you ask me.
> 
> Or does it only apply when its sexuality that liberals are forcing down someones throat?
Click to expand...


The judge offered her a perfectly reasonable compromise: let another clerk in the office issue the licenses. Kim Davis refused, insisting she would do everything in her power to interfere with any clerk attempting to issue a license to a same sex couple.

She's not only forcing gay and lesbian couples to abide her religion, she's forcing it on her fellow clerks as well.


----------



## airplanemechanic

Irrelevant. Try again.


----------



## Skylar

airplanemechanic said:


> Irrelevant. Try again.




Immediately relevant. As demonstrated by the fact that these same clerks issued the marriage licenses when removed from under Davis' authority. 

Davis was pushing her religion on her clerks as much as she was the citizens of her county.


----------



## airplanemechanic

Why don't we take a poll of that county. What percent of them support gay marraige? If its less than 50%, she was upholding the beliefs of the people.


----------



## Skylar

airplanemechanic said:


> Why don't we take a poll of that county. What percent of them support gay marraige? If its more than 50%, she was upholding the beliefs of the people.



Rights aren't up to a vote. Draconian gun control was wildly popular in both DC and Chicago. But illegal as it violated constitutional guarantees.


----------



## Faun

This is why I love you kooky konservatives ... you're a never ending source of entertainment ... you're the gift that keeps on giving ... you're the wind beneath my sails...

*Revealed: Kentucky clerk refusing to issue gay marriage licenses has been married FOUR times and gave birth to twins out of wedlock*


----------



## airplanemechanic

Where in the constitution does it give gays the right to marry? 

This should be fun.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Uncensored2008 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The foundation fabric of our nation is hardly 'destroyed', drama queen. People by the thousands still get married every day. If the strength of your marriage is based _on your ability to deny marriage to someone else._....then your marriage already had problems.
> 
> Kim Davis does not have the authority to use her office to impose her religion on other people. Nor can she create religious tests that eligibile citizens must 'pass' in order to receive state services.
> 
> She simply lacks the authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any student of history will tell you, this will not end well for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As any student of history will tell you, bigotry doesn't fair well. When clerks refused to abide the law and issue marriage licenses to interracial couples, they were removed.
> 
> Society kept right on truckin. Bigots are a historical speed bump. And history doesn't treat them well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a political prisoner sitting in a cell. Pretend all you like that you are the ones oppressed - while a political prisoner rots on your jails for failing to bow to you.
Click to expand...

The worst oppressors in history present themselves as the underdog while running a reign of terror. The Gaysteppo haven't proven any different.


----------



## BULLDOG

AvgGuyIA said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches have and still do deny performing marriages to strait couples for a wide variety of reasons. There has never been a single effort to sue a church to perform a marriage that it didn't want to perform. Your claim that that will change is just fear mongering, and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Slippery slope says it will happen.  Gay agenda has said 14th trumps the 1st amendment and whacko liberal judges will enforce it.
Click to expand...



Whoever introduced you to the phrase slippery slope did you a great disservice.


----------



## ogibillm

Uncensored2008 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> you clearly don't understand what it means to be a political prisoner. she is definitely not a political prisoner. she is a wannabe tyrant that is facing the music for her oppression of other people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe those are the exact words South Africa used regarding Mandela...
Click to expand...



what you believe isn't worth two beans - you are unable to distinguish fact from fiction. but the fact is she has not been incarcerated for her political beliefs


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Uncensored2008 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> you clearly don't understand what it means to be a political prisoner. she is definitely not a political prisoner. she is a wannabe tyrant that is facing the music for her oppression of other people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe those are the exact words South Africa used regarding Mandela...
Click to expand...

^^^^ this.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The foundation fabric of our nation is hardly 'destroyed', drama queen. People by the thousands still get married every day. If the strength of your marriage is based _on your ability to deny marriage to someone else._....then your marriage already had problems.
> 
> Kim Davis does not have the authority to use her office to impose her religion on other people. Nor can she create religious tests that eligibile citizens must 'pass' in order to receive state services.
> 
> She simply lacks the authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any student of history will tell you, this will not end well for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As any student of history will tell you, bigotry doesn't fair well. When clerks refused to abide the law and issue marriage licenses to interracial couples, they were removed.
> 
> Society kept right on truckin. Bigots are a historical speed bump. And history doesn't treat them well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a political prisoner sitting in a cell. Pretend all you like that you are the ones oppressed - while a political prisoner rots on your jails for failing to bow to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The worst oppressors in history present themselves as the underdog while running a reign of terror. The Gaysteppo haven't proven any different.
Click to expand...


Yeah, think about how awful all the bigots who refused to issue licenses to interracial couples were treated. Oh, the humanities.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> you clearly don't understand what it means to be a political prisoner. she is definitely not a political prisoner. she is a wannabe tyrant that is facing the music for her oppression of other people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe those are the exact words South Africa used regarding Mandela...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^^ this.
Click to expand...


Yeah, because Mandela was imprisoned because he interfered with marriage licenses.

You want to be the victims *so badly*, don't you.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Skylar said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> you clearly don't understand what it means to be a political prisoner. she is definitely not a political prisoner. she is a wannabe tyrant that is facing the music for her oppression of other people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe those are the exact words South Africa used regarding Mandela...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^^ this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, because Mandela was imprisoned because he interfered with marriage licenses.
> 
> You want to be the victims *so badly*, don't you.
Click to expand...

The Nazis claimed Jews were oppressors. You remind me of them.


----------



## ogibillm

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> you clearly don't understand what it means to be a political prisoner. she is definitely not a political prisoner. she is a wannabe tyrant that is facing the music for her oppression of other people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe those are the exact words South Africa used regarding Mandela...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^^ this.
Click to expand...

did you forget to add "is bullshit" to your comment?
she has not been imprisoned for her political beliefs.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> you clearly don't understand what it means to be a political prisoner. she is definitely not a political prisoner. she is a wannabe tyrant that is facing the music for her oppression of other people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe those are the exact words South Africa used regarding Mandela...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^^ this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, because Mandela was imprisoned because he interfered with marriage licenses.
> 
> You want to be the victims *so badly*, don't you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Nazis claimed Jews were oppressors. You remind me of them.
Click to expand...


Undoubtedly, to you. But you're wildly irrational on this issue. As a night in jail isn't the holocaust. Thank you for again fulfilling Godwin's law.


----------



## WinterBorn

Uncensored2008 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! She's another ignorant Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the regime will execute her? In public.
Click to expand...


This is ridiculous.

There are two types of contempt; criminal and civil.  The difference is the punishment.  In a civil contempt case, the contemnor determines how long they are incarcerated.  Kim Davis can leave jail at any time.

Also, the judge tried to give her an out.  After imposing a sentence for contempt, Judge Bunning took a break. When Court resumed, he interviewed the Deputy Clerks for Rowan County as to whether they would comply with his Order. Five (5) of the six (6) deputies affirmed that they would comply with his Order. He then recalled Ms. Davis and asked whether she could refrain from interfering with the deputies while they issued marriage licenses. If she would do that, then he was satisfied that she was not in contempt and could go home. Ms. Davis refused even that much.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Skylar said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The foundation fabric of our nation is hardly 'destroyed', drama queen. People by the thousands still get married every day. If the strength of your marriage is based _on your ability to deny marriage to someone else._....then your marriage already had problems.
> 
> Kim Davis does not have the authority to use her office to impose her religion on other people. Nor can she create religious tests that eligibile citizens must 'pass' in order to receive state services.
> 
> She simply lacks the authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any student of history will tell you, this will not end well for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As any student of history will tell you, bigotry doesn't fair well. When clerks refused to abide the law and issue marriage licenses to interracial couples, they were removed.
> 
> Society kept right on truckin. Bigots are a historical speed bump. And history doesn't treat them well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a political prisoner sitting in a cell. Pretend all you like that you are the ones oppressed - while a political prisoner rots on your jails for failing to bow to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. We have a woman who tried to use State authority to force unwilling people to obey her religion.....and was checked by the courts.
> 
> The moment she agrees not to abuse her office, she goes free. Or the moment she loses her office. Which ever comes first.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be great if we could apply that same standard to mayors of refuge cities?


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The foundation fabric of our nation is hardly 'destroyed', drama queen. People by the thousands still get married every day. If the strength of your marriage is based _on your ability to deny marriage to someone else._....then your marriage already had problems.
> 
> Kim Davis does not have the authority to use her office to impose her religion on other people. Nor can she create religious tests that eligibile citizens must 'pass' in order to receive state services.
> 
> She simply lacks the authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any student of history will tell you, this will not end well for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As any student of history will tell you, bigotry doesn't fair well. When clerks refused to abide the law and issue marriage licenses to interracial couples, they were removed.
> 
> Society kept right on truckin. Bigots are a historical speed bump. And history doesn't treat them well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a political prisoner sitting in a cell. Pretend all you like that you are the ones oppressed - while a political prisoner rots on your jails for failing to bow to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. We have a woman who tried to use State authority to force unwilling people to obey her religion.....and was checked by the courts.
> 
> The moment she agrees not to abuse her office, she goes free. Or the moment she loses her office. Which ever comes first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wouldn't it be great if we could apply that same standard to mayors of refuge cities?
Click to expand...


Wouldn't it be wonderful if you could discuss a topic without desperately trying to change the topic?

Can I accept your awkward attempt as a concession in this one?


----------



## ogibillm

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The foundation fabric of our nation is hardly 'destroyed', drama queen. People by the thousands still get married every day. If the strength of your marriage is based _on your ability to deny marriage to someone else._....then your marriage already had problems.
> 
> Kim Davis does not have the authority to use her office to impose her religion on other people. Nor can she create religious tests that eligibile citizens must 'pass' in order to receive state services.
> 
> She simply lacks the authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any student of history will tell you, this will not end well for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As any student of history will tell you, bigotry doesn't fair well. When clerks refused to abide the law and issue marriage licenses to interracial couples, they were removed.
> 
> Society kept right on truckin. Bigots are a historical speed bump. And history doesn't treat them well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a political prisoner sitting in a cell. Pretend all you like that you are the ones oppressed - while a political prisoner rots on your jails for failing to bow to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. We have a woman who tried to use State authority to force unwilling people to obey her religion.....and was checked by the courts.
> 
> The moment she agrees not to abuse her office, she goes free. Or the moment she loses her office. Which ever comes first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wouldn't it be great if we could apply that same standard to mayors of refuge cities?
Click to expand...

mayors of sanctuary cities are not denying rights to anyone. they are not using the power of their office to impose their religious beliefs on their communities.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

WinterBorn said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! She's another ignorant Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the regime will execute her? In public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is ridiculous.
> 
> There are two types of contempt; criminal and civil.  The difference is the punishment.  In a civil contempt case, the contemnor determines how long they are incarcerated.  Kim Davis can leave jail at any time.
> 
> Also, the judge tried to give her an out.  After imposing a sentence for contempt, Judge Bunning took a break. When Court resumed, he interviewed the Deputy Clerks for Rowan County as to whether they would comply with his Order. Five (5) of the six (6) deputies affirmed that they would comply with his Order. He then recalled Ms. Davis and asked whether she could refrain from interfering with the deputies while they issued marriage licenses. If she would do that, then he was satisfied that she was not in contempt and could go home. Ms. Davis refused even that much.
Click to expand...

We need more just like her, a tradition of righteous defiance.


----------



## ogibillm

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! She's another ignorant Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the regime will execute her? In public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is ridiculous.
> 
> There are two types of contempt; criminal and civil.  The difference is the punishment.  In a civil contempt case, the contemnor determines how long they are incarcerated.  Kim Davis can leave jail at any time.
> 
> Also, the judge tried to give her an out.  After imposing a sentence for contempt, Judge Bunning took a break. When Court resumed, he interviewed the Deputy Clerks for Rowan County as to whether they would comply with his Order. Five (5) of the six (6) deputies affirmed that they would comply with his Order. He then recalled Ms. Davis and asked whether she could refrain from interfering with the deputies while they issued marriage licenses. If she would do that, then he was satisfied that she was not in contempt and could go home. Ms. Davis refused even that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need more just like her, a tradition of righteous defiance.
Click to expand...

is denial of rights and oppression righteous these days?


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! She's another ignorant Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the regime will execute her? In public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is ridiculous.
> 
> There are two types of contempt; criminal and civil.  The difference is the punishment.  In a civil contempt case, the contemnor determines how long they are incarcerated.  Kim Davis can leave jail at any time.
> 
> Also, the judge tried to give her an out.  After imposing a sentence for contempt, Judge Bunning took a break. When Court resumed, he interviewed the Deputy Clerks for Rowan County as to whether they would comply with his Order. Five (5) of the six (6) deputies affirmed that they would comply with his Order. He then recalled Ms. Davis and asked whether she could refrain from interfering with the deputies while they issued marriage licenses. If she would do that, then he was satisfied that she was not in contempt and could go home. Ms. Davis refused even that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need more just like her, a tradition of righteous defiance.
Click to expand...


And by 'righteous defiance', you mean using the government to try and force people to obey your religious beliefs?


----------



## Skylar

ogibillm said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! She's another ignorant Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the regime will execute her? In public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is ridiculous.
> 
> There are two types of contempt; criminal and civil.  The difference is the punishment.  In a civil contempt case, the contemnor determines how long they are incarcerated.  Kim Davis can leave jail at any time.
> 
> Also, the judge tried to give her an out.  After imposing a sentence for contempt, Judge Bunning took a break. When Court resumed, he interviewed the Deputy Clerks for Rowan County as to whether they would comply with his Order. Five (5) of the six (6) deputies affirmed that they would comply with his Order. He then recalled Ms. Davis and asked whether she could refrain from interfering with the deputies while they issued marriage licenses. If she would do that, then he was satisfied that she was not in contempt and could go home. Ms. Davis refused even that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need more just like her, a tradition of righteous defiance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is denial of rights and oppression righteous these days?
Click to expand...


If those denying you those rights don't think you should have them, apparently.


----------



## Coyote

mudwhistle said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Woman is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spell "MARTYR"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I can.   If she thinks she's a martyr, I'm sure she gets all tingly about it.....Lester Maddox and George Wallace thought they were martyrs too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know this is way out in left field.....but there are some actual Christians that believe in following their convictions. They aren't all out to get the Gheys or throw black people in jail. If this woman was a Muslim this would never be questioned. But because she's a Christian she has to obey the law from the most corrupt city in our country. (Washington D.C.)
Click to expand...


If she were a Muslim, she would most certainly be villified.

I have no problem with her "following her convictions" - but she wasn't content to stop there.  She refused to allow her deputies to issue licenses as well.  They were willing to step in when there was a same sex wedding license needed.  That would have been a win-win for both her and the state, but that wasn't good enough for her.  She had to force her religion on everyone and  refuse permission for anyone to issue those licenses.


----------



## Coyote

fr


saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The foundation fabric of our nation is hardly 'destroyed', drama queen. People by the thousands still get married every day. If the strength of your marriage is based _on your ability to deny marriage to someone else._....then your marriage already had problems.
> 
> Kim Davis does not have the authority to use her office to impose her religion on other people. Nor can she create religious tests that eligibile citizens must 'pass' in order to receive state services.
> 
> She simply lacks the authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any student of history will tell you, this will not end well for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As any student of history will tell you, bigotry doesn't fair well. When clerks refused to abide the law and issue marriage licenses to interracial couples, they were removed.
> 
> Society kept right on truckin. Bigots are a historical speed bump. And history doesn't treat them well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a political prisoner sitting in a cell. Pretend all you like that you are the ones oppressed - while a political prisoner rots on your jails for failing to bow to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The worst oppressors in history present themselves as the underdog while running a reign of terror.* The Gaysteppo haven't proven any different.
Click to expand...


 Sounds like the Tea Party


----------



## Faun

airplanemechanic said:


> Where in the constitution does it give gays the right to marry?
> 
> This should be fun.


The same place it gives heterosexuals the right to marry.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Skylar said:


> Yeah, because Mandela was imprisoned because he interfered with marriage licenses.
> 
> You want to be the victims *so badly*, don't you.



What you should do, is get some firetrucks and turn high pressure hoses on protesters. :thup;


----------



## Uncensored2008

ogibillm said:


> did you forget to add "is bullshit" to your comment?
> she has not been imprisoned for her political beliefs.



She has been imprisoned for religious and political beliefs.


----------



## ogibillm

Uncensored2008 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> did you forget to add "is bullshit" to your comment?
> she has not been imprisoned for her political beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She has been imprisoned for religious and political beliefs.
Click to expand...

she has been imprisoned for defying a court order. her religious and political beliefs remain perfectly legal.


----------



## Uncensored2008

WinterBorn said:


> This is ridiculous.
> 
> There are two types of contempt; criminal and civil.  The difference is the punishment.  In a civil contempt case, the contemnor determines how long they are incarcerated.  Kim Davis can leave jail at any time.
> 
> Also, the judge tried to give her an out.  After imposing a sentence for contempt, Judge Bunning took a break. When Court resumed, he interviewed the Deputy Clerks for Rowan County as to whether they would comply with his Order. Five (5) of the six (6) deputies affirmed that they would comply with his Order. He then recalled Ms. Davis and asked whether she could refrain from interfering with the deputies while they issued marriage licenses. If she would do that, then he was satisfied that she was not in contempt and could go home. Ms. Davis refused even that much.



Davis seeks a confrontation, just as MLK did in Selma.


----------



## ogibillm

Uncensored2008 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is ridiculous.
> 
> There are two types of contempt; criminal and civil.  The difference is the punishment.  In a civil contempt case, the contemnor determines how long they are incarcerated.  Kim Davis can leave jail at any time.
> 
> Also, the judge tried to give her an out.  After imposing a sentence for contempt, Judge Bunning took a break. When Court resumed, he interviewed the Deputy Clerks for Rowan County as to whether they would comply with his Order. Five (5) of the six (6) deputies affirmed that they would comply with his Order. He then recalled Ms. Davis and asked whether she could refrain from interfering with the deputies while they issued marriage licenses. If she would do that, then he was satisfied that she was not in contempt and could go home. Ms. Davis refused even that much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Davis seeks a confrontation, just as MLK did in Selma.
Click to expand...

mlk wasn't an oppressor. mlk wasn't using the power of an elected office to deny rights to others. 
she has nothing in common with mlk.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ogibillm said:


> she has been imprisoned for defying a court order. her religious and political beliefs remain perfectly legal.



MLK was imprisoned for the same. Civil disobedience has a long tradition in America.

Rarely does it work out well for the oppressors.


----------



## Seawytch

AvgGuyIA said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> This reminds me of the "wedding cake" controversy in a way.
> People can and do break the law.
> If they do it knowingly, the have the RIGHT (yes, the RIGHT) to do it if they are willing to do the TIME - take the punishment that goes along with it.
> 
> We are not puppets.
> 
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with Commerce Clause jurisprudence or public accommodations laws, there is no similarity whatsoever; Davis does not have the 'right' to defy the Constitution, the courts, and the rule of law – whether she's willing to 'take the punishment' or not.
> 
> And it has nothing to do with 'being a puppet' - Davis or anyone else is at liberty to resign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do mayors in sanctuary cities have the right by defy immigration laws?  Name one serving jail time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's different. The left can disobey any laws they feel are prejudice to protected classes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hypocritical ain't it?  No liberal will answer why it's okay for mayors to defy immigration laws.  Their argument that Davis defied the law falls on deaf ears.
Click to expand...


So sue. Take the mayor of SF to court. When you do and the mayor loses, still defies the law, loses on appeal and *still *refuses to obey the law, you have a valid comparison. Until then you're pissing in the wind.


----------



## ogibillm

Uncensored2008 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> she has been imprisoned for defying a court order. her religious and political beliefs remain perfectly legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MLK was imprisoned for the same. Civil disobedience has a long tradition in America.
> 
> Rarely does it work out well for the oppressors.
Click to expand...

you're right. rarely does it work out well for the oppressors - hence she'll be spending a lot of time in jail followed by a lot of time sending out resumes.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ogibillm said:


> mlk wasn't an oppressor. mlk wasn't using the power of an elected office to deny rights to others.
> she has nothing in common with mlk.



Nor is Davis.

You of the ruling left are in an untenable position. My advice is for you to break out the dogs and fire hoses.


----------



## Asclepias

Uncensored2008 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is ridiculous.
> 
> There are two types of contempt; criminal and civil.  The difference is the punishment.  In a civil contempt case, the contemnor determines how long they are incarcerated.  Kim Davis can leave jail at any time.
> 
> Also, the judge tried to give her an out.  After imposing a sentence for contempt, Judge Bunning took a break. When Court resumed, he interviewed the Deputy Clerks for Rowan County as to whether they would comply with his Order. Five (5) of the six (6) deputies affirmed that they would comply with his Order. He then recalled Ms. Davis and asked whether she could refrain from interfering with the deputies while they issued marriage licenses. If she would do that, then he was satisfied that she was not in contempt and could go home. Ms. Davis refused even that much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Davis seeks a confrontation, just as MLK did in Selma.
Click to expand...

She messed up and got put in jail instead of changing anything.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> fr
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The foundation fabric of our nation is hardly 'destroyed', drama queen. People by the thousands still get married every day. If the strength of your marriage is based _on your ability to deny marriage to someone else._....then your marriage already had problems.
> 
> Kim Davis does not have the authority to use her office to impose her religion on other people. Nor can she create religious tests that eligibile citizens must 'pass' in order to receive state services.
> 
> She simply lacks the authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any student of history will tell you, this will not end well for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As any student of history will tell you, bigotry doesn't fair well. When clerks refused to abide the law and issue marriage licenses to interracial couples, they were removed.
> 
> Society kept right on truckin. Bigots are a historical speed bump. And history doesn't treat them well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a political prisoner sitting in a cell. Pretend all you like that you are the ones oppressed - while a political prisoner rots on your jails for failing to bow to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The worst oppressors in history present themselves as the underdog while running a reign of terror.* The Gaysteppo haven't proven any different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the Tea Party
Click to expand...

Really? Who has the Tea Party oppressed?  Spit it out.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ogibillm said:


> you're right. rarely does it work out well for the oppressors - hence she'll be spending a lot of time in jail followed by a lot of time sending out resumes.



Are those the words of Bull Conner?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Skylar said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! She's another ignorant Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the regime will execute her? In public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is ridiculous.
> 
> There are two types of contempt; criminal and civil.  The difference is the punishment.  In a civil contempt case, the contemnor determines how long they are incarcerated.  Kim Davis can leave jail at any time.
> 
> Also, the judge tried to give her an out.  After imposing a sentence for contempt, Judge Bunning took a break. When Court resumed, he interviewed the Deputy Clerks for Rowan County as to whether they would comply with his Order. Five (5) of the six (6) deputies affirmed that they would comply with his Order. He then recalled Ms. Davis and asked whether she could refrain from interfering with the deputies while they issued marriage licenses. If she would do that, then he was satisfied that she was not in contempt and could go home. Ms. Davis refused even that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need more just like her, a tradition of righteous defiance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by 'righteous defiance', you mean using the government to try and force people to obey your religious beliefs?
Click to expand...

Better than obeying your religious beliefs. Government is always a reflection of somebody's religiously held values. And your sucks.


----------



## Flopper

RodISHI said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they refused to BAKE A FUCKING CAKE!  The "homo's" weren't telling them to bend over!  They were trying to pay them money to bake a cake!  And you can't see the ridiculousness of this situation?
> 
> They weren't telling the bakers "you have to be gay to bake my cake!"   I do think that the State of Oregon has gone totally batshit crazy in the punishment they have handed out, that is the very definition of "cruel and unusual punishment".  But how in the hell a person can think that baking a cake is somehow violating their religious principles is beyond me.
> 
> That is a level of batshit crazy that I will never understand.
> 
> 
> 
> And you do not see how ridiculous it is for a private business enterprise to be put out of business when they refuse to be a part of sanctifying such an arrangement; with something they totally disagree with according to their religious faith? Hell they could bake their own fucking cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already said I thought the punishment to be ridiculous.  Are you blind?  However you still haven't been able to tell me how baking a cake for a gay wedding, affects the baker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I did.
> 
> But I will go even a lil further for you westwall. A small privately held Christian business owner providing personal services has the right to not go along. The same sex couple can bake their own cake or hit a corporation to get their cake or go start their own little cake business. If one of these same sex couples asked me to paint a painting or provide a sculpture for them and I said no I'm not interested in doing such for you should they have the right to sue me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they shouldn't.  I don't believe that government should be able to compel anyone to do anything.  However, the clerk is a government official which means she is OBLIGATED to follow the laws of the land.  To do otherwise, IS tyranny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The supreme court made up their rulings after she was already elected to that position by the people of that county. It is not like she took the job prior to the latest decisions. Her objection is that it is her name on that document that she is unwilling to issue. If it were my name I may very well do the same.
Click to expand...

Employers are always making changes that go against beliefs of employees. In this case both the courts and the governor ordered the issue of marriage licenses to gay couples.  This clerk should either do the job or find another job more in keeping with her personal beliefs.


----------



## ogibillm

Uncensored2008 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> mlk wasn't an oppressor. mlk wasn't using the power of an elected office to deny rights to others.
> she has nothing in common with mlk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor is Davis.
> 
> You of the ruling left are in an untenable position. My advice is for you to break out the dogs and fire hoses.
Click to expand...

davis was using the power of her office to deny the rights of the people of her county. this is not something that is up for debate, it is a fact. you should really learn the facts of the situation before you begin to try to discuss it.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Uncensored2008 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because Mandela was imprisoned because he interfered with marriage licenses.
> 
> You want to be the victims *so badly*, don't you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you should do, is get some firetrucks and turn high pressure hoses on protesters. :thup;
Click to expand...

And if we did that to OWS?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Coyote said:


> If she were a Muslim, she would most certainly be villified.



If she were Muslim you would demand her release and would condemn the hated Americans for persecuting her.



> I have no problem with her "following her convictions" - but she wasn't content to stop there.  She refused to allow her deputies to issue licenses as well.  They were willing to step in when there was a same sex wedding license needed.  That would have been a win-win for both her and the state, but that wasn't good enough for her.  She had to force her religion on everyone and  refuse permission for anyone to issue those licenses.



You of the left are at war to crush the 1st Amendment rights of Christians. This has oddly enough become a battle ground. 

Oh, and who did she "force her religion" on? She refused to alter the process that has been in place for over 50 years to suit the demands of an unelected judiciary creating extaconstitutional law by fiat. That is far from forcing her religion. It is an act of civil disobedience.


----------



## ogibillm

Uncensored2008 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're right. rarely does it work out well for the oppressors - hence she'll be spending a lot of time in jail followed by a lot of time sending out resumes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are those the words of Bull Conner?
Click to expand...

you lack integrity. davis is analogous to bull connor - using her office to deny the rights of the citizens.


----------



## Seawytch

airplanemechanic said:


> Where in the constitution does it give gays the right to marry?
> 
> This should be fun.



Did you miss June of this year? Were you in cryro freeze?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf


----------



## ogibillm

Flopper said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you do not see how ridiculous it is for a private business enterprise to be put out of business when they refuse to be a part of sanctifying such an arrangement; with something they totally disagree with according to their religious faith? Hell they could bake their own fucking cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already said I thought the punishment to be ridiculous.  Are you blind?  However you still haven't been able to tell me how baking a cake for a gay wedding, affects the baker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I did.
> 
> But I will go even a lil further for you westwall. A small privately held Christian business owner providing personal services has the right to not go along. The same sex couple can bake their own cake or hit a corporation to get their cake or go start their own little cake business. If one of these same sex couples asked me to paint a painting or provide a sculpture for them and I said no I'm not interested in doing such for you should they have the right to sue me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they shouldn't.  I don't believe that government should be able to compel anyone to do anything.  However, the clerk is a government official which means she is OBLIGATED to follow the laws of the land.  To do otherwise, IS tyranny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The supreme court made up their rulings after she was already elected to that position by the people of that county. It is not like she took the job prior to the latest decisions. Her objection is that it is her name on that document that she is unwilling to issue. If it were my name I may very well do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employers are always making changes that go against beliefs of employees. In this case both the courts and the governor ordered the issue of marriage licenses to gay couples.  This clerk should either do the job or find another job more in keeping with her personal beliefs.
Click to expand...

i guess we both missed where her oath said that she promises to uphold the constitution, unless she disagrees with it.


----------



## Coyote

Uncensored2008 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> did you forget to add "is bullshit" to your comment?
> she has not been imprisoned for her political beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She has been imprisoned for religious and political beliefs.
Click to expand...


No.

She's being imprisoned for contempt of court because she's trying to force her religious beliefs on her deputies.


----------



## Uncensored2008

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> And if we did that to OWS?



I encourage the left to show their true colors.

I'm sure America will embrace them as they sic attack dogs on blue hairs holding signs. Skylar needs to let her inner Kim Jong Un free!


----------



## ogibillm

Uncensored2008 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> If she were a Muslim, she would most certainly be villified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If she were Muslim you would demand her release and would condemn the hated Americans for persecuting her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with her "following her convictions" - but she wasn't content to stop there.  She refused to allow her deputies to issue licenses as well.  They were willing to step in when there was a same sex wedding license needed.  That would have been a win-win for both her and the state, but that wasn't good enough for her.  She had to force her religion on everyone and  refuse permission for anyone to issue those licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You of the left are at war to crush the 1st Amendment rights of Christians. This has oddly enough become a battle ground.
> 
> Oh, and who did she "force her religion" on? She refused to alter the process that has been in place for over 50 years to suit the demands of an unelected judiciary creating extaconstitutional law by fiat. That is far from forcing her religion. It is an act of civil disobedience.
Click to expand...

she refused to uphold the constitution. she forced her religious beliefs on her subordinates by not allowing them to perform their duties and provide marriage licenses to homosexual couples. she forced her religious beliefs on the people of her county by using her office to deny marriage licenses to those she did not find religiously acceptable.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ogibillm said:


> i guess we both missed where her oath said that she promises to uphold the constitution, unless she disagrees with it.



Well do post the article or amendment of the Constitution that dictates issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals?

The SCOTUS created law, but it certainly is not the Constitution. Further, I doubt a county clerk takes any such oath.

Oh, and I'll bet she gets reelected. 

But you're winning - America is behind you, which is why you need to stage a public execution!


----------



## ogibillm

Uncensored2008 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> i guess we both missed where her oath said that she promises to uphold the constitution, unless she disagrees with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well do post the article or amendment of the Constitution that dictates issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals?
> 
> The SCOTUS created law, but it certainly is not the Constitution. Further, I doubt a county clerk takes any such oath.
> 
> Oh, and I'll bet she gets reelected.
> 
> But you're winning - America is behind you, which is why you need to stage a public execution!
Click to expand...

the scotus did not create law. just because you disagree doesn't mean its wrong. in fact, in your particular case disagreement is a good sign that it's right.
but if you want clarification - 
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf


----------



## WinterBorn

Uncensored2008 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> did you forget to add "is bullshit" to your comment?
> she has not been imprisoned for her political beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She has been imprisoned for religious and political beliefs.
Click to expand...


Absolutely not.  She has been imprisoned for refusing to follow the orders of the court.  She could have resigned.  She could have agreed not to interfere with the deputy clerks issuing marriage licenses.  But she has refused.

She can believe whatever she wants.  She is trying to force others to behave according to her beliefs.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Coyote said:


> No.
> 
> She's being imprisoned for contempt of court because she's trying to force her religious beliefs on her deputies.



Most of her deputies said they would comply with the court - but all also said they voluntarily complied with Davis.

There is a massive protest against the imprisonment of Davis, going on right now. What you of the left need to do is get the fire trucks out there and turn on the high pressure hoses.


----------



## Uncensored2008

WinterBorn said:


> Absolutely not.  She has been imprisoned for refusing to follow the orders of the court.  She could have resigned.  She could have agreed not to interfere with the deputy clerks issuing marriage licenses.  But she has refused.
> 
> She can believe whatever she wants.  She is trying to force others to behave according to her beliefs.



That's what all political prisoners are charged with. She is engaging in civil disobedience to bring focus to the issue.


----------



## WinterBorn

Uncensored2008 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> i guess we both missed where her oath said that she promises to uphold the constitution, unless she disagrees with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well do post the article or amendment of the Constitution that dictates issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals?
> 
> The SCOTUS created law, but it certainly is not the Constitution. Further, I doubt a county clerk takes any such oath.
> 
> Oh, and I'll bet she gets reelected.
> 
> But you're winning - America is behind you, which is why you need to stage a public execution!
Click to expand...


Not even a good strawman.  I am pretty sure you have seen, numerous times, people explain that there does not need to be an article or amendment in the US Constitution dictating issuing marriage licenses to gays.


----------



## ogibillm

Uncensored2008 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not.  She has been imprisoned for refusing to follow the orders of the court.  She could have resigned.  She could have agreed not to interfere with the deputy clerks issuing marriage licenses.  But she has refused.
> 
> She can believe whatever she wants.  She is trying to force others to behave according to her beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what all political prisoners are charged with. She is engaging in civil disobedience to bring focus to the issue.
Click to expand...

by your asinine opinion anyone who believes they have a right to break the law is a political prisoner.
her beliefs remain legal. she's free to advocate for them and attempt to rally support. she is not a political prisoner.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ogibillm said:


> you lack integrity. davis is analogous to bull connor - using her office to deny the rights of the citizens.



Davis put no one in prison, you leftists did.

You wanted a showdown. You want to impose your will on the majority. Did you really expect 5000 years of tradition to be discarded because you want? 

Understand, I'm laughing at you. In your rage, you cannot grasp what you are doing. I encourage you to gather more and more rope.


----------



## WinterBorn

Uncensored2008 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not.  She has been imprisoned for refusing to follow the orders of the court.  She could have resigned.  She could have agreed not to interfere with the deputy clerks issuing marriage licenses.  But she has refused.
> 
> She can believe whatever she wants.  She is trying to force others to behave according to her beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what all political prisoners are charged with. She is engaging in civil disobedience to bring focus to the issue.
Click to expand...


The issue is settled.  The US Supreme Court has ruled (in effect ruled twice) on the issue.


----------



## Uncensored2008

WinterBorn said:


> Not even a good strawman.  I am pretty sure you have seen, numerous times, people explain that there does not need to be an article or amendment in the US Constitution dictating issuing marriage licenses to gays.



SCOTUS created new law, so no, there need be nothing save the dictate of 9 unelected magistrates.

Where we clash is at the pretense of legitimacy.


----------



## ogibillm

Uncensored2008 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> you lack integrity. davis is analogous to bull connor - using her office to deny the rights of the citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Davis put no one in prison, you leftists did.
> 
> You wanted a showdown. You want to impose your will on the majority. Did you really expect 5000 years of tradition to be discarded because you want?
> 
> Understand, I'm laughing at you. In your rage, you cannot grasp what you are doing. I encourage you to gather more and more rope.
Click to expand...

davis put herself in jail. it's her choice to sit in that cell and she could leave any time. 
she is the one that denied the rights of the citizens of her county. she used the power of government to do it. she is bull connor.


----------



## WinterBorn

Uncensored2008 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> you lack integrity. davis is analogous to bull connor - using her office to deny the rights of the citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Davis put no one in prison, you leftists did.
> 
> You wanted a showdown. You want to impose your will on the majority. Did you really expect 5000 years of tradition to be discarded because you want?
> 
> Understand, I'm laughing at you. In your rage, you cannot grasp what you are doing. I encourage you to gather more and more rope.
Click to expand...


I need no rope.  I am simply allowing equality.   You, on the other hand, want this nation to be a theocracy and want everyone who is not a white, Christian, heterosexual to be denied the same benefits you enjoy.

That is simply not going to happen any more.


----------



## Uncensored2008

WinterBorn said:


> [
> The issue is settled.  The US Supreme Court has ruled (in effect ruled twice) on the issue.



Yes, the Dred Scott decision ended all discussion. Yet she still resists the new law created by the SCOTUS...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

BlindBoo said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT being imposed on anyone..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She said she was acting on Gods authority.
Click to expand...

Unlike a "god," the Constitution in fact exists.


----------



## ogibillm

Uncensored2008 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not even a good strawman.  I am pretty sure you have seen, numerous times, people explain that there does not need to be an article or amendment in the US Constitution dictating issuing marriage licenses to gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS created new law, so no, there need be nothing save the dictate of 9 unelected magistrates.
> 
> Where we clash is at the pretense of legitimacy.
Click to expand...

you lack integrity and cannot grasp the basic facts of the situation. what new law did the supreme court make?


----------



## Uncensored2008

ogibillm said:


> davis put herself in jail. it's her choice to sit in that cell and she could leave any time.
> she is the one that denied the rights of the citizens of her county. she used the power of government to do it. she is bull connor.



Yes, she has chosen to sit in that cell.

And I laugh at the inability of you leftists to grasp the significance.


----------



## Uncensored2008

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Unlike a "god," the Constitution in fact exists.



And like your mind, it has been perverted beyond recognition.


----------



## ogibillm

Uncensored2008 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> The issue is settled.  The US Supreme Court has ruled (in effect ruled twice) on the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Dred Scott decision ended all discussion. Yet she still resists the new law created by the SCOTUS...
Click to expand...

the dredd scott decision was overturned by a change in the constitution.


----------



## boedicca

To the Left, the only rights that exist in America are:  Abortion, Gay Marriage, Voting Without ID, Limitless Immigration, Welfare, and "Not to be discriminated against", which in reality means "Everyone must support and participate in my personal kinks".

No other rights exist.  No Freedom of Speech.  No Freedom of Religion.  Not Right to Gun Ownership.  No Property Rights....iow, The Constitution is Null and Void.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Uncensored2008 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> davis put herself in jail. it's her choice to sit in that cell and she could leave any time.
> she is the one that denied the rights of the citizens of her county. she used the power of government to do it. she is bull connor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, she has chosen to sit in that cell.
> 
> And I laugh at the inability of you leftists to grasp the significance.
Click to expand...

There is no significance.  She broke the law, and is now in jail.  Just another criminal.

If God tells you to rob a bank, you ain't getting away with that either.


----------



## ogibillm

Uncensored2008 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> davis put herself in jail. it's her choice to sit in that cell and she could leave any time.
> she is the one that denied the rights of the citizens of her county. she used the power of government to do it. she is bull connor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, she has chosen to sit in that cell.
> 
> And I laugh at the inability of you leftists to grasp the significance.
Click to expand...

there is no significance. she has lost. her county will no longer deny homosexual couples marriage licenses. there is no scenario save a constitutional amendment that changes that


----------



## Skylar

boedicca said:


> To the Left, the only rights that exist in America are:  Abortion, Gay Marriage, Voting Without ID, Limitless Immigration, Welfare, and "Not to be discriminated against", which in reality means "Everyone must support and participate in my personal kinks".
> 
> No other rights exist.  No Freedom of Speech.  No Freedom of Religion.  Not Right to Gun Ownership.  No Property Rights....iow, The Constitution is Null and Void.



There's freedom of speech. There's freedom of religion. Neither involve using the government to force unwilling people to obey your religious beliefs.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

boedicca said:


> To the Left, the only rights that exist in America are:  Abortion, Gay Marriage, Voting Without ID, Limitless Immigration, Welfare, and "Not to be discriminated against", which in reality means "Everyone must support and participate in my personal kinks".
> 
> No other rights exist.  No Freedom of Speech.  No Freedom of Religion.  Not Right to Gun Ownership.  No Property Rights....iow, The Constitution is Null and Void.


Obey the law, or face the consequences.  It's not complicated, even for you.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Orcs, still waiting for you to explain why we're not hearing this from you...







Were you only talking about Leftist women?

Tell the truth now.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seems that statement is nowhere to be found lately now that a woman is actually making history.


----------



## Flopper

barry1960 said:


> I think that this is an interesting problem for which there is a solution. First, gays are allowed to marry so the state should sanction it. That includes this county. My guess is that homosexuals are flocking to this county to force the issue. Davis attorney suggested a reasonable compromise. Strike the clerk's name from the certificate and process the marriage license. Davis conscience is clear and gays get married. Seems reasonable since her taking office pre-dates the SCOTUS decision. No need to fill our jails with a non-criminals. There is better use of tax payer money. No need to jail her unless the motivation was persecution. Judge spoke as much when he stated she would be jailed until she changed her conviction. I understand gays right to marry in this country on the basis of the supreme court decision. However I see a progression. First the enforcement of gay marriage on government officials. Second, the enforcement of providing wedding related services to homosexuals such as baking cakes etc. Finally, attempting to force Christian churches to marriage homosexuals despite their religious convictions and then a limitation on free speech for those churches that would label homosexuality a sin. Strangely Islamic churches will be exempt from such. No doubt that the gay community has an agenda that they will push and the religious convictions of Christians will be steamrolled. A balance should be struck between homosexual rights and first amendment rights. Funny how a court clerk who refuse to discharge a part of her duties is jailed, but a mayor of a sanctuary city can refuse to enforce immigration law. I have mixed feeling on immigration, but the inconsistency is clear.


A marriage license is accepted as proof of marriage.  Why should a gay couple have to accept a marriage license unsigned by the county clerk?

The reason this clerk was jailed was because she refused to follow a court order. She put herself above the law because of her personal beliefs.  Her beliefs are irrelevant in the eyes of the court.


----------



## boedicca

Skylar said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> To the Left, the only rights that exist in America are:  Abortion, Gay Marriage, Voting Without ID, Limitless Immigration, Welfare, and "Not to be discriminated against", which in reality means "Everyone must support and participate in my personal kinks".
> 
> No other rights exist.  No Freedom of Speech.  No Freedom of Religion.  Not Right to Gun Ownership.  No Property Rights....iow, The Constitution is Null and Void.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's freedom of speech. There's freedom of religion. Neither involve using the government to force unwilling people to obey your religious beliefs.
Click to expand...



I don't see you applying that logic when Obama and Holder have refused to enforce the law.


----------



## ogibillm

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Orcs, still waiting for you to explain why we're not hearing this from you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you only talking about Leftist women?
> 
> Tell the truth now.


bonnie parker made history. eva braun made history. davis is making history. history is full of villains


----------



## ogibillm

boedicca said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> To the Left, the only rights that exist in America are:  Abortion, Gay Marriage, Voting Without ID, Limitless Immigration, Welfare, and "Not to be discriminated against", which in reality means "Everyone must support and participate in my personal kinks".
> 
> No other rights exist.  No Freedom of Speech.  No Freedom of Religion.  Not Right to Gun Ownership.  No Property Rights....iow, The Constitution is Null and Void.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's freedom of speech. There's freedom of religion. Neither involve using the government to force unwilling people to obey your religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see you applying that logic when Obama and Holder have refused to enforce the law.
Click to expand...

can you give an example?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

ogibillm said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Orcs, still waiting for you to explain why we're not hearing this from you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you only talking about Leftist women?
> 
> Tell the truth now.
> 
> 
> 
> bonnie parker made history. eva braun made history. davis is making history. history is full of villains
Click to expand...

Really? Who did she kill?

And that doesn't answer the question.


----------



## Flopper

BULLDOG said:


> barry1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that this is an interesting problem for which there is a solution. First, gays are allowed to marry so the state should sanction it. That includes this county. My guess is that homosexuals are flocking to this county to force the issue. Davis attorney suggested a reasonable compromise. Strike the clerk's name from the certificate and process the marriage license. Davis conscience is clear and gays get married. Seems reasonable since her taking office pre-dates the SCOTUS decision. No need to fill our jails with a non-criminals. There is better use of tax payer money. No need to jail her unless the motivation was persecution. Judge spoke as much when he stated she would be jailed until she changed her conviction. I understand gays right to marry in this country on the basis of the supreme court decision. However I see a progression. First the enforcement of gay marriage on government officials. Second, the enforcement of providing wedding related services to homosexuals such as baking cakes etc. Finally, attempting to force Christian churches to marriage homosexuals despite their religious convictions and then a limitation on free speech for those churches that would label homosexuality a sin. Strangely Islamic churches will be exempt from such. No doubt that the gay community has an agenda that they will push and the religious convictions of Christians will be steamrolled. A balance should be struck between homosexual rights and first amendment rights. Funny how a court clerk who refuse to discharge a part of her duties is jailed, but a mayor of a sanctuary city can refuse to enforce immigration law. I have mixed feeling on immigration, but the inconsistency is clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches have and still do deny performing marriages to strait couples for a wide variety of reasons. There has never been a single effort to sue a church to perform a marriage that it didn't want to perform. Your claim that that will change is just fear mongering, and you know it.
Click to expand...

I agree.  A marriage license is a legal contract.  A religious marriage is moral contract.  The two are not the same.  Why is that so many people have trouble understanding this?


----------



## ogibillm

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Orcs, still waiting for you to explain why we're not hearing this from you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you only talking about Leftist women?
> 
> Tell the truth now.
> 
> 
> 
> bonnie parker made history. eva braun made history. davis is making history. history is full of villains
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Who did she kill?
> 
> And that doesn't answer the question.
Click to expand...

you have to kill someone to make history?
davis is making history, she's just on the wrong side of it


----------



## Uncensored2008

ogibillm said:


> you lack integrity and cannot grasp the basic facts of the situation. what new law did the supreme court make?



I lack integrity? Hardly.

The SCOTUS created a national edict that marriage would be no longer be the union of a biologically viable pairing. Leftists have no ability to grasp that humans existed prior to Karl Marx and the rules you live by.

But there is anthropological precedent for marriage. It didn't develop across the globe, in virtually every culture, simply because the Christians you hate wanted to be mean to gays. The drive to protect the joining of male and female in successful cultures is based on the need to create a stable environment for the procreating and raising of offspring.

To the left, the state is mother and father, so the concept of a stable family is in fact anathema to leftist goal - ergo the war that is currently fought.


----------



## boedicca

ogibillm said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> To the Left, the only rights that exist in America are:  Abortion, Gay Marriage, Voting Without ID, Limitless Immigration, Welfare, and "Not to be discriminated against", which in reality means "Everyone must support and participate in my personal kinks".
> 
> No other rights exist.  No Freedom of Speech.  No Freedom of Religion.  Not Right to Gun Ownership.  No Property Rights....iow, The Constitution is Null and Void.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's freedom of speech. There's freedom of religion. Neither involve using the government to force unwilling people to obey your religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see you applying that logic when Obama and Holder have refused to enforce the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> can you give an example?
Click to expand...



Do you live under a rock?

- Lack of enforcement of immigration laws.
- Lack of enforcement of DOMA.
- Failure to prosecute the Black Panther's threats against white voters.
- Failure to prosecute Lois Lerner.

For starters.


----------



## boedicca

Uncensored2008 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> you lack integrity and cannot grasp the basic facts of the situation. what new law did the supreme court make?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I lack integrity? Hardly.
> 
> The SCOTUS created a national edict that marriage would be no longer be the union of a biologically viable pairing. Leftists have no ability to grasp that humans existed prior to Karl Marx and the rules you live by.
> 
> But there is anthropological precedent for marriage. It didn't develop across the globe, in virtually every culture, simply because the Christians you hate wanted to be mean to gays. The drive to protect the joining of male and female in successful cultures is based on the need to create a stable environment for the procreating and raising of offspring.
> 
> To the left, the state is mother and father, so the concept of a stable family is in fact anathema to leftist goal - ergo the war that is currently fought.
Click to expand...



What can you expect from people who can't even accept the fact that genders are not social constructs?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

boedicca said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> you lack integrity and cannot grasp the basic facts of the situation. what new law did the supreme court make?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I lack integrity? Hardly.
> 
> The SCOTUS created a national edict that marriage would be no longer be the union of a biologically viable pairing. Leftists have no ability to grasp that humans existed prior to Karl Marx and the rules you live by.
> 
> But there is anthropological precedent for marriage. It didn't develop across the globe, in virtually every culture, simply because the Christians you hate wanted to be mean to gays. The drive to protect the joining of male and female in successful cultures is based on the need to create a stable environment for the procreating and raising of offspring.
> 
> To the left, the state is mother and father, so the concept of a stable family is in fact anathema to leftist goal - ergo the war that is currently fought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What can you expect from people who can't even accept the fact that genders are not social constructs?
Click to expand...

Gender is many things,  Look it up.  One thing it's not, genitals, or genetics.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

ogibillm said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Orcs, still waiting for you to explain why we're not hearing this from you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you only talking about Leftist women?
> 
> Tell the truth now.
> 
> 
> 
> bonnie parker made history. eva braun made history. davis is making history. history is full of villains
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Who did she kill?
> 
> And that doesn't answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have to kill someone to make history?
> davis is making history, she's just on the wrong side of it
Click to expand...

No, you are. Faggotry makes civilizations die out. Support for faggotry is the wrong side of history. 

So....the statement only applies to Leftist women?


----------



## ogibillm

Uncensored2008 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> you lack integrity and cannot grasp the basic facts of the situation. what new law did the supreme court make?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I lack integrity? Hardly.
> 
> The SCOTUS created a national edict that marriage would be no longer be the union of a biologically viable pairing. Leftists have no ability to grasp that humans existed prior to Karl Marx and the rules you live by.
> 
> But there is anthropological precedent for marriage. It didn't develop across the globe, in virtually every culture, simply because the Christians you hate wanted to be mean to gays. The drive to protect the joining of male and female in successful cultures is based on the need to create a stable environment for the procreating and raising of offspring.
> 
> To the left, the state is mother and father, so the concept of a stable family is in fact anathema to leftist goal - ergo the war that is currently fought.
Click to expand...

lol. so the new law the supreme court made is the 14th amendment to the constitution?


----------



## boedicca

PaintMyHouse said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> you lack integrity and cannot grasp the basic facts of the situation. what new law did the supreme court make?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I lack integrity? Hardly.
> 
> The SCOTUS created a national edict that marriage would be no longer be the union of a biologically viable pairing. Leftists have no ability to grasp that humans existed prior to Karl Marx and the rules you live by.
> 
> But there is anthropological precedent for marriage. It didn't develop across the globe, in virtually every culture, simply because the Christians you hate wanted to be mean to gays. The drive to protect the joining of male and female in successful cultures is based on the need to create a stable environment for the procreating and raising of offspring.
> 
> To the left, the state is mother and father, so the concept of a stable family is in fact anathema to leftist goal - ergo the war that is currently fought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What can you expect from people who can't even accept the fact that genders are not social constructs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gender is many things,  Look it up.  One thing it's not, genitals, or genetics.
Click to expand...



It's quite clear that your gender doesn't include adequate genetalia.


----------



## ogibillm

boedicca said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> To the Left, the only rights that exist in America are:  Abortion, Gay Marriage, Voting Without ID, Limitless Immigration, Welfare, and "Not to be discriminated against", which in reality means "Everyone must support and participate in my personal kinks".
> 
> No other rights exist.  No Freedom of Speech.  No Freedom of Religion.  Not Right to Gun Ownership.  No Property Rights....iow, The Constitution is Null and Void.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's freedom of speech. There's freedom of religion. Neither involve using the government to force unwilling people to obey your religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see you applying that logic when Obama and Holder have refused to enforce the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> can you give an example?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you live under a rock?
> 
> - Lack of enforcement of immigration laws.
> - Lack of enforcement of DOMA.
> - Failure to prosecute the Black Panther's threats against white voters.
> - Failure to prosecute Lois Lerner.
> 
> For starters.
Click to expand...

lol. you're claiming that enforcing laws in a manner that differs from how you would like it done equates to non-enforcement. 

you're also arguing against the concept of prosecutorial discretion.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Orcs, still waiting for you to explain why we're not hearing this from you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you only talking about Leftist women?
> 
> Tell the truth now.
> 
> 
> 
> bonnie parker made history. eva braun made history. davis is making history. history is full of villains
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Who did she kill?
> 
> And that doesn't answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have to kill someone to make history?
> davis is making history, she's just on the wrong side of it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you are. Faggotry makes civilizations die out. Support for faggotry is the wrong side of history.
> 
> So....the statement only applies to Leftist women?
Click to expand...


History makes civilizations die out. Virtually every civilization that has ever existed is gone. Those that embraced homosexuality, those that didn't, virtually all have passed on.

When the 'effect' exists even when the 'cause' doesn't.......your 'cause' isn't.

Can I take it from your subject change to 'faggotry', that you've conceded that your legal argument was garbage?


----------



## PredFan

Claudette said:


> Good. Woman is an idiot.



I hear that she is a democrat so yeah, she is an idiot.


----------



## ogibillm

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Orcs, still waiting for you to explain why we're not hearing this from you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you only talking about Leftist women?
> 
> Tell the truth now.
> 
> 
> 
> bonnie parker made history. eva braun made history. davis is making history. history is full of villains
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Who did she kill?
> 
> And that doesn't answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have to kill someone to make history?
> davis is making history, she's just on the wrong side of it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you are. Faggotry makes civilizations die out. Support for faggotry is the wrong side of history.
> 
> So....the statement only applies to Leftist women?
Click to expand...

wow. let me try this again. 
she's making history. nobody is saying otherwise. but history will not look on her kindly. she is the oppressor. she is denying rights. but nobody is saying that she isn't making history.

now, don't you have a cat to kill?


----------



## ogibillm

boedicca said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> you lack integrity and cannot grasp the basic facts of the situation. what new law did the supreme court make?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I lack integrity? Hardly.
> 
> The SCOTUS created a national edict that marriage would be no longer be the union of a biologically viable pairing. Leftists have no ability to grasp that humans existed prior to Karl Marx and the rules you live by.
> 
> But there is anthropological precedent for marriage. It didn't develop across the globe, in virtually every culture, simply because the Christians you hate wanted to be mean to gays. The drive to protect the joining of male and female in successful cultures is based on the need to create a stable environment for the procreating and raising of offspring.
> 
> To the left, the state is mother and father, so the concept of a stable family is in fact anathema to leftist goal - ergo the war that is currently fought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What can you expect from people who can't even accept the fact that genders are not social constructs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gender is many things,  Look it up.  One thing it's not, genitals, or genetics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite clear that your gender doesn't include adequate genetalia.
Click to expand...

kiddo your lack of a grasp on the english language doesn't make it okay to throw insults around. 
sex is biological
gender is social. 
if you want to continue to be wrong continue to pretend the two are interchangeable.


----------



## boedicca

ogibillm said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> To the Left, the only rights that exist in America are:  Abortion, Gay Marriage, Voting Without ID, Limitless Immigration, Welfare, and "Not to be discriminated against", which in reality means "Everyone must support and participate in my personal kinks".
> 
> No other rights exist.  No Freedom of Speech.  No Freedom of Religion.  Not Right to Gun Ownership.  No Property Rights....iow, The Constitution is Null and Void.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's freedom of speech. There's freedom of religion. Neither involve using the government to force unwilling people to obey your religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see you applying that logic when Obama and Holder have refused to enforce the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> can you give an example?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you live under a rock?
> 
> - Lack of enforcement of immigration laws.
> - Lack of enforcement of DOMA.
> - Failure to prosecute the Black Panther's threats against white voters.
> - Failure to prosecute Lois Lerner.
> 
> For starters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol. you're claiming that enforcing laws in a manner that differs from how you would like it done equates to non-enforcement.
> 
> you're also arguing against the concept of prosecutorial discretion.
Click to expand...



^^^ Hack ^^^


----------



## Uncensored2008

PaintMyHouse said:


> Gender is many things,  Look it up.  One thing it's not, genitals, or genetics.



The fakers of reality, who demand that what is, is only what they wish. 

No civilization can survive these, once they become dominate, the culture that hosts them is  doomed. 

When the man to declares that drinking sand will quench thirst is no longer recognized as a lunatic, but in fact those who question him are called "bigot," then the society of that culture will by the fact that reality does exist, will fall.


----------



## ogibillm

Uncensored2008 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gender is many things,  Look it up.  One thing it's not, genitals, or genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fakers of reality, who demand that what is, is only what they wish.
> 
> No civilization can survive these, once they become dominate, the culture that hosts them is  doomed.
> 
> When the man to declares that drinking sand will quench thirst is no longer recognized as a lunatic, but in fact those who question him are called "bigot," then the society of that culture will by the fact that reality does exist, will fall.
Click to expand...

speaking of lunatic...


----------



## Skylar

Uncensored2008 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gender is many things,  Look it up.  One thing it's not, genitals, or genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fakers of reality, who demand that what is, is only what they wish.
> 
> No civilization can survive these, once they become dominate, the culture that hosts them is  doomed.
Click to expand...


Virtually every civilization that has ever existed is already gone. Whether they embraced homosexuality, whether they condemned it.....they're virtually all gone. 

When your 'effect' exists regardless of if your 'cause' does.....your cause isn't. 

But hey, that shouldn't stop you from fantasizing about the collapse of the US. Its what conservatives are good for.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ogibillm said:


> kiddo your lack of a grasp on the english language doesn't make it okay to throw insults around.
> sex is biological
> gender is social.
> if you want to continue to be wrong continue to pretend the two are interchangeable.



You are insane.


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> fr
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The foundation fabric of our nation is hardly 'destroyed', drama queen. People by the thousands still get married every day. If the strength of your marriage is based _on your ability to deny marriage to someone else._....then your marriage already had problems.
> 
> Kim Davis does not have the authority to use her office to impose her religion on other people. Nor can she create religious tests that eligibile citizens must 'pass' in order to receive state services.
> 
> She simply lacks the authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any student of history will tell you, this will not end well for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As any student of history will tell you, bigotry doesn't fair well. When clerks refused to abide the law and issue marriage licenses to interracial couples, they were removed.
> 
> Society kept right on truckin. Bigots are a historical speed bump. And history doesn't treat them well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a political prisoner sitting in a cell. Pretend all you like that you are the ones oppressed - while a political prisoner rots on your jails for failing to bow to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The worst oppressors in history present themselves as the underdog while running a reign of terror.* The Gaysteppo haven't proven any different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the Tea Party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Who has the Tea Party oppressed?  Spit it out.
Click to expand...


Who have the gays "oppressed"?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Nobody forced this woman to take the oath of office that she swore to. Yet, she is supposedly a victim because she will not abide by it.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> fr
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The foundation fabric of our nation is hardly 'destroyed', drama queen. People by the thousands still get married every day. If the strength of your marriage is based _on your ability to deny marriage to someone else._....then your marriage already had problems.
> 
> Kim Davis does not have the authority to use her office to impose her religion on other people. Nor can she create religious tests that eligibile citizens must 'pass' in order to receive state services.
> 
> She simply lacks the authority.
> 
> As any student of history will tell you, bigotry doesn't fair well. When clerks refused to abide the law and issue marriage licenses to interracial couples, they were removed.
> 
> Society kept right on truckin. Bigots are a historical speed bump. And history doesn't treat them well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a political prisoner sitting in a cell. Pretend all you like that you are the ones oppressed - while a political prisoner rots on your jails for failing to bow to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The worst oppressors in history present themselves as the underdog while running a reign of terror.* The Gaysteppo haven't proven any different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the Tea Party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Who has the Tea Party oppressed?  Spit it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who have the gays "oppressed"?
Click to expand...

Nobody. 

Did you mean the Gaysteppo? Because they don't represent all gay people. 

Or even half.


----------



## ogibillm

Uncensored2008 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> kiddo your lack of a grasp on the english language doesn't make it okay to throw insults around.
> sex is biological
> gender is social.
> if you want to continue to be wrong continue to pretend the two are interchangeable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are insane.
Click to expand...

because i have a dictionary?
you are ignorant and you keep putting your stupidity, ignorance, and willingness to lie on display.
you lack integrity.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Orcs, still waiting for you to explain why we're not hearing this from you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you only talking about Leftist women?
> 
> Tell the truth now.



George Wallace made history too.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Skylar said:


> Virtually every civilization that has ever existed is already gone. Whether they embraced homosexuality, whether they condemned it.....they're virtually all gone.
> 
> When your 'effect' exists regardless of if your 'cause' does.....your cause isn't.
> 
> But hey, that shouldn't stop you from fantasizing about the collapse of the US. Its what conservatives are good for.



Embracing homosexuality is irrelevant.

The rise of the fakers of reality is a sure sign of a civilization in collapse. When the dominant culture declares that there is no realty save their desire, then a society cannot survive.

Western Civilization had a good run, but we are in the closing days. Rationality is a vice, where insanity is a virtue.

Bruce Jenner can declare himself a woman, but reality remains and he remains a man. You can declare yourself a bird and demand that you have feathers and can fly. Ogibillim can scream that I am a bigot if I don't recognize your feathers. But it is still faking reality, that others support your delusion doesn't alter the fact that you are delusional.

*gender*


Tweet
_noun_ gen·der \ˈjen-dər\
: the state of being male or female

grammar : one of the categories (masculine, feminine, and neuter) into which words (such as nouns, adjectives, and pronouns) are divided in many languages


----------



## dcraelin

Vandalshandle said:


> ...for failure to obey court order of issuing marraige licenses to gay couples.
> 
> News from The Associated Press



I'd just like to point out the hypocrisy of the judicial system.

Jerry Brown as attorney general of California refused to do his job to defend prop 8 against lawsuits.....the follow on attorney general did the same.....no consequences......but this woman gets thrown in jail....I guess lawyers have the privilege to ignore law that  the rest of us dont.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ogibillm said:


> because i have a dictionary?
> you are ignorant and you keep putting your stupidity, ignorance, and willingness to lie on display.
> you lack integrity.



You are insane.

*gender*


Tweet
_noun_ gen·der \ˈjen-dər\
: the state of being male or female

grammar : one of the categories (masculine, feminine, and neuter) into which words (such as nouns, adjectives, and pronouns) are divided in many languages


----------



## ogibillm

dcraelin said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...for failure to obey court order of issuing marraige licenses to gay couples.
> 
> News from The Associated Press
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd just like to point out the hypocrisy of the judicial system.
> 
> Jerry Brown as attorney general of California refused to do his job to defend prop 8 against lawsuits.....the follow on attorney general did the same.....no consequences......but this woman gets thrown in jail....I guess lawyers have the privilege to ignore that law that  the rest of us dont.
Click to expand...

did that deny anyone their constitutional rights?
and if you wanted them punished, i guess someone should have sued.


----------



## dcraelin

ogibillm said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...for failure to obey court order of issuing marraige licenses to gay couples.
> 
> News from The Associated Press
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd just like to point out the hypocrisy of the judicial system.
> 
> Jerry Brown as attorney general of California refused to do his job to defend prop 8 against lawsuits.....the follow on attorney general did the same.....no consequences......but this woman gets thrown in jail....I guess lawyers have the privilege to ignore that law that  the rest of us dont.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did that deny anyone their constitutional rights?
> and if you wanted them punished, i guess someone should have sued.
Click to expand...


constitutional rights was a question involved..........but thats not really the point is it.

It has to do with the hypocrisy of judges and the judicial system.  Brown had a duty to the whole people of the State of California.....if he didnt feel it was right he should've resigned.


----------



## ogibillm

Uncensored2008 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> because i have a dictionary?
> you are ignorant and you keep putting your stupidity, ignorance, and willingness to lie on display.
> you lack integrity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are insane.
> 
> *gender*
> 
> 
> Tweet
> _noun_ gen·der \ˈjen-dər\
> : the state of being male or female
> 
> grammar : one of the categories (masculine, feminine, and neuter) into which words (such as nouns, adjectives, and pronouns) are divided in many languages
Click to expand...

*Full Definition of GENDER*
1
a *:*  a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms

b *:*  membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass

c *:*  an inflectional form showing membership in such a subclass
2
a *:* sex <the feminine _gender_>

*b :  the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
gender | the state of being male or female*


----------



## Uncensored2008

ogibillm said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> because i have a dictionary?
> you are ignorant and you keep putting your stupidity, ignorance, and willingness to lie on display.
> you lack integrity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are insane.
> 
> *gender*
> 
> 
> Tweet
> _noun_ gen·der \ˈjen-dər\
> : the state of being male or female
> 
> grammar : one of the categories (masculine, feminine, and neuter) into which words (such as nouns, adjectives, and pronouns) are divided in many languages
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Full Definition of GENDER*
> 1
> a *:*  a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms
> 
> b *:*  membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass
> 
> c *:*  an inflectional form showing membership in such a subclass
> 2
> a *:* sex <the feminine _gender_>
> 
> *b :  the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
> gender | the state of being male or female*
Click to expand...


So you admit you are insane?


----------



## ogibillm

dcraelin said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...for failure to obey court order of issuing marraige licenses to gay couples.
> 
> News from The Associated Press
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd just like to point out the hypocrisy of the judicial system.
> 
> Jerry Brown as attorney general of California refused to do his job to defend prop 8 against lawsuits.....the follow on attorney general did the same.....no consequences......but this woman gets thrown in jail....I guess lawyers have the privilege to ignore that law that  the rest of us dont.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did that deny anyone their constitutional rights?
> and if you wanted them punished, i guess someone should have sued.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> constitutional rights was a question involved..........but thats not really the point is it.
> 
> It has to do with the hypocrisy of judges and the judicial system.  Brown had a duty to the whole people of the State of California.....if he didnt feel it was right he should've resigned.
Click to expand...

it's tough to say that brown was derelict in his duty by not defending proposition 8. he was right, it wasn't defensible.


----------



## ogibillm

Uncensored2008 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> because i have a dictionary?
> you are ignorant and you keep putting your stupidity, ignorance, and willingness to lie on display.
> you lack integrity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are insane.
> 
> *gender*
> 
> 
> Tweet
> _noun_ gen·der \ˈjen-dər\
> : the state of being male or female
> 
> grammar : one of the categories (masculine, feminine, and neuter) into which words (such as nouns, adjectives, and pronouns) are divided in many languages
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Full Definition of GENDER*
> 1
> a *:*  a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms
> 
> b *:*  membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass
> 
> c *:*  an inflectional form showing membership in such a subclass
> 2
> a *:* sex <the feminine _gender_>
> 
> *b :  the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
> gender | the state of being male or female*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit you are insane?
Click to expand...

i give you the definition showing me to be correct, source that definition, and you still insist that i'm incorrect.
it's black and white, not open to debate. again, you demonstrate your lack of integrity.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ogibillm said:


> it's tough to say that brown was derelict in his duty by not defending proposition 8. he was right, it wasn't defensible.



So law must be enforced if you agree with it, otherwise not?

Hypocrisy much?


----------



## Uncensored2008

ogibillm said:


> i give you the definition showing me to be correct, source that definition, and you still insist that i'm incorrect.
> it's black and white, not open to debate. again, you demonstrate your lack of integrity.



No, you  provided alternate definitions including one used in psychology.

The definition is;

*gender*


Tweet
_noun_ gen·der \ˈjen-dər\
: the state of being male or female

grammar : one of the categories (masculine, feminine, and neuter) into which words (such as nouns, adjectives, and pronouns) are divided in many languages


You are quite insane.


----------



## dcraelin

ogibillm said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...for failure to obey court order of issuing marraige licenses to gay couples.
> 
> News from The Associated Press
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd just like to point out the hypocrisy of the judicial system.
> 
> Jerry Brown as attorney general of California refused to do his job to defend prop 8 against lawsuits.....the follow on attorney general did the same.....no consequences......but this woman gets thrown in jail....I guess lawyers have the privilege to ignore that law that  the rest of us dont.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did that deny anyone their constitutional rights?
> and if you wanted them punished, i guess someone should have sued.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> constitutional rights was a question involved..........but thats not really the point is it.
> 
> It has to do with the hypocrisy of judges and the judicial system.  Brown had a duty to the whole people of the State of California.....if he didnt feel it was right he should've resigned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's tough to say that brown was derelict in his duty by not defending proposition 8. he was right, it wasn't defensible.
Click to expand...



catch-22 kinda then huh...the reason it was ruled against was that the people in court didnt have standing....but Brown did...

It came before the SC's ruling.....so he doesn't have that excuse.....even if it had come after .....there are enough nuances in the law that he still has the duty to defend a law passed by the people of his state.

If Brown wasn't thrown in jail...this woman shouldn't be either.


----------



## Wry Catcher

RodISHI said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, your post is wrong, in addition to being ignorant.
> 
> The arrest was lawful and consistent with the Constitution, having nothing to do whatsoever with her religion.
> 
> That the likes of Cruz 'stands' with Davis, both exhibiting their ignorance of, and contempt for, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, comes as no surprise.
> 
> Davis would have been jailed if she were Muslim or Jewish, or a person free from faith – for whatever reason she might defy a lawful, Constitutional court order.
> 
> 
> 
> He or she whatever the case may be is a liar Bonzi. Sodomy is not mention as a protected act in the Bill of Rights or Constitution. Judges do not make law legislators voted into office by the people do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither is any kind of sex.  But it IS fascinating that you want to stick your nose, so to speak, in the sex lives of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sticking my nose into your sex life. Do your thing if you choose just don't expect me to agree with it when yo put it out into the public view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You go on about sodomy not being legal or in the Constitution.  Ok, how do you enforce any law against sodomy then?   And I've a ton more hetero sex out in public view than any gay sex.  Half the commercials on tv are based on the premise that sex sells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sodomy is not protected under the Constitution therefore the marriage of it is not either. I don't have or watch a TV, haven't for years. Did not have one when the children were little either.
> I have no intention of enforcing any laws on your sexual deviance. There is a though God's law and that you will to take up with the spirit in your self if you like.
Click to expand...


The law of Gravity is not protected under the COTUS either, maybe you ought to be a Martyr like the clerk and test it on a bridge.  The trier of fact in that case is God, so as a true believer, find a high bridge and post the result on YouTube.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Wry Catcher said:


> The law of Gravity is not protected under the COTUS either, maybe you ought to be a Martyr like the clerk and test it on a bridge.  The trier of fact in that case is God, so as a true believer, find a high bridge and post the result on YouTube.



You leftists, the fakers of reality can treat gravity as you treat gender - demand that it is what you want it to be and any given second.

In fact, this will be a better world if you leftists act on those delusions.


----------



## ogibillm

Uncensored2008 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> i give you the definition showing me to be correct, source that definition, and you still insist that i'm incorrect.
> it's black and white, not open to debate. again, you demonstrate your lack of integrity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you  provided alternate definitions including one used in psychology.
> 
> The definition is;
> 
> *gender*
> 
> 
> Tweet
> _noun_ gen·der \ˈjen-dər\
> : the state of being male or female
> 
> grammar : one of the categories (masculine, feminine, and neuter) into which words (such as nouns, adjectives, and pronouns) are divided in many languages
> 
> 
> You are quite insane.
Click to expand...

just wow. you can't even accept something presented to you and sourced when it's as basic as a definition of a word. 
how do you function day to day when you refuse to acknowledge reality?


----------



## WorldWatcher

airplanemechanic said:


> Then why force her to marry gay people against her religious beliefs? Sounds like the definition of "forcing sexuality down someones throat" if you ask me.
> 
> Or does it only apply when its sexuality that liberals are forcing down someones throat?



County Clerks don't marry people in Kentucky.  You have to be a member of the clergy, a Judge, or a Justice of the Peace.

She isn't being asked to marry anyone.



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher

airplanemechanic said:


> Why don't we take a poll of that county. What percent of them support gay marraige? If its less than 50%, she was upholding the beliefs of the people.



Should we have taken a poll in the 1950's to see what percent of them supported interracial marriage?


>>>>


----------



## ogibillm

dcraelin said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...for failure to obey court order of issuing marraige licenses to gay couples.
> 
> News from The Associated Press
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd just like to point out the hypocrisy of the judicial system.
> 
> Jerry Brown as attorney general of California refused to do his job to defend prop 8 against lawsuits.....the follow on attorney general did the same.....no consequences......but this woman gets thrown in jail....I guess lawyers have the privilege to ignore that law that  the rest of us dont.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did that deny anyone their constitutional rights?
> and if you wanted them punished, i guess someone should have sued.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> constitutional rights was a question involved..........but thats not really the point is it.
> 
> It has to do with the hypocrisy of judges and the judicial system.  Brown had a duty to the whole people of the State of California.....if he didnt feel it was right he should've resigned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's tough to say that brown was derelict in his duty by not defending proposition 8. he was right, it wasn't defensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> catch-22 kinda then huh...the reason it was ruled against was that the people in court didnt have standing....but Brown did...
> 
> It came before the SC's ruling.....so he doesn't have that excuse.....even if it had come after .....there are enough nuances in the law that he still has the duty to defend a law passed by the people of his state.
> 
> If Brown wasn't thrown in jail...this woman shouldn't be either.
Click to expand...

it's not quite the same thing. brown would have to give a legal defense. if he's not able to do that because its indefensible that's not really his fault. 
but i do agree with you, he should have at least attempted to do so.


----------



## WorldWatcher

airplanemechanic said:


> Where in the constitution does it give gays the right to marry?
> 
> This should be fun.




Are you suggesting that rights must be enumerated in the Constitution before they are held by the people?


>>>>


----------



## dcraelin

ogibillm said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd just like to point out the hypocrisy of the judicial system.
> 
> Jerry Brown as attorney general of California refused to do his job to defend prop 8 against lawsuits.....the follow on attorney general did the same.....no consequences......but this woman gets thrown in jail....I guess lawyers have the privilege to ignore that law that  the rest of us dont.
> 
> 
> 
> did that deny anyone their constitutional rights?
> and if you wanted them punished, i guess someone should have sued.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> constitutional rights was a question involved..........but thats not really the point is it.
> 
> It has to do with the hypocrisy of judges and the judicial system.  Brown had a duty to the whole people of the State of California.....if he didnt feel it was right he should've resigned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's tough to say that brown was derelict in his duty by not defending proposition 8. he was right, it wasn't defensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> catch-22 kinda then huh...the reason it was ruled against was that the people in court didnt have standing....but Brown did...
> 
> It came before the SC's ruling.....so he doesn't have that excuse.....even if it had come after .....there are enough nuances in the law that he still has the duty to defend a law passed by the people of his state.
> 
> If Brown wasn't thrown in jail...this woman shouldn't be either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's not quite the same thing. brown would have to give a legal defense. if he's not able to do that because its indefensible that's not really his fault.
> but i do agree with you, he should have at least attempted to do so.
Click to expand...


no it is slightly different,....but still gets down to legal duty..............and I think it shows a double standard on the part of the judicial system establishment.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

Simple Question:

How many divorced couples has the Clerk issued marriage licenses for, and if any then she need to drop the Christian act because she is full of shit when using her so-call Christianity to support her bigoted hatred to deny same sex couples the same rights as divorce couples enjoy!?!


----------



## dcraelin

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Simple Question:
> 
> How many divorced couples has the Clerk issued marriage licenses for, and if any then she need to drop the Christian act because she is full of shit when using her so-call Christianity to support her bigoted hatred to deny same sex couples the same rights as divorce couples enjoy!?!



she wasn't issuing ANY marriage licenses..which most likely means she was denying far more real marriages than gay marriages.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

airplanemechanic said:


> Where in the constitution does it give gays the right to marry?
> 
> This should be fun.


I actually find it hard to believe that your are asking such an idiotic question. May I make a suggestion. Read the Obergefell decision- I'm quite sure that your haven't - and see if that helps. If it does, we're good. If not, you're a hopeless case.


----------



## Asclepias

ogibillm said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> i give you the definition showing me to be correct, source that definition, and you still insist that i'm incorrect.
> it's black and white, not open to debate. again, you demonstrate your lack of integrity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you  provided alternate definitions including one used in psychology.
> 
> The definition is;
> 
> *gender*
> 
> 
> Tweet
> _noun_ gen·der \ˈjen-dər\
> : the state of being male or female
> 
> grammar : one of the categories (masculine, feminine, and neuter) into which words (such as nouns, adjectives, and pronouns) are divided in many languages
> 
> 
> You are quite insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just wow. you can't even accept something presented to you and sourced when it's as basic as a definition of a word.
> how do you function day to day when you refuse to acknowledge reality?
Click to expand...

Well he didnt know Vancouver was not in europe so you have to excuse him.


----------



## ogibillm

Asclepias said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> i give you the definition showing me to be correct, source that definition, and you still insist that i'm incorrect.
> it's black and white, not open to debate. again, you demonstrate your lack of integrity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you  provided alternate definitions including one used in psychology.
> 
> The definition is;
> 
> *gender*
> 
> 
> Tweet
> _noun_ gen·der \ˈjen-dər\
> : the state of being male or female
> 
> grammar : one of the categories (masculine, feminine, and neuter) into which words (such as nouns, adjectives, and pronouns) are divided in many languages
> 
> 
> You are quite insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just wow. you can't even accept something presented to you and sourced when it's as basic as a definition of a word.
> how do you function day to day when you refuse to acknowledge reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well he didnt know Vancouver was not in europe so you have to excuse him.
Click to expand...

there is no excuse for him.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Earlier today, her husband spoke out and said that the government was trying to squash religious freedom.

No...................he's got the right to practice ANY belief system that he wants to.  He also has the right to apply for any job that he thinks he's qualified for.

He also has the right to be offended if that job makes him go against his beliefs.

More importantly?  He has the right to find work elsewhere if he feels that his job is compromising his spirituality.

I mean.....................strip clubs are legal (and many Christian men go to them, I know, I used to work in one), but you don't see many Christians bitching about the working conditions as being sinful.

This woman needs to stay in jail until (a) she agrees to DO THE JOB SHE WAS ELECTED FOR, or (b) decides to step down.

And remember people.................this isn't about religion, this is about a county clerk who was held in contempt of court for not doing her job.  She can fix this by leaving or doing her job.


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> fr
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a political prisoner sitting in a cell. Pretend all you like that you are the ones oppressed - while a political prisoner rots on your jails for failing to bow to you.
> 
> 
> 
> *The worst oppressors in history present themselves as the underdog while running a reign of terror.* The Gaysteppo haven't proven any different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the Tea Party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Who has the Tea Party oppressed?  Spit it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who have the gays "oppressed"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody.
> 
> Did you mean the Gaysteppo? Because they don't represent all gay people.
> 
> Or even half.
Click to expand...


Who's been oppressed?


----------



## mudwhistle

ABikerSailor said:


> Earlier today, her husband spoke out and said that the government was trying to squash religious freedom.
> 
> No...................he's got the right to practice ANY belief system that he wants to.  He also has the right to apply for any job that he thinks he's qualified for.
> 
> He also has the right to be offended if that job makes him go against his beliefs.
> 
> More importantly?  He has the right to find work elsewhere if he feels that his job is compromising his spirituality.
> 
> I mean.....................strip clubs are legal (and many Christian men go to them, I know, I used to work in one), but you don't see many Christians bitching about the working conditions as being sinful.
> 
> This woman needs to stay in jail until (a) she agrees to DO THE JOB SHE WAS ELECTED FOR, or (b) decides to step down.
> 
> And remember people.................this isn't about religion, this is about a county clerk who was held in contempt of court for not doing her job.  She can fix this by leaving or doing her job.


You guys are such hypocrites.
You claim that when we try to stop you from getting your taxpayer funded abortions that's squashing your reproductive rights. If we don't agree with your definition of marriage we're trying to squash your civil rights.
Now you say that putting someone in jail for her religious convictions isn't squashing her religious freedom. Doesn't matter that she gave them options to get their piece of paper a few miles down the road.

You seem to believe in having in both ways.

You should change your name from the Democratic Party to the Hypocritical Nazi party.


----------



## Asclepias

mudwhistle said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier today, her husband spoke out and said that the government was trying to squash religious freedom.
> 
> No...................he's got the right to practice ANY belief system that he wants to.  He also has the right to apply for any job that he thinks he's qualified for.
> 
> He also has the right to be offended if that job makes him go against his beliefs.
> 
> More importantly?  He has the right to find work elsewhere if he feels that his job is compromising his spirituality.
> 
> I mean.....................strip clubs are legal (and many Christian men go to them, I know, I used to work in one), but you don't see many Christians bitching about the working conditions as being sinful.
> 
> This woman needs to stay in jail until (a) she agrees to DO THE JOB SHE WAS ELECTED FOR, or (b) decides to step down.
> 
> And remember people.................this isn't about religion, this is about a county clerk who was held in contempt of court for not doing her job.  She can fix this by leaving or doing her job.
> 
> 
> 
> You guys are such hypocrites.
> You claim that when we try to stop you from getting your taxpayer funded abortions that's squashing your reproductive rights.
> Now you say that putting someone in jail isn't squashing her religious freedom.
> 
> You seem to believe in having in both ways.
> 
> You should change your name from the Democratic Party to the Hypocritical Nazi party.
Click to expand...

Terribly structured argument.

Tu quoque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"_*Tu quoque*_ (/tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/;[1]Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the *appeal to hypocrisy* is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s)."


----------



## WinterBorn

mudwhistle said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier today, her husband spoke out and said that the government was trying to squash religious freedom.
> 
> No...................he's got the right to practice ANY belief system that he wants to.  He also has the right to apply for any job that he thinks he's qualified for.
> 
> He also has the right to be offended if that job makes him go against his beliefs.
> 
> More importantly?  He has the right to find work elsewhere if he feels that his job is compromising his spirituality.
> 
> I mean.....................strip clubs are legal (and many Christian men go to them, I know, I used to work in one), but you don't see many Christians bitching about the working conditions as being sinful.
> 
> This woman needs to stay in jail until (a) she agrees to DO THE JOB SHE WAS ELECTED FOR, or (b) decides to step down.
> 
> And remember people.................this isn't about religion, this is about a county clerk who was held in contempt of court for not doing her job.  She can fix this by leaving or doing her job.
> 
> 
> 
> You guys are such hypocrites.
> You claim that when we try to stop you from getting your taxpayer funded abortions that's squashing your reproductive rights. If we don't agree with your definition of marriage we're trying to squash your civil rights.
> Now you say that putting someone in jail for her religious convictions isn't squashing her religious freedom. Doesn't matter that she gave them options to get their piece of paper a few miles down the road.
> 
> You seem to believe in having in both ways.
> 
> You should change your name from the Democratic Party to the Hypocritical Nazi party.
Click to expand...


Horseshit!   She didn't give them any options.  She just didn't have any authority in the next county.

And if it was all about HER religious beliefs, why did she refuse to allow the deputy clerks to issue licenses?   She wants to stop it anyway she can.

And now she will play the martyr to the fullest and people like you will send her money.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

mudwhistle said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier today, her husband spoke out and said that the government was trying to squash religious freedom.
> 
> No...................he's got the right to practice ANY belief system that he wants to.  He also has the right to apply for any job that he thinks he's qualified for.
> 
> He also has the right to be offended if that job makes him go against his beliefs.
> 
> More importantly?  He has the right to find work elsewhere if he feels that his job is compromising his spirituality.
> 
> I mean.....................strip clubs are legal (and many Christian men go to them, I know, I used to work in one), but you don't see many Christians bitching about the working conditions as being sinful.
> 
> This woman needs to stay in jail until (a) she agrees to DO THE JOB SHE WAS ELECTED FOR, or (b) decides to step down.
> 
> And remember people.................this isn't about religion, this is about a county clerk who was held in contempt of court for not doing her job.  She can fix this by leaving or doing her job.
> 
> 
> 
> You guys are such hypocrites.
> You claim that when we try to stop you from getting your taxpayer funded abortions that's squashing your reproductive rights. If we don't agree with your definition of marriage we're trying to squash your civil rights.
> Now you say that putting someone in jail for her religious convictions isn't squashing her religious freedom. Doesn't matter that she gave them options to get their piece of paper a few miles down the road.
> 
> You seem to believe in having in both ways.
> 
> You should change your name from the Democratic Party to the Hypocritical Nazi party.
Click to expand...


There is no tax payer funded abortion.

The only thing that opposition to abortion and opposition to gay marriage has in common is that they are both driven by misguided religious fervor and the belief that you can impose your religious beliefs on others

No one gives a crap what you believe about marriage. Your beliefs do not effect anyone's civil rights. Only actions do that.

She was not jailed for her religious convictions. That is just as ridiculous as Huckabee's comment that Christianity is now criminalized. You know damned well why she is in jail. If heterosexual  do not have to go "a few miles down the road" couples, gay couples should not have to either. That is discrimination.

Furthermore, It is not about here protecting her supposed religious rights- she ordered her staff not to issue licenses either. She tried to shut it all down. She used her government position to impose her religious beliefs on others.

I love the way you guys, out of desperation, throw as much horseshit as you can at the wall and hope that something sticks.


----------



## mudwhistle

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier today, her husband spoke out and said that the government was trying to squash religious freedom.
> 
> No...................he's got the right to practice ANY belief system that he wants to.  He also has the right to apply for any job that he thinks he's qualified for.
> 
> He also has the right to be offended if that job makes him go against his beliefs.
> 
> More importantly?  He has the right to find work elsewhere if he feels that his job is compromising his spirituality.
> 
> I mean.....................strip clubs are legal (and many Christian men go to them, I know, I used to work in one), but you don't see many Christians bitching about the working conditions as being sinful.
> 
> This woman needs to stay in jail until (a) she agrees to DO THE JOB SHE WAS ELECTED FOR, or (b) decides to step down.
> 
> And remember people.................this isn't about religion, this is about a county clerk who was held in contempt of court for not doing her job.  She can fix this by leaving or doing her job.
> 
> 
> 
> You guys are such hypocrites.
> You claim that when we try to stop you from getting your taxpayer funded abortions that's squashing your reproductive rights. If we don't agree with your definition of marriage we're trying to squash your civil rights.
> Now you say that putting someone in jail for her religious convictions isn't squashing her religious freedom. Doesn't matter that she gave them options to get their piece of paper a few miles down the road.
> 
> You seem to believe in having in both ways.
> 
> You should change your name from the Democratic Party to the Hypocritical Nazi party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *There is no tax payer funded abortion.*
> 
> The only thing that opposition to abortion and opposition to gay marriage has in common is that they are both driven by misguided religious fervor and the belief that you can impose your religious beliefs on others
> 
> No one gives a crap what you believe about marriage. Your beliefs do not effect anyone's civil rights. Only actions do that.
> 
> She was not jailed for her religious convictions. That is just as ridiculous as Huckabee's comment that Christianity is now criminalized. You know damned well why she is in jail. If heterosexual  do not have to go "a few miles down the road" couples, gay couples should not have to either. That is discrimination.
> 
> Furthermore, It is not about here protecting her supposed religious rights- she ordered her staff not to issue licenses either. She tried to shut it all down. She used her government position to impose her religious beliefs on others.
> 
> I love the way you guys, out of desperation, throw as much horseshit as you can at the wall and hope that something sticks.
Click to expand...


Bullshit!!!!

Planned Parenthood is taxpayer funded. 

And for the record, I think this woman is a bitch.....but I also will defend her right to religious freedom. 

If you guys don't like the way she does her job, vote her out of office.....don't jail her. All that does is gain sympathy for her and illustrates the utter hypocrisy of the left.


----------



## mudwhistle

WinterBorn said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier today, her husband spoke out and said that the government was trying to squash religious freedom.
> 
> No...................he's got the right to practice ANY belief system that he wants to.  He also has the right to apply for any job that he thinks he's qualified for.
> 
> He also has the right to be offended if that job makes him go against his beliefs.
> 
> More importantly?  He has the right to find work elsewhere if he feels that his job is compromising his spirituality.
> 
> I mean.....................strip clubs are legal (and many Christian men go to them, I know, I used to work in one), but you don't see many Christians bitching about the working conditions as being sinful.
> 
> This woman needs to stay in jail until (a) she agrees to DO THE JOB SHE WAS ELECTED FOR, or (b) decides to step down.
> 
> And remember people.................this isn't about religion, this is about a county clerk who was held in contempt of court for not doing her job.  She can fix this by leaving or doing her job.
> 
> 
> 
> You guys are such hypocrites.
> You claim that when we try to stop you from getting your taxpayer funded abortions that's squashing your reproductive rights. If we don't agree with your definition of marriage we're trying to squash your civil rights.
> Now you say that putting someone in jail for her religious convictions isn't squashing her religious freedom. Doesn't matter that she gave them options to get their piece of paper a few miles down the road.
> 
> You seem to believe in having in both ways.
> 
> You should change your name from the Democratic Party to the Hypocritical Nazi party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit!  * She didn't give them any options.  She just didn't have any authority in the next county.*
> 
> And if it was all about HER religious beliefs, why did she refuse to allow the deputy clerks to issue licenses?   She wants to stop it anyway she can.
> 
> And now she will play the martyr to the fullest and people like you will send her money.
Click to expand...

Prove that she wanted to actively prevent these people from getting a license elsewhere. 

The reason she didn't authorize the deputy clerks to issue them is because that would be asking someone else to do your sinning for you.


----------



## WinterBorn

mudwhistle said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier today, her husband spoke out and said that the government was trying to squash religious freedom.
> 
> No...................he's got the right to practice ANY belief system that he wants to.  He also has the right to apply for any job that he thinks he's qualified for.
> 
> He also has the right to be offended if that job makes him go against his beliefs.
> 
> More importantly?  He has the right to find work elsewhere if he feels that his job is compromising his spirituality.
> 
> I mean.....................strip clubs are legal (and many Christian men go to them, I know, I used to work in one), but you don't see many Christians bitching about the working conditions as being sinful.
> 
> This woman needs to stay in jail until (a) she agrees to DO THE JOB SHE WAS ELECTED FOR, or (b) decides to step down.
> 
> And remember people.................this isn't about religion, this is about a county clerk who was held in contempt of court for not doing her job.  She can fix this by leaving or doing her job.
> 
> 
> 
> You guys are such hypocrites.
> You claim that when we try to stop you from getting your taxpayer funded abortions that's squashing your reproductive rights. If we don't agree with your definition of marriage we're trying to squash your civil rights.
> Now you say that putting someone in jail for her religious convictions isn't squashing her religious freedom. Doesn't matter that she gave them options to get their piece of paper a few miles down the road.
> 
> You seem to believe in having in both ways.
> 
> You should change your name from the Democratic Party to the Hypocritical Nazi party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit!  * She didn't give them any options.  She just didn't have any authority in the next county.*
> 
> And if it was all about HER religious beliefs, why did she refuse to allow the deputy clerks to issue licenses?   She wants to stop it anyway she can.
> 
> And now she will play the martyr to the fullest and people like you will send her money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove that she wanted to actively prevent these people from getting a license elsewhere.
> 
> The reason she didn't authorize the deputy clerks to issue them is because that would be asking someone else to do your sinning for you.
Click to expand...


They already told the judge they would do it.  According to the scriptures you think she is jailed over, they have already sinned.   

Prove?  She refused to do what she was ordered by the courts and by the Gov of KY.  If she had the authority, she wouldn't allow it anywhere.  That is blatantly obvious.


----------



## EriktheRed

mudwhistle said:


> If you guys don't like the way she does her job, vote her out of office.....don't jail her. All that does is gain sympathy for her and illustrates the utter hypocrisy of the left.




Jailing her's a wonderful idea, actually. It's obvious she'd get all kinds of help paying any fines levied against her, but it's kinda hard for a bunch of bible-thumping nutbags to just break her out of jail (unless they don't mind making felons out of themseves, of course). 

That's why the Shrub-appointed *conservative* judge told her to go to the slammer, after all.


----------



## EriktheRed

WinterBorn said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier today, her husband spoke out and said that the government was trying to squash religious freedom.
> 
> No...................he's got the right to practice ANY belief system that he wants to.  He also has the right to apply for any job that he thinks he's qualified for.
> 
> He also has the right to be offended if that job makes him go against his beliefs.
> 
> More importantly?  He has the right to find work elsewhere if he feels that his job is compromising his spirituality.
> 
> I mean.....................strip clubs are legal (and many Christian men go to them, I know, I used to work in one), but you don't see many Christians bitching about the working conditions as being sinful.
> 
> This woman needs to stay in jail until (a) she agrees to DO THE JOB SHE WAS ELECTED FOR, or (b) decides to step down.
> 
> And remember people.................this isn't about religion, this is about a county clerk who was held in contempt of court for not doing her job.  She can fix this by leaving or doing her job.
> 
> 
> 
> You guys are such hypocrites.
> You claim that when we try to stop you from getting your taxpayer funded abortions that's squashing your reproductive rights. If we don't agree with your definition of marriage we're trying to squash your civil rights.
> Now you say that putting someone in jail for her religious convictions isn't squashing her religious freedom. Doesn't matter that she gave them options to get their piece of paper a few miles down the road.
> 
> You seem to believe in having in both ways.
> 
> You should change your name from the Democratic Party to the Hypocritical Nazi party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit!  * She didn't give them any options.  She just didn't have any authority in the next county.*
> 
> And if it was all about HER religious beliefs, why did she refuse to allow the deputy clerks to issue licenses?   She wants to stop it anyway she can.
> 
> And now she will play the martyr to the fullest and people like you will send her money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove that she wanted to actively prevent these people from getting a license elsewhere.
> 
> The reason she didn't authorize the deputy clerks to issue them is because that would be asking someone else to do your sinning for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They already told the judge they would do it.  According to the scriptures you think she is jailed over, they have already sinned.
> 
> Prove?  She refused to do what she was ordered by the courts and by the Gov of KY.  If she had the authority, she wouldn't allow it anywhere.  That is blatantly obvious.
Click to expand...



Her actual intent is irrelevant anyway. *Her* office is obliged to follow the law and if she's actively preventing it from doing that, she's eligible for the penalty she's getting.


----------



## ABikerSailor

You know..............this is kind of like a person joining the military and then being told they are going to a war zone, whereupon they declare themselves to be a consciencious objector stating that their religious beliefs prevent them from taking another life.

That soldier or sailor is then discharged from the military, due to being a consciencious objector, because they refuse to do the job required.

This woman is objecting to issuing gay marriage licenses because it violates her religious beliefs, and, like objectors in the military, she should be released from her job.

Oh.............and btw................if she would have stepped down in the first place, she wouldn't be in jail.  It's not for her religious beliefs that she's there, it's because she refused to obey the courts and is being held for contempt.

Same result would have happened if she was Catholic, Muslim, Jewish or whatever other belief system you want to use.


----------



## Vandalshandle

ABikerSailor said:


> You know..............this is kind of like a person joining the military and then being told they are going to a war zone, whereupon they declare themselves to be a consciencious objector stating that their religious beliefs prevent them from taking another life.
> 
> That soldier or sailor is then discharged from the military, due to being a consciencious objector, because they refuse to do the job required.
> 
> This woman is objecting to issuing gay marriage licenses because it violates her religious beliefs, and, like objectors in the military, she should be released from her job.
> 
> Oh.............and btw................if she would have stepped down in the first place, she wouldn't be in jail.  It's not for her religious beliefs that she's there, it's because she refused to obey the courts and is being held for contempt.
> 
> Same result would have happened if she was Catholic, Muslim, Jewish or whatever other belief system you want to use.



Maybe she should be glad that she is safe. Her husband took to packing heat, and they complained of death threats.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Vandalshandle said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know..............this is kind of like a person joining the military and then being told they are going to a war zone, whereupon they declare themselves to be a consciencious objector stating that their religious beliefs prevent them from taking another life.
> 
> That soldier or sailor is then discharged from the military, due to being a consciencious objector, because they refuse to do the job required.
> 
> This woman is objecting to issuing gay marriage licenses because it violates her religious beliefs, and, like objectors in the military, she should be released from her job.
> 
> Oh.............and btw................if she would have stepped down in the first place, she wouldn't be in jail.  It's not for her religious beliefs that she's there, it's because she refused to obey the courts and is being held for contempt.
> 
> Same result would have happened if she was Catholic, Muslim, Jewish or whatever other belief system you want to use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe she should be glad that she is safe. Her husband took to packing heat, and they complained of death threats.
Click to expand...


Personally, I think they are making up the death threats, because they haven't actually gone to the cops over this and filed a report.

I think they're just saying that for the drama and to give more fuel to their fire.


----------



## Vandalshandle

ABikerSailor said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know..............this is kind of like a person joining the military and then being told they are going to a war zone, whereupon they declare themselves to be a consciencious objector stating that their religious beliefs prevent them from taking another life.
> 
> That soldier or sailor is then discharged from the military, due to being a consciencious objector, because they refuse to do the job required.
> 
> This woman is objecting to issuing gay marriage licenses because it violates her religious beliefs, and, like objectors in the military, she should be released from her job.
> 
> Oh.............and btw................if she would have stepped down in the first place, she wouldn't be in jail.  It's not for her religious beliefs that she's there, it's because she refused to obey the courts and is being held for contempt.
> 
> Same result would have happened if she was Catholic, Muslim, Jewish or whatever other belief system you want to use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe she should be glad that she is safe. Her husband took to packing heat, and they complained of death threats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally, I think they are making up the death threats, because they haven't actually gone to the cops over this and filed a report.
> 
> I think they're just saying that for the drama and to give more fuel to their fire.
Click to expand...


I agree. In Kentucky, whenever anyone gets into an arguments with someone, someone goes home and gets a gun. It has been that way since before the Hatfields and McCoys.


----------



## mudwhistle

WinterBorn said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier today, her husband spoke out and said that the government was trying to squash religious freedom.
> 
> No...................he's got the right to practice ANY belief system that he wants to.  He also has the right to apply for any job that he thinks he's qualified for.
> 
> He also has the right to be offended if that job makes him go against his beliefs.
> 
> More importantly?  He has the right to find work elsewhere if he feels that his job is compromising his spirituality.
> 
> I mean.....................strip clubs are legal (and many Christian men go to them, I know, I used to work in one), but you don't see many Christians bitching about the working conditions as being sinful.
> 
> This woman needs to stay in jail until (a) she agrees to DO THE JOB SHE WAS ELECTED FOR, or (b) decides to step down.
> 
> And remember people.................this isn't about religion, this is about a county clerk who was held in contempt of court for not doing her job.  She can fix this by leaving or doing her job.
> 
> 
> 
> You guys are such hypocrites.
> You claim that when we try to stop you from getting your taxpayer funded abortions that's squashing your reproductive rights. If we don't agree with your definition of marriage we're trying to squash your civil rights.
> Now you say that putting someone in jail for her religious convictions isn't squashing her religious freedom. Doesn't matter that she gave them options to get their piece of paper a few miles down the road.
> 
> You seem to believe in having in both ways.
> 
> You should change your name from the Democratic Party to the Hypocritical Nazi party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit!  * She didn't give them any options.  She just didn't have any authority in the next county.*
> 
> And if it was all about HER religious beliefs, why did she refuse to allow the deputy clerks to issue licenses?   She wants to stop it anyway she can.
> 
> And now she will play the martyr to the fullest and people like you will send her money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove that she wanted to actively prevent these people from getting a license elsewhere.
> 
> The reason she didn't authorize the deputy clerks to issue them is because that would be asking someone else to do your sinning for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They already told the judge they would do it.  According to the scriptures you think she is jailed over, they have already sinned.
> 
> Prove?  She refused to do what she was ordered by the courts and by the Gov of KY.  If she had the authority, she wouldn't allow it anywhere.  That is blatantly obvious.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty big "IF". 

She doesn't have the authority. So her effect on the situation is minor.

However, we have a president that has effected all of our lives with his lawlessness. I think he should be jailed for the same reasons.


----------



## mudwhistle

ABikerSailor said:


> You know..............this is kind of like a person joining the military and then being told they are going to a war zone, whereupon they declare themselves to be a consciencious objector stating that their religious beliefs prevent them from taking another life.
> 
> That soldier or sailor is then discharged from the military, due to being a consciencious objector, because they refuse to do the job required.
> 
> This woman is objecting to issuing gay marriage licenses because it violates her religious beliefs, and, like objectors in the military, she should be released from her job.
> 
> Oh.............and btw................if she would have stepped down in the first place, she wouldn't be in jail.  It's not for her religious beliefs that she's there, it's because she refused to obey the courts and is being held for contempt.
> 
> Same result would have happened if she was Catholic, Muslim, Jewish or whatever other belief system you want to use.


Well, not a Muslim.....because you'd come under attack from the White House.


----------



## ABikerSailor

mudwhistle said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know..............this is kind of like a person joining the military and then being told they are going to a war zone, whereupon they declare themselves to be a consciencious objector stating that their religious beliefs prevent them from taking another life.
> 
> That soldier or sailor is then discharged from the military, due to being a consciencious objector, because they refuse to do the job required.
> 
> This woman is objecting to issuing gay marriage licenses because it violates her religious beliefs, and, like objectors in the military, she should be released from her job.
> 
> Oh.............and btw................if she would have stepped down in the first place, she wouldn't be in jail.  It's not for her religious beliefs that she's there, it's because she refused to obey the courts and is being held for contempt.
> 
> Same result would have happened if she was Catholic, Muslim, Jewish or whatever other belief system you want to use.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not a Muslim.....because you'd come under attack from the White House.
Click to expand...


Under attack from the WH or not, if this chick were Muslim and did the same thing (or Jewish or whatever) I'd still call for her to do her job or resign.

Nice partisan rhetoric there PudWhistler.


----------



## mudwhistle

ABikerSailor said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know..............this is kind of like a person joining the military and then being told they are going to a war zone, whereupon they declare themselves to be a consciencious objector stating that their religious beliefs prevent them from taking another life.
> 
> That soldier or sailor is then discharged from the military, due to being a consciencious objector, because they refuse to do the job required.
> 
> This woman is objecting to issuing gay marriage licenses because it violates her religious beliefs, and, like objectors in the military, she should be released from her job.
> 
> Oh.............and btw................if she would have stepped down in the first place, she wouldn't be in jail.  It's not for her religious beliefs that she's there, it's because she refused to obey the courts and is being held for contempt.
> 
> Same result would have happened if she was Catholic, Muslim, Jewish or whatever other belief system you want to use.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not a Muslim.....because you'd come under attack from the White House.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under attack from the WH or not, if this chick were Muslim and did the same thing (or Jewish or whatever) I'd still call for her to do her job or resign.
> 
> Nice partisan rhetoric there PudWhistler.
Click to expand...



Yeah, but this Muslim can kill all of the Christians and Jews she wants.....no complaints from you'all.


----------



## mudwhistle




----------



## Asclepias

mudwhistle said:


>


Another logical fail.

False equivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"
*False equivalence* is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency."

"A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors."


----------



## MaryL

It's sad when the so called supreme court comes to  represent a few  rich white  neurotic sexual perverts that buys layers and inevitably changes the course of popular opinion and law. THAT isn't what "WE, THE PEOPLE" means, IF we, the PEOPLE,  DO NOT WANT gay marriage, it should mean just that, nothing more , nothing LESS.


----------



## Asclepias

MaryL said:


> It's sad when the so called supreme court comes to  represent a few  rich white  neurotic sexual perverts that buys layers and inevitably changes the course of popular opinion and law. THATc isn't what "WE, THE PEOPLE" means, IF we, the PEOPLE,  DO NOT WANT gay marriage, it should mean just that, nothing more , nothing LESS.


If you dont want to be married because you are gay dont get married. You dont get to dictate that choice to other people.


----------



## HUGGY

I would like to know how that very stupid and ugly woman managed to find four men to marry her.


----------



## MaryL

Lets be honest here: marriage is just a empty status symbol to gays. They will never have kids outside of mistaken unions or adoption. We are all children of hetrosexuals, and no amendments or bitching about the unfairness of life will change that ditty,


----------



## Asclepias

MaryL said:


> Lets be honest here: marriage is just a empty status symbol to gays. They will never have kids outside of mistaken unions or adoption. We are all children of hetrosexuals, and no amendments or bitching about the unfairness of life will change that ditty,


How do you know its an empty status symbol to all gays? Just because you are gay and dont like gay marriage doesnt mean other gay people feel the same way.


----------



## Asclepias

HUGGY said:


> I would like to know how that very stupid and ugly woman managed to find four men to marry her.



Incredible BJ? Maybe she is a step up from humping wild boar. This is in Alabama right?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

MaryL said:


> Lets be honest here: marriage is just a empty status symbol to gays. They will never have kids outside of mistaken unions or adoption. We are all children of hetrosexuals, and no amendments or bitching about the unfairness of life will change that ditty,


This is comprehensive wrong and ridiculous, and completely devoid of honesty.

Gay Americans are perfectly capable of having children, many have children of their own.

Nor is marriage an 'empty status symbol' for gay Americans, they are just as capable of love and commitment as opposite-sex couples.

This is the sort of ignorance that foments unwarranted animosity toward gay Americans.


----------



## bodecea

MaryL said:


> Lets be honest here: marriage is just a empty status symbol to gays. They will never have kids outside of mistaken unions or adoption. We are all children of hetrosexuals, and no amendments or bitching about the unfairness of life will change that ditty,


You have to tell us more about what us gays "want" and how you come by these pearls of wisdom.    Really.   Fascinate us.


----------



## MaryL

Asclepias said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets be honest here: marriage is just a empty status symbol to gays. They will never have kids outside of mistaken unions or adoption. We are all children of hetrosexuals, and no amendments or bitching about the unfairness of life will change that ditty,
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know its an empty status symbol to all gays? Just because you are gay and dont like gay marriage doesnt mean other gay people feel the same way.
Click to expand...

Oh brother, Trite bullocks yet again. I am so tired of these phony confrontations , ja' cuse  bullocks, I don't have to be a chicken to know an egg. Ya know?


----------



## bodecea

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets be honest here: marriage is just a empty status symbol to gays. They will never have kids outside of mistaken unions or adoption. We are all children of hetrosexuals, and no amendments or bitching about the unfairness of life will change that ditty,
> 
> 
> 
> This is comprehensive wrong and ridiculous, and completely devoid of honesty.
> 
> Gay Americans are perfectly capable of having children, many have children of their own.
> 
> Nor is marriage an 'empty status symbol' for gay Americans, they are just as capable of love and commitment as opposite-sex couples.
> 
> This is the sort of ignorance that foments unwarranted animosity toward gay Americans.
Click to expand...

You have to wonder what hell hole marriage is to people who think that way about the marriages of others.


----------



## bodecea

Asclepias said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to know how that very stupid and ugly woman managed to find four men to marry her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incredible BJ? Maybe she is a step up from humping wild boar. This is in Alabama right?
Click to expand...

No...Kentucky...and it was actually 3 men...one of them twice.   Yes, you heard that right.


----------



## Asclepias

MaryL said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets be honest here: marriage is just a empty status symbol to gays. They will never have kids outside of mistaken unions or adoption. We are all children of hetrosexuals, and no amendments or bitching about the unfairness of life will change that ditty,
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know its an empty status symbol to all gays? Just because you are gay and dont like gay marriage doesnt mean other gay people feel the same way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother, Trite bullocks yet again. I am so tired of this phony confrontations , ja' cuse  bullocks, I don't have to be a chicken to know an egg. Ya know?
Click to expand...

That was dumber than most of your posts. What do chicken and eggs have to do with getting married?  How many other gay people have you polled besides yourself?


----------



## Asclepias

bodecea said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to know how that very stupid and ugly woman managed to find four men to marry her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incredible BJ? Maybe she is a step up from humping wild boar. This is in Alabama right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No...Kentucky...and it was actually 3 men...one of them twice.   Yes, you heard that right.
Click to expand...

Kentucky. Alabama. Same difference.


----------



## bodecea

mudwhistle said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier today, her husband spoke out and said that the government was trying to squash religious freedom.
> 
> No...................he's got the right to practice ANY belief system that he wants to.  He also has the right to apply for any job that he thinks he's qualified for.
> 
> He also has the right to be offended if that job makes him go against his beliefs.
> 
> More importantly?  He has the right to find work elsewhere if he feels that his job is compromising his spirituality.
> 
> I mean.....................strip clubs are legal (and many Christian men go to them, I know, I used to work in one), but you don't see many Christians bitching about the working conditions as being sinful.
> 
> This woman needs to stay in jail until (a) she agrees to DO THE JOB SHE WAS ELECTED FOR, or (b) decides to step down.
> 
> And remember people.................this isn't about religion, this is about a county clerk who was held in contempt of court for not doing her job.  She can fix this by leaving or doing her job.
> 
> 
> 
> You guys are such hypocrites.
> You claim that when we try to stop you from getting your taxpayer funded abortions that's squashing your reproductive rights. If we don't agree with your definition of marriage we're trying to squash your civil rights.
> Now you say that putting someone in jail for her religious convictions isn't squashing her religious freedom. Doesn't matter that she gave them options to get their piece of paper a few miles down the road.
> 
> You seem to believe in having in both ways.
> 
> You should change your name from the Democratic Party to the Hypocritical Nazi party.
Click to expand...

Check this out....muddy's connecting abortion and gays again.   Rest assured, I know of no gay couples getting abortions.


----------



## EriktheRed

MaryL said:


> It's sad when the so called supreme court comes to  represent a few  rich white  neurotic sexual perverts that buys layers and inevitably changes the course of popular opinion and law. THAT isn't what "WE, THE PEOPLE" means, IF we, the PEOPLE,  DO NOT WANT gay marriage, it should mean just that, nothing more , nothing LESS.




Once again, you might wanna take a look at the latest opinion polls. Your apparent definition of "we the people" doesn't seem to jibe with them anymore.


----------



## Kondor3

bodecea said:


> ...Yes...we know you support Christian Sharia...


You know no such thing.

Also, you cannot even define and articulate this made-up term, "_Christian Sharia Law_", so, I'm not going to sweat your brickbats.



> ....putting your interpretation of your religion before the U.S. Constitution and our secular laws.


1. I am a Christian-leaning Agnostic - a Doubting Thomas

2. I do not put my 'religion' ahead of the Constitution.

3. I merely hold that our Constitution has recently been interpreted incorrectly, in contravention to the interests of the Nation and its People, in favor of a tiny minority of sexual deviants and perverts (homosexuals).

4. I advocate revisiting recent SCOTUS rulings on the subject, and a different attack-angle, in order to overturn such bad rulings, as is my right, under the Constitution

5. Our 'secular' laws have vast, deep roots in the Laws of Antiquity (Greece, Rome) and post-Imperial, Medieval and Renaissance *CANON* law, and modern-day adaptations.

6. We are a Secular Christian Nation - with a healthy separation between Church and State - but a country in which the vast majority are of a Christian 'confession'.


----------



## tigerred59

*Gotta love these bible toting christians who claim Jesus and judge other's. Clearly this country bitch don't read the bible much!!*


----------



## bodecea

Kondor3 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Yes...we know you support Christian Sharia...
> 
> 
> 
> You know no such thing.
> 
> Also, you cannot even define and articulate this made-up term, "_Christian Sharia Law_", so, I'm not going to sweat your brickbats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....putting your interpretation of your religion before the U.S. Constitution and our secular laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. I am a Christian-leaning Agnostic - a Doubting Thomas
> 
> 2. I do not put my 'religion' ahead of the Constitution.
> 
> 3. I merely hold that our Constitution has recently been interpreted incorrectly, in contravention to the interests of the Nation and its People, in favor of a tiny minority of sexual deviants and perverts (homosexuals).
> 
> 4. I advocate revisiting recent SCOTUS rulings on the subject, and a different attack-angle, in order to overturn such bad rulings, as is my right, under the Constitution
> 
> 5. Our 'secular' laws have vast, deep roots in the Laws of Antiquity (Greece, Rome) and post-Imperial, Medieval and Renaissance *CANON* law, and modern-day adaptations.
> 
> 6. We are a Secular Christian Nation - with a healthy separation between Church and State - but a country in which the vast majority are of a Christian 'confession'.
Click to expand...

Anyone who supports Kim Davis' attempt at forcing christian sharia onto her county is a supporter of the concept of christian sharia.  You've been supporting her, don't deny it.


----------



## Kondor3

bodecea said:


> ...I see that you continue to advocate for Christian Sharia law to supercede our Constitutional law.


Previously and effectively countered, above.

I see, however, that you continue to belch-out Sound Byte Labels - made-up labels such as _Christian Sharia_ - without being able to properly define that for us.

You're actually not very good at this, when it gets right down to the gut-level work, are you?


----------



## Kondor3

bodecea said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Yes...we know you support Christian Sharia...
> 
> 
> 
> You know no such thing.
> 
> Also, you cannot even define and articulate this made-up term, "_Christian Sharia Law_", so, I'm not going to sweat your brickbats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....putting your interpretation of your religion before the U.S. Constitution and our secular laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. I am a Christian-leaning Agnostic - a Doubting Thomas
> 
> 2. I do not put my 'religion' ahead of the Constitution.
> 
> 3. I merely hold that our Constitution has recently been interpreted incorrectly, in contravention to the interests of the Nation and its People, in favor of a tiny minority of sexual deviants and perverts (homosexuals).
> 
> 4. I advocate revisiting recent SCOTUS rulings on the subject, and a different attack-angle, in order to overturn such bad rulings, as is my right, under the Constitution
> 
> 5. Our 'secular' laws have vast, deep roots in the Laws of Antiquity (Greece, Rome) and post-Imperial, Medieval and Renaissance *CANON* law, and modern-day adaptations.
> 
> 6. We are a Secular Christian Nation - with a healthy separation between Church and State - but a country in which the vast majority are of a Christian 'confession'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who supports Kim Davis' attempt at forcing christian sharia onto her county is a supporter of the concept of christian sharia.  You've been supporting her, don't deny it.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as _Christian Sharia_.

It is a made-up term that politically active sexual deviants and perverts (homosexuals) and their supporters like to vomit-up, in an attempt to discredit their opposition.

All that is required to defeat the Gay Mafia is the courage to take their brickbats and to keep charging.


----------



## Kondor3

Skylar said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> This case is not without precedent. A few years ago, a cab driver in Minneapolis refused to pick up a guy at the airport who was carrying a sealed container of alcohol, because the cab driver was a Muslim. The guy took him to court, and the court told the cab driver that he if he holds himself forth as a cab driver, he can not refuse to pick up someone because of religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah but that was a Muslim. This is a Christian. So obviously the standards are different.
Click to expand...

By Jove, I think you've got it.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Kondor3 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I see that you continue to advocate for Christian Sharia law to supercede our Constitutional law.
> 
> 
> 
> Previously and effectively countered, above.
> 
> I see, however, that you continue to belch-out Sound Byte Labels - made-up labels such as _Christian Sharia_ - without being able to properly define that for us.
> 
> You're actually not very good at this, when it gets right down to the gut-level work, are you?
Click to expand...


So, when a Minnesota court ruled a few years back that a Muslim taxi driver could not discriminate against a passenger carrying a sealed bottle of liquor, simply because , as a Muslim, he objected to driving the guy, based on his religious beliefs, to be a wrong decision on the part of the court?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Now the woman is going to appeal the contempt of court decision. I guess that her attorney feels that the appeals court can overturn the Supreme Court decision.

Her attorney is also claiming that the marraige certificates are not valid, since the clerk has not signed them, even though the county attorney says that they are valid.

Her attorney has also restated that she is not going to resign, and not going to agree to the judges order. Consequently, she remains in jail pretty much until the legislator meets in January, anyway. Works for me!


----------



## Vandalshandle

MaryL said:


> Lets be honest here: marriage is just a empty status symbol to gays. They will never have kids outside of mistaken unions or adoption. We are all children of hetrosexuals, and no amendments or bitching about the unfairness of life will change that ditty,



Not even worthy of the dignity of a response.


----------



## BULLDOG

Flopper said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> barry1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that this is an interesting problem for which there is a solution. First, gays are allowed to marry so the state should sanction it. That includes this county. My guess is that homosexuals are flocking to this county to force the issue. Davis attorney suggested a reasonable compromise. Strike the clerk's name from the certificate and process the marriage license. Davis conscience is clear and gays get married. Seems reasonable since her taking office pre-dates the SCOTUS decision. No need to fill our jails with a non-criminals. There is better use of tax payer money. No need to jail her unless the motivation was persecution. Judge spoke as much when he stated she would be jailed until she changed her conviction. I understand gays right to marry in this country on the basis of the supreme court decision. However I see a progression. First the enforcement of gay marriage on government officials. Second, the enforcement of providing wedding related services to homosexuals such as baking cakes etc. Finally, attempting to force Christian churches to marriage homosexuals despite their religious convictions and then a limitation on free speech for those churches that would label homosexuality a sin. Strangely Islamic churches will be exempt from such. No doubt that the gay community has an agenda that they will push and the religious convictions of Christians will be steamrolled. A balance should be struck between homosexual rights and first amendment rights. Funny how a court clerk who refuse to discharge a part of her duties is jailed, but a mayor of a sanctuary city can refuse to enforce immigration law. I have mixed feeling on immigration, but the inconsistency is clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches have and still do deny performing marriages to strait couples for a wide variety of reasons. There has never been a single effort to sue a church to perform a marriage that it didn't want to perform. Your claim that that will change is just fear mongering, and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree.  A marriage license is a legal contract.  A religious marriage is moral contract.  The two are not the same.  Why is that so many people have trouble understanding this?
Click to expand...



They do understand it, but the chose to pretend they don't.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

mudwhistle said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier today, her husband spoke out and said that the government was trying to squash religious freedom.
> 
> No...................he's got the right to practice ANY belief system that he wants to.  He also has the right to apply for any job that he thinks he's qualified for.
> 
> He also has the right to be offended if that job makes him go against his beliefs.
> 
> More importantly?  He has the right to find work elsewhere if he feels that his job is compromising his spirituality.
> 
> I mean.....................strip clubs are legal (and many Christian men go to them, I know, I used to work in one), but you don't see many Christians bitching about the working conditions as being sinful.
> 
> This woman needs to stay in jail until (a) she agrees to DO THE JOB SHE WAS ELECTED FOR, or (b) decides to step down.
> 
> And remember people.................this isn't about religion, this is about a county clerk who was held in contempt of court for not doing her job.  She can fix this by leaving or doing her job.
> 
> 
> 
> You guys are such hypocrites.
> You claim that when we try to stop you from getting your taxpayer funded abortions that's squashing your reproductive rights. If we don't agree with your definition of marriage we're trying to squash your civil rights.
> Now you say that putting someone in jail for her religious convictions isn't squashing her religious freedom. Doesn't matter that she gave them options to get their piece of paper a few miles down the road.
> 
> You seem to believe in having in both ways.
> 
> You should change your name from the Democratic Party to the Hypocritical Nazi party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *There is no tax payer funded abortion.*
> 
> The only thing that opposition to abortion and opposition to gay marriage has in common is that they are both driven by misguided religious fervor and the belief that you can impose your religious beliefs on others
> 
> No one gives a crap what you believe about marriage. Your beliefs do not effect anyone's civil rights. Only actions do that.
> 
> She was not jailed for her religious convictions. That is just as ridiculous as Huckabee's comment that Christianity is now criminalized. You know damned well why she is in jail. If heterosexual  do not have to go "a few miles down the road" couples, gay couples should not have to either. That is discrimination.
> 
> Furthermore, It is not about here protecting her supposed religious rights- she ordered her staff not to issue licenses either. She tried to shut it all down. She used her government position to impose her religious beliefs on others.
> 
> I love the way you guys, out of desperation, throw as much horseshit as you can at the wall and hope that something sticks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit!!!!
> 
> Planned Parenthood is taxpayer funded.
> 
> And for the record, I think this woman is a bitch.....but I also will defend her right to religious freedom.
> 
> If you guys don't like the way she does her job, vote her out of office.....don't jail her. All that does is gain sympathy for her and illustrates the utter hypocrisy of the left.
Click to expand...


Apparently you didn't understand much of what I said. Lets try this...

ABORTION is not tax payer funded

Same sex marriage is the law of the land

Davis refused to perform her official duties and allow same sex couples to marry

She defied the court and was held in contempt.

Here religious freedom was not violated.

What part of this do you not understand?


----------



## Flopper

AvgGuyIA said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> This reminds me of the "wedding cake" controversy in a way.
> People can and do break the law.
> If they do it knowingly, the have the RIGHT (yes, the RIGHT) to do it if they are willing to do the TIME - take the punishment that goes along with it.
> 
> We are not puppets.
> 
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with Commerce Clause jurisprudence or public accommodations laws, there is no similarity whatsoever; Davis does not have the 'right' to defy the Constitution, the courts, and the rule of law – whether she's willing to 'take the punishment' or not.
> 
> And it has nothing to do with 'being a puppet' - Davis or anyone else is at liberty to resign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do mayors in sanctuary cities have the right by defy immigration laws?  Name one serving jail time.
Click to expand...

We don't put people in prison because they are accused of violating the law.


----------



## mudwhistle

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier today, her husband spoke out and said that the government was trying to squash religious freedom.
> 
> No...................he's got the right to practice ANY belief system that he wants to.  He also has the right to apply for any job that he thinks he's qualified for.
> 
> He also has the right to be offended if that job makes him go against his beliefs.
> 
> More importantly?  He has the right to find work elsewhere if he feels that his job is compromising his spirituality.
> 
> I mean.....................strip clubs are legal (and many Christian men go to them, I know, I used to work in one), but you don't see many Christians bitching about the working conditions as being sinful.
> 
> This woman needs to stay in jail until (a) she agrees to DO THE JOB SHE WAS ELECTED FOR, or (b) decides to step down.
> 
> And remember people.................this isn't about religion, this is about a county clerk who was held in contempt of court for not doing her job.  She can fix this by leaving or doing her job.
> 
> 
> 
> You guys are such hypocrites.
> You claim that when we try to stop you from getting your taxpayer funded abortions that's squashing your reproductive rights. If we don't agree with your definition of marriage we're trying to squash your civil rights.
> Now you say that putting someone in jail for her religious convictions isn't squashing her religious freedom. Doesn't matter that she gave them options to get their piece of paper a few miles down the road.
> 
> You seem to believe in having in both ways.
> 
> You should change your name from the Democratic Party to the Hypocritical Nazi party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *There is no tax payer funded abortion.*
> 
> The only thing that opposition to abortion and opposition to gay marriage has in common is that they are both driven by misguided religious fervor and the belief that you can impose your religious beliefs on others
> 
> No one gives a crap what you believe about marriage. Your beliefs do not effect anyone's civil rights. Only actions do that.
> 
> She was not jailed for her religious convictions. That is just as ridiculous as Huckabee's comment that Christianity is now criminalized. You know damned well why she is in jail. If heterosexual  do not have to go "a few miles down the road" couples, gay couples should not have to either. That is discrimination.
> 
> Furthermore, It is not about here protecting her supposed religious rights- she ordered her staff not to issue licenses either. She tried to shut it all down. She used her government position to impose her religious beliefs on others.
> 
> I love the way you guys, out of desperation, throw as much horseshit as you can at the wall and hope that something sticks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit!!!!
> 
> Planned Parenthood is taxpayer funded.
> 
> And for the record, I think this woman is a bitch.....but I also will defend her right to religious freedom.
> 
> If you guys don't like the way she does her job, vote her out of office.....don't jail her. All that does is gain sympathy for her and illustrates the utter hypocrisy of the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently you didn't understand much of what I said. Lets try this...
> 
> ABORTION is not tax payer funded
> 
> Same sex marriage is the law of the land
> 
> Davis refused to perform her official duties and allow same sex couples to marry
> 
> She defied the court and was held in contempt.
> 
> Here religious freedom was not violated.
> 
> What part of this do you not understand?
Click to expand...

Well understand this.......most of the abortions in the United States are done by* Planned Parenthood*, and Planned Parenthood is funded by *taxpayers*.


*Planned Parenthood reports record year for abortions*
By Charlie Spiering • 1/7/13 12:00 AM


In its latest annual report for fiscal year 2011 to 2012, Planned Parenthood reveals that it performed 333,964 abortions in 2011 – a record year for the organization.

According to annual reports, the organization performed 332,278 abortions in 2009, 329,445 in 2010, making the total number of abortions in three years to 995,687.

Planned Parenthood reported receiving a record $542 million in taxpayer funding, according to a Susan B. Anthony List analysis of the report, in the form of government grants, contracts, and Medicaid reimbursements. The amount is 45 percent of Planned Parenthood’s annual revenue.

“While government subsidies to Planned Parenthood have reached an all time high, so too has the number of lives ended by this profit-driven abortion business,” SBA List’s President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement. “Destroying nearly one million children in three years is not health care and does not reflect a concern for vulnerable women and girls.”Planned Parenthood reports record year for abortions​

*(CNSNews.com)* - _Planned Parenthood performed 332,278 abortions in the United States in 2009, according to a fact sheet the group published last month.


That is about as many as the 333,012 people who lived in the city of Cincinnati, Ohio, in 2009, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.


The 332,278 abortions Planned Parenthood performed over the 365 days of 2009 equals an average of 910 lives terminated per day--or about 38 per hour, or one every 95 seconds.


Planned Parenthood, according to its most recent annual report, also received $363.2 million in government grants and contracts during its fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2009.


Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Tait Sye recently told Bloomberg Businessweek that 90 percent of that $363.2 million came directly from the federal government or from Medicaid, a federal-state program. Thus, Planned Parenthood received about $326.88 million from federal programs in 2009._

_Planned Parenthood Did One Abortion Every 95 Seconds—As Many in One Year as Live In Cincinnati_​


----------



## Flopper

Odium said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> i find it funny that the op believes tyranny is jailing a public servant for contempt but that same public servant unilaterally denying services to citizens she disagrees with is not tyrannical.
> 
> 
> 
> The tyrant is trampling on her first amendment rights. Plain and simple. If he dislikes her choices so much why has the Kentucky Legislature in 3 months not impeached and removed her? Hmmmm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odium:  The state legislature is not in session.  It does not convene until January.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know this. The only way they can go back into session is for the incompetent governor to ask them to. He refuses even though BOTH heads of the parties want to.
Click to expand...

And to what end?


----------



## Lakhota

Christian Taliban Sharia law is an ugly thing to watch.


----------



## Coyote

MaryL said:


> It's sad when the so called supreme court comes to  represent a few  rich white  neurotic sexual perverts that buys layers and inevitably changes the course of popular opinion and law. THAT isn't what "WE, THE PEOPLE" means, IF we, the PEOPLE,  DO NOT WANT gay marriage, it should mean just that, nothing more , nothing LESS.



Glad you agree with "we the people" because "we the people" support same sex marriage 

Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage


----------



## Coyote

MaryL said:


> Lets be honest here: marriage is just a empty status symbol to gays. They will never have kids outside of mistaken unions or adoption. *We are all children of hetrosexuals,* and no amendments or bitching about the unfairness of life will change that ditty,



Not necessarily.  Sexual orientation doesn't affect the plumbing.  My father was homosexual and he had two kids.


----------



## Coyote

Kondor3 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Yes...we know you support Christian Sharia...
> 
> 
> 
> You know no such thing.
> 
> Also, you cannot even define and articulate this made-up term, "_Christian Sharia Law_", so, I'm not going to sweat your brickbats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....putting your interpretation of your religion before the U.S. Constitution and our secular laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. I am a Christian-leaning Agnostic - a Doubting Thomas
> 
> 2. I do not put my 'religion' ahead of the Constitution.
> 
> 3. I merely hold that our Constitution has recently been interpreted incorrectly, in contravention to the interests of the Nation and its People, in favor of a tiny minority of sexual deviants and perverts (homosexuals).
> 
> 4. I advocate revisiting recent SCOTUS rulings on the subject, and a different attack-angle, in order to overturn such bad rulings, as is my right, under the Constitution
> 
> 5. Our 'secular' laws have vast, deep roots in the Laws of Antiquity (Greece, Rome) and post-Imperial, Medieval and Renaissance *CANON* law, and modern-day adaptations.
> 
> 6. We are a Secular Christian Nation - with a healthy separation between Church and State - but a country in which the vast majority are of a Christian 'confession'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who supports Kim Davis' attempt at forcing christian sharia onto her county is a supporter of the concept of christian sharia.  You've been supporting her, don't deny it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as _Christian Sharia_.
> 
> It is a made-up term that politically active sexual deviants and perverts (homosexuals) and their supporters like to vomit-up, in an attempt to discredit their opposition.
> 
> All that is required to defeat the Gay Mafia is the courage to take their brickbats and to keep charging.
Click to expand...


Sounds like there is a gang war in the works between Christian Sharia and the Gay Mafia.  Who do you think will win?  One gang has God on their side and the other has extravegent costumes.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

dcraelin said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple Question:
> 
> How many divorced couples has the Clerk issued marriage licenses for, and if any then she need to drop the Christian act because she is full of shit when using her so-call Christianity to support her bigoted hatred to deny same sex couples the same rights as divorce couples enjoy!?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> she wasn't issuing ANY marriage licenses..which most likely means she was denying far more real marriages than gay marriages.
Click to expand...


Real Marriages?

First off explain to me what a real marriage is to you?

Also the woman in question is a pathetic joke!

She has been married four times to three different men and what I read she got pregnant while being married to one guy and the father of her twins was by another guy that was husband number three, so she committed adultery which is also a sin, but please let ignore her sins,right?

In the end her suppose found religious moral ground is just her ignorant ass way to be a bigot and so many fools are defending her while ignoring what type of white trash that woman really is, but hey at least she is denying Gay couples to be treated equal, right?

Kim Davis (county clerk) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Silhouette

Coyote said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets be honest here: marriage is just a empty status symbol to gays. They will never have kids outside of mistaken unions or adoption. *We are all children of hetrosexuals,* and no amendments or bitching about the unfairness of life will change that ditty,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.  Sexual orientation doesn't affect the plumbing.  My father was homosexual and he had two kids.
Click to expand...

 Your father was bisexual, obviously.  Which means he just did whatever got his jollies.  Which means it was about behavior and not something he "was".  It was something he did sometimes.

People need to learn the difference betwen a verb and a noun.


----------



## Silhouette

Flopper said:


> We don't put people in prison because they are accused of violating the law.


 
Given: Jude 1 mandates the refusal to promote a homosexual culture under threat of eternal peril for failing to do so.

Given: Kim Davis has the 1st Amendment as her legal right.

Given: She was jailed for following a mandate that if she didn't, would land her for eternity in the pit of fire.

Therefore: she must sue for violation of her civil rights.


----------



## bodecea

Silhouette said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't put people in prison because they are accused of violating the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given: Jude 1 mandates the refusal to promote a homosexual culture under threat of eternal peril for failing to do so.
> 
> Given: Kim Davis has the 1st Amendment as her legal right.
> 
> Given: She was jailed for following a mandate that if she didn't, would land her for eternity in the pit of fire.
> 
> Therefore: she must sue for violation of her civil rights.
Click to expand...

I see you too support Christian Sharia laws.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Apparently, Kim sees no ethical or moral dilemma in having her name appear on her paycheck, even though she is violating her oath of office by not doing her job.


----------



## Kondor3

Coyote said:


> ...Sounds like there is a gang war in the works between Christian Sharia and the Gay Mafia.  Who do you think will win?  One gang has God on their side and the other has extravegent costumes.


Tee-hee. Good one. It does rather sound like that, doesn't it? Then again, in all seriousness, if conservatives take it all in 2016, it may become real enough, quickly enough, in a metaphorical legal sense. Time will give us that answer.


----------



## Kondor3

Vandalshandle said:


> Apparently, Kim sees no ethical or moral dilemma in having her name appear on her paycheck, even though she is violating her oath of office by not doing her job.


Choice 1: obey a wicked legal ruling

Choice 2: fight the wicked legal ruling, from a position of high visibility, in the service of her cause

She chose the lesser of two evils, from her perspective.

Tough choice.

Gutsy call.

How many of us ever get the chance to put our ass on the line for what we believe in?

And, in turn, how many of us choose the more difficult path, when faced with that choice?

The answer to both of the above is damned few, relatively speaking.

She did.

Regardless of whether you agree with her perspective of not, she gets kudos for courage, and nerves of steel, and putting her money where her mouth is.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Kondor3 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, Kim sees no ethical or moral dilemma in having her name appear on her paycheck, even though she is violating her oath of office by not doing her job.
> 
> 
> 
> Choice 1: obey a wicked legal ruling
> 
> Choice 2: fight the wicked legal ruling, from a position of high visibility, in the service of her cause
> 
> She chose the lesser of two evils, from her perspective.
> 
> Tough choice.
> 
> Gutsy call.
> 
> How many of us ever get the chance to put our ass on the line for what we believe in?
> 
> How many of us choose the more difficult path, when faced with that choice?
> 
> She did.
Click to expand...


Difficult? Even her attorney says that her spirits are high and that she is happy that she is becoming a "martyr"! (while being paid to not do her job).


----------



## Kondor3

Vandalshandle said:


> ...Difficult? Even her attorney says that her spirits are high and that she is happy that she is becoming a "martyr"! (while being paid to not do her job).


Yes.

Difficult.

She is in jail.

She will eventually lose her job.

She knew both of these things were going to happen, prior to making her choice, to take a stand against a wicked legal ruling.

On the macro level, she may very well be 'content' that things are unfolding in this fashion, but I seriously doubt that anyone can be 'happy' sitting in a jail cell, separated from family and friends and the free air, as a matter of choice, in order to take a stand.

Yes.

Difficult.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Kondor3 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Difficult? Even her attorney says that her spirits are high and that she is happy that she is becoming a "martyr"! (while being paid to not do her job).
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Difficult.
> 
> She is in jail.
> 
> She will eventually lose her job.
> 
> She knew both of these things were going to happen, prior to making her choice, to take a stand against a wicked legal ruling.
> 
> On the macro level, she may very well be 'content' that things are unfolding in this fashion, but I seriously doubt that anyone can be 'happy' sitting in a jail cell, separated from family and friends and the free air, as a matter of choice, in order to take a stand.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Difficult.
Click to expand...


Well, I'll say this. I certainly hope so!


----------



## Vandalshandle

Come on, guys! Trump has spoken on this! That should settle it for you!


----------



## Flopper

Silhouette said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't put people in prison because they are accused of violating the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given: Jude 1 mandates the refusal to promote a homosexual culture under threat of eternal peril for failing to do so.
> 
> Given: Kim Davis has the 1st Amendment as her legal right.
> 
> Given: She was jailed for following a mandate that if she didn't, would land her for eternity in the pit of fire.
> 
> Therefore: she must sue for violation of her civil rights.
Click to expand...

Sue who?  The Supreme Court.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Kondor3 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Yes...we know you support Christian Sharia...
> 
> 
> 
> You know no such thing.
> 
> Also, you cannot even define and articulate this made-up term, "_Christian Sharia Law_", so, I'm not going to sweat your brickbats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....putting your interpretation of your religion before the U.S. Constitution and our secular laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. I am a Christian-leaning Agnostic - a Doubting Thomas
> 
> 2. I do not put my 'religion' ahead of the Constitution.
> 
> 3. I merely hold that our Constitution has recently been interpreted incorrectly, in contravention to the interests of the Nation and its People, in favor of a tiny minority of sexual deviants and perverts (homosexuals).
> 
> 4. I advocate revisiting recent SCOTUS rulings on the subject, and a different attack-angle, in order to overturn such bad rulings, as is my right, under the Constitution
> 
> 5. Our 'secular' laws have vast, deep roots in the Laws of Antiquity (Greece, Rome) and post-Imperial, Medieval and Renaissance *CANON* law, and modern-day adaptations.
> 
> 6. We are a Secular Christian Nation - with a healthy separation between Church and State - but a country in which the vast majority are of a Christian 'confession'.
Click to expand...


Your brand of secular bigotry is refreshing  I  suppose but bigotry never the less. Sexual deviants? Really? In any case lets talk about the high court.

You think that the Obergefell ruling was wrong? Surely you must have followed the case closely and studied the ruling in depth in order to come to that conclusion? You did read the opinion, right?

Please tell us what your legal theory in support of that view is. I hope that you can do that without falling back on Roberts pathetic "leave it to the democratic process" cope out or Scalia and Thomas' inane, fear based rant that ignored  the constitution all together. 

I would be most interested in knowing what your "new attack angle " would look like.

Regarding Roberts, my guess is that he was OK with the majority ruling, judging from his relatively mild rebuke of it. I believe that he voted against equality, at least in part, because he knew what Kennedy would do. That way he could preserve his own conservative legacy, while knowing that his tenure would not be tainted by having presided over a court that would have been on the wrong side of history.


----------



## WinterBorn

Silhouette said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't put people in prison because they are accused of violating the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given: Jude 1 mandates the refusal to promote a homosexual culture under threat of eternal peril for failing to do so.
> 
> Given: Kim Davis has the 1st Amendment as her legal right.
> 
> Given: She was jailed for following a mandate that if she didn't, would land her for eternity in the pit of fire.
> 
> Therefore: she must sue for violation of her civil rights.
Click to expand...


And her resignation would have solved the problem.

A perfect example of this sort of bullshit is this:   If I worked in a restaurant, and they added pork to the menu.  My religion forbids eating pork.  So I don't eat it.  And now I am going to make sure you can't eat it here either.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Silhouette said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't put people in prison because they are accused of violating the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given: Jude 1 mandates the refusal to promote a homosexual culture under threat of eternal peril for failing to do so.
> 
> Given: Kim Davis has the 1st Amendment as her legal right.
> 
> Given: She was jailed for following a mandate that if she didn't, would land her for eternity in the pit of fire.
> 
> Therefore: she must sue for violation of her civil rights.
Click to expand...

You probably believe this over the top, inane equine excrement also......




> *Kim Davis' Lawyer Invokes Nazi Gas Chambers, Warns Of Massive Persecution *Submitted by Brian Tashman on Friday, 9/4/2015 10:35 am\
> 
> On Wednesday, anti-gay Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’ lawyer Mat Staver, founder of the right-wing legal group Liberty Counsel, compared Davis to a Jew living in Nazi Germany. Following a judge’s order yesterday that Davis remain in custody of U.S. Marshals for continuing to defy the courts, Staver appeared on “Washington Watch” where he once again brought up Nazi tyranny.






> Staver accused Davis’ critics of turning America into Nazi Germany: “Back in the 1930s, it began with the Jews, where they were evicted from public employment, then boycotted in their private employment, then stigmatized and that led to the gas chambers. This is the new persecution of Christians here in this country.” - See more at: Kim Davis' Lawyer Invokes Nazi Gas Chambers, Warns Of Massive Persecution



Funny thing is, if this were Nazi Germany, it is people like Staver and James who would be handing the gays over to them.


----------



## dcraelin

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple Question:
> 
> How many divorced couples has the Clerk issued marriage licenses for, and if any then she need to drop the Christian act because she is full of shit when using her so-call Christianity to support her bigoted hatred to deny same sex couples the same rights as divorce couples enjoy!?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> she wasn't issuing ANY marriage licenses..which most likely means she was denying far more real marriages than gay marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real Marriages?
> 
> First off explain to me what a real marriage is to you?
> 
> Also the woman in question is a pathetic joke!
> 
> She has been married four times to three different men and what I read she got pregnant while being married to one guy and the father of her twins was by another guy that was husband number three, so she committed adultery which is also a sin, but please let ignore her sins,right?
> 
> In the end her suppose found religious moral ground is just her ignorant ass way to be a bigot and so many fools are defending her while ignoring what type of white trash that woman really is, but hey at least she is denying Gay couples to be treated equal, right?
> 
> Kim Davis (county clerk) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


I really doubt all the "info" you've presented.....it seems like a naked political based smear....but even if true doesnt negate her beliefs. 

And dont pretend not to know what I mean by real marriages. 

Amazing how powerful lawyers and judges can ignore the law and face no consequences, but this lady when acting out of conviction is thrown in jail.

former Attorney general Brown of California shirked his duty in defending prop 8, and faced no consequences. The same with the AG who came after him....I think this also happened in other states.  If this lady faces jail time for not doing her duty....so should they.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple Question:
> 
> How many divorced couples has the Clerk issued marriage licenses for, and if any then she need to drop the Christian act because she is full of shit when using her so-call Christianity to support her bigoted hatred to deny same sex couples the same rights as divorce couples enjoy!?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> she wasn't issuing ANY marriage licenses..which most likely means she was denying far more real marriages than gay marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real Marriages?
> 
> First off explain to me what a real marriage is to you?
> 
> Also the woman in question is a pathetic joke!
> 
> She has been married four times to three different men and what I read she got pregnant while being married to one guy and the father of her twins was by another guy that was husband number three, so she committed adultery which is also a sin, but please let ignore her sins,right?
> 
> In the end her suppose found religious moral ground is just her ignorant ass way to be a bigot and so many fools are defending her while ignoring what type of white trash that woman really is, but hey at least she is denying Gay couples to be treated equal, right?
> 
> Kim Davis (county clerk) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really doubt all the "info" you've presented.....it seems like a naked political based smear....but even if true doesnt negate her beliefs.
> 
> And dont pretend not to know what I mean by real marriages.
> 
> Amazing how powerful lawyers and judges can ignore the law and face no consequences, but this lady when acting out of conviction is thrown in jail.
> 
> former Attorney general Brown of California shirked his duty in defending prop 8, and faced no consequences. The same with the AG who came after him....I think this also happened in other states.  If this lady faces jail time for not doing her duty....so should they.
Click to expand...


Real marriages...? Like Davis' 4 marriages. It's the truth. It's been reported y numerous sources. Or, maybe you were thinking of Newt Gingrich's marriages.

Davis was not thrown in jail for her convictions . or simply for not doing her job. She was jailed for contempt of court. Brown was not in contempt of any court

You seem to be another one of these folks  who, in the absence of anything of substance, just throws as much dung as you can at the wall and hope that something sticks.


----------



## Faun

Silhouette said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't put people in prison because they are accused of violating the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given: Jude 1 mandates the refusal to promote a homosexual culture under threat of eternal peril for failing to do so.
> 
> Given: Kim Davis has the 1st Amendment as her legal right.
> 
> Given: She was jailed for following a mandate that if she didn't, would land her for eternity in the pit of fire.
> 
> Therefore: she must sue for violation of her civil rights.
Click to expand...

Sounds like she took a job not well suited for her. Her other option to protect her standing in the Lord's grace while staying out of jail would have been to find a new line of work.


----------



## Coyote

Kondor3 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Sounds like there is a gang war in the works between Christian Sharia and the Gay Mafia.  Who do you think will win?  One gang has God on their side and the other has extravegent costumes.
> 
> 
> 
> Tee-hee. Good one. It does rather sound like that, doesn't it? Then again, in all seriousness, if conservatives take it all in 2016, it may become real enough, quickly enough, in a metaphorical legal sense. Time will give us that answer.
Click to expand...


I don't think you will see a change even if conservatives make significant wins (and that is doubtful) - there is something called "extinction burst" and some of that is what we are seeing in this.  It echos the tactics and behavior of the pro-segregationist states and municipalities that opposed desegregaton of public schools.    The reality is - the number of people in favor of gay marriage has been steadily increasing and the demographics of that change point not to conservatives "giving up" but rather to increasing numbers of young people supporting it, including young Christians who don't support the emphasis on the social  religious politics of the traditional Christian right.  That tide is only going to increase with time.


----------



## Coyote

Silhouette said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets be honest here: marriage is just a empty status symbol to gays. They will never have kids outside of mistaken unions or adoption. *We are all children of hetrosexuals,* and no amendments or bitching about the unfairness of life will change that ditty,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.  Sexual orientation doesn't affect the plumbing.  My father was homosexual and he had two kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Your father was bisexual,* obviously.  Which means he just did whatever got his jollies.  Which means it was about behavior and not something he "was".  It was something he did sometimes.
> 
> People need to learn the difference betwen a verb and a noun.
Click to expand...


No.  He wasn't.

Homo and hetero are orientations.  Nothing prevents either in engaging in different behaviors - a hetero can engage in homo acts and a homo can engage in hetero acts.  "Bi" simply means someone who is comfortable swinging both ways.  For people of my father's generation and religious upbringing - being homosexual was abhorant and like many homosexuals of that era he married and had a family, against his natural inclination.  He was a very tormented person as a result.  If he had been born today his life path might have been very different but that is neither here nor there.  The point is - homosexuals can choose to engage in acts to have children naturally.  We are not all children of heteros because plumbing is irrelevant.


----------



## Lakhota

*Mike Huckabee to visit Kentucky clerk Kim Davis in jail - CNN.com*

He should just stay with her.


----------



## boedicca

The clerk's civil rights were violated.    The county could have made an accommodation by having other staff handle the gay marriage licenses.

_
Under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, both public and private employers have a duty to exempt religious employees from generally applicable work rules, so long as this won’t create an “undue hardship,” meaning more than a modest cost, on the employer. If the employees can be accommodated in a way that would let the job still get done without much burden on the employer, coworkers, and customers — for instance by switching the employee’s assignments with another employee or by otherwise slightly changing the job duties — then the employer must accommodate them. (The Muslim flight attendant I mentioned above, for instance, claims that she has always been able to work out arrangements under which the other flight attendant serves the alcohol instead of her.)..._

When does your religion legally excuse you from doing part of your job?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

boedicca said:


> The clerk's civil rights were violated.    The county could have made an accommodation by having other staff handle the gay marriage licenses.
> 
> _
> Under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, both public and private employers have a duty to exempt religious employees from generally applicable work rules, so long as this won’t create an “undue hardship,” meaning more than a modest cost, on the employer. *If the employees can be accommodated in a way that would let the job still get done without much burden on the employer,* coworkers, and customers — for instance by switching the employee’s assignments with another employee or by otherwise slightly changing the job duties — then the employer must accommodate them. (The Muslim flight attendant I mentioned above, for instance, claims that she has always been able to work out arrangements under which the other flight attendant serves the alcohol instead of her.)..._
> 
> When does your religion legally excuse you from doing part of your job?


_*SHE REFUSED TO ACCEPT THAT ACCOMODATION. SHE ORDERED HER STAFF NOT TO ISSUE LICENSES. THE JUDGE OFFERED TO LET HER GO IF SHE JUST PROMISED NOT TO INTERFEAR!   SHE REFUSED!!*_


----------



## boedicca

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> The clerk's civil rights were violated.    The county could have made an accommodation by having other staff handle the gay marriage licenses.
> 
> _
> Under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, both public and private employers have a duty to exempt religious employees from generally applicable work rules, so long as this won’t create an “undue hardship,” meaning more than a modest cost, on the employer. *If the employees can be accommodated in a way that would let the job still get done without much burden on the employer,* coworkers, and customers — for instance by switching the employee’s assignments with another employee or by otherwise slightly changing the job duties — then the employer must accommodate them. (The Muslim flight attendant I mentioned above, for instance, claims that she has always been able to work out arrangements under which the other flight attendant serves the alcohol instead of her.)..._
> 
> When does your religion legally excuse you from doing part of your job?
> 
> 
> 
> _*SHE REFUSED TO ACCEPT THAT ACCOMODATION. SHE ORDERED HER STAFF NOT TO ISSUE LICENSES. THE JUDGE OFFERED TO LET HER GO IF SHE JUST PROMISED NOT TO INTERFEAR!   SHE REFUSED!!*_
Click to expand...



Her manager should have relieved her of responsibility for this.  Throwing her in Jail is a Totalitarian Thought Police Tactic.

(And btw, typing in caps in all in red doesn't make your crap any more convincing.  All red is actually a violation of the board rules as red is used for moderation.)


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

boedicca said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> The clerk's civil rights were violated.    The county could have made an accommodation by having other staff handle the gay marriage licenses.
> 
> _
> Under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, both public and private employers have a duty to exempt religious employees from generally applicable work rules, so long as this won’t create an “undue hardship,” meaning more than a modest cost, on the employer. *If the employees can be accommodated in a way that would let the job still get done without much burden on the employer,* coworkers, and customers — for instance by switching the employee’s assignments with another employee or by otherwise slightly changing the job duties — then the employer must accommodate them. (The Muslim flight attendant I mentioned above, for instance, claims that she has always been able to work out arrangements under which the other flight attendant serves the alcohol instead of her.)..._
> 
> When does your religion legally excuse you from doing part of your job?
> 
> 
> 
> _*SHE REFUSED TO ACCEPT THAT ACCOMODATION. SHE ORDERED HER STAFF NOT TO ISSUE LICENSES. THE JUDGE OFFERED TO LET HER GO IF SHE JUST PROMISED NOT TO INTERFEAR!   SHE REFUSED!!*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Her manager should have relieved her of responsibility for this.  Throwing her in Jail is a Totalitarian Thought Police Tactic.
> 
> (And btw, typing in caps in all in red doesn't make your crap any more convincing.  All red is actually a violation of the board rules as red is used for moderation.)
Click to expand...


My crap?? I think that you are just making this stuff up because you're out of ammunition. Who is her manager? Who would have such authority? I'll admit that I don't know but I suspect that the answer is no one since she is an elected official. She could have arranged here own accommodation. She did not. She was offered an accommodation by the judge. She turned it down. Now stop squirming


----------



## boedicca

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> The clerk's civil rights were violated.    The county could have made an accommodation by having other staff handle the gay marriage licenses.
> 
> _
> Under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, both public and private employers have a duty to exempt religious employees from generally applicable work rules, so long as this won’t create an “undue hardship,” meaning more than a modest cost, on the employer. *If the employees can be accommodated in a way that would let the job still get done without much burden on the employer,* coworkers, and customers — for instance by switching the employee’s assignments with another employee or by otherwise slightly changing the job duties — then the employer must accommodate them. (The Muslim flight attendant I mentioned above, for instance, claims that she has always been able to work out arrangements under which the other flight attendant serves the alcohol instead of her.)..._
> 
> When does your religion legally excuse you from doing part of your job?
> 
> 
> 
> _*SHE REFUSED TO ACCEPT THAT ACCOMODATION. SHE ORDERED HER STAFF NOT TO ISSUE LICENSES. THE JUDGE OFFERED TO LET HER GO IF SHE JUST PROMISED NOT TO INTERFEAR!   SHE REFUSED!!*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Her manager should have relieved her of responsibility for this.  Throwing her in Jail is a Totalitarian Thought Police Tactic.
> 
> (And btw, typing in caps in all in red doesn't make your crap any more convincing.  All red is actually a violation of the board rules as red is used for moderation.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My crap?? I think that you are just making this stuff up because you're out of ammunition. Who is her manager? Who would have such authority? I'll admit that I don't know but I suspect that the answer is no one since she is an elected official. She could have arranged here own accommodation. She did not. She was offered an accommodation by the judge. She turned it down. Now stop squirming
Click to expand...



I doubt that the CLERK is Empress of her County with Supreme Power.  She has a boss.  Work duties can be reassigned to accommodate Constitutionally Protected Rights.

The fact that you would rather see her life destroyed says a great deal about your corrupt little soul.


----------



## Lakhota

boedicca said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> The clerk's civil rights were violated.    The county could have made an accommodation by having other staff handle the gay marriage licenses.
> 
> _
> Under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, both public and private employers have a duty to exempt religious employees from generally applicable work rules, so long as this won’t create an “undue hardship,” meaning more than a modest cost, on the employer. *If the employees can be accommodated in a way that would let the job still get done without much burden on the employer,* coworkers, and customers — for instance by switching the employee’s assignments with another employee or by otherwise slightly changing the job duties — then the employer must accommodate them. (The Muslim flight attendant I mentioned above, for instance, claims that she has always been able to work out arrangements under which the other flight attendant serves the alcohol instead of her.)..._
> 
> When does your religion legally excuse you from doing part of your job?
> 
> 
> 
> _*SHE REFUSED TO ACCEPT THAT ACCOMODATION. SHE ORDERED HER STAFF NOT TO ISSUE LICENSES. THE JUDGE OFFERED TO LET HER GO IF SHE JUST PROMISED NOT TO INTERFEAR!   SHE REFUSED!!*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Her manager should have relieved her of responsibility for this.  Throwing her in Jail is a Totalitarian Thought Police Tactic.
> 
> (And btw, typing in caps in all in red doesn't make your crap any more convincing.  All red is actually a violation of the board rules as red is used for moderation.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My crap?? I think that you are just making this stuff up because you're out of ammunition. Who is her manager? Who would have such authority? I'll admit that I don't know but I suspect that the answer is no one since she is an elected official. She could have arranged here own accommodation. She did not. She was offered an accommodation by the judge. She turned it down. Now stop squirming
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that the CLERK is Empress of her County with Supreme Power.  She has a boss.  Work duties can be reassigned to accommodate Constitutionally Protected Rights.
> 
> The fact that you would rather see her life destroyed says a great deal about your corrupt little soul.
Click to expand...


Her immediate "boss" is the legal system that sent her to jail.  Apparently you don't know much about county government.


----------



## Faun

boedicca said:


> The clerk's civil rights were violated.    The county could have made an accommodation by having other staff handle the gay marriage licenses.
> 
> _
> Under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, both public and private employers have a duty to exempt religious employees from generally applicable work rules, so long as this won’t create an “undue hardship,” meaning more than a modest cost, on the employer. If the employees can be accommodated in a way that would let the job still get done without much burden on the employer, coworkers, and customers — for instance by switching the employee’s assignments with another employee or by otherwise slightly changing the job duties — then the employer must accommodate them. (The Muslim flight attendant I mentioned above, for instance, claims that she has always been able to work out arrangements under which the other flight attendant serves the alcohol instead of her.)..._
> 
> When does your religion legally excuse you from doing part of your job?


She could have observed her bullshit religion and not issue a marriage license. All she had to do was let her office issue it, which is ultimately what happened anyway. But she wouldn't permit anyone in her office to do so. She was forcing her religious views upon everyone else in her office.


----------



## Dana7360

norwegen said:


> Government is violating her religious liberty.  What jail time does government do for violating the law?





Actually no.

The supreme court has ruled over and over again that religion and state must be separate. 

This woman is a representative of the government. She's paid by tax dollars and ran for a public government office. So while she's at work she can't force her religion on anyone.

She's violating the constitution and anyone who actually supports her violating the constitution shows once again that they don't give a damn about our constitution, bill of rights or what America stands for. You also spit in the faces of everyone who has given their life for our nation and that constitution.

If you want to live in a theocracy, move to Iran. They already have established a theocracy that persecutes homosexuals.  

You'll fit in well there.


----------



## Lakhota

I forget which poster said it - but here is the best analogy I've heard so far: "Kim Davis is guilty of being a holy roller at work".


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

boedicca said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> The clerk's civil rights were violated.    The county could have made an accommodation by having other staff handle the gay marriage licenses.
> 
> _
> Under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, both public and private employers have a duty to exempt religious employees from generally applicable work rules, so long as this won’t create an “undue hardship,” meaning more than a modest cost, on the employer. *If the employees can be accommodated in a way that would let the job still get done without much burden on the employer,* coworkers, and customers — for instance by switching the employee’s assignments with another employee or by otherwise slightly changing the job duties — then the employer must accommodate them. (The Muslim flight attendant I mentioned above, for instance, claims that she has always been able to work out arrangements under which the other flight attendant serves the alcohol instead of her.)..._
> 
> When does your religion legally excuse you from doing part of your job?
> 
> 
> 
> _*SHE REFUSED TO ACCEPT THAT ACCOMODATION. SHE ORDERED HER STAFF NOT TO ISSUE LICENSES. THE JUDGE OFFERED TO LET HER GO IF SHE JUST PROMISED NOT TO INTERFEAR!   SHE REFUSED!!*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Her manager should have relieved her of responsibility for this.  Throwing her in Jail is a Totalitarian Thought Police Tactic.
> 
> (And btw, typing in caps in all in red doesn't make your crap any more convincing.  All red is actually a violation of the board rules as red is used for moderation.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My crap?? I think that you are just making this stuff up because you're out of ammunition. Who is her manager? Who would have such authority? I'll admit that I don't know but I suspect that the answer is no one since she is an elected official. She could have arranged here own accommodation. She did not. She was offered an accommodation by the judge. She turned it down. Now stop squirming
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that the CLERK is Empress of her County with Supreme Power.  She has a boss.  Work duties can be reassigned to accommodate Constitutionally Protected Rights.
> 
> The fact that you would rather see her life destroyed says a great deal about your corrupt little soul.
Click to expand...


Still making up crap? Where did I say that I wanted here life destroyed? I actual feel sorry for her. She is a pathetic character who was fed a line of equine excrement about working for God- by the the right wing nut jobs-and believes it. She may well be mentally ill.

Now why don't you get back to us when you find out who-if anyone could have stepped in to resolves this. And while your at it, what evidence is there that she would have accepted an accommodation from anyone.  NONE!!  Here goal was to ensure that no gay couples were married.


----------



## WorldWatcher

boedicca said:


> The clerk's civil rights were violated.    The county could have made an accommodation by having other staff handle the gay marriage licenses.




She ordered her staff NOT to issue the marriage licenses.  When offered that exact accommodation by the Judge she refused.


>>>>


----------



## Lakhota

I believe I recently heard on CNN that her lawyers are saying the marriage licenses now being issued aren't legal without her signature.  Anyone know if that is true?


----------



## WorldWatcher

boedicca said:


> Her manager should have relieved her of responsibility for this.




She's an elected official.  She is the manager, which is why she could order her deputy clerks not to issue the licenses.

Her "boss" is the legislature which won't be in session until next year.

>>>>


----------



## boedicca

Lakhota said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> The clerk's civil rights were violated.    The county could have made an accommodation by having other staff handle the gay marriage licenses.
> 
> _
> Under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, both public and private employers have a duty to exempt religious employees from generally applicable work rules, so long as this won’t create an “undue hardship,” meaning more than a modest cost, on the employer. *If the employees can be accommodated in a way that would let the job still get done without much burden on the employer,* coworkers, and customers — for instance by switching the employee’s assignments with another employee or by otherwise slightly changing the job duties — then the employer must accommodate them. (The Muslim flight attendant I mentioned above, for instance, claims that she has always been able to work out arrangements under which the other flight attendant serves the alcohol instead of her.)..._
> 
> When does your religion legally excuse you from doing part of your job?
> 
> 
> 
> _*SHE REFUSED TO ACCEPT THAT ACCOMODATION. SHE ORDERED HER STAFF NOT TO ISSUE LICENSES. THE JUDGE OFFERED TO LET HER GO IF SHE JUST PROMISED NOT TO INTERFEAR!   SHE REFUSED!!*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Her manager should have relieved her of responsibility for this.  Throwing her in Jail is a Totalitarian Thought Police Tactic.
> 
> (And btw, typing in caps in all in red doesn't make your crap any more convincing.  All red is actually a violation of the board rules as red is used for moderation.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My crap?? I think that you are just making this stuff up because you're out of ammunition. Who is her manager? Who would have such authority? I'll admit that I don't know but I suspect that the answer is no one since she is an elected official. She could have arranged here own accommodation. She did not. She was offered an accommodation by the judge. She turned it down. Now stop squirming
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that the CLERK is Empress of her County with Supreme Power.  She has a boss.  Work duties can be reassigned to accommodate Constitutionally Protected Rights.
> 
> The fact that you would rather see her life destroyed says a great deal about your corrupt little soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her immediate "boss" is the legal system that sent her to jail.  Apparently you don't know much about county government.
Click to expand...



What bright shiny new pair of Jack Boots you have...but I suspect they will give you blisters.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Lakhota said:


> I believe I recently heard on CNN that her lawyers are saying the marriage licenses now being issued aren't legal without her signature.  Anyone know if that is true?



And the county attorney says that is wrong.

In addition Kentucky Law allows for marriage licenses to be signed by Deputy Clerks, who are the ones issuing the licenses now.



>>>>>


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

boedicca said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*SHE REFUSED TO ACCEPT THAT ACCOMODATION. SHE ORDERED HER STAFF NOT TO ISSUE LICENSES. THE JUDGE OFFERED TO LET HER GO IF SHE JUST PROMISED NOT TO INTERFEAR!   SHE REFUSED!!*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her manager should have relieved her of responsibility for this.  Throwing her in Jail is a Totalitarian Thought Police Tactic.
> 
> (And btw, typing in caps in all in red doesn't make your crap any more convincing.  All red is actually a violation of the board rules as red is used for moderation.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My crap?? I think that you are just making this stuff up because you're out of ammunition. Who is her manager? Who would have such authority? I'll admit that I don't know but I suspect that the answer is no one since she is an elected official. She could have arranged here own accommodation. She did not. She was offered an accommodation by the judge. She turned it down. Now stop squirming
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that the CLERK is Empress of her County with Supreme Power.  She has a boss.  Work duties can be reassigned to accommodate Constitutionally Protected Rights.
> 
> The fact that you would rather see her life destroyed says a great deal about your corrupt little soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her immediate "boss" is the legal system that sent her to jail.  Apparently you don't know much about county government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What bright shiny new pair of Jack Boots you have...but I suspect they will give you blisters.
Click to expand...


Oh please STOP IT. You are being foolish.

Hey, I've got ! She works for GOD!!  That's who her "manager" is. She could have accommodated her. But.....hummmm, did not . Wonder why? I know, GOD is not a bigot.   Now please go away!


----------



## Flopper

Coyote said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets be honest here: marriage is just a empty status symbol to gays. They will never have kids outside of mistaken unions or adoption. *We are all children of hetrosexuals,* and no amendments or bitching about the unfairness of life will change that ditty,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.  Sexual orientation doesn't affect the plumbing.  My father was homosexual and he had two kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Your father was bisexual,* obviously.  Which means he just did whatever got his jollies.  Which means it was about behavior and not something he "was".  It was something he did sometimes.
> 
> People need to learn the difference betwen a verb and a noun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  He wasn't.
> 
> Homo and hetero are orientations.  Nothing prevents either in engaging in different behaviors - a hetero can engage in homo acts and a homo can engage in hetero acts.  "Bi" simply means someone who is comfortable swinging both ways.  For people of my father's generation and religious upbringing - being homosexual was abhorant and like many homosexuals of that era he married and had a family, against his natural inclination.  He was a very tormented person as a result.  If he had been born today his life path might have been very different but that is neither here nor there.  The point is - homosexuals can choose to engage in acts to have children naturally.  We are not all children of heteros because plumbing is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Mixed marriages between a homosexual and a heterosexual can certainly work. They are often marriages of convenience, however they can be based on a romantic relationship. The problem with these marriages is that usually one partner feels sexual unfilled and looks elsewhere for a sexual relationships.  When this happens, the chance of the marriage surviving is not good.

The issue is complicated by the fact that most people are not completely gay or completely straight.


----------



## Coyote

.


WorldWatcher said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> The clerk's civil rights were violated.    The county could have made an accommodation by having other staff handle the gay marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She ordered her staff NOT to issue the marriage licenses.  When offered that exact accommodation by the Judge she refused.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


She could have come to a reasonable accommodation that would have allowed her to maintain her religious principles and she refused.  That leads me to think it's not just about *her* religious principles but about forcing her religious principles on others.


----------



## boedicca

Coyote said:


> .
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> The clerk's civil rights were violated.    The county could have made an accommodation by having other staff handle the gay marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She ordered her staff NOT to issue the marriage licenses.  When offered that exact accommodation by the Judge she refused.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She could have come to a reasonable accommodation that would have allowed her to maintain her religious principles and she refused.  That leads me to think it's not just about *her* religious principles but about forcing her religious principles on others.
Click to expand...



No, that wasn't going to be allowed by the Social Justice Snowflakes.  Just as the Baker and the Pizza Parlor owner were assassinated in Social Media, the Clerk was going to be targeted until her life was destroyed.


----------



## Flopper

WorldWatcher said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I recently heard on CNN that her lawyers are saying the marriage licenses now being issued aren't legal without her signature.  Anyone know if that is true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the county attorney says that is wrong.
> 
> In addition Kentucky Law allows for marriage licenses to be signed by Deputy Clerks, who are the ones issuing the licenses now.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>>
Click to expand...

A marriage license has to be signed to be valid.  If a deputy clerk signs for the clerk, the deputy must be authorized and the deputy must be acting on behalf of the clerk.  That means the deputy should not sign if the clerk would not sign.  It's the same as using a rubber stamp with the clerks signature.

If the clerk is acting illegally, then that's something else. Kim Davis issued a statement today that said,  any licenses that are issued without her authority Friday to gay couples in Rowan County are void and “not worth the paper they are written on” because she didn’t approve them.  In Kentucky, the law says the the license must be approved by the Clerk.  It does appear the licenses issued without her approval are invalid.  However, that will have to be resolved by the courts or the legislature.

Jailed Kentucky clerk says issued marriage licenses to gay couples void


----------



## Faun

boedicca said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> The clerk's civil rights were violated.    The county could have made an accommodation by having other staff handle the gay marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She ordered her staff NOT to issue the marriage licenses.  When offered that exact accommodation by the Judge she refused.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She could have come to a reasonable accommodation that would have allowed her to maintain her religious principles and she refused.  That leads me to think it's not just about *her* religious principles but about forcing her religious principles on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, that wasn't going to be allowed by the Social Justice Snowflakes.  Just as the Baker and the Pizza Parlor owner were assassinated in Social Media, the Clerk was going to be targeted until her life was destroyed.
Click to expand...

Too bad your reply defies reality since she had an alternative but rejected it because she demanded everyone in her office obey her own religious values.

Religious values, mind you, which included breaking her oath to G-d to remain married until parted by death and having children out of wedlock.


----------



## Coyote

boedicca said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> The clerk's civil rights were violated.    The county could have made an accommodation by having other staff handle the gay marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She ordered her staff NOT to issue the marriage licenses.  When offered that exact accommodation by the Judge she refused.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She could have come to a reasonable accommodation that would have allowed her to maintain her religious principles and she refused.  That leads me to think it's not just about *her* religious principles but about forcing her religious principles on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, that wasn't going to be allowed by the Social Justice Snowflakes.  Just as the Baker and the Pizza Parlor owner were assassinated in Social Media, the Clerk was going to be targeted until her life was destroyed.
Click to expand...


Who said it wasn't going to be allowed?  Gay couples are seem to be perfectly happy getting their licenses from the deputies.  She, however, was not.  Who's trying to destroy who?  The person who's refusing to allow any gay couple to get a license from anyone in her jurisdiction...or the couples just trying to get a marriage license?  If she had quietly stated her objections and allowed a deputy to do it - none of this would have happened.  Other states have adopted that tactic successfully.  Extremists on all sides aren't happy with it.  One side, supporting this woman are also supporting her right to refuse to allow anyone to give licenses while the other side wants to force her to do it herself.

Christian Sharia meet the Gay Mafia.


----------



## boedicca

Coyote said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> The clerk's civil rights were violated.    The county could have made an accommodation by having other staff handle the gay marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She ordered her staff NOT to issue the marriage licenses.  When offered that exact accommodation by the Judge she refused.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She could have come to a reasonable accommodation that would have allowed her to maintain her religious principles and she refused.  That leads me to think it's not just about *her* religious principles but about forcing her religious principles on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, that wasn't going to be allowed by the Social Justice Snowflakes.  Just as the Baker and the Pizza Parlor owner were assassinated in Social Media, the Clerk was going to be targeted until her life was destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said it wasn't going to be allowed?  Gay couples are seem to be perfectly happy getting their licenses from the deputies.  She, however, was not.  Who's trying to destroy who?  The person who's refusing to allow any gay couple to get a license from anyone in her jurisdiction...or the couples just trying to get a marriage license?  If she had quietly stated her objections and allowed a deputy to do it - none of this would have happened.  Other states have adopted that tactic successfully.  Extremists on all sides aren't happy with it.  One side, supporting this woman are also supporting her right to refuse to allow anyone to give licenses while the other side wants to force her to do it herself.
> 
> Christian Sharia meet the Gay Mafia.
Click to expand...



No, what this incident actually demonstrates is that The Rule of Law only matters when it furthers the Liberal Agenda.   If it mattered to the Left all of the time, Lois Lerner would be in jail and Hillary would not be the Dem's "inevitable" candidate.

Remember the Law Is Only Sacred When It Furthers a Liberal Value


----------



## David_42

boedicca said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> The clerk's civil rights were violated.    The county could have made an accommodation by having other staff handle the gay marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She ordered her staff NOT to issue the marriage licenses.  When offered that exact accommodation by the Judge she refused.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She could have come to a reasonable accommodation that would have allowed her to maintain her religious principles and she refused.  That leads me to think it's not just about *her* religious principles but about forcing her religious principles on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, that wasn't going to be allowed by the Social Justice Snowflakes.  Just as the Baker and the Pizza Parlor owner were assassinated in Social Media, the Clerk was going to be targeted until her life was destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said it wasn't going to be allowed?  Gay couples are seem to be perfectly happy getting their licenses from the deputies.  She, however, was not.  Who's trying to destroy who?  The person who's refusing to allow any gay couple to get a license from anyone in her jurisdiction...or the couples just trying to get a marriage license?  If she had quietly stated her objections and allowed a deputy to do it - none of this would have happened.  Other states have adopted that tactic successfully.  Extremists on all sides aren't happy with it.  One side, supporting this woman are also supporting her right to refuse to allow anyone to give licenses while the other side wants to force her to do it herself.
> 
> Christian Sharia meet the Gay Mafia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, what this incident actually demonstrates is that The Rule of Law only matters when it furthers the Liberal Agenda.   If it mattered to the Left all of the time, Lois Lerner would be in jail and Hillary would not be the Dem's "inevitable" candidate.
> 
> Remember the Law Is Only Sacred When It Furthers a Liberal Value
Click to expand...

Just give up, you're making yourself look like an idiot.


----------



## Faun

boedicca said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> The clerk's civil rights were violated.    The county could have made an accommodation by having other staff handle the gay marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She ordered her staff NOT to issue the marriage licenses.  When offered that exact accommodation by the Judge she refused.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She could have come to a reasonable accommodation that would have allowed her to maintain her religious principles and she refused.  That leads me to think it's not just about *her* religious principles but about forcing her religious principles on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, that wasn't going to be allowed by the Social Justice Snowflakes.  Just as the Baker and the Pizza Parlor owner were assassinated in Social Media, the Clerk was going to be targeted until her life was destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said it wasn't going to be allowed?  Gay couples are seem to be perfectly happy getting their licenses from the deputies.  She, however, was not.  Who's trying to destroy who?  The person who's refusing to allow any gay couple to get a license from anyone in her jurisdiction...or the couples just trying to get a marriage license?  If she had quietly stated her objections and allowed a deputy to do it - none of this would have happened.  Other states have adopted that tactic successfully.  Extremists on all sides aren't happy with it.  One side, supporting this woman are also supporting her right to refuse to allow anyone to give licenses while the other side wants to force her to do it herself.
> 
> Christian Sharia meet the Gay Mafia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, what this incident actually demonstrates is that The Rule of Law only matters when it furthers the Liberal Agenda.   If it mattered to the Left all of the time, Lois Lerner would be in jail and Hillary would not be the Dem's "inevitable" candidate.
> 
> Remember the Law Is Only Sacred When It Furthers a Liberal Value
Click to expand...

Too fucking retarded.  "The left" does not determine who goes to jail.


----------



## Lakhota

*Kim Davis' Attorney Compares Her To Jews Living In Nazi Germany, Invokes Images Of Gas Chambers*

"This is the new persecution of Christians here in this country."

An attorney for Kim Davis, who was jailed Thursday after being found in contempt of court for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Rowan County, Kentucky, compared the clerk's situation to the one Jews were faced with in Nazi Germany.

Mathew Staver, who is currently serving as head legal counsel for Davis, made the comparison on the "Crosstalk" radio show Wednesday, RightWingWatch.com reported.

"[Davis is] there to do a duty, a job and the job duty was changed," Staver argued. "Does that mean that if you’re Christian, don’t apply here? ... What happened in Nazi Germany, what happened there first, they removed the Jews from government public employment, then they stopped patronizing them in their private businesses, then they continued to stigmatize them, then they were the ‘problems,’ then they killed them."

More:  Kim Davis' Attorney Compares Her To Jews Living In Nazi Germany, Invokes Images Of Gas Chambers

Sounds like the Christian Taliban are getting desperate.  Why can't their God sort this out?


----------



## David_42

Lakhota said:


> *Kim Davis' Attorney Compares Her To Jews Living In Nazi Germany, Invokes Images Of Gas Chambers*
> 
> "This is the new persecution of Christians here in this country."
> 
> An attorney for Kim Davis, who was jailed Thursday after being found in contempt of court for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Rowan County, Kentucky, compared the clerk's situation to the one Jews were faced with in Nazi Germany.
> 
> Mathew Staver, who is currently serving as head legal counsel for Davis, made the comparison on the "Crosstalk" radio show Wednesday, RightWingWatch.com reported.
> 
> "[Davis is] there to do a duty, a job and the job duty was changed," Staver argued. "Does that mean that if you’re Christian, don’t apply here? ... What happened in Nazi Germany, what happened there first, they removed the Jews from government public employment, then they stopped patronizing them in their private businesses, then they continued to stigmatize them, then they were the ‘problems,’ then they killed them."
> 
> More:  Kim Davis' Attorney Compares Her To Jews Living In Nazi Germany, Invokes Images Of Gas Chambers
> 
> Sounds like the Christian Taliban are getting desperate.


Right wing fundies are just fucking nuts.


----------



## Lakhota

Why has God forsaken Kim Davis - and Tim Tebow?  Maybe there is a God...

*Tebow Cut By Eagles*


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Lakhota said:


> Why has God forsaken Kim Davis - and Tim Tebow?  Maybe there is a God...
> 
> *Tebow Cut By Eagles*


How's he feel about clerking, in Kentucky?  I know of a county that no longer has someone with the direct ear of God.  That's his specifically I hear, since it sure ain't throwing a football...


----------



## Lakhota

PaintMyHouse said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why has God forsaken Kim Davis - and Tim Tebow?  Maybe there is a God...
> 
> *Tebow Cut By Eagles*
> 
> 
> 
> How's he feel about clerking, in Kentucky?
Click to expand...


He could scurry around the clerk's office with a football in his hand like a rabid squirrel looking for someone to throw to.


----------



## Lakhota

*Kim Davis (county clerk)*

*Deputy clerk*
Davis served as Rowan County chief deputy clerk, reporting to her mother, Jean W. Bailey, for 24 years.[13] Kentucky law permits elected county officials to employ their family members and to determine their compensation; it is common practice in the state.[13]

In 2011, county residents complained about Davis' compensation, an annual wage of $51,812 and an additional $11,301 in overtime and other compensation during 2011.[13] Davis earned substantially more than the county's other chief deputies, including $38,000 for the Chief Deputy Sheriff Joe Cline and $36,000 to the Deputy Judge-Executive Jerry Alderman, neither of whom receive overtime pay.[13] The County Fiscal Court reviewed the compensation of clerks in the office and voted unanimously to cut the department's salary budget by one-third for 2012.[13]

*MUCH MORE:* Kim Davis (county clerk) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Holy shit, what kind of state is Kentucky?


----------



## boedicca

David_42 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> She ordered her staff NOT to issue the marriage licenses.  When offered that exact accommodation by the Judge she refused.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She could have come to a reasonable accommodation that would have allowed her to maintain her religious principles and she refused.  That leads me to think it's not just about *her* religious principles but about forcing her religious principles on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, that wasn't going to be allowed by the Social Justice Snowflakes.  Just as the Baker and the Pizza Parlor owner were assassinated in Social Media, the Clerk was going to be targeted until her life was destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said it wasn't going to be allowed?  Gay couples are seem to be perfectly happy getting their licenses from the deputies.  She, however, was not.  Who's trying to destroy who?  The person who's refusing to allow any gay couple to get a license from anyone in her jurisdiction...or the couples just trying to get a marriage license?  If she had quietly stated her objections and allowed a deputy to do it - none of this would have happened.  Other states have adopted that tactic successfully.  Extremists on all sides aren't happy with it.  One side, supporting this woman are also supporting her right to refuse to allow anyone to give licenses while the other side wants to force her to do it herself.
> 
> Christian Sharia meet the Gay Mafia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, what this incident actually demonstrates is that The Rule of Law only matters when it furthers the Liberal Agenda.   If it mattered to the Left all of the time, Lois Lerner would be in jail and Hillary would not be the Dem's "inevitable" candidate.
> 
> Remember the Law Is Only Sacred When It Furthers a Liberal Value
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just give up, you're making yourself look like an idiot.
Click to expand...



You are a moron, so whatever you think is idiotic is the smart option.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Lakhota said:


> *Kim Davis (county clerk)*
> 
> *Deputy clerk*
> Davis served as Rowan County chief deputy clerk, reporting to her mother, Jean W. Bailey, for 24 years.[13] Kentucky law permits elected county officials to employ their family members and to determine their compensation; it is common practice in the state.[13]
> 
> In 2011, county residents complained about Davis' compensation, an annual wage of $51,812 and an additional $11,301 in overtime and other compensation during 2011.[13] Davis earned substantially more than the county's other chief deputies, including $38,000 for the Chief Deputy Sheriff Joe Cline and $36,000 to the Deputy Judge-Executive Jerry Alderman, neither of whom receive overtime pay.[13] The County Fiscal Court reviewed the compensation of clerks in the office and voted unanimously to cut the department's salary budget by one-third for 2012.[13]
> 
> *MUCH MORE:* Kim Davis (county clerk) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Holy shit, what kind of state is Kentucky?


A state with many unethical "Christians", like Davis and Families, since there are more than one in her case.


----------



## boedicca

Here you go, moonbats!  A judge has decided to stop performing weddings altogether so he won't be forced to do same sex marriages.  But that's not good enough - so he is Under Investigation for Bad Thoughts.   Time for you all to form a mob to Ruin His Life.  Wrong Thinking is a Capital Offense, punishable by Death!

Oregon judge refuses to perform same-sex marriages


----------



## WinterBorn

boedicca said:


> Here you go, moonbats!  A judge has decided to stop performing weddings altogether so he won't be forced to do same sex marriages.  But that's not good enough - so he is Under Investigation for Bad Thoughts.   Time for you all to form a mob to Ruin His Life.  Wrong Thinking is a Capital Offense, punishable by Death!
> 
> Oregon judge refuses to perform same-sex marriages



Oregon judges are not required to perform marriages.   This particular judge decided to stop performing them.  But he did not stop other judges from performing them.  No jail needed.


----------



## boedicca

WinterBorn said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go, moonbats!  A judge has decided to stop performing weddings altogether so he won't be forced to do same sex marriages.  But that's not good enough - so he is Under Investigation for Bad Thoughts.   Time for you all to form a mob to Ruin His Life.  Wrong Thinking is a Capital Offense, punishable by Death!
> 
> Oregon judge refuses to perform same-sex marriages
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon judges are not required to perform marriages.   This particular judge decided to stop performing them.  But he did not stop other judges from performing them.  No jail needed.
Click to expand...



That's not stopping the investigation, bub.   The public vilification has already begun.


----------



## WinterBorn

boedicca said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go, moonbats!  A judge has decided to stop performing weddings altogether so he won't be forced to do same sex marriages.  But that's not good enough - so he is Under Investigation for Bad Thoughts.   Time for you all to form a mob to Ruin His Life.  Wrong Thinking is a Capital Offense, punishable by Death!
> 
> Oregon judge refuses to perform same-sex marriages
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon judges are not required to perform marriages.   This particular judge decided to stop performing them.  But he did not stop other judges from performing them.  No jail needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's not stopping the investigation, bub.   The public vilification has already begun.
Click to expand...


I have no idea what sort of idiot start an investigation.  If the action is optional, he can decide not to do it.

Although it was kinda stupid to tell people WHY he was opting to stop performing marriage ceremonies.  But it is his choice and no one elses.


----------



## boedicca

WinterBorn said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go, moonbats!  A judge has decided to stop performing weddings altogether so he won't be forced to do same sex marriages.  But that's not good enough - so he is Under Investigation for Bad Thoughts.   Time for you all to form a mob to Ruin His Life.  Wrong Thinking is a Capital Offense, punishable by Death!
> 
> Oregon judge refuses to perform same-sex marriages
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon judges are not required to perform marriages.   This particular judge decided to stop performing them.  But he did not stop other judges from performing them.  No jail needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's not stopping the investigation, bub.   The public vilification has already begun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what sort of idiot start an investigation.  If the action is optional, he can decide not to do it.
> 
> Although it was kinda stupid to tell people WHY he was opting to stop performing marriage ceremonies.  But it is his choice and no one elses.
Click to expand...



Oh yes.  I today's Totalitarian State it is a bad idea to express one's own beliefs if they run contrary to the Approved Group Think.


----------



## Lakhota

Why are Christian fundamentalists trying to destroy Christianity?  I don't mind - but I do wonder why.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Lakhota said:


> Why are Christian fundamentalists trying to destroy Christianity?  I don't mind - but I do wonder why.



Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." And they divided up his clothes by casting lots. - Luke 23:34


----------



## Lakhota

*Kentucky Clerk's Husband Says His Wife Is 'Not Gonna Bow'*

Kim Davis is prepared to stay in jail for "as long as it takes."

Kentucky Clerk's Husband Says His Wife Is 'Not Gonna Bow'

Actually, I don't want her to "bow" - I want her to "break"...


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

boedicca said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> The clerk's civil rights were violated.    The county could have made an accommodation by having other staff handle the gay marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She ordered her staff NOT to issue the marriage licenses.  When offered that exact accommodation by the Judge she refused.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She could have come to a reasonable accommodation that would have allowed her to maintain her religious principles and she refused.  That leads me to think it's not just about *her* religious principles but about forcing her religious principles on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, that wasn't going to be allowed by the Social Justice Snowflakes.  Just as the Baker and the Pizza Parlor owner were assassinated in Social Media, the Clerk was going to be targeted until her life was destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said it wasn't going to be allowed?  Gay couples are seem to be perfectly happy getting their licenses from the deputies.  She, however, was not.  Who's trying to destroy who?  The person who's refusing to allow any gay couple to get a license from anyone in her jurisdiction...or the couples just trying to get a marriage license?  If she had quietly stated her objections and allowed a deputy to do it - none of this would have happened.  Other states have adopted that tactic successfully.  Extremists on all sides aren't happy with it.  One side, supporting this woman are also supporting her right to refuse to allow anyone to give licenses while the other side wants to force her to do it herself.
> 
> Christian Sharia meet the Gay Mafia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, what this incident actually demonstrates is that The Rule of Law only matters when it furthers the Liberal Agenda.   If it mattered to the Left all of the time, Lois Lerner would be in jail and Hillary would not be the Dem's "inevitable" candidate.
> 
> Remember the Law Is Only Sacred When It Furthers a Liberal Value
Click to expand...


Why your article and your argument are horseshit in one easy chart....





> Two * meanings of religious freedom/liberty:1. Freedom of belief, speech, practice. 2. Freedom to restrict services, hate, denigrate, or oppress others. *
> 
> _
> 1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:
> 
> This term relates to the personal freedom:
> •Of religious belief,
> •Of religious speech,
> •Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
> •Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
> •To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.
> 
> 
> The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship. _
> 
> _2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:
> 
> In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.
> 
> Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:
> 
> •The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
> •The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
> •The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.
> 
> The media often refer to NOTAs as "NONES" because they are affiliated to NONE of the faith groups. However, the words Nones and Nuns are homophones: words that sound alike but are spelled differently and which hold very different meanings. To avoid confusion, we recommend against this practice and recommend the unambiguous term "NOTA."
> 
> *One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6*. _
> 
> Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm


----------



## HenryBHough

Liberals, already having created a martyr, are now building crosses on which to crucify her.  First time in history a Democrat will have resisted the urge to go near a cross without setting it afire!

This could be one for the history books!


----------



## Lakhota

HenryBHough said:


> Liberals, already having created a martyr, are now building crosses on which to crucify her.  First time in history a Democrat will have resisted the urge to go near a cross without setting it afire!
> 
> This could be one for the history books!



Her politics ain't the problem - it's her religion.  Republicans are the ones rallying around her.  Huckabee is even going to visit her in jail.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Lakhota said:


> *Kentucky Clerk's Husband Says His Wife Is 'Not Gonna Bow'*
> 
> Kim Davis is prepared to stay in jail for "as long as it takes."
> 
> Kentucky Clerk's Husband Says His Wife Is 'Not Gonna Bow'
> 
> Actually, I don't want her to "bow" - I want her to "break"...


Just a matter of time, just like her ending up in jail.  A predict a revelation for her soon, that God wants her to resign and spread the Word instead, on her 15 minutes of fame tour...


----------



## PaintMyHouse

HenryBHough said:


> Liberals, already having created a martyr, are now building crosses on which to crucify her.  First time in history a Democrat will have resisted the urge to go near a cross without setting it afire!
> 
> This could be one for the history books!


If they can nail her fat ass to the cross, and it doesn't crack under the strain, I'll pick up the tab for the gas and disposable lighter.  What the hell, I'm bringing a cigar anyway.  Nothing like a good cigar and a better show...


----------



## WinterBorn

PaintMyHouse said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals, already having created a martyr, are now building crosses on which to crucify her.  First time in history a Democrat will have resisted the urge to go near a cross without setting it afire!
> 
> This could be one for the history books!
> 
> 
> 
> If they can nail her fat ass to the cross, and it doesn't crack under the strain, I'll pick up the tab for the gas and disposable lighter.  What the hell, I'm bringing a cigar anyway.  Nothing like a good cigar and a better show...
Click to expand...


I am hoping your post is sarcasm.  Otherwise, let me be the first to say I would happily shoot anyone who tried to execute her for what she has done.   I think it is pretty obvious that I am seriously in favor of same-sex marriage.  But talking about executing someone is crossing the line.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HenryBHough said:


> Liberals, already having created a martyr, are now building crosses on which to crucify her.  First time in history a Democrat will have resisted the urge to go near a cross without setting it afire!
> 
> This could be one for the history books!


Get the hell out of here Henry. I can't believe that you are in a civilized state like Mass. LOL


----------



## PaintMyHouse

WinterBorn said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals, already having created a martyr, are now building crosses on which to crucify her.  First time in history a Democrat will have resisted the urge to go near a cross without setting it afire!
> 
> This could be one for the history books!
> 
> 
> 
> If they can nail her fat ass to the cross, and it doesn't crack under the strain, I'll pick up the tab for the gas and disposable lighter.  What the hell, I'm bringing a cigar anyway.  Nothing like a good cigar and a better show...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am hoping your post is sarcasm.  Otherwise, let me be the first to say I would happily shoot anyone who tried to execute her for what she has done.   I think it is pretty obvious that I am seriously in favor of same-sex marriage.  But talking about executing someone is crossing the line.
Click to expand...

We stopped doing that a while back, in case you hadn't noticed.  It's seems that ISIS is trying pretty hard to bring what's Biblical but we're a secular nation so her fat ass is safe from everything but her new uniform tag.





They say that people like her so there you go, a perfect fit.  She doesn't have to sign a thing.


----------



## Lakhota

Maybe Mike Huckabee and Chuck Norris will break Davis out of jail.  If Huckabee becomes president - what cabinet post will he give Davis?


----------



## Lakhota

Apparently Kim Davis was a holy terror on the job.

*Kim Davis’s Deputies Say They Were Too Afraid Of Her To Issue Licenses*


----------



## Flopper

PaintMyHouse said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Kentucky Clerk's Husband Says His Wife Is 'Not Gonna Bow'*
> 
> Kim Davis is prepared to stay in jail for "as long as it takes."
> 
> Kentucky Clerk's Husband Says His Wife Is 'Not Gonna Bow'
> 
> Actually, I don't want her to "bow" - I want her to "break"...
> 
> 
> 
> Just a matter of time, just like her ending up in jail.  A predict a revelation for her soon, that God wants her to resign and spread the Word instead, on her 15 minutes of fame tour...
Click to expand...

I think she's going to continue for quite a while.  The Liberty Council, closely related to Liberty University which was founded by Jerry Falwell is providing the financial support for this little battle which they all know is going to fail.

I believe one of the articles said the gay couples were not from Rowan County and some are not even from Kentucky.  So who's paying their expenses?

The Supreme Court has made gay marriage legal throughout the country and that's not going to change.  Further the majority of people support that decision and that's not going to change.  It all seems like a rather silly charade.

Meet The Hate Group Trying To Turn Kim Davis Into The Anti-Gay Rosa Parks


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple Question:
> 
> How many divorced couples has the Clerk issued marriage licenses for, and if any then she need to drop the Christian act because she is full of shit when using her so-call Christianity to support her bigoted hatred to deny same sex couples the same rights as divorce couples enjoy!?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> she wasn't issuing ANY marriage licenses..which most likely means she was denying far more real marriages than gay marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real Marriages?
> 
> First off explain to me what a real marriage is to you?
> 
> Also the woman in question is a pathetic joke!
> 
> She has been married four times to three different men and what I read she got pregnant while being married to one guy and the father of her twins was by another guy that was husband number three, so she committed adultery which is also a sin, but please let ignore her sins,right?
> 
> In the end her suppose found religious moral ground is just her ignorant ass way to be a bigot and so many fools are defending her while ignoring what type of white trash that woman really is, but hey at least she is denying Gay couples to be treated equal, right?
> 
> Kim Davis (county clerk) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really doubt all the "info" you've presented.....it seems like a naked political based smear....but even if true doesnt negate her beliefs.
> 
> And dont pretend not to know what I mean by real marriages.
> 
> Amazing how powerful lawyers and judges can ignore the law and face no consequences, but this lady when acting out of conviction is thrown in jail.
> 
> former Attorney general Brown of California shirked his duty in defending prop 8, and faced no consequences. The same with the AG who came after him....I think this also happened in other states.  If this lady faces jail time for not doing her duty....so should they.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real marriages...? Like Davis' 4 marriages. It's the truth. It's been reported y numerous sources. Or, maybe you were thinking of Newt Gingrich's marriages.
> 
> Davis was not thrown in jail for her convictions . or simply for not doing her job. She was jailed for contempt of court. Brown was not in contempt of any court
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple Question:
> 
> How many divorced couples has the Clerk issued marriage licenses for, and if any then she need to drop the Christian act because she is full of shit when using her so-call Christianity to support her bigoted hatred to deny same sex couples the same rights as divorce couples enjoy!?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> she wasn't issuing ANY marriage licenses..which most likely means she was denying far more real marriages than gay marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real Marriages?
> 
> First off explain to me what a real marriage is to you?
> 
> Also the woman in question is a pathetic joke!
> 
> She has been married four times to three different men and what I read she got pregnant while being married to one guy and the father of her twins was by another guy that was husband number three, so she committed adultery which is also a sin, but please let ignore her sins,right?
> 
> In the end her suppose found religious moral ground is just her ignorant ass way to be a bigot and so many fools are defending her while ignoring what type of white trash that woman really is, but hey at least she is denying Gay couples to be treated equal, right?
> 
> Kim Davis (county clerk) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really doubt all the "info" you've presented.....it seems like a naked political based smear....but even if true doesnt negate her beliefs.
> 
> And dont pretend not to know what I mean by real marriages.
> 
> Amazing how powerful lawyers and judges can ignore the law and face no consequences, but this lady when acting out of conviction is thrown in jail.
> 
> former Attorney general Brown of California shirked his duty in defending prop 8, and faced no consequences. The same with the AG who came after him....I think this also happened in other states.  If this lady faces jail time for not doing her duty....so should they.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real marriages...? Like Davis' 4 marriages. It's the truth. It's been reported y numerous sources. Or, maybe you were thinking of Newt Gingrich's marriages.
> 
> Davis was not thrown in jail for her convictions . or simply for not doing her job. She was jailed for contempt of court. Brown was not in contempt of any court
> 
> You seem to be another one of these folks  who, in the absence of anything of substance, just throws as much dung as you can at the wall and hope that something sticks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not seen it reported by the networks....  It is not really relevant  anyway.
> 
> Contempt of court is a greater offense than violating the public trust and oath of office?  I think they are about the same.
Click to expand...


----------



## asaratis

Luddly Neddite said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, RIghteousness has claimed its first Martyr, in the struggle against Wickedness (homosexuality).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my fucking god, you really are a drama queen.
> 
> 
> 
> Question for you fundies who work for a living ... If you refuse to do your job, what happens?
> 
> Hmmm?
Click to expand...

Question for you liberals:  What happens when liberals refuse to do their job?

Answer:  Nothing different from when they do their jobs!  They don't get fired.  They don't get arrested.  They often refuse to do their jobs on orders from the POTUS...who more often than not, refuses to do his job.

Screw all you goddamned hypocrisy-filled  liberal bedwetters.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

asaratis said:


> Question for you liberals:  What happens when liberals refuse to do their job?


They get canned, as they should be...


----------



## asaratis

PaintMyHouse said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> You liberals are evil in your celebration of this political prisoner's imprisonment.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not political, she's breaking the law, and now in jail where she belongs for doing so...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and where Obama should be for breaking the law...and where Hillary should be for breaking the law...
> 
> Your selective application of rules to follow is understandable.  Liberals are some sick people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike your other two examples, this one has actually been convicted by an actual court...
Click to expand...

Obama and Hillary seem to be above the law.  No matter what laws they break, the DOJ (controlled by appointees of Obama) will not prosecute unless told to do so by their Dear Leader.   Fat chance of that ever happening!

Liberals are some really sick shits!


----------



## HenryBHough

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Get the hell out of here Henry. I can't believe that you are in a civilized state like Mass. LOL



Alas, your liberal indoctrination (masquerading as an "education") has failed to teach you that Massachusetts is NOT a state.  It's a Commonwealth.  As to beliefs.....hard to think of you believing anything other than those fed you in official Democrat Party documents.


----------



## asaratis

ogibillm said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *MLK wasn't getting paid by government for what he did, and was working to stop segregation, not enforce it like she is.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
Click to expand...

 You dense idiot!  She's not denying them anything except her personal signature on a license to marry.  They can get a license from many other places.

Strawman argument.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

asaratis said:


> You dense idiot!  She's not denying them anything except her personal signature on a license to marry.  They can get a license from many other places.


Why should they need to?


----------



## asaratis

PaintMyHouse said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for you liberals:  What happens when liberals refuse to do their job?
> 
> 
> 
> They get canned, as they should be...
Click to expand...

Holder hasn't been canned, Obama hasn't been canned, Lerner hasn't been canned....none of those lawbreakers under the guidance of Obama have been canned.  Obama trades 5 terrorist detainees for one goddamned DESERTER and calls a party in the Rose Garden to say he got the bastard back!  Then he makes a deal with Iran that gives them access to over 100 Billion dollars of frozen assets and a clear path to nuclear production...with NO MEANINGFUL INSPECTIONS!

Obama should be UNDER a fucking prison!


----------



## Lakhota

asaratis said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for you liberals:  What happens when liberals refuse to do their job?
> 
> 
> 
> They get canned, as they should be...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holder hasn't been canned, Obama hasn't been canned, Lerner hasn't been canned....none of those lawbreakers under the guidance of Obama have been canned.  Obama trades 5 terrorist detainees for one goddamned DESERTER and calls a party in the Rose Garden to say he got the bastard back!  Then he makes a deal with Iran that gives them access to over 100 Billion dollars of frozen assets and a clear path to nuclear production...with NO MEANINGFUL INSPECTIONS!
> 
> Obama should be UNDER a fucking prison!
Click to expand...


Poor baby.  Have you had a bad day?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

asaratis said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, RIghteousness has claimed its first Martyr, in the struggle against Wickedness (homosexuality).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my fucking god, you really are a drama queen.
> 
> 
> 
> Question for you fundies who work for a living ... If you refuse to do your job, what happens?
> 
> Hmmm?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Question for you liberals:  What happens when liberals refuse to do their job?
> 
> Answer:  Nothing different from when they do their jobs!  They don't get fired.  They don't get arrested.  They often refuse to do their jobs on orders from the POTUS...who more often than not, refuses to do his job.
> 
> Screw all you goddamned hypocrisy-filled  liberal bedwetters.
Click to expand...


What the hell are you bloviating about? Care to give some examples of liberals not doing their jobs?


----------



## ogibillm

asaratis said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *MLK wasn't getting paid by government for what he did, and was working to stop segregation, not enforce it like she is.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a comparison of methods, not of reasons or circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when mlk was arrested it was showing the injustice in the system. she's getting arrested because she's denying people their rights - she is the injustice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dense idiot!  She's not denying them anything except her personal signature on a license to marry.  They can get a license from many other places.
> 
> Strawman argument.
Click to expand...

really? where can they get them?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HenryBHough said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get the hell out of here Henry. I can't believe that you are in a civilized state like Mass. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alas, your liberal indoctrination (masquerading as an "education") has failed to teach you that Massachusetts is NOT a state.  It's a Commonwealth.  As to beliefs.....hard to think of you believing anything other than those fed you in official Democrat Party documents.
Click to expand...

Oh WOW! is that all that you have? Mass. is not a state?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Lakhota said:


> Maybe Mike Huckabee and Chuck Norris will break Davis out of jail.  If Huckabee becomes president - what cabinet post will he give Davis?


What cabinet post will he give Norris and Ted Nugent?


----------



## Kondor3

Lakhota said:


> ...Sounds like the Christian Taliban are getting desperate. Why can't their God sort this out?


There is nothing wrong with you that a head-on high-speed traffic collision cannot fix.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Kondor3 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Sounds like the Christian Taliban are getting desperate. Why can't their God sort this out?
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with you that a head-on high-speed traffic collision cannot fix.
Click to expand...

An ad hominem fallacy – the last resort of a conservative who has lost the argument.


----------



## Lakhota

Kondor3 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Sounds like the Christian Taliban are getting desperate. Why can't their God sort this out?
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with you that a head-on high-speed traffic collision cannot fix.
Click to expand...


In other words - you wish me dead.  God bless you...


----------



## Lakhota

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Mike Huckabee and Chuck Norris will break Davis out of jail.  If Huckabee becomes president - what cabinet post will he give Davis?
> 
> 
> 
> What cabinet post will he give Norris and Ted Nugent?
Click to expand...


Norris for Secretary of Defense and Nugent for Ambassador to Iraq?


----------



## Kondor3

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Sounds like the Christian Taliban are getting desperate. Why can't their God sort this out?
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with you that a head-on high-speed traffic collision cannot fix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An ad hominem fallacy – the last resort of a conservative who has lost the argument.
Click to expand...

Lost the argument?

Silly Wabbit... I have not yet _begun_ to fight.

Merely taking a moment to bitch-slap another spewer of hate-phrases like '_Christian Taliban_' and '_Christian Sharia_'.

Don't like it?

Tough shit.


----------



## asaratis

PaintMyHouse said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dense idiot!  She's not denying them anything except her personal signature on a license to marry.  They can get a license from many other places.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should they need to?
Click to expand...

To get married....that's supposed to be all they really want!  What's the fucking problem?

The problem is that these whimpering idiots take offense at every single sign of being ignored, disrespected or scorned...and insist upon punishing all that do not celebrate Gay Pride every single day.

To hell with them and all who appease them...whiners and babies.


----------



## ogibillm

asaratis said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dense idiot!  She's not denying them anything except her personal signature on a license to marry.  They can get a license from many other places.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should they need to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To get married....that's supposed to be all they really want!  What's the fucking problem?
> 
> The problem is that these whimpering idiots take offense at every single sign of being disrespected or scorned...and insist upon punishing all that do not celebrate Gay Pride forever.
> 
> To hell with them and all who appease them...whiners and babies.
Click to expand...

where else can a person go to get a marriage license in kentucky than to a county clerk's office?


----------



## Kondor3

Lakhota said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Sounds like the Christian Taliban are getting desperate. Why can't their God sort this out?
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with you that a head-on high-speed traffic collision cannot fix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words - you wish me dead.  God bless you...
Click to expand...

Yep. America-hating, White-hating, Christian-hating scum like you, are always great candidates for the hereafter. The sooner, the better. The world will be a better place.


----------



## asaratis

ogibillm said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dense idiot!  She's not denying them anything except her personal signature on a license to marry.  They can get a license from many other places.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should they need to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To get married....that's supposed to be all they really want!  What's the fucking problem?
> 
> The problem is that these whimpering idiots take offense at every single sign of being disrespected or scorned...and insist upon punishing all that do not celebrate Gay Pride forever.
> 
> To hell with them and all who appease them...whiners and babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where else can a person go to get a marriage license in kentucky than to a county clerk's office?
Click to expand...

...to ANY other county in Kentucky.


----------



## Kondor3

asaratis said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dense idiot!  She's not denying them anything except her personal signature on a license to marry.  They can get a license from many other places.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should they need to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To get married....that's supposed to be all they really want!  What's the fucking problem?
> 
> The problem is that these whimpering idiots take offense at every single sign of being ignored, disrespected or scorned...and insist upon punishing all that do not celebrate Gay Pride every single day.
> 
> To hell with them and all who appease them...whiners and babies.
Click to expand...

By Jove, I think you've got it.


----------



## asaratis

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, RIghteousness has claimed its first Martyr, in the struggle against Wickedness (homosexuality).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my fucking god, you really are a drama queen.
> 
> 
> 
> Question for you fundies who work for a living ... If you refuse to do your job, what happens?
> 
> Hmmm?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Question for you liberals:  What happens when liberals refuse to do their job?
> 
> Answer:  Nothing different from when they do their jobs!  They don't get fired.  They don't get arrested.  They often refuse to do their jobs on orders from the POTUS...who more often than not, refuses to do his job.
> 
> Screw all you goddamned hypocrisy-filled  liberal bedwetters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell are you bloviating about? Care to give some examples of liberals not doing their jobs?
Click to expand...

Obama is not doing his job.  Holder is not doing his job.  The refusal to enforce the laws of the land starts at the top.  Any person working under either of these two lying bastards is not doing his job...at the behest of his incompetent boss.   That is a shitload of government workers....not doing their jobs.


----------



## ogibillm

asaratis said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dense idiot!  She's not denying them anything except her personal signature on a license to marry.  They can get a license from many other places.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should they need to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To get married....that's supposed to be all they really want!  What's the fucking problem?
> 
> The problem is that these whimpering idiots take offense at every single sign of being disrespected or scorned...and insist upon punishing all that do not celebrate Gay Pride forever.
> 
> To hell with them and all who appease them...whiners and babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where else can a person go to get a marriage license in kentucky than to a county clerk's office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...to ANY other county in Kentucky.
Click to expand...

and what prevents any other county from also turning them away if davis is allowed to do so? why should another county bear the burden of providing services to people from outside their county just because the clerk in the home county is a bigot? why should the county clerk be given the authority to require certain citizens to go to other clerk's offices? why should a couple have to face the burden of traveling to another county?


----------



## WorldWatcher

Flopper said:


> If the clerk is acting illegally, then that's something else. Kim Davis issued a statement today that said,  any licenses that are issued without her authority Friday to gay couples in Rowan County are void and “not worth the paper they are written on” because she didn’t approve them.  In Kentucky, the law says the the license must be approved by the Clerk.  It does appear the licenses issued without her approval are invalid.  However, that will have to be resolved by the courts or the legislature.
> 
> Jailed Kentucky clerk says issued marriage licenses to gay couples void




Kentucky law says the license can be signed by the Deputy Clerk.

Kentucky Revised Statute 402.100 -->> http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36475


>>>>


----------



## Carla_Danger

Kondor3 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Sounds like the Christian Taliban are getting desperate. Why can't their God sort this out?
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with you that a head-on high-speed traffic collision cannot fix.
Click to expand...



Spoken like a true Christian.


----------



## asaratis

ogibillm said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dense idiot!  She's not denying them anything except her personal signature on a license to marry.  They can get a license from many other places.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should they need to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To get married....that's supposed to be all they really want!  What's the fucking problem?
> 
> The problem is that these whimpering idiots take offense at every single sign of being disrespected or scorned...and insist upon punishing all that do not celebrate Gay Pride forever.
> 
> To hell with them and all who appease them...whiners and babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where else can a person go to get a marriage license in kentucky than to a county clerk's office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...to ANY other county in Kentucky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and what prevents any other county from also turning them away if davis is allowed to do so? why should another county bear the burden of providing services to people from outside their county just because the clerk in the home county is a bigot? why should the county clerk be given the authority to require certain citizens to go to other clerk's offices? why should a couple have to face the burden of traveling to another county?
Click to expand...

Better to ask why should a criminal from South of the Border be allowed to enter this country illegally 5 times, stay in a 'sanctuary city' as a guest of the DOJ that has been INSTRUCTED to ignore the laws that would send to low-life criminal back where he came from.  What is the worse result of some government worker ignoring the law....a poor little gay couple has to drive to another county to get a license to be called 'married'...or an innocent young lady gets murdered by a goddamned, scummy illegal alien that shouldn't have been here in the first place?


----------



## WorldWatcher

Flopper said:


> I believe one of the articles said the gay couples were not from Rowan County and some are not even from Kentucky.  So who's paying their expenses?



Don't believe that article.

There were four couples that brought the lawsuit.  Two different-sex and two same-sex.

All were long term residents of Rowan County and this was pointed out in court.

http://www.aclu-ky.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Bunning-Rowan-Ruling-81215.pdf


>>>>


----------



## ogibillm

asaratis said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should they need to?
> 
> 
> 
> To get married....that's supposed to be all they really want!  What's the fucking problem?
> 
> The problem is that these whimpering idiots take offense at every single sign of being disrespected or scorned...and insist upon punishing all that do not celebrate Gay Pride forever.
> 
> To hell with them and all who appease them...whiners and babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where else can a person go to get a marriage license in kentucky than to a county clerk's office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...to ANY other county in Kentucky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and what prevents any other county from also turning them away if davis is allowed to do so? why should another county bear the burden of providing services to people from outside their county just because the clerk in the home county is a bigot? why should the county clerk be given the authority to require certain citizens to go to other clerk's offices? why should a couple have to face the burden of traveling to another county?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better to ask why should a criminal from South of the Border be allowed to enter this country illegally 5 times, stay in a 'sanctuary city' as a guest of the DOJ that has been INSTRUCTED to ignore the laws that would send to low-life criminal back where he came from.  What is the worse result of some government worker ignoring the law....a poor little gay couple has to drive to another county to get a license to be called 'married'...or an innocent young lady gets murdered by a goddamned, scummy illegal alien that shouldn't have been here in the first place?
Click to expand...

if you can't answer the question just say so.


----------



## Lakhota

Kondor3 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Sounds like the Christian Taliban are getting desperate. Why can't their God sort this out?
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with you that a head-on high-speed traffic collision cannot fix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words - you wish me dead.  God bless you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. America-hating, White-hating, Christian-hating scum like you, are always great candidates for the hereafter. The sooner, the better. The world will be a better place.
Click to expand...


What separates you from ISIS, Taliban and al Qaeda folks?


----------



## asaratis

WorldWatcher said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the clerk is acting illegally, then that's something else. Kim Davis issued a statement today that said,  any licenses that are issued without her authority Friday to gay couples in Rowan County are void and “not worth the paper they are written on” because she didn’t approve them.  In Kentucky, the law says the the license must be approved by the Clerk.  It does appear the licenses issued without her approval are invalid.  However, that will have to be resolved by the courts or the legislature.
> 
> Jailed Kentucky clerk says issued marriage licenses to gay couples void
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kentucky law says the license can be signed by the Deputy Clerk.
> 
> Kentucky Revised Statute 402.100 -->> http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36475
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

Many municipalities require licenses to show a stamped signature of the Clerk that authorized the Deputy to sign for the Clerk....same as if the Clerk had signed it.


----------



## WorldWatcher

asaratis said:


> Many municipalities require licenses to show a stamped signature of the Clerk that authorized the Deputy to sign for the Clerk....same as if the Clerk had signed it.



Marriage License of Kim Davis

Well I guess Kentucky is not one of them.

Above is a link to Ms. Davis's marriage license.  No signature, not stamp.


>>>>


----------



## Kondor3

Carla_Danger said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Sounds like the Christian Taliban are getting desperate. Why can't their God sort this out?
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with you that a head-on high-speed traffic collision cannot fix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true Christian.
Click to expand...

Good thing for me that I'm not a practicing Christian then, eh? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 <yawn> Next slide, please.


----------



## Kondor3

Lakhota said:


> ...What separates you from ISIS, Taliban and al Qaeda folks?


Enemies, foreign *AND DOMESTIC*, such as yourself... enemies of the Republic and The People.


----------



## asaratis

ogibillm said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> To get married....that's supposed to be all they really want!  What's the fucking problem?
> 
> The problem is that these whimpering idiots take offense at every single sign of being disrespected or scorned...and insist upon punishing all that do not celebrate Gay Pride forever.
> 
> To hell with them and all who appease them...whiners and babies.
> 
> 
> 
> where else can a person go to get a marriage license in kentucky than to a county clerk's office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...to ANY other county in Kentucky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and what prevents any other county from also turning them away if davis is allowed to do so? why should another county bear the burden of providing services to people from outside their county just because the clerk in the home county is a bigot? why should the county clerk be given the authority to require certain citizens to go to other clerk's offices? why should a couple have to face the burden of traveling to another county?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better to ask why should a criminal from South of the Border be allowed to enter this country illegally 5 times, stay in a 'sanctuary city' as a guest of the DOJ that has been INSTRUCTED to ignore the laws that would send to low-life criminal back where he came from.  What is the worse result of some government worker ignoring the law....a poor little gay couple has to drive to another county to get a license to be called 'married'...or an innocent young lady gets murdered by a goddamned, scummy illegal alien that shouldn't have been here in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you can't answer the question just say so.
Click to expand...

You just don't understand, do you?  This Clerk's defiance of the law is MINUSCULE compared to the laws that our Commander in Chief and our nation's top lawyer choose to defy.  The Clerk is merely following the lead of the POTUS and the Attorney General.  She is honoring their modi operandi by emulating them.  After all, she is a goddamned Democrat!

When you gripe as much about Obama and Holder ignoring laws such that innocent people are harmed by the criminals they ignore, I'll join you in bitching about this Clerk's defiance that poses no danger to the general public.

Otherwise.....fuck off!


----------



## Carla_Danger

Kondor3 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Sounds like the Christian Taliban are getting desperate. Why can't their God sort this out?
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with you that a head-on high-speed traffic collision cannot fix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good thing for me that I'm not a practicing Christian then, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <yawn> Next slide, please.
Click to expand...



I'd say you're doing a pretty good job of paving your way to bigot heaven with your hate-religion.


----------



## Kondor3

Carla_Danger said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Sounds like the Christian Taliban are getting desperate. Why can't their God sort this out?
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with you that a head-on high-speed traffic collision cannot fix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good thing for me that I'm not a practicing Christian then, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <yawn> Next slide, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say you're doing a pretty good job of paving your way to bigot heaven with your hate-religion.
Click to expand...

What hatred is that?

Opposition to the sexual deviancy and perversion of homosexuality, and opposition to laws that legitimize and mainstream it, in contravention to the long-standing Will of the People?

Hatred for the Gay Mafia haters who spew poisonous and libelous labels such as _Christian Taliban_ and _Christian Sharia_ in the direction of anyone who dares publicly oppose you and yours?

Phukk that.

Keep bashing Christians in that way, fool.

It is going to come back to bite you in the ass, in the next several years.

Don't say you haven't been warned.


----------



## Lakhota

Kondor3 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...What separates you from ISIS, Taliban and al Qaeda folks?
> 
> 
> 
> Enemies, foreign *AND DOMESTIC*, such as yourself... enemies of the Republic and The People.
Click to expand...


In other words - you're just a demented patriot like they are.  Christian Taliban and Christian Sharia.


----------



## Kondor3

Lakhota said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...What separates you from ISIS, Taliban and al Qaeda folks?
> 
> 
> 
> Enemies, foreign *AND DOMESTIC*, such as yourself... enemies of the Republic and The People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words - you're just a demented patriot like they are.  Christian Taliban and Christian Sharia.
Click to expand...

Is that the best bait you've got, pissant? Yer gonna have to do _*much*_ better than that. *Can* you? Doubtful. You're _ubiquitous_, but you're actually _*not*_ very good at this.


----------



## Lakhota

Kondor3 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...What separates you from ISIS, Taliban and al Qaeda folks?
> 
> 
> 
> Enemies, foreign *AND DOMESTIC*, such as yourself... enemies of the Republic and The People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words - you're just a demented patriot like they are.  Christian Taliban and Christian Sharia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that the best bait you've got, pissant? Yer gonna have to do _*much*_ better than that. *Can* you? Doubtful. You're ubiquitous, but you're actually not very good at this.
Click to expand...


It's not bait.  It's honestly how I feel about you retarded assholes.


----------



## asaratis

WorldWatcher said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many municipalities require licenses to show a stamped signature of the Clerk that authorized the Deputy to sign for the Clerk....same as if the Clerk had signed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage License of Kim Davis
> 
> Well I guess Kentucky is not one of them.
> 
> Above is a link to Ms. Davis's marriage license.  No signature, not stamp.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

Maybe not.  But the Clerk's name is typed into the form, tacitly implying approval of the license.


----------



## Kondor3

Lakhota said:


> ...It's not bait.  It's honestly how I feel about you retarded assholes.








Now, are we done yet?

Shall we let folks get back to the topic at-hand?


----------



## Carla_Danger

Kondor3 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Sounds like the Christian Taliban are getting desperate. Why can't their God sort this out?
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with you that a head-on high-speed traffic collision cannot fix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good thing for me that I'm not a practicing Christian then, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <yawn> Next slide, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say you're doing a pretty good job of paving your way to bigot heaven with your hate-religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What hatred is that?
> 
> Opposition to the sexual deviancy and perversion of homosexuality, and opposition to laws that legitimize and mainstream it, in contravention to the long-standing Will of the People?
> 
> Hatred for the Gay Mafia haters who spew poisonous and libelous labels such as _Christian Taliban_ and _Christian Sharia_ in the direction of anyone who dares publicly oppose you and yours?
> 
> Phukk that.
> 
> Keep bashing Christians in that way, fool.
> 
> It is going to come back to bite you in the ass, in the next several years.
> 
> Don't say you haven't been warned.
Click to expand...




I've got news for you, a) the majority of this country approves of gay marriage, b) gay people preform the same sex acts as straight couples.

I understand you think it's icky, it's not for you...so don't do it.

I'm not bashing Christian's, I'm bashing idiots. Evangelical, right-wing Christian extremist have distorted religion beyond recognition.


----------



## WorldWatcher

asaratis said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many municipalities require licenses to show a stamped signature of the Clerk that authorized the Deputy to sign for the Clerk....same as if the Clerk had signed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage License of Kim Davis
> 
> Well I guess Kentucky is not one of them.
> 
> Above is a link to Ms. Davis's marriage license.  No signature, not stamp.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not.  But the Clerk's name is typed into the form, tacitly implying approval of the license.
Click to expand...


The name does not denote "approval" or "disapproval" in a right or wrong sense.

It denote that the persons listed higher on the form meet all the legal requirements of Civil Marriage.


>>>>


----------



## Kondor3

Carla_Danger said:


> ...I've got news for you, a) the majority of this country approves of gay marriage...


I've got news for you, too.

That so-called 'majority' had voted only a few yeas before, to enact and sustain Defense of Marriage -style referenda and statute, in a large number of states.

However, having had their Will ignored and overturned by activist judges, people began to tire of the whole thing, and began taking the path of least resistance; not wanting to be put into the Gay Mafia's cross-hairs or accused of bigotry, etc. - it was too much trouble, to mount and sustain an active defense against the Three Percent and their fellow travelers.

Liberal young-lings usually morph into Conservative middle-agers, and a lot of the Liberals currently supporting such nonsense, will change their tune, as they become parents and grandparents, and raise families, and try their damndest, to keep their precious young away from such filth, even though they may have grudgingly conceded the field years earlier.

And, of course, with each passing month and year, as more and more Christian -bashing occurs, and as the Gay Mafia and its fellow travelers continue to out themselves as the vicious attack-dogs that they are, you(r side) will drive more and more of those fickle, formerly DOM-supporting voters *back* into the Opposition Camp.

The so-called 'support' that you(r side) like to point to, is immature, fickle, naive, easily change-able, unreliable, unstable, and about as meaningful as a fart in a hurricane.

Your (side) is on extremely shaky and shifting ground, even if you can't see it, or delude yourselves, otherwise.

The 3% cannot sustain this for long against the 97%, and it _*IS*_ an "_us vs. them_" scenario - you can't help yourselves - you'll keep pushing the American People until they push back, and push back hard, within a legal and Constitutional framework, in order to flush-out the infestation and infection.



> ...I'm not bashing Christian's, I'm bashing idiots. Evangelical, right-wing Christian extremist have distorted religion beyond recognition.


You(r side) is bashing Christians 24 x 7 x 365. You(r side) is not kidding anybody when you protest otherwise. Nobody believes you(r side). The evidence is there for all to see.


----------



## Lakhota

America is getting tired of the Christian Taliban and Tim Tebow bullshit.


----------



## Kondor3

Lakhota said:


> America is getting tired of the Christian Taliban and Tim Tebow bullshit.


----------



## Lakhota

Kondor3 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> America is getting tired of the Christian Taliban and Tim Tebow bullshit.
Click to expand...


Is that your token black friend?


----------



## Coyote

How do religious people feel about legalized same sex marriage?

You might be surprised.

Attitudes on Same-sex Marriage by Religious Affiliation and Denominational Family



> The most supportive major religious groups are Buddhists (84 percent), Jews (77 percent), and Americans who select “Other religion” (75 percent); additionally, more than three-quarters (77 percent) of the religiously unaffiliated also support same-sex marriage.
> 
> *More than six in ten (62 percent) white mainline Protestants support same-sex marriage*. Among white mainline Protestant denominations, support ranges from 69 percent support among white mainline Presbyterians and 68 percent among both white Episcopalians and white Congregationalists/United Church of Christ members, to lower support among white mainline Baptists (53 percent) and white mainline Church of Christ/Disciples (50 percent).
> 
> And while the Catholic Church officially opposes the legalization of same-sex marriage, *about six in ten white (61 percent), Hispanic (60 percent), and other non-white Catholics (60 percent) support allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally.* A majority of orthodox Christians (56 percent) also support same-sex marriage.
> 
> On the other side of the debate, majorities of Jehovah’s Witnesses (75 percent), Mormons (68 percent), white evangelical Protestants (66 percent), Hispanic Protestants (58 percent), and black Protestants (54 percent) oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally. Among white evangelical Protestant denominations, white evangelical Baptists are the most opposed (72 percent), while white evangelical Lutherans are nearly evenly divided (45 percent favor, 48 percent opposed).


----------



## Kondor3

Lakhota said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> America is getting tired of the Christian Taliban and Tim Tebow bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that your token black friend?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Like you.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Kondor3 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I've got news for you, a) the majority of this country approves of gay marriage...
> 
> 
> 
> I've got news for you, too.
> 
> That so-called 'majority' had voted only a few yeas before, to enact and sustain Defense of Marriage -style referenda and statute, in a large number of states.
> 
> However, having had their Will ignored and overturned by activist judges, people began to tire of the whole thing, and began taking the path of least resistance; not wanting to be put into the Gay Mafia's cross-hairs or accused of bigotry, etc. - it was too much trouble, to mount and sustain an active defense against the Three Percent and their fellow travelers.
> 
> Liberal young-lings usually morph into Conservative middle-agers, and a lot of the Liberals currently supporting such nonsense, will change their tune, as they become parents and grandparents, and raise families, and try their damndest, to keep their precious young away from such filth, even though they may have grudgingly conceded the field years earlier.
> 
> And, of course, with each passing month and year, as more and more Christian -bashing occurs, and as the Gay Mafia and its fellow travelers continue to out themselves as the vicious attack-dogs that they are, you(r side) will drive more and more of those fickle, formerly DOM-supporting voters *back* into the Opposition Camp.
> 
> The so-called 'support' that you(r side) like to point to, is immature, fickle, naive, easily change-able, unreliable, unstable, and about as meaningful as a fart in a hurricane.
> 
> Your (side) is on extremely shaky and shifting ground, even if you can't see it, or delude yourselves, otherwise.
> 
> The 3% cannot sustain this for long against the 97%, and it _*IS*_ an "_us vs. them_" scenario - you can't help yourselves - you'll keep pushing the American People until they push back, and push back hard, within a legal and Constitutional framework, in order to flush-out the infestation and infection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...I'm not bashing Christian's, I'm bashing idiots. Evangelical, right-wing Christian extremist have distorted religion beyond recognition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You(r side) is bashing Christians 24 x 7 x 365. You(r side) is not kidding anybody when you protest otherwise. Nobody believes you(r side). The evidence is there for all to see.
Click to expand...



I guess it's a good thing you're not a Christian.  (wink, wink)

There is *no* 97% against 3%. The *majority* of this country support same sex marriage, and have for at least 5 years. Each year, for the past 5 years, support for same sex marriage has increased. I'm sorry, but you are delusional. And no, people don't become bigots once they've had children.


----------



## Lakhota

Carla_Danger said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I've got news for you, a) the majority of this country approves of gay marriage...
> 
> 
> 
> I've got news for you, too.
> 
> That so-called 'majority' had voted only a few yeas before, to enact and sustain Defense of Marriage -style referenda and statute, in a large number of states.
> 
> However, having had their Will ignored and overturned by activist judges, people began to tire of the whole thing, and began taking the path of least resistance; not wanting to be put into the Gay Mafia's cross-hairs or accused of bigotry, etc. - it was too much trouble, to mount and sustain an active defense against the Three Percent and their fellow travelers.
> 
> Liberal young-lings usually morph into Conservative middle-agers, and a lot of the Liberals currently supporting such nonsense, will change their tune, as they become parents and grandparents, and raise families, and try their damndest, to keep their precious young away from such filth, even though they may have grudgingly conceded the field years earlier.
> 
> And, of course, with each passing month and year, as more and more Christian -bashing occurs, and as the Gay Mafia and its fellow travelers continue to out themselves as the vicious attack-dogs that they are, you(r side) will drive more and more of those fickle, formerly DOM-supporting voters *back* into the Opposition Camp.
> 
> The so-called 'support' that you(r side) like to point to, is immature, fickle, naive, easily change-able, unreliable, unstable, and about as meaningful as a fart in a hurricane.
> 
> Your (side) is on extremely shaky and shifting ground, even if you can't see it, or delude yourselves, otherwise.
> 
> The 3% cannot sustain this for long against the 97%, and it _*IS*_ an "_us vs. them_" scenario - you can't help yourselves - you'll keep pushing the American People until they push back, and push back hard, within a legal and Constitutional framework, in order to flush-out the infestation and infection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...I'm not bashing Christian's, I'm bashing idiots. Evangelical, right-wing Christian extremist have distorted religion beyond recognition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You(r side) is bashing Christians 24 x 7 x 365. You(r side) is not kidding anybody when you protest otherwise. Nobody believes you(r side). The evidence is there for all to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it's a good thing you're not a Christian.  (wink, wink)
> 
> There is *no* 97% against 3%. The *majority* of this country support same sex marriage, and have for at least 5 years. Each year, for the past 5 years, support for same sex marriage has increased. I'm sorry, but you are delusional. And no, people don't become bigots once they've had children.
Click to expand...


Funny.  Reminds me of the following link I scanned a few minutes ago.

*Last Hurrah For The Old, White, Angry Crowd*


----------



## Carla_Danger

Lakhota said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I've got news for you, a) the majority of this country approves of gay marriage...
> 
> 
> 
> I've got news for you, too.
> 
> That so-called 'majority' had voted only a few yeas before, to enact and sustain Defense of Marriage -style referenda and statute, in a large number of states.
> 
> However, having had their Will ignored and overturned by activist judges, people began to tire of the whole thing, and began taking the path of least resistance; not wanting to be put into the Gay Mafia's cross-hairs or accused of bigotry, etc. - it was too much trouble, to mount and sustain an active defense against the Three Percent and their fellow travelers.
> 
> Liberal young-lings usually morph into Conservative middle-agers, and a lot of the Liberals currently supporting such nonsense, will change their tune, as they become parents and grandparents, and raise families, and try their damndest, to keep their precious young away from such filth, even though they may have grudgingly conceded the field years earlier.
> 
> And, of course, with each passing month and year, as more and more Christian -bashing occurs, and as the Gay Mafia and its fellow travelers continue to out themselves as the vicious attack-dogs that they are, you(r side) will drive more and more of those fickle, formerly DOM-supporting voters *back* into the Opposition Camp.
> 
> The so-called 'support' that you(r side) like to point to, is immature, fickle, naive, easily change-able, unreliable, unstable, and about as meaningful as a fart in a hurricane.
> 
> Your (side) is on extremely shaky and shifting ground, even if you can't see it, or delude yourselves, otherwise.
> 
> The 3% cannot sustain this for long against the 97%, and it _*IS*_ an "_us vs. them_" scenario - you can't help yourselves - you'll keep pushing the American People until they push back, and push back hard, within a legal and Constitutional framework, in order to flush-out the infestation and infection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...I'm not bashing Christian's, I'm bashing idiots. Evangelical, right-wing Christian extremist have distorted religion beyond recognition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You(r side) is bashing Christians 24 x 7 x 365. You(r side) is not kidding anybody when you protest otherwise. Nobody believes you(r side). The evidence is there for all to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it's a good thing you're not a Christian.  (wink, wink)
> 
> There is *no* 97% against 3%. The *majority* of this country support same sex marriage, and have for at least 5 years. Each year, for the past 5 years, support for same sex marriage has increased. I'm sorry, but you are delusional. And no, people don't become bigots once they've had children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny.  Reminds me of the following link I scanned a few minutes ago.
> 
> *Last Hurrah For The Old, White, Angry Crowd*
Click to expand...




Excellent article...


----------



## guno

Lakhota said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I've got news for you, a) the majority of this country approves of gay marriage...
> 
> 
> 
> I've got news for you, too.
> 
> That so-called 'majority' had voted only a few yeas before, to enact and sustain Defense of Marriage -style referenda and statute, in a large number of states.
> 
> However, having had their Will ignored and overturned by activist judges, people began to tire of the whole thing, and began taking the path of least resistance; not wanting to be put into the Gay Mafia's cross-hairs or accused of bigotry, etc. - it was too much trouble, to mount and sustain an active defense against the Three Percent and their fellow travelers.
> 
> Liberal young-lings usually morph into Conservative middle-agers, and a lot of the Liberals currently supporting such nonsense, will change their tune, as they become parents and grandparents, and raise families, and try their damndest, to keep their precious young away from such filth, even though they may have grudgingly conceded the field years earlier.
> 
> And, of course, with each passing month and year, as more and more Christian -bashing occurs, and as the Gay Mafia and its fellow travelers continue to out themselves as the vicious attack-dogs that they are, you(r side) will drive more and more of those fickle, formerly DOM-supporting voters *back* into the Opposition Camp.
> 
> The so-called 'support' that you(r side) like to point to, is immature, fickle, naive, easily change-able, unreliable, unstable, and about as meaningful as a fart in a hurricane.
> 
> Your (side) is on extremely shaky and shifting ground, even if you can't see it, or delude yourselves, otherwise.
> 
> The 3% cannot sustain this for long against the 97%, and it _*IS*_ an "_us vs. them_" scenario - you can't help yourselves - you'll keep pushing the American People until they push back, and push back hard, within a legal and Constitutional framework, in order to flush-out the infestation and infection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...I'm not bashing Christian's, I'm bashing idiots. Evangelical, right-wing Christian extremist have distorted religion beyond recognition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You(r side) is bashing Christians 24 x 7 x 365. You(r side) is not kidding anybody when you protest otherwise. Nobody believes you(r side). The evidence is there for all to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it's a good thing you're not a Christian.  (wink, wink)
> 
> There is *no* 97% against 3%. The *majority* of this country support same sex marriage, and have for at least 5 years. Each year, for the past 5 years, support for same sex marriage has increased. I'm sorry, but you are delusional. And no, people don't become bigots once they've had children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny.  Reminds me of the following link I scanned a few minutes ago.
> 
> *Last Hurrah For The Old, White, Angry Crowd*
Click to expand...

Bingo!!!!!!


This is, old angry people, the future of America. You can rage against it and try to build fences and you may win in the very short run.

But in the long run, you will lose.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

asaratis said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, RIghteousness has claimed its first Martyr, in the struggle against Wickedness (homosexuality).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my fucking god, you really are a drama queen.
> 
> 
> 
> Question for you fundies who work for a living ... If you refuse to do your job, what happens?
> 
> Hmmm?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Question for you liberals:  What happens when liberals refuse to do their job?
> 
> Answer:  Nothing different from when they do their jobs!  They don't get fired.  They don't get arrested.  They often refuse to do their jobs on orders from the POTUS...who more often than not, refuses to do his job.
> 
> Screw all you goddamned hypocrisy-filled  liberal bedwetters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell are you bloviating about? Care to give some examples of liberals not doing their jobs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama is not doing his job.  Holder is not doing his job.  The refusal to enforce the laws of the land starts at the top.  Any person working under either of these two lying bastards is not doing his job...at the behest of his incompetent boss.   That is a shitload of government workers....not doing their jobs.
Click to expand...


SPECIFIC Examples please!  PLEASE include instances where they have been in contempt of court.THANK YOU!


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Tresha91203

Skylar said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immediately relevant. As demonstrated by the fact that these same clerks issued the marriage licenses when removed from under Davis' authority.
> 
> Davis was pushing her religion on her clerks as much as she was the citizens of her county.
Click to expand...


Are you sure? I thought they had to go a town over. If another clerk in her district issued the license, it would still bear Davis' name as her name is in the seal. That's the way it is here. You cannot use someone's seal over their objections.

She should have resigned in protest IMO. In the private sector, I might stand with her, but govt should not use religion to deny someone his legal rights.


----------



## Silhouette

Tresha91203 said:


> She should have resigned in protest IMO. In the private sector, I might stand with her, but govt should not use religion to deny someone his legal rights.


 
Hmm...according to the 1st Amendment the government should not use the courts to deny a person their religious rights.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She should have resigned in protest IMO. In the private sector, I might stand with her, but govt should not use religion to deny someone his legal rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...according to the 1st Amendment the government should not use the courts to deny a person their religious rights.
Click to expand...

And they haven't in this case.  She can believe anything she likes, but she works for the taxpayers and must still follow the law...


----------



## Kondor3

Carla_Danger said:


> There is *no* 97% against 3%. The *majority* of this country support same sex marriage, and have for at least 5 years. Each year, for the past 5 years, support for same sex marriage has increased. I'm sorry, but you are delusional...


We'll see who is kidding themselves, after January 20, 2017.

As I said, you are on far shakier ground than you will allow yourself to believe.

Smug, arrogance complacency, as the inevitable and righteous Reaction grows just off your scope.

Delicious.


> ...And no, people don't become bigots once they've had children.


It is not bigotry to call-out and shun sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality).

Nobody wants their children and grandchildren exposed to such filth.


----------



## Kondor3

Lakhota said:


> ...Funny.  Reminds me of the following link I scanned a few minutes ago...


You spend your time surfing, looking for delusion-reinforcing commentary about the Death of the White Man, and you call _*US*_ bigots?

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha...

And, look who's talking about dying-off...

You should know...


----------



## Carla_Danger

Kondor3 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is *no* 97% against 3%. The *majority* of this country support same sex marriage, and have for at least 5 years. Each year, for the past 5 years, support for same sex marriage has increased. I'm sorry, but you are delusional...
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see who is kidding themselves, after January 20, 2017.
> 
> As I said, you are on far shakier ground than you will allow yourself to believe.
> 
> Smug, arrogance complacency, as the inevitable and righteous Reaction grows just off your scope.
> 
> Delicious.
> 
> 
> 
> ...And no, people don't become bigots once they've had children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not bigotry to call-out and shun sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality).
> 
> Nobody wants their children and grandchildren exposed to such filth.
Click to expand...



Bookmarked for future entertainment.  lol


----------



## Vandalshandle

Kondor3 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Funny.  Reminds me of the following link I scanned a few minutes ago...
> 
> 
> 
> You spend your time surfing, looking for delusion-reinforcing commentary about the Death of the White Man, and you call _*US*_ bigots?
> 
> Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha...
> 
> And, look who's talking about dying-off...
> 
> You should know...
Click to expand...


Kondor, I have just read your posts for the last couple of pages. I think that you really need to step away from the computer, and take a deep breath. Seriously, dude, you are getting hysterical.


----------



## Vandalshandle




----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Kondor3 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I've got news for you, a) the majority of this country approves of gay marriage...
> 
> 
> 
> I've got news for you, too.
> 
> That so-called 'majority' had voted only a few yeas before, to enact and sustain Defense of Marriage -style referenda and statute, in a large number of states.
> 
> However, having had their Will ignored and overturned by activist judges, people began to tire of the whole thing, and began taking the path of least resistance; not wanting to be put into the Gay Mafia's cross-hairs or accused of bigotry, etc. - it was too much trouble, to mount and sustain an active defense against the Three Percent and their fellow travelers.
> 
> Liberal young-lings usually morph into Conservative middle-agers, and a lot of the Liberals currently supporting such nonsense, will change their tune, as they become parents and grandparents, and raise families, and try their damndest, to keep their precious young away from such filth, even though they may have grudgingly conceded the field years earlier.
> 
> And, of course, with each passing month and year, as more and more Christian -bashing occurs, and as the Gay Mafia and its fellow travelers continue to out themselves as the vicious attack-dogs that they are, you(r side) will drive more and more of those fickle, formerly DOM-supporting voters *back* into the Opposition Camp.
> 
> The so-called 'support' that you(r side) like to point to, is immature, fickle, naive, easily change-able, unreliable, unstable, and about as meaningful as a fart in a hurricane.
> 
> Your (side) is on extremely shaky and shifting ground, even if you can't see it, or delude yourselves, otherwise.
> 
> The 3% cannot sustain this for long against the 97%, and it _*IS*_ an "_us vs. them_" scenario - you can't help yourselves - you'll keep pushing the American People until they push back, and push back hard, within a legal and Constitutional framework, in order to flush-out the infestation and infection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...I'm not bashing Christian's, I'm bashing idiots. Evangelical, right-wing Christian extremist have distorted religion beyond recognition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You(r side) is bashing Christians 24 x 7 x 365. You(r side) is not kidding anybody when you protest otherwise. Nobody believes you(r side). The evidence is there for all to see.
Click to expand...


That is quite a delusional rant, clearly born of desperation and despair. It must e hard being you. So angry and alienated. So fearful  of change and unable to accept the reality of progress. I might have to live with and deal with people like you but I thank the Gods and the  Goddesses that I am not you . Have a nice day


----------



## Silhouette

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That is quite a delusional rant, clearly born of desperation and despair. It must e hard being you. So angry and alienated. So fearful  of change and unable to accept the reality of progress.


 
Since when is jailing someone for their religious beliefs "progress"?  Ever hear of the 1st Amendment?  So to you, progress is dismantling our founding document and inaliable rights eh?  Hope the tables don't turn on you when some other trend you hadn't anticipated washes through the social atmosphere. 

And that reminds me, I remember the "progress" of election 2014...dems lost their butts when the middle bloc defected to a more conservative Congressional spread.  Don't worry, now that a Christian has been jailed by gay-cult sychophants, I'm sure 2016 will be much different.  After all, 2014 maybe wasn't about the middle bloc's visceral disgust with motherless/fatherless "marriages" for kids.  Of course with all the danger associated with speaking one's mind on the subject, it may be that it was.  Hard to tell until people vote.  Keep your fingers crossed that "most people think motherless/fatherless "marriages" are OK for kids!"  And, "people will understand a Christian being jailed for being opposed to that!". 

Talk about betting on a dark horse..lol..


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Silhouette said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is quite a delusional rant, clearly born of desperation and despair. It must e hard being you. So angry and alienated. So fearful  of change and unable to accept the reality of progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when is jailing someone for their religious beliefs "progress"?  Ever hear of the 1st Amendment?  So to you, progress is dismantling our founding document and inaliable rights eh?  Hope the tables don't turn on you when some other trend you hadn't anticipated washes through the social atmosphere.
> 
> And that reminds me, I remember the "progress" of election 2014...dems lost their butts when the middle bloc defected to a more conservative Congressional spread.  Don't worry, now that a Christian has been jailed by gay-cult sychophants, I'm sure 2016 will be much different.  After all, 2014 maybe wasn't about the middle bloc's visceral disgust with motherless/fatherless "marriages" for kids.  Of course with all the danger associated with speaking one's mind on the subject, it may be that it was.  Hard to tell until people vote.  Keep your fingers crossed that "most people think motherless/fatherless "marriages" are OK for kids!"  And, "people will understand a Christian being jailed for being opposed to that!".
> 
> Talk about betting on a dark horse..lol..
Click to expand...


To say that she was jailed for her religious beliefs in violation of the first amendment is either willfully ignorant or a deliberate and blatant lie. I just don't  know which.

As far as the 2014 election goes....chew on this:
*Gerrymandering Rigged the 2014 Elections for GOP Advantage  Gerrymandering Rigged the 2014 Elections for GOP Advantage | BillMoyers.com*


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Silhouette said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is quite a delusional rant, clearly born of desperation and despair. It must e hard being you. So angry and alienated. So fearful  of change and unable to accept the reality of progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when is jailing someone for their religious beliefs "progress"?  Ever hear of the 1st Amendment?  So to you, progress is dismantling our founding document and inaliable rights eh?  Hope the tables don't turn on you when some other trend you hadn't anticipated washes through the social atmosphere.
> 
> And that reminds me, I remember the "progress" of election 2014...dems lost their butts when the middle bloc defected to a more conservative Congressional spread.  Don't worry, now that a Christian has been jailed by gay-cult sychophants, I'm sure 2016 will be much different.  After all, 2014 maybe wasn't about the middle bloc's visceral disgust with motherless/fatherless "marriages" for kids.  Of course with all the danger associated with speaking one's mind on the subject, it may be that it was.  Hard to tell until people vote.  Keep your fingers crossed that "most people think motherless/fatherless "marriages" are OK for kids!"  And, "people will understand a Christian being jailed for being opposed to that!".
> 
> Talk about betting on a dark horse..lol..
Click to expand...


*Five Bizarre Arguments Kim Davis' Supporters Have Used To Defend Her Lawbreaking* - See more at: Five Bizarre Ways Kim Davis' Supporters Have Defended Her Lawbreaking


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> Hmm...according to the 1st Amendment the government should not use the courts to deny a person their religious rights.



There is no 1st Amendment right to shut down the functioning of a government entity (in relationship to specific duties to be performed) because of an individuals my way or no way orders as they pertain to religious rights.


>>>>


----------



## WinterBorn

Silhouette said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She should have resigned in protest IMO. In the private sector, I might stand with her, but govt should not use religion to deny someone his legal rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...according to the 1st Amendment the government should not use the courts to deny a person their religious rights.
Click to expand...


The gov't did not use the courts to deny her anything.   She was held in contempt of court for her refusal to do her job, resign or allow others in her office to issue licenses.  She has been free to practice her religion all along.  In fact, she is free to practice it right now.

What she is NOT free to do is refuse to follow a court order and make her religious views mandatory for everyone in her office.


----------



## WinterBorn

Kondor3 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is *no* 97% against 3%. The *majority* of this country support same sex marriage, and have for at least 5 years. Each year, for the past 5 years, support for same sex marriage has increased. I'm sorry, but you are delusional...
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see who is kidding themselves, after January 20, 2017.
> 
> As I said, you are on far shakier ground than you will allow yourself to believe.
> 
> Smug, arrogance complacency, as the inevitable and righteous Reaction grows just off your scope.
> 
> Delicious.
> 
> 
> 
> ...And no, people don't become bigots once they've had children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not bigotry to call-out and shun sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality).
> 
> Nobody wants their children and grandchildren exposed to such filth.
Click to expand...


I'm still waiting for you to answer my question about what you mean by "that is when the fun starts".  You were referring to after Obama is out of office.


----------



## guno

Kondor3 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I've got news for you, a) the majority of this country approves of gay marriage...
> 
> 
> 
> I've got news for you, too.
> 
> That so-called 'majority' had voted only a few yeas before, to enact and sustain Defense of Marriage -style referenda and statute, in a large number of states.
> 
> However, having had their Will ignored and overturned by activist judges, people began to tire of the whole thing, and began taking the path of least resistance; not wanting to be put into the Gay Mafia's cross-hairs or accused of bigotry, etc. - it was too much trouble, to mount and sustain an active defense against the Three Percent and their fellow travelers.
> 
> Liberal young-lings usually morph into Conservative middle-agers, and a lot of the Liberals currently supporting such nonsense, will change their tune, as they become parents and grandparents, and raise families, and try their damndest, to keep their precious young away from such filth, even though they may have grudgingly conceded the field years earlier.
> 
> And, of course, with each passing month and year, as more and more Christian -bashing occurs, and as the Gay Mafia and its fellow travelers continue to out themselves as the vicious attack-dogs that they are, you(r side) will drive more and more of those fickle, formerly DOM-supporting voters *back* into the Opposition Camp.
> 
> The so-called 'support' that you(r side) like to point to, is immature, fickle, naive, easily change-able, unreliable, unstable, and about as meaningful as a fart in a hurricane.
> 
> Your (side) is on extremely shaky and shifting ground, even if you can't see it, or delude yourselves, otherwise.
> 
> The 3% cannot sustain this for long against the 97%, and it _*IS*_ an "_us vs. them_" scenario - you can't help yourselves - you'll keep pushing the American People until they push back, and push back hard, within a legal and Constitutional framework, in order to flush-out the infestation and infection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...I'm not bashing Christian's, I'm bashing idiots. Evangelical, right-wing Christian extremist have distorted religion beyond recognition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You(r side) is bashing Christians 24 x 7 x 365. You(r side) is not kidding anybody when you protest otherwise. Nobody believes you(r side). The evidence is there for all to see.
Click to expand...



It is not just and age thing it is a generational thing , Your ilks time is coming to an end  , your world is not "swinging" back


----------



## guno

Kondor3 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Funny.  Reminds me of the following link I scanned a few minutes ago...
> 
> 
> 
> You spend your time surfing, looking for delusion-reinforcing commentary about the Death of the White Man, and you call _*US*_ bigots?
> 
> Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha...
> 
> And, look who's talking about dying-off...
> 
> You should know...
Click to expand...



Facts are not your friends are they? in a few short decades whites will only make less then 10 percent of the worlds population and out of that 10 percent a small minority will be rightwing cross grovelers such as yourself  Let's see how that works out for your ilk


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She should have resigned in protest IMO. In the private sector, I might stand with her, but govt should not use religion to deny someone his legal rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...according to the 1st Amendment the government should not use the courts to deny a person their religious rights.
Click to expand...


I couldn't agree more. #FreeWarrenJeffs


----------



## Kondor3

Carla_Danger said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is *no* 97% against 3%. The *majority* of this country support same sex marriage, and have for at least 5 years. Each year, for the past 5 years, support for same sex marriage has increased. I'm sorry, but you are delusional...
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see who is kidding themselves, after January 20, 2017.
> 
> As I said, you are on far shakier ground than you will allow yourself to believe.
> 
> Smug, arrogance complacency, as the inevitable and righteous Reaction grows just off your scope.
> 
> Delicious.
> 
> 
> 
> ...And no, people don't become bigots once they've had children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not bigotry to call-out and shun sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality).
> 
> Nobody wants their children and grandchildren exposed to such filth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bookmarked for future entertainment.  lol
Click to expand...

All part of the friendly service... no extra charge.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Kondor3 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is *no* 97% against 3%. The *majority* of this country support same sex marriage, and have for at least 5 years. Each year, for the past 5 years, support for same sex marriage has increased. I'm sorry, but you are delusional...
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see who is kidding themselves, after January 20, 2017.
> 
> As I said, you are on far shakier ground than you will allow yourself to believe.
> 
> Smug, arrogance complacency, as the inevitable and righteous Reaction grows just off your scope.
> 
> Delicious.
> 
> 
> 
> ...And no, people don't become bigots once they've had children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not bigotry to call-out and shun sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality).
> 
> Nobody wants their children and grandchildren exposed to such filth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bookmarked for future entertainment.  lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the friendly service... no extra charge.
Click to expand...


----------



## Kondor3

Vandalshandle said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Funny.  Reminds me of the following link I scanned a few minutes ago...
> 
> 
> 
> You spend your time surfing, looking for delusion-reinforcing commentary about the Death of the White Man, and you call _*US*_ bigots?
> 
> Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha...
> 
> And, look who's talking about dying-off...
> 
> You should know...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kondor, I have just read your posts for the last couple of pages. I think that you really need to step away from the computer, and take a deep breath. Seriously, dude, you are getting hysterical.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I did... step away from the computer, overnight, and just now catching-up, along with a second cup of morning coffee.

But, insofar as Chief Shitting Bull is concerned, he's such an anti-American, anti-White, anti-Christian, anti-Western POS, that it's a pleasure to bitch-slap him, not a bout of hysteria.

He may be on "your side", but he's an order of magnitude lower in esteem, than many of your colleagues on The Left, with a more egalitarian, non-racist outlook.

Then again, I suspect he gets his rocks off, drawing fire for the crap he posts.

Always happy to oblige Racist turds like that.


----------



## HenryBHough

When same-sex marriage is not just "allowed" but made mandatory worldwide....

And when out-of-wedlock pregnancy is universally punished by summary execution....

*Then AGW will be eliminated in a single generation!*

*Liberal Paradise will be achieved!*


----------



## Kondor3

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> ...That is quite a delusional rant, clearly born of desperation and despair. It must e hard being you. So angry and alienated. So fearful  of change and unable to accept the reality of progress. I might have to live with and deal with people like you but I thank the Gods and the  Goddesses that I am not you . Have a nice day


Desperation and despair?

Hardly.

Merely a harbinger of what's coming.

Angry?

Yes.

The Supreme Court ruling was wrong, in connection with the best interests of The People and the Republic.

Alienated?

Hardly.

I side with the 97% of my fellow countrymen, whose interests lie in direct contrast to the interests of the 3%, for whom this abortion of a ruling was crafted.

I am in very large and very excellent company.

As to progress...

The legitimizing and mainstreaming of sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality) is not progress.

It is a downward slide into a cesspool of filth, degeneracy, licentiousness and emasculation of the Nation; going the way of other nations who inflicted themselves with thsi disease.

Progress? More like a shift towards national suicide.

As to personal references... thank you for your input.


----------



## Carla_Danger

HenryBHough said:


> When same-sex marriage is not just "allowed" but made mandatory worldwide....
> 
> And when out-of-wedlock pregnancy is universally punikshed by summary execution....
> 
> *Then AGW will be eliminated in a single generation!*
> 
> *Liberal Paradise will be achieved!*


----------



## Lakhota

Will Huckabee rescue Davis from the evil clutches of Constitutional justice?  According to Huckabee - we should only obey laws we agree with.  Gee, wouldn't he make a fine president.

*The GOP presidential hopeful wants citizens to disobey the Supreme Court ruling.*

GOP presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee on Sunday defended Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses. When asked by ABC host George Stephanopoulos whether Davis had an obligation to uphold the law, even if she disagreed with it, Huckabee argued she did not.

*Huckabee On Kim Davis: Obey The Law Only 'If It's Right'*


----------



## Asclepias

Lakhota said:


> Will Huckabee rescue Davis from the evil clutches of Constitutional justice?  According to Huckabee - we should only obey laws we agree with.  Gee, wouldn't he make a fine president.
> 
> *The GOP presidential hopeful wants citizens to disobey the Supreme Court ruling.*
> 
> GOP presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee on Sunday defended Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses. When asked by ABC host George Stephanopoulos whether Davis had an obligation to uphold the law, even if she disagreed with it, Huckabee argued she did not.
> 
> *Huckabee On Kim Davis: Obey The Law Only 'If It's Right'*


I wonder why that doesn't apply to Black people resisting arrest when cops just make up shit to arrest them on?


----------



## Lakhota

Asclepias said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will Huckabee rescue Davis from the evil clutches of Constitutional justice?  According to Huckabee - we should only obey laws we agree with.  Gee, wouldn't he make a fine president.
> 
> *The GOP presidential hopeful wants citizens to disobey the Supreme Court ruling.*
> 
> GOP presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee on Sunday defended Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses. When asked by ABC host George Stephanopoulos whether Davis had an obligation to uphold the law, even if she disagreed with it, Huckabee argued she did not.
> 
> *Huckabee On Kim Davis: Obey The Law Only 'If It's Right'*
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder why that doesn't apply to Black people resisting arrest when cops just make up shit to arrest them on?
Click to expand...


That's because Huckabee's idea of justice is very selective.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Kondor3 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...That is quite a delusional rant, clearly born of desperation and despair. It must e hard being you. So angry and alienated. So fearful  of change and unable to accept the reality of progress. I might have to live with and deal with people like you but I thank the Gods and the  Goddesses that I am not you . Have a nice day
> 
> 
> 
> Desperation and despair?
> 
> Hardly.
> 
> Merely a harbinger of what's coming.
> 
> Angry?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> The Supreme Court ruling was wrong, in connection with the best interests of The People and the Republic.
> 
> Alienated?
> 
> Hardly.
> 
> I side with the 97% of my fellow countrymen, whose interests lie in direct contrast to the interests of the 3%, for whom this abortion of a ruling was crafted.
> 
> I am in very large and very excellent company.
> 
> As to progress...
> 
> The legitimizing and mainstreaming of sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality) is not progress.
> 
> It is a downward slide into a cesspool of filth, degeneracy, licentiousness and emasculation of the Nation; going the way of other nations who inflicted themselves with thsi disease.
> 
> Progress? More like a shift towards national suicide.
> 
> As to personal references... thank you for your input.
Click to expand...



OK Kondor, I have two assignments for you should you choose to accept them ( and I suggest that you do if you want to establish any credibility here)


1. Explain unemotionally and in objective and unambiguous terms- without the use of pejoratives  such as “ sexual pervert” EXACTLY how same sex marriage  is detrimental to the best interest of the country and to those who are not directly involved in it.


You might want to look at various jurisdictions-foreign and domestic where same sex marriage has been in effect for over a decade ( you have several choices) and tell us what negative effects on those societies have emerged. Please be sure to use observable, measurable, and verifiable criteria.


Please also be sure to avoid simple correlations that do not control for intervening variables. Rather you are asked to establish a cause and effect relationship. Remember also, we are talking specifically about same sex marriage, not homosexuality in general.


2. Critique the Obergefell decision in terms of constitutional law which includes binding precedents established by case law and explain how you believe that the court could have found for the defendants in that case. Keep in mind that prior to the oral arguments, at the time that the court accepted the case, it was established that the ruling would be based on the 14th amendment so your argument must also be based on that amendment.

Also keep in mind that for the government to deny a group or an individual something that they are claiming as a right that others enjoy, a compelling government interest-or at minimum a rational basis  must be established, so your argument must address what the interest or rational basis might be.


For both assignments, please provide appropriate source documentation for all points presented as fact. Good luck. This should keep you out of troubles for a while and may even make you a better person


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HenryBHough said:


> When same-sex marriage is not just "allowed" but made mandatory worldwide....
> 
> And when out-of-wedlock pregnancy is universally punished by summary execution....
> 
> *Then AGW will be eliminated in a single generation!*
> 
> *Liberal Paradise will be achieved!*


And.........the award for the most useless and inane post of the week goes to.......*HENRY!!*


----------



## Vandalshandle

I think that it was 1948 that California's law forbidding marriage between different races was overturned by higher courts. As I recall, it was a case before the Supreme Court brought by a Chinese man who wanted to marry a white.

The more things change, the more things remain the same. 

Party on, bigots. There is so much evil being committed by "them", and so few of you to stop "them". Get in touch with you inner base bigot, here:

Westboro Baptist Church Home Page


----------



## Lakhota

Here's my take on gay marriage.  The best revenge for those who are rabidly opposed to it is to allow gays to suffer the same financial and legal misery as straight couples.


----------



## Lakhota

*"Pray that America repents of the sin of celebrating sexual perversion and imprisoning Christian dissidents."*

*Hundreds Gather To Support Kim Davis: 'She Won't Bow'*

Well, that was interesting.  American Taliban meetings aren't quite as colorful as Klan meetings - but are still entertaining.


----------



## Faun

asaratis said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, RIghteousness has claimed its first Martyr, in the struggle against Wickedness (homosexuality).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my fucking god, you really are a drama queen.
> 
> 
> 
> Question for you fundies who work for a living ... If you refuse to do your job, what happens?
> 
> Hmmm?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Question for you liberals:  What happens when liberals refuse to do their job?
> 
> Answer:  Nothing different from when they do their jobs!  They don't get fired.  They don't get arrested.  They often refuse to do their jobs on orders from the POTUS...who more often than not, refuses to do his job.
> 
> Screw all you goddamned hypocrisy-filled  liberal bedwetters.
Click to expand...

Here ... just for you ...


----------



## Faun

Silhouette said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She should have resigned in protest IMO. In the private sector, I might stand with her, but govt should not use religion to deny someone his legal rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...according to the 1st Amendment the government should not use the courts to deny a person their religious rights.
Click to expand...

She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.


----------



## Flopper

WorldWatcher said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the clerk is acting illegally, then that's something else. Kim Davis issued a statement today that said,  any licenses that are issued without her authority Friday to gay couples in Rowan County are void and “not worth the paper they are written on” because she didn’t approve them.  In Kentucky, the law says the the license must be approved by the Clerk.  It does appear the licenses issued without her approval are invalid.  However, that will have to be resolved by the courts or the legislature.
> 
> Jailed Kentucky clerk says issued marriage licenses to gay couples void
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kentucky law says the license can be signed by the Deputy Clerk.
> 
> Kentucky Revised Statute 402.100 -->> http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36475
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

I stand corrected the deputy can sign the license.  However, according to the news report those handed out on Friday didn’t have any signature which does make them invalid.

Jailed Kentucky clerk says issued marriage licenses to gay couples void


----------



## Faun

Kondor3 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is *no* 97% against 3%. The *majority* of this country support same sex marriage, and have for at least 5 years. Each year, for the past 5 years, support for same sex marriage has increased. I'm sorry, but you are delusional...
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see who is kidding themselves, after January 20, 2017.
> 
> As I said, you are on far shakier ground than you will allow yourself to believe.
> 
> Smug, arrogance complacency, as the inevitable and righteous Reaction grows just off your scope.
> 
> Delicious.
> 
> 
> 
> ...And no, people don't become bigots once they've had children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not bigotry to call-out and shun sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality).
> 
> Nobody wants their children and grandchildren exposed to such filth.
Click to expand...

Who knows what magic you think will occur on that date?  Even if Republicans were to win the White House and both chambers of the Congress, they can't reverse a U.S.S.C. ruling. They would have to amend the Constitution and there isn't enough support nationally for that to happen. You rightwingnuts live in a fantasy world.


----------



## Carla_Danger

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...That is quite a delusional rant, clearly born of desperation and despair. It must e hard being you. So angry and alienated. So fearful  of change and unable to accept the reality of progress. I might have to live with and deal with people like you but I thank the Gods and the  Goddesses that I am not you . Have a nice day
> 
> 
> 
> Desperation and despair?
> 
> Hardly.
> 
> Merely a harbinger of what's coming.
> 
> Angry?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> The Supreme Court ruling was wrong, in connection with the best interests of The People and the Republic.
> 
> Alienated?
> 
> Hardly.
> 
> I side with the 97% of my fellow countrymen, whose interests lie in direct contrast to the interests of the 3%, for whom this abortion of a ruling was crafted.
> 
> I am in very large and very excellent company.
> 
> As to progress...
> 
> The legitimizing and mainstreaming of sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality) is not progress.
> 
> It is a downward slide into a cesspool of filth, degeneracy, licentiousness and emasculation of the Nation; going the way of other nations who inflicted themselves with thsi disease.
> 
> Progress? More like a shift towards national suicide.
> 
> As to personal references... thank you for your input.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OK Kondor, I have two assignments for you should you choose to accept them ( and I suggest that you do if you want to establish any credibility here)
> 
> 
> 1. Explain unemotionally and in objective and unambiguous terms- without the use of pejoratives  such as “ sexual pervert” EXACTLY how same sex marriage  is detrimental to the best interest of the country and to those who are not directly involved in it.
> 
> 
> You might want to look at various jurisdictions-foreign and domestic where same sex marriage has been in effect for over a decade ( you have several choices) and tell us what negative effects on those societies have emerged. Please be sure to use observable, measurable, and verifiable criteria.
> 
> 
> Please also be sure to avoid simple correlations that do not control for intervening variables. Rather you are asked to establish a cause and effect relationship. Remember also, we are talking specifically about same sex marriage, not homosexuality in general.
> 
> 
> 2. Critique the Obergefell decision in terms of constitutional law which includes binding precedents established by case law and explain how you believe that the court could have found for the defendants in that case. Keep in mind that prior to the oral arguments, at the time that the court accepted the case, it was established that the ruling would be based on the 14th amendment so your argument must also be based on that amendment.
> 
> Also keep in mind that for the government to deny a group or an individual something that they are claiming as a right that others enjoy, a compelling government interest-or at minimum a rational basis  must be established, so your argument must address what the interest or rational basis might be.
> 
> 
> For both assignments, please provide appropriate source documentation for all points presented as fact. Good luck. This should keep you out of troubles for a while and may even make you a better person
Click to expand...




You'd have better luck asking him what color ends in "urple."  Or name any color that begins with "blu."


----------



## WorldWatcher

Flopper said:


> I stand corrected the deputy can sign the license.  However, according to the news report those handed out on Friday didn’t have any signature which does make them invalid.
> 
> Jailed Kentucky clerk says issued marriage licenses to gay couples void




(Good show.)

Ms. Davis's own marriage license from 2009 doesn't have a signature either.


>>>>


----------



## jon_berzerk

Faun said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She should have resigned in protest IMO. In the private sector, I might stand with her, but govt should not use religion to deny someone his legal rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...according to the 1st Amendment the government should not use the courts to deny a person their religious rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.
Click to expand...


*Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma*

what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma" 

would it be ok if she was just an asshole


----------



## Tresha91203

jon_berzerk said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She should have resigned in protest IMO. In the private sector, I might stand with her, but govt should not use religion to deny someone his legal rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...according to the 1st Amendment the government should not use the courts to deny a person their religious rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma*
> 
> what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"
> 
> would it be ok if she was just an asshole
Click to expand...


In this instance, she is the government, and the government cannot deny legal rights for religious reasons. I am good with that as I don't want someone of another faith denying me my drvers license because it is against their religion for women to drive.

Government gets away with being an asshole all the time.

"Sorry, we are not issuing permits at this time. No, not then either. Keep checking back."


----------



## jon_berzerk

Tresha91203 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She should have resigned in protest IMO. In the private sector, I might stand with her, but govt should not use religion to deny someone his legal rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...according to the 1st Amendment the government should not use the courts to deny a person their religious rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma*
> 
> what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"
> 
> would it be ok if she was just an asshole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this instance, she is the government, and the government cannot deny legal rights for religious reasons. I am good with that as I don't want someone of another faith denying me my drvers license because it is against their religion for women to drive.
> 
> Government gets away with being an asshole all the time.
> 
> "Sorry, we are not issuing permits at this time. No, not then either. Keep checking back."
Click to expand...



so as long as they are assholes it is okay then 

is that what you are saying


----------



## Tresha91203

jon_berzerk said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She should have resigned in protest IMO. In the private sector, I might stand with her, but govt should not use religion to deny someone his legal rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...according to the 1st Amendment the government should not use the courts to deny a person their religious rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma*
> 
> what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"
> 
> would it be ok if she was just an asshole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this instance, she is the government, and the government cannot deny legal rights for religious reasons. I am good with that as I don't want someone of another faith denying me my drvers license because it is against their religion for women to drive.
> 
> Government gets away with being an asshole all the time.
> 
> "Sorry, we are not issuing permits at this time. No, not then either. Keep checking back."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so as long as they are assholes it is okay then
> 
> is that what you are saying
Click to expand...


No, it is not. Government needs to be checked. It is extremely difficult to sue the Fed to correct overreach or injustice, so their powers should be limited.

I think someone with standing (a victim) has finally filed suit against a sanctuary city.


----------



## Faun

jon_berzerk said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She should have resigned in protest IMO. In the private sector, I might stand with her, but govt should not use religion to deny someone his legal rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...according to the 1st Amendment the government should not use the courts to deny a person their religious rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma*
> 
> what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"
> 
> would it be ok if she was just an asshole
Click to expand...

It's not ok under any circumstance. But she is citing religious freedom as her reason and I am pointing out the government cannot establish (or infringe) laws based on religion.


----------



## Tresha91203

Faun said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She should have resigned in protest IMO. In the private sector, I might stand with her, but govt should not use religion to deny someone his legal rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...according to the 1st Amendment the government should not use the courts to deny a person their religious rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma*
> 
> what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"
> 
> would it be ok if she was just an asshole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not ok under any circumstance. But she is citing religious freedom as her reason and I am pointing out the government cannot establish (or infringe) laws based on religion.
Click to expand...


SHE IS THE GOVERNMENT. She, personally, can believe what she wants. An agent of the goverment, which she is as CoC, cannot deny a citizen his legal right for religious reasons. That is the govt (in this case, Davis) endorsing a religion. If she were a Muslim at the DMV denying women drivers' licenses, would you back her?


----------



## jon_berzerk

Tresha91203 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...according to the 1st Amendment the government should not use the courts to deny a person their religious rights.
> 
> 
> 
> She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma*
> 
> what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"
> 
> would it be ok if she was just an asshole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this instance, she is the government, and the government cannot deny legal rights for religious reasons. I am good with that as I don't want someone of another faith denying me my drvers license because it is against their religion for women to drive.
> 
> Government gets away with being an asshole all the time.
> 
> "Sorry, we are not issuing permits at this time. No, not then either. Keep checking back."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so as long as they are assholes it is okay then
> 
> is that what you are saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not. Government needs to be checked. It is extremely difficult to sue the Fed to correct overreach or injustice, so their powers should be limited.
> 
> I think someone with standing (a victim) has finally filed suit against a sanctuary city.
Click to expand...



how about the city and state governments that break immigration laws is that cool


----------



## jon_berzerk

Faun said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She should have resigned in protest IMO. In the private sector, I might stand with her, but govt should not use religion to deny someone his legal rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...according to the 1st Amendment the government should not use the courts to deny a person their religious rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma*
> 
> what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"
> 
> would it be ok if she was just an asshole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not ok under any circumstance. But she is citing religious freedom as her reason and I am pointing out the government cannot establish (or infringe) laws based on religion.
Click to expand...



but they can infringe as long as they are not citing religious freedom is that what you are saying


----------



## jon_berzerk

Tresha91203 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She should have resigned in protest IMO. In the private sector, I might stand with her, but govt should not use religion to deny someone his legal rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...according to the 1st Amendment the government should not use the courts to deny a person their religious rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma*
> 
> what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"
> 
> would it be ok if she was just an asshole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not ok under any circumstance. But she is citing religious freedom as her reason and I am pointing out the government cannot establish (or infringe) laws based on religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SHE IS THE GOVERNMENT. She, personally, can believe what she wants. An agent of the goverment, which she is as CoC, cannot deny a citizen his legal right for religious reasons. That is the govt (in this case, Davis) endorsing a religion. If she were a Muslim at the DMV denying women drivers' licenses, would you back her?
Click to expand...



i am not backing anyone i am simply curious where you draw the line on the government enforcing or not enforcing laws for what ever reason


----------



## jon_berzerk

Tresha91203 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...according to the 1st Amendment the government should not use the courts to deny a person their religious rights.
> 
> 
> 
> She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma*
> 
> what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"
> 
> would it be ok if she was just an asshole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this instance, she is the government, and the government cannot deny legal rights for religious reasons. I am good with that as I don't want someone of another faith denying me my drvers license because it is against their religion for women to drive.
> 
> Government gets away with being an asshole all the time.
> 
> "Sorry, we are not issuing permits at this time. No, not then either. Keep checking back."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so as long as they are assholes it is okay then
> 
> is that what you are saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not. Government needs to be checked. It is extremely difficult to sue the Fed to correct overreach or injustice, so their powers should be limited.
> 
> I think someone with standing (a victim) has finally filed suit against a sanctuary city.
Click to expand...


there should be plenty of them 

an illegal allowed to stay in Minnesota some time back 

ran head on into a school bus  killing four children

it happens over and over again

Illegal Immigrant Charged With Homicide in Deadly Minnesota School Bus Crash | Fox News


----------



## Tresha91203

jon_berzerk said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma*
> 
> what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"
> 
> would it be ok if she was just an asshole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this instance, she is the government, and the government cannot deny legal rights for religious reasons. I am good with that as I don't want someone of another faith denying me my drvers license because it is against their religion for women to drive.
> 
> Government gets away with being an asshole all the time.
> 
> "Sorry, we are not issuing permits at this time. No, not then either. Keep checking back."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so as long as they are assholes it is okay then
> 
> is that what you are saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not. Government needs to be checked. It is extremely difficult to sue the Fed to correct overreach or injustice, so their powers should be limited.
> 
> I think someone with standing (a victim) has finally filed suit against a sanctuary city.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> how about the city and state governments that break immigration laws is that cool
Click to expand...

As I said in the post you responded to, "No, its not." I also said I think someone with standing (to sue) has finally filed suit. 

Davis is an agent of the government. She is the goverment here.


----------



## Faun

jon_berzerk said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma*
> 
> what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"
> 
> would it be ok if she was just an asshole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this instance, she is the government, and the government cannot deny legal rights for religious reasons. I am good with that as I don't want someone of another faith denying me my drvers license because it is against their religion for women to drive.
> 
> Government gets away with being an asshole all the time.
> 
> "Sorry, we are not issuing permits at this time. No, not then either. Keep checking back."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so as long as they are assholes it is okay then
> 
> is that what you are saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not. Government needs to be checked. It is extremely difficult to sue the Fed to correct overreach or injustice, so their powers should be limited.
> 
> I think someone with standing (a victim) has finally filed suit against a sanctuary city.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> how about the city and state governments that break immigration laws is that cool
Click to expand...

Your attempt at deflection is noted, but Davis will remain in jail despite it.


----------



## Tresha91203

jon_berzerk said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma*
> 
> what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"
> 
> would it be ok if she was just an asshole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this instance, she is the government, and the government cannot deny legal rights for religious reasons. I am good with that as I don't want someone of another faith denying me my drvers license because it is against their religion for women to drive.
> 
> Government gets away with being an asshole all the time.
> 
> "Sorry, we are not issuing permits at this time. No, not then either. Keep checking back."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so as long as they are assholes it is okay then
> 
> is that what you are saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not. Government needs to be checked. It is extremely difficult to sue the Fed to correct overreach or injustice, so their powers should be limited.
> 
> I think someone with standing (a victim) has finally filed suit against a sanctuary city.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there should be plenty of them
> 
> an illegal allowed to stay in Minnesota some time back
> 
> ran head on into a school bus  killing four children
> 
> it happens over and over again
> 
> Illegal Immigrant Charged With Homicide in Deadly Minnesota School Bus Crash | Fox News
Click to expand...


One has finally filed (I heard/read). I am surprised it took so long and glad it finally has.


----------



## Faun

jon_berzerk said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She should have resigned in protest IMO. In the private sector, I might stand with her, but govt should not use religion to deny someone his legal rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...according to the 1st Amendment the government should not use the courts to deny a person their religious rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma*
> 
> what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"
> 
> would it be ok if she was just an asshole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not ok under any circumstance. But she is citing religious freedom as her reason and I am pointing out the government cannot establish (or infringe) laws based on religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> but they can infringe as long as they are not citing religious freedom is that what you are saying
Click to expand...

There could be valid reasons for denying a request for a marriage license. Religious dogma is not a valid reason.


----------



## Lakhota

Are incestuous marriages allowed in Kentucky?

Kentucky Is Exactly What You'd Expect: Married Cousins and Inbred Children


----------



## Kondor3

Faun said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is *no* 97% against 3%. The *majority* of this country support same sex marriage, and have for at least 5 years. Each year, for the past 5 years, support for same sex marriage has increased. I'm sorry, but you are delusional...
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see who is kidding themselves, after January 20, 2017.
> 
> As I said, you are on far shakier ground than you will allow yourself to believe.
> 
> Smug, arrogance complacency, as the inevitable and righteous Reaction grows just off your scope.
> 
> Delicious.
> 
> 
> 
> ...And no, people don't become bigots once they've had children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not bigotry to call-out and shun sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality).
> 
> Nobody wants their children and grandchildren exposed to such filth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows what magic you think will occur on that date?  Even if Republicans were to win the White House and both chambers of the Congress, they can't reverse a U.S.S.C. ruling. They would have to amend the Constitution and there isn't enough support nationally for that to happen. You rightwingnuts live in a fantasy world.
Click to expand...

After January 20, 2017, there will be a Republican-controlled Senate, House and Oval Office.

One or more of the five SCOTUS justices who served-up that (bare) majority decision can probably be swayed to take a second look at it.

Or one or more justices step-down or retire or die, and are replaced by more Conservative-leaning replacement(s), during the upcoming Conservative regime.

Once (either through 'sway-ing' or 'replacement') the balance has been tipped...

All it takes is a little imagination, a fresh submission to the Court, and a saner, more righteous outcome, and the earlier decision is overturned.

No Constitutional Amendment required.


----------



## Kondor3

Carla_Danger said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...That is quite a delusional rant, clearly born of desperation and despair. It must e hard being you. So angry and alienated. So fearful  of change and unable to accept the reality of progress. I might have to live with and deal with people like you but I thank the Gods and the  Goddesses that I am not you . Have a nice day
> 
> 
> 
> Desperation and despair?
> 
> Hardly.
> 
> Merely a harbinger of what's coming.
> 
> Angry?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> The Supreme Court ruling was wrong, in connection with the best interests of The People and the Republic.
> 
> Alienated?
> 
> Hardly.
> 
> I side with the 97% of my fellow countrymen, whose interests lie in direct contrast to the interests of the 3%, for whom this abortion of a ruling was crafted.
> 
> I am in very large and very excellent company.
> 
> As to progress...
> 
> The legitimizing and mainstreaming of sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality) is not progress.
> 
> It is a downward slide into a cesspool of filth, degeneracy, licentiousness and emasculation of the Nation; going the way of other nations who inflicted themselves with thsi disease.
> 
> Progress? More like a shift towards national suicide.
> 
> As to personal references... thank you for your input.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OK Kondor, I have two assignments for you should you choose to accept them ( and I suggest that you do if you want to establish any credibility here)
> 
> 
> 1. Explain unemotionally and in objective and unambiguous terms- without the use of pejoratives  such as “ sexual pervert” EXACTLY how same sex marriage  is detrimental to the best interest of the country and to those who are not directly involved in it.
> 
> 
> You might want to look at various jurisdictions-foreign and domestic where same sex marriage has been in effect for over a decade ( you have several choices) and tell us what negative effects on those societies have emerged. Please be sure to use observable, measurable, and verifiable criteria.
> 
> 
> Please also be sure to avoid simple correlations that do not control for intervening variables. Rather you are asked to establish a cause and effect relationship. Remember also, we are talking specifically about same sex marriage, not homosexuality in general.
> 
> 
> 2. Critique the Obergefell decision in terms of constitutional law which includes binding precedents established by case law and explain how you believe that the court could have found for the defendants in that case. Keep in mind that prior to the oral arguments, at the time that the court accepted the case, it was established that the ruling would be based on the 14th amendment so your argument must also be based on that amendment.
> 
> Also keep in mind that for the government to deny a group or an individual something that they are claiming as a right that others enjoy, a compelling government interest-or at minimum a rational basis  must be established, so your argument must address what the interest or rational basis might be.
> 
> 
> For both assignments, please provide appropriate source documentation for all points presented as fact. Good luck. This should keep you out of troubles for a while and may even make you a better person
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd have better luck asking him what color ends in "urple."  Or name any color that begins with "blu."
Click to expand...

True.


----------



## Vandalshandle

jon_berzerk said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma*
> 
> what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"
> 
> would it be ok if she was just an asshole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this instance, she is the government, and the government cannot deny legal rights for religious reasons. I am good with that as I don't want someone of another faith denying me my drvers license because it is against their religion for women to drive.
> 
> Government gets away with being an asshole all the time.
> 
> "Sorry, we are not issuing permits at this time. No, not then either. Keep checking back."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so as long as they are assholes it is okay then
> 
> is that what you are saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not. Government needs to be checked. It is extremely difficult to sue the Fed to correct overreach or injustice, so their powers should be limited.
> 
> I think someone with standing (a victim) has finally filed suit against a sanctuary city.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> how about the city and state governments that break immigration laws is that cool
Click to expand...


There are no city or state immigration laws. Only federal immigration laws.


----------



## Vandalshandle

jon_berzerk said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma*
> 
> what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"
> 
> would it be ok if she was just an asshole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this instance, she is the government, and the government cannot deny legal rights for religious reasons. I am good with that as I don't want someone of another faith denying me my drvers license because it is against their religion for women to drive.
> 
> Government gets away with being an asshole all the time.
> 
> "Sorry, we are not issuing permits at this time. No, not then either. Keep checking back."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so as long as they are assholes it is okay then
> 
> is that what you are saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not. Government needs to be checked. It is extremely difficult to sue the Fed to correct overreach or injustice, so their powers should be limited.
> 
> I think someone with standing (a victim) has finally filed suit against a sanctuary city.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there should be plenty of them
> 
> an illegal allowed to stay in Minnesota some time back
> 
> ran head on into a school bus  killing four children
> 
> it happens over and over again
> 
> Illegal Immigrant Charged With Homicide in Deadly Minnesota School Bus Crash | Fox News
Click to expand...


States do not have the authority to enforce federal laws.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Vandalshandle said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma*
> 
> what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"
> 
> would it be ok if she was just an asshole
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this instance, she is the government, and the government cannot deny legal rights for religious reasons. I am good with that as I don't want someone of another faith denying me my drvers license because it is against their religion for women to drive.
> 
> Government gets away with being an asshole all the time.
> 
> "Sorry, we are not issuing permits at this time. No, not then either. Keep checking back."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so as long as they are assholes it is okay then
> 
> is that what you are saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not. Government needs to be checked. It is extremely difficult to sue the Fed to correct overreach or injustice, so their powers should be limited.
> 
> I think someone with standing (a victim) has finally filed suit against a sanctuary city.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> how about the city and state governments that break immigration laws is that cool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no city or state immigration laws. Only federal immigration laws.
Click to expand...



which certain cities and states are not adhering to


----------



## jon_berzerk

Vandalshandle said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma*
> 
> what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"
> 
> would it be ok if she was just an asshole
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this instance, she is the government, and the government cannot deny legal rights for religious reasons. I am good with that as I don't want someone of another faith denying me my drvers license because it is against their religion for women to drive.
> 
> Government gets away with being an asshole all the time.
> 
> "Sorry, we are not issuing permits at this time. No, not then either. Keep checking back."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so as long as they are assholes it is okay then
> 
> is that what you are saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not. Government needs to be checked. It is extremely difficult to sue the Fed to correct overreach or injustice, so their powers should be limited.
> 
> I think someone with standing (a victim) has finally filed suit against a sanctuary city.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there should be plenty of them
> 
> an illegal allowed to stay in Minnesota some time back
> 
> ran head on into a school bus  killing four children
> 
> it happens over and over again
> 
> Illegal Immigrant Charged With Homicide in Deadly Minnesota School Bus Crash | Fox News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> States do not have the authority to enforce federal laws.
Click to expand...


liar 

Federal Law Regarding State and Local Police Enforcement of Immigration Laws Legislative provisions relating to civil immigration law enforcement by state and local police were included in two 1996 laws, the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). AEDPA authorized state and local police to arrest and detain persons who are unlawfully present in the United States after being deported and who have “previously been convicted of a felony in the United States.” These persons would be deportable based on their criminal behavior, and their reentry into the U.S. is itself an immigration crime.


State and Local Laws With the failure of Congress to enact immigration reforms, states and localities are enacting their own laws to deal with illegal immigration. In 2007 alone, more than 1,400 pieces of legislation had been introduced by July in the 50 state legislatures Many more have been introduced at the local level as well. Much of the legislation targeting undocumented workers is punitive, but in 2006, about a third of the local ordinances were pro-immigrant. Of the 170 laws that had been enacted in the states, 11 concerned local law enforcement. Demands to have local police enforce immigration laws have pitted politicians against the police, who are stuck with the public safety fallout of having a segment of the community afraid to approach them to report crimes or serve as witnesses. In many of the jurisdictions that have adopted confidentiality policies, such policies have

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/EnforcementbyStateandLocalPolice-08-07.pdf

Express Authorization for State and Local Officers to Enforce Federal Immigration Law The enforcement of federal immigration law by state and local police is most clearly permissible when Congress has evidenced intent to authorize such activity.15 In exercising its power to


https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R41423.pdf


----------



## Vandalshandle

Jon, 
Sorry, but you lost me at, "liar". After that, I didn't read anymore. I suggest that you send your post to the Supreme Court, who will, no doubt, see the manifest wisdom of your opinion, and instantly find all of these sanctuary cities in Contempt of Court...


----------



## Tresha91203

jon_berzerk said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this instance, she is the government, and the government cannot deny legal rights for religious reasons. I am good with that as I don't want someone of another faith denying me my drvers license because it is against their religion for women to drive.
> 
> Government gets away with being an asshole all the time.
> 
> "Sorry, we are not issuing permits at this time. No, not then either. Keep checking back."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so as long as they are assholes it is okay then
> 
> is that what you are saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not. Government needs to be checked. It is extremely difficult to sue the Fed to correct overreach or injustice, so their powers should be limited.
> 
> I think someone with standing (a victim) has finally filed suit against a sanctuary city.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> how about the city and state governments that break immigration laws is that cool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no city or state immigration laws. Only federal immigration laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> which certain cities and states are not adhering to
Click to expand...


Which is why we dont want individual to be able to make those decisions in their govt capacity. Government needs to follow the laws the people made. That goes for sanctuary cities and the CoC. Laws are supposed to come from the people through their congressmen. Not enforcing them is a big FU to us, the people.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Vandalshandle said:


> Jon,
> Sorry, but you lost me at, "liar". After that, I didn't read anymore. I suggest that you send your post to the Supreme Court, who will, no doubt, see the manifest wisdom of your opinion, and instantly find all of these sanctuary cities in Contempt of Court...




i dont frikking care if you read it or not others did 

i didnt expect that you would change your mind


----------



## Vandalshandle

jon_berzerk said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jon,
> Sorry, but you lost me at, "liar". After that, I didn't read anymore. I suggest that you send your post to the Supreme Court, who will, no doubt, see the manifest wisdom of your opinion, and instantly find all of these sanctuary cities in Contempt of Court...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i dont frikking care if you read it or not others did
> 
> i didnt expect that you would change your mind
Click to expand...


Ah, but it is not my mind that matters, is it? It is the Supreme Court that matters, and they say that you are on the losing side. In fact, The republicans tried to pass a law penalizing cities for not enforcing federal laws, and Obama, rightly, said that he would veto it. Do you ever get tired of being on the losing side?


----------



## Faun

Kondor3 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is *no* 97% against 3%. The *majority* of this country support same sex marriage, and have for at least 5 years. Each year, for the past 5 years, support for same sex marriage has increased. I'm sorry, but you are delusional...
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see who is kidding themselves, after January 20, 2017.
> 
> As I said, you are on far shakier ground than you will allow yourself to believe.
> 
> Smug, arrogance complacency, as the inevitable and righteous Reaction grows just off your scope.
> 
> Delicious.
> 
> 
> 
> ...And no, people don't become bigots once they've had children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not bigotry to call-out and shun sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality).
> 
> Nobody wants their children and grandchildren exposed to such filth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows what magic you think will occur on that date?  Even if Republicans were to win the White House and both chambers of the Congress, they can't reverse a U.S.S.C. ruling. They would have to amend the Constitution and there isn't enough support nationally for that to happen. You rightwingnuts live in a fantasy world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After January 20, 2017, there will be a Republican-controlled Senate, House and Oval Office.
> 
> One or more of the five SCOTUS justices who served-up that (bare) majority decision can probably be swayed to take a second look at it.
> 
> Or one or more justices step-down or retire or die, and are replaced by more Conservative-leaning replacement(s), during the upcoming Conservative regime.
> 
> Once (either through 'sway-ing' or 'replacement') the balance has been tipped...
> 
> All it takes is a little imagination, a fresh submission to the Court, and a saner, more righteous outcome, and the earlier decision is overturned.
> 
> No Constitutional Amendment required.
Click to expand...

Supreme Court justices aren't "swayed" to "take second look" at cases. A new case would have to be brought to their court. Who do your delusions tell you is going to file such a suit and upon what ground would it be based?

Same-sex marriage is here to stay. Deal with it already.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Faun said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is *no* 97% against 3%. The *majority* of this country support same sex marriage, and have for at least 5 years. Each year, for the past 5 years, support for same sex marriage has increased. I'm sorry, but you are delusional...
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see who is kidding themselves, after January 20, 2017.
> 
> As I said, you are on far shakier ground than you will allow yourself to believe.
> 
> Smug, arrogance complacency, as the inevitable and righteous Reaction grows just off your scope.
> 
> Delicious.
> 
> 
> 
> ...And no, people don't become bigots once they've had children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not bigotry to call-out and shun sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality).
> 
> Nobody wants their children and grandchildren exposed to such filth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows what magic you think will occur on that date?  Even if Republicans were to win the White House and both chambers of the Congress, they can't reverse a U.S.S.C. ruling. They would have to amend the Constitution and there isn't enough support nationally for that to happen. You rightwingnuts live in a fantasy world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After January 20, 2017, there will be a Republican-controlled Senate, House and Oval Office.
> 
> One or more of the five SCOTUS justices who served-up that (bare) majority decision can probably be swayed to take a second look at it.
> 
> Or one or more justices step-down or retire or die, and are replaced by more Conservative-leaning replacement(s), during the upcoming Conservative regime.
> 
> Once (either through 'sway-ing' or 'replacement') the balance has been tipped...
> 
> All it takes is a little imagination, a fresh submission to the Court, and a saner, more righteous outcome, and the earlier decision is overturned.
> 
> No Constitutional Amendment required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Supreme Court justices aren't "swayed" to "take second look" at cases. A new case would have to be brought to their court. Who do your delusions tell you is going to file such a suit and upon what ground would it be based?
> 
> Same-sex marriage is here to stay. Deal with it already.
Click to expand...

Correct.

The Supreme Court is the final appellate Court of the Federal judiciary; it for the most part addresses conflicts among the lower Federal courts and state supreme courts.

A given jurisdiction would need to enact and enforce a measure intended to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, or begin enforcing such a measure already in existence.

The adversely effected couples would then file suit in Federal court to seek relief, and that court, per _Obergefell_, would invalidate that measure hostile to gay Americans.

The jurisdiction would then appeal the lower court's decision to the appropriate appellate court which would in turn uphold the lower court's ruling – again, per _Obergefell_.

And there it would end.

Even if the Supreme Court were to be packed with seven justices hostile to the due process rights and equal protection rights of gay Americans, there would be nothing they could do about _Obergefell_ unless states start denying same-sex couples access to marriage law, which isn't going to happen.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Kondor3 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is *no* 97% against 3%. The *majority* of this country support same sex marriage, and have for at least 5 years. Each year, for the past 5 years, support for same sex marriage has increased. I'm sorry, but you are delusional...
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see who is kidding themselves, after January 20, 2017.
> 
> As I said, you are on far shakier ground than you will allow yourself to believe.
> 
> Smug, arrogance complacency, as the inevitable and righteous Reaction grows just off your scope.
> 
> Delicious.
> 
> 
> 
> ...And no, people don't become bigots once they've had children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not bigotry to call-out and shun sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality).
> 
> Nobody wants their children and grandchildren exposed to such filth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows what magic you think will occur on that date?  Even if Republicans were to win the White House and both chambers of the Congress, they can't reverse a U.S.S.C. ruling. They would have to amend the Constitution and there isn't enough support nationally for that to happen. You rightwingnuts live in a fantasy world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After January 20, 2017, there will be a Republican-controlled Senate, House and Oval Office.
> 
> One or more of the five SCOTUS justices who served-up that (bare) majority decision can probably be swayed to take a second look at it.
> 
> Or one or more justices step-down or retire or die, and are replaced by more Conservative-leaning replacement(s), during the upcoming Conservative regime.
> 
> Once (either through 'sway-ing' or 'replacement') the balance has been tipped...
> 
> All it takes is a little imagination, a fresh submission to the Court, and a saner, more righteous outcome, and the earlier decision is overturned.
> 
> No Constitutional Amendment required.
Click to expand...


Why is that so important to you?

How would it make this country a better place for anyone?

Do you also support the re-criminalizing of homosexuality ?  Would a conservative court do that??


----------



## jon_berzerk

Vandalshandle said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jon,
> Sorry, but you lost me at, "liar". After that, I didn't read anymore. I suggest that you send your post to the Supreme Court, who will, no doubt, see the manifest wisdom of your opinion, and instantly find all of these sanctuary cities in Contempt of Court...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i dont frikking care if you read it or not others did
> 
> i didnt expect that you would change your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, but it is not my mind that matters, is it? It is the Supreme Court that matters, and they say that you are on the losing side. In fact, The republicans tried to pass a law penalizing cities for not enforcing federal laws, and Obama, rightly, said that he would veto it. Do you ever get tired of being on the losing side?
Click to expand...



so the SC is always right is that where you are at


----------



## Carla_Danger

jon_berzerk said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jon,
> Sorry, but you lost me at, "liar". After that, I didn't read anymore. I suggest that you send your post to the Supreme Court, who will, no doubt, see the manifest wisdom of your opinion, and instantly find all of these sanctuary cities in Contempt of Court...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i dont frikking care if you read it or not others did
> 
> i didnt expect that you would change your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, but it is not my mind that matters, is it? It is the Supreme Court that matters, and they say that you are on the losing side. In fact, The republicans tried to pass a law penalizing cities for not enforcing federal laws, and Obama, rightly, said that he would veto it. Do you ever get tired of being on the losing side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so the SC is always right is that where you are at
Click to expand...




In this case, they are.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Carla_Danger said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jon,
> Sorry, but you lost me at, "liar". After that, I didn't read anymore. I suggest that you send your post to the Supreme Court, who will, no doubt, see the manifest wisdom of your opinion, and instantly find all of these sanctuary cities in Contempt of Court...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i dont frikking care if you read it or not others did
> 
> i didnt expect that you would change your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, but it is not my mind that matters, is it? It is the Supreme Court that matters, and they say that you are on the losing side. In fact, The republicans tried to pass a law penalizing cities for not enforcing federal laws, and Obama, rightly, said that he would veto it. Do you ever get tired of being on the losing side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so the SC is always right is that where you are at
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, they are.
Click to expand...



--LOL@U


----------



## Kondor3

Faun said:


> ...Supreme Court justices aren't "swayed" to "take second look" at cases. A new case would have to be brought to their court...


Really? No shit, buckwheat. Go back and look at the entire sequence, and you'll see that that's a precursor step, to submitting a case again. Missed that, didja?



> ...Who do your delusions tell you is going to file such a suit and upon what ground would it be based?...


How the hell should I know? With an entire nation of legal minds to choose from, and backed with conservative money, somebody or another will conjure one up, soon enough.



> ...Same-sex marriage is here to stay. Deal with it already.


Feel free to continue believing that.


----------



## Faun

Kondor3 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Supreme Court justices aren't "swayed" to "take second look" at cases. A new case would have to be brought to their court...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? No shit, buckwheat. Go back and look at the entire sequence, and you'll see that that's a precursor step, to submitting a case again. Missed that, didja?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Who do your delusions tell you is going to file such a suit and upon what ground would it be based?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How the hell should I know? With an entire nation of legal minds to choose from, and backed with conservative money, somebody or another will conjure on up, soon enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Same-sex marriage is here to stay. Deal with it already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free to continue believing that.
Click to expand...

You can't even dream up a case that could overturn Obergefell, but you still delude yourself into believing it's going to happen



Yeah, sure.  From your keyboard to G-d's monitor, right?


----------



## Carla_Danger

jon_berzerk said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jon,
> Sorry, but you lost me at, "liar". After that, I didn't read anymore. I suggest that you send your post to the Supreme Court, who will, no doubt, see the manifest wisdom of your opinion, and instantly find all of these sanctuary cities in Contempt of Court...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i dont frikking care if you read it or not others did
> 
> i didnt expect that you would change your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, but it is not my mind that matters, is it? It is the Supreme Court that matters, and they say that you are on the losing side. In fact, The republicans tried to pass a law penalizing cities for not enforcing federal laws, and Obama, rightly, said that he would veto it. Do you ever get tired of being on the losing side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so the SC is always right is that where you are at
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> --LOL@U
Click to expand...




SC, LOL, right back at you!


----------



## jon_berzerk

Carla_Danger said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> i dont frikking care if you read it or not others did
> 
> i didnt expect that you would change your mind
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but it is not my mind that matters, is it? It is the Supreme Court that matters, and they say that you are on the losing side. In fact, The republicans tried to pass a law penalizing cities for not enforcing federal laws, and Obama, rightly, said that he would veto it. Do you ever get tired of being on the losing side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so the SC is always right is that where you are at
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> --LOL@U
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SC, LOL, right back at you!
Click to expand...


yeah ok 

--LOL


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## Kondor3

Faun said:


> ...You can't even dream up a case that could overturn Obergefell, but you still delude yourself into believing it's going to  happen Yeah, sure. From your keyboard to G-d's monitor, right?


I'm not well-versed in Constitutional Law, and don't pretend otherwise, but you don't have to be a Constitutional scholar, nor even a lawyer, to understand and appreciate the highly charged political situation, and to appreciate the old maxim: "_Where there's a will, there's a way_."

What will it take?

A changed court composition, in this context; either one of the five, willing to revisit their decision, or a replacement. And, a test case of some kind that warrants another review; either of the original decision or requiring a new ruling sufficiently distinctive to conduct that review, while sufficiently similar to overturn the original, when finalized.

The details of that case? Hell, I don't know. Haven't got a clue. And I'm happy to admit it, without reservation. Skilled and imaginative and motivated lawyers who are so inclined, would be far better equipped to answer that question than an amateur hack like myself.

But even an amateur hack can confidently observe that unpopular laws - and judicial rulings - are oftentimes hammered-at, year after year, and even decade after decade, until a weak-spot in the armor is detected, and then quickly exploited. It's more about politics than law, with law taking a back seat. Lord knows, we've seen that often enough, eh?

Is it going to happen? I dunno. But the Smart Vegas Money is on it being tried - repeatedly - until the proper 'angle' is stumbled upon.

There is a harsh Reaction coming against this recent ruling, as Conservatives prepare to take back the reins of power.

And, if you thought that Conservatives, once in power, were all hot-and-bothered about _Abortion_ - you ain't seen _nuthin'_ yet.

That's my prediction, and I'm sticking to it.


----------



## Vandalshandle

jon_berzerk said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jon,
> Sorry, but you lost me at, "liar". After that, I didn't read anymore. I suggest that you send your post to the Supreme Court, who will, no doubt, see the manifest wisdom of your opinion, and instantly find all of these sanctuary cities in Contempt of Court...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i dont frikking care if you read it or not others did
> 
> i didnt expect that you would change your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, but it is not my mind that matters, is it? It is the Supreme Court that matters, and they say that you are on the losing side. In fact, The republicans tried to pass a law penalizing cities for not enforcing federal laws, and Obama, rightly, said that he would veto it. Do you ever get tired of being on the losing side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so the SC is always right is that where you are at
Click to expand...


I used to work for the insurance commissioner of a certain state. A question came up, regarding an issue in which it was not clear as to how the commissioner should rule. While it was clear that it would be in the best interest of the citizens, she was not sure that she had the clear cut authority to rule. The two of us visited with an attorney for the state, and asked him. His answer was concise. He said, and I quote, "The Insurance Commissioner may sometimes be right, or may sometimes be wrong, but she is always the Insurance Commissioner."


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Kondor3 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...You can't even dream up a case that could overturn Obergefell, but you still delude yourself into believing it's going to  happen Yeah, sure. From your keyboard to G-d's monitor, right?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not well-versed in Constitutional Law, and don't pretend otherwise, but you don't have to be a Constitutional scholar, nor even a lawyer, to understand and appreciate the highly charged political situation, and to appreciate the old maxim: "_Where there's a will, there's a way_."
> 
> What will it take?
> 
> A changed court composition, in this context; either one of the five, willing to revisit their decision, or a replacement. And, a test case of some kind that warrants another review; either of the original decision or requiring a new ruling sufficiently distinctive to conduct that review, while sufficiently similar to overturn the original, when finalized.
> 
> The details of that case? Hell, I don't know. Haven't got a clue. And I'm happy to admit it, without reservation. Skilled and imaginative and motivated lawyers who are so inclined, would be far better equipped to answer that question than an amateur hack like myself.
> 
> But even an amateur hack can confidently observe that unpopular laws - and judicial rulings - are oftentimes hammered-at, year after year, and even decade after decade, until a weak-spot in the armor is detected, and then quickly exploited. It's more about politics than law, with law taking a back seat. Lord knows, we've seen that often enough, eh?
> 
> Is it going to happen? I dunno. But the Smart Vegas Money is on it being tried - repeatedly - until the proper 'angle' is stumbled upon.
> 
> There is a harsh Reaction coming against this recent ruling, as Conservatives prepare to take back the reins of power.
> 
> And, if you thought that Conservatives, once in power, were all hot-and-bothered about _Abortion_ - you ain't seen _nuthin'_ yet.
> 
> That's my prediction, and I'm sticking to it.
Click to expand...


Nothing of substance to see here folks......move along now.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Kondor3 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Supreme Court justices aren't "swayed" to "take second look" at cases. A new case would have to be brought to their court...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? No shit, buckwheat. Go back and look at the entire sequence, and you'll see that that's a precursor step, to submitting a case again. Missed that, didja?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Who do your delusions tell you is going to file such a suit and upon what ground would it be based?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How the hell should I know? With an entire nation of legal minds to choose from, and backed with conservative money, somebody or another will conjure one up, soon enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Same-sex marriage is here to stay. Deal with it already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free to continue believing that.
Click to expand...

Translation....I don't know squat but I'm going to continue to bloviate and blather about what I desperately want to have happen anyway


----------



## jon_berzerk

Vandalshandle said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jon,
> Sorry, but you lost me at, "liar". After that, I didn't read anymore. I suggest that you send your post to the Supreme Court, who will, no doubt, see the manifest wisdom of your opinion, and instantly find all of these sanctuary cities in Contempt of Court...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i dont frikking care if you read it or not others did
> 
> i didnt expect that you would change your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, but it is not my mind that matters, is it? It is the Supreme Court that matters, and they say that you are on the losing side. In fact, The republicans tried to pass a law penalizing cities for not enforcing federal laws, and Obama, rightly, said that he would veto it. Do you ever get tired of being on the losing side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so the SC is always right is that where you are at
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I used to work for the insurance commissioner of a certain state. A question came up, regarding an issue in which it was not clear as to how the commissioner should rule. While it was clear that it would be in the best interest of the citizens, she was not sure that she had the clear cut authority to rule. The two of us visited with an attorney for the state, and asked him. His answer was concise. He said, and I quote, "The Insurance Commissioner may sometimes be right, or may sometimes be wrong, but she is always the Insurance Commissioner."
Click to expand...

until replaced


----------



## Vandalshandle

jon_berzerk said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jon,
> Sorry, but you lost me at, "liar". After that, I didn't read anymore. I suggest that you send your post to the Supreme Court, who will, no doubt, see the manifest wisdom of your opinion, and instantly find all of these sanctuary cities in Contempt of Court...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i dont frikking care if you read it or not others did
> 
> i didnt expect that you would change your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, but it is not my mind that matters, is it? It is the Supreme Court that matters, and they say that you are on the losing side. In fact, The republicans tried to pass a law penalizing cities for not enforcing federal laws, and Obama, rightly, said that he would veto it. Do you ever get tired of being on the losing side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so the SC is always right is that where you are at
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I used to work for the insurance commissioner of a certain state. A question came up, regarding an issue in which it was not clear as to how the commissioner should rule. While it was clear that it would be in the best interest of the citizens, she was not sure that she had the clear cut authority to rule. The two of us visited with an attorney for the state, and asked him. His answer was concise. He said, and I quote, "The Insurance Commissioner may sometimes be right, or may sometimes be wrong, but she is always the Insurance Commissioner."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> until replaced
Click to expand...


Well, until that happens, Kim can obey the law, or rot in jail, just like everybody else. It is her choice. I'm just glad that none of my taxes are paying her salary while she sits there reading her Bible.


----------



## Debra K

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is *no* 97% against 3%. The *majority* of this country support same sex marriage, and have for at least 5 years. Each year, for the past 5 years, support for same sex marriage has increased. I'm sorry, but you are delusional...
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see who is kidding themselves, after January 20, 2017.
> 
> As I said, you are on far shakier ground than you will allow yourself to believe.
> 
> Smug, arrogance complacency, as the inevitable and righteous Reaction grows just off your scope.
> 
> Delicious.
> 
> 
> 
> ...And no, people don't become bigots once they've had children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not bigotry to call-out and shun sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality).
> 
> Nobody wants their children and grandchildren exposed to such filth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows what magic you think will occur on that date?  Even if Republicans were to win the White House and both chambers of the Congress, they can't reverse a U.S.S.C. ruling. They would have to amend the Constitution and there isn't enough support nationally for that to happen. You rightwingnuts live in a fantasy world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After January 20, 2017, there will be a Republican-controlled Senate, House and Oval Office.
> 
> One or more of the five SCOTUS justices who served-up that (bare) majority decision can probably be swayed to take a second look at it.
> 
> Or one or more justices step-down or retire or die, and are replaced by more Conservative-leaning replacement(s), during the upcoming Conservative regime.
> 
> Once (either through 'sway-ing' or 'replacement') the balance has been tipped...
> 
> All it takes is a little imagination, a fresh submission to the Court, and a saner, more righteous outcome, and the earlier decision is overturned.
> 
> No Constitutional Amendment required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is that so important to you?
> 
> How would it make this country a better place for anyone?
> 
> Do you also support the re-criminalizing of homosexuality ?  Would a conservative court do that??
Click to expand...


If our goal in this country is to satisfy conservatives' animus toward liberty and justice for all, why should a conservative court stop at rolling back progress to pre-Obergefell days?   Why not roll things back to the nineteenth century?  let them enforce "traditional marriage" when a woman's place was in the home; when women were treated as incompetents (the same as children and mentally disabled persons) and had no right to vote, when negros still worked in the cotton fields for their masters, and when homosexuality was a crime.  Would the conservatives be happy then?


----------



## Kondor3

Debra K said:


> ...If our goal in this country is to satisfy conservatives' animus toward liberty and justice for all...


You mistake Conservative -style hostility to sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality) with animus towards liberty and justice for all.



> ...why should a conservative court stop at rolling back progress to pre-Obergefell days?...


Irrelevant melodrama.


----------



## Kondor3

Vandalshandle said:


> Well, until that happens, Kim can obey the law, or rot in jail, just like everybody else. It is her choice. I'm just glad that none of my taxes are paying her salary while she sits there reading her Bible.


Civil Disobedience to immoral laws (and rulings) is a time-honored tradition, worldwide.


----------



## Debra K

Kondor3 said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...If our goal in this country is to satisfy conservatives' animus toward liberty and justice for all...
> 
> 
> 
> You mistake Conservative -style hostility to sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality) with animus towards liberty and justice for all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...why should a conservative court stop at rolling back progress to pre-Obergefell days?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant melodrama.
Click to expand...


This entire subject matter is centered on conservatives' melodrama, i.e., the sky is falling because liberty has yet again been extended to another class of people who were historically oppressed.


----------



## Kondor3

Debra K said:


> ...liberty has yet again been extended...


You confuse Liberty with the empowering and legitimizing and mainstreaming of licentiousness and deviancy and degeneracy and perversion (homosexuality).


----------



## WorldWatcher

Vigilante said:


>




Dumb logic 101

A government employee treating citizens equally under the law by issuing them a marriage license...

Is equal to Nazi's shooting, gassing, and burning Jews.




And I'm not even a "liberal" and I can see the failure.


>>>>


----------



## Kondor3

WorldWatcher said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb logic 101
> 
> A government employee treating citizens equally under the law by issuing them a marriage license...
> 
> Is equal to Nazi's shooting, gassing, and burning Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm not even a "liberal" and I can see the failure.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

The sound-byte effectively conveys the equivalency on the macro-level, of abandoning morals.

The sound-byte fails, miserably, in resorting to melodramatics and overplaying its hand, by citing this example.

Just as pro-Gay advocates injure themselves with melodramatic phrases like Christian Sharia and Christian Taliban...

So to, do anti-Gay advocates inure themselves, by playing the Drama Queen, in overdoing it, with examples like this...

They chose a visceral example - Nazi genocide - that disgusts people of goodwill all across the political and issue-specific spectrum.

Dumb.


----------



## Silhouette

They are a bit like nazis, yes.


----------



## Silhouette

Vandalshandle said:


> Well, until that happens, Kim can obey the law, or rot in jail, just like everybody else. It is her choice. I'm just glad that none of my taxes are paying her salary while she sits there reading her Bible.


I'm trying to think of an example where someone was jailed for hurting someone else's feelings? Gays aren't a race of people. They are just people doing something different than others sexually. So when a woman objects to their behaviors, it may hurt their feelings, but behaviors don't have legal protections like race. So this woman sits in jail under a mistaken premise. Of which she will sue and win her job back and her right to passively object ot participate in the gay sex cult hijacking American culture without its permission..


----------



## Debra K

Kondor3 said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...liberty has yet again been extended...
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse Liberty with the empowering and legitimizing and mainstreaming of licentiousness and deviancy degeneracy and perversion (homosexuality).
Click to expand...


Your mindset is no different than the mindset of narrow-minded persons in the past who believed it was deviant and a perversion of God's law for a woman to be licensed to practice law.   In 1872, Justice Bradley wrote the following:



> Man is, or should be, woman's protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life. The Constitution of the family organization, which is founded in the divine ordinance as well as in the nature of things, indicates the domestic sphere as that which properly belongs to the domain and functions of womanhood. The harmony, not to say identity, of interest and views which belong, or should belong, to the family institution is repugnant to the idea of a woman adopting a distinct and independent career from that of her husband. So firmly fixed was this sentiment in the founders of the common law that it became a maxim of that system of jurisprudence that a woman had no legal existence separate from her husband, who was regarded as her head and representative in the social state, and, notwithstanding some recent modifications of this civil status, many of the special rules of law flowing from and dependent upon this cardinal principle still exist in full force in most states. One of these is that a married woman is incapable, without her husband's consent, of making contracts which shall be binding on her or him. This very incapacity was one circumstance which the Supreme Court of Illinois deemed important in rendering a married woman incompetent fully to perform the duties and trusts that belong to the office of an attorney and counselor.
> 
> It is true that many women are unmarried and not affected by any of the duties, complications, and incapacities arising out of the married state, but these are exceptions to the general rule. The paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator. And the rules of civil society must be adapted to the general constitution of things, and cannot be based upon exceptional cases.



Source:  Bradwell v. The State 83 U.S. 130 (1872)

As you can see from the above passage from an old case, the institution of marriage has been undergoing modifications for a very long time as the people adapted to more enlightened notions of liberty and justice for all.  In other words, progress in this country is not embracing "perversion" as you claim.  Oppressed people from every generation have fought for liberty and equal rights under the law, and our country has moved forward.   As we progress as a society, we are forever reminded of this basic principle: 



> Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.



Source:  LAWRENCE V. TEXAS


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> I'm trying to think of an example where someone was jailed for hurting someone else's feelings? Gays aren't a race of people. They are just people doing something different than others sexually. So when a woman objects to their behaviors, it may hurt their feelings, but behaviors don't have legal protections like race. So this woman sits in jail under a mistaken premise. Of which she will sue and win her job back and her right to passively object ot participate in the gay sex cult hijacking American culture without its permission..



1.  She wasn't jailed for hurting someone's feelings, she was jailed for refusing a court order to do her job as a government agent.

2. She hasn't been fired.  She is still the County Clerk and draws her paycheck.

3.  She didn't "passively object" she actively refused to do her duty and ordered her Deputy Clerks not to do theirs.


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette

WorldWatcher said:


> 1.  She wasn't jailed for hurting someone's feelings, she was jailed for refusing a court order to do her job as a government agent.
> 
> 2. She hasn't been fired.  She is still the County Clerk and draws her paycheck.
> 
> 3.  She didn't "passively object" she actively refused to do her duty and ordered her Deputy Clerks not to do theirs.


Damn straight she hasn't been fired.  Employers wouldn't dare strip someone of their civil rights and risk such a lawsuit.

A court order cannot force someone to abdicate strong religious edicts in favor of another cult.  The "Law" is in error and as you may have noticed, people are civilly rebelling against it.  And well they should.  I can't think of a recent point in history where a such a blatant coup was attempted on self-governance in the US.

Behaviors cannot "legally" force a religious person to play along.  So the "law" is in error and must be disobeyed.  It wasn't arrived at by a legitimate legal process prescribed by the US Constitution, for many reasons.  Two of which are Ginsburg and Kagan conspicuously presiding over and "blessing" (as federal entities charged with the very last leg of unbiased justice) gay marriages while the question of "should they receive the federal blessing" was making its way up to them on appeal.


----------



## J.E.D

Tipsycatlover said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people of this community should punish the ones directly responsible.  The gay couples themselves should get some community involvement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. The RW never can seem to round up vigilantes when they really need them.....
> 
> Somebody get Clive Bundy on the phone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Real vigilantes work quite differently.  However, the law has failed.   The only thing left is covert vigilanteism.
Click to expand...

You seem to be advocating for violence against gay people because you lost in the courts. You're as dangerous as ISIS, you psycho bitch. I expect to be seeing you on the news very soon. Hopefully, you're taken out before you harm others.


----------



## Flopper

WorldWatcher said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stand corrected the deputy can sign the license.  However, according to the news report those handed out on Friday didn’t have any signature which does make them invalid.
> 
> Jailed Kentucky clerk says issued marriage licenses to gay couples void
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Good show.)
> 
> Ms. Davis's own marriage license from 2009 doesn't have a signature either.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...




jon_berzerk said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this instance, she is the government, and the government cannot deny legal rights for religious reasons. I am good with that as I don't want someone of another faith denying me my drvers license because it is against their religion for women to drive.
> 
> Government gets away with being an asshole all the time.
> 
> "Sorry, we are not issuing permits at this time. No, not then either. Keep checking back."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so as long as they are assholes it is okay then
> 
> is that what you are saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not. Government needs to be checked. It is extremely difficult to sue the Fed to correct overreach or injustice, so their powers should be limited.
> 
> I think someone with standing (a victim) has finally filed suit against a sanctuary city.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there should be plenty of them
> 
> an illegal allowed to stay in Minnesota some time back
> 
> ran head on into a school bus  killing four children
> 
> it happens over and over again
> 
> Illegal Immigrant Charged With Homicide in Deadly Minnesota School Bus Crash | Fox News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> States do not have the authority to enforce federal laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> liar
> 
> Federal Law Regarding State and Local Police Enforcement of Immigration Laws Legislative provisions relating to civil immigration law enforcement by state and local police were included in two 1996 laws, the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). AEDPA authorized state and local police to arrest and detain persons who are unlawfully present in the United States after being deported and who have “previously been convicted of a felony in the United States.” These persons would be deportable based on their criminal behavior, and their reentry into the U.S. is itself an immigration crime.
> 
> 
> State and Local Laws With the failure of Congress to enact immigration reforms, states and localities are enacting their own laws to deal with illegal immigration. In 2007 alone, more than 1,400 pieces of legislation had been introduced by July in the 50 state legislatures Many more have been introduced at the local level as well. Much of the legislation targeting undocumented workers is punitive, but in 2006, about a third of the local ordinances were pro-immigrant. Of the 170 laws that had been enacted in the states, 11 concerned local law enforcement. Demands to have local police enforce immigration laws have pitted politicians against the police, who are stuck with the public safety fallout of having a segment of the community afraid to approach them to report crimes or serve as witnesses. In many of the jurisdictions that have adopted confidentiality policies, such policies have
> 
> http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/EnforcementbyStateandLocalPolice-08-07.pdf
> 
> Express Authorization for State and Local Officers to Enforce Federal Immigration Law The enforcement of federal immigration law by state and local police is most clearly permissible when Congress has evidenced intent to authorize such activity.15 In exercising its power to
> 
> 
> https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R41423.pdf
Click to expand...

You do realize what a very small percentage of undocumented immigrants have been previously deported and who have “previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and who returned and been arrested. The vast majority of "sanctuary" cities actually do cooperate with ICE when they arrest undocumented immigrants on felony charges.  What they do not do is spend local tax payer dollars arresting and detaining people they suspect may be illegal aliens.  That is not their job.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Kondor3 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, until that happens, Kim can obey the law, or rot in jail, just like everybody else. It is her choice. I'm just glad that none of my taxes are paying her salary while she sits there reading her Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> Civil Disobedience to immoral laws (and rulings) is a time-honored tradition, worldwide.
Click to expand...


Well, then, by all means, put a statue of her next to your church parking lot!


----------



## Vandalshandle

Silhouette said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, until that happens, Kim can obey the law, or rot in jail, just like everybody else. It is her choice. I'm just glad that none of my taxes are paying her salary while she sits there reading her Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to think of an example where someone was jailed for hurting someone else's feelings? Gays aren't a race of people. They are just people doing something different than others sexually. So when a woman objects to their behaviors, it may hurt their feelings, but behaviors don't have legal protections like race. So this woman sits in jail under a mistaken premise. Of which she will sue and win her job back and her right to passively object ot participate in the gay sex cult hijacking American culture without its permission..
Click to expand...


Not even worthy of a rebuttal......


----------



## Flopper

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  She wasn't jailed for hurting someone's feelings, she was jailed for refusing a court order to do her job as a government agent.
> 
> 2. She hasn't been fired.  She is still the County Clerk and draws her paycheck.
> 
> 3.  She didn't "passively object" she actively refused to do her duty and ordered her Deputy Clerks not to do theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> Damn straight she hasn't been fired.  Employers wouldn't dare strip someone of their civil rights and risk such a lawsuit.
> 
> A court order cannot force someone to abdicate strong religious edicts in favor of another cult.  The "Law" is in error and as you may have noticed, people are civilly rebelling against it.  And well they should.  I can't think of a recent point in history where a such a blatant coup was attempted on self-governance in the US.
> 
> Behaviors cannot "legally" force a religious person to play along.  So the "law" is in error and must be disobeyed.  It wasn't arrived at by a legitimate legal process prescribed by the US Constitution, for many reasons.  Two of which are Ginsburg and Kagan conspicuously presiding over and "blessing" (as federal entities charged with the very last leg of unbiased justice) gay marriages while the question of "should they receive the federal blessing" was making its way up to them on appeal.
Click to expand...

The point is she knowingly disobeyed a federal court order and she has made it quite clear that she will continue to do.  The court had no other option but to jail her.  People simply can't be allowed to violate the law because they* believe* it is contrary to God's law.


----------



## Asclepias

Kondor3 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, until that happens, Kim can obey the law, or rot in jail, just like everybody else. It is her choice. I'm just glad that none of my taxes are paying her salary while she sits there reading her Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> Civil Disobedience to immoral laws (and rulings) is a time-honored tradition, worldwide.
Click to expand...

Getting put in jail for breaking the law is also a time honored tradition.


----------



## Vandalshandle

J.E.D said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people of this community should punish the ones directly responsible.  The gay couples themselves should get some community involvement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. The RW never can seem to round up vigilantes when they really need them.....
> 
> Somebody get Clive Bundy on the phone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Real vigilantes work quite differently.  However, the law has failed.   The only thing left is covert vigilanteism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to be advocating for violence against gay people because you lost in the courts. You're as dangerous as ISIS, you psycho bitch. I expect to be seeing you on the news very soon. Hopefully, you're taken out before you harm others.
Click to expand...


No reason to get excited. Tipsy advocating violence against someone of a different opinion is about as rare as cow pies in a stockyard....


----------



## Kondor3

Vandalshandle said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, until that happens, Kim can obey the law, or rot in jail, just like everybody else. It is her choice. I'm just glad that none of my taxes are paying her salary while she sits there reading her Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> Civil Disobedience to immoral laws (and rulings) is a time-honored tradition, worldwide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, then, by all means, put a statue of her next to your church parking lot!
Click to expand...

I haven't attended church since childhood, a great many years ago.


----------



## Kondor3

Asclepias said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, until that happens, Kim can obey the law, or rot in jail, just like everybody else. It is her choice. I'm just glad that none of my taxes are paying her salary while she sits there reading her Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> Civil Disobedience to immoral laws (and rulings) is a time-honored tradition, worldwide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting put in jail for breaking the law is also a time honored tradition.
Click to expand...

Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a *BAD* law, you end-up a folk-hero.


----------



## Asclepias

Kondor3 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, until that happens, Kim can obey the law, or rot in jail, just like everybody else. It is her choice. I'm just glad that none of my taxes are paying her salary while she sits there reading her Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> Civil Disobedience to immoral laws (and rulings) is a time-honored tradition, worldwide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting put in jail for breaking the law is also a time honored tradition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a *BAD* law, you end-up a folk-hero.
Click to expand...

No one thinks this bitch is a folk hero except dumb people.


----------



## Kondor3

Asclepias said:


> ...No one thinks this bitch is a folk hero except dumb people.


You left out the large numbers of intelligent people who applaud anyone who stands up to the Gay Mafia and recent legal rulings in their favor.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Kondor3 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, until that happens, Kim can obey the law, or rot in jail, just like everybody else. It is her choice. I'm just glad that none of my taxes are paying her salary while she sits there reading her Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> Civil Disobedience to immoral laws (and rulings) is a time-honored tradition, worldwide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting put in jail for breaking the law is also a time honored tradition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a *BAD* law, you end-up a folk-hero.
Click to expand...

Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'

And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'


----------



## Flopper

Kondor3 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, until that happens, Kim can obey the law, or rot in jail, just like everybody else. It is her choice. I'm just glad that none of my taxes are paying her salary while she sits there reading her Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> Civil Disobedience to immoral laws (and rulings) is a time-honored tradition, worldwide.
Click to expand...

And so is being jailed.  If she wants to continue her protest, that's fine with the me.  I admire her for sticking up for her beliefs even thou I don't share those beliefs.  The record for contempt of court is 14 years.  Maybe she will set a new record.  However, regardless of her protest the law will stand.  It's very unlikely that SCOTUS will reverse itself and even less likely that congress will amend the constitution to stop gay marriage.


----------



## Vandalshandle

I am amused that what the anti-gay people label "perversion", and "degradation", not to mention "morally bankrupt" when objecting to sex practiced by gays, is also practiced by most heteralsexual couples. That, however, is not objectionable, I guess, since nobody talks about it. Of course, what people do in their own bedrooms is their own business, but somehow, what gays do in their own bedrooms is every conservative's business.

The whole thing leads me to believe that the objections are coming from people with extremely suppressed personal sex lives....


----------



## Asclepias

Kondor3 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...No one thinks this bitch is a folk hero except dumb people.
> 
> 
> 
> You left out the large numbers of intelligent people who applaud anyone who stands up to the Gay Mafia and recent legal rulings in their favor.
Click to expand...

I also left out flying unicorns so we agree those "intelligent people" are about as real as unicorns right?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Silhouette said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, until that happens, Kim can obey the law, or rot in jail, just like everybody else. It is her choice. I'm just glad that none of my taxes are paying her salary while she sits there reading her Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to think of an example where someone was jailed for hurting someone else's feelings? Gays aren't a race of people. They are just people doing something different than others sexually. So when a woman objects to their behaviors, it may hurt their feelings, but behaviors don't have legal protections like race. So this woman sits in jail under a mistaken premise. Of which she will sue and win her job back and her right to passively object ot participate in the gay sex cult hijacking American culture without its permission..
Click to expand...


Oh Christ!!She is not in jail for hurting anyone's feelings. That is just idiotic. She is in jail for contempt of a lawful supreme court ruling and a lawful district court order for her to comply with that ruling. There is no mistake whatsoever about why she is in jail.

As for anything being a "behavior" is concerned-reading the bible is a behavior. Religion is not race either. However, it is protected by  constitutional law which is comprised of the text of the document, the amendments AND Case Law.

The right of two people of the same sex to get married is also NOW protected by constitutional law. In this case -Case Law. You can call that a behavior also if you want. It doesn't change the law.

Also, she was not PASSIVLY refusing to participate .......she was ACTIVLY thwarting the implementation of the law.  You think that she can win a law suit over this?  Fat fucking chance.!

Gay sex cult?  That is beyond bigoted, ignorant equine excrement!

Anyone who can't understand that must have a bag of hammers for a brain!


----------



## Kondor3

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, until that happens, Kim can obey the law, or rot in jail, just like everybody else. It is her choice. I'm just glad that none of my taxes are paying her salary while she sits there reading her Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> Civil Disobedience to immoral laws (and rulings) is a time-honored tradition, worldwide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting put in jail for breaking the law is also a time honored tradition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a *BAD* law, you end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'
> 
> And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'
Click to expand...

Article VI is not in dispute.

A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.

And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.

Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Vandalshandle said:


> I am amused that what the anti-gay people label "perversion", and "degradation", not to mention "morally bankrupt" when objecting to sex practiced by gays, is also practiced by most heteralsexual couples. That, however, is not objectionable, I guess, since nobody talks about it. Of course, what people do in their own bedrooms is their own business, but somehow, what gays do in their own bedrooms is every conservative's business.
> 
> The whole thing leads me to believe that the objections are coming from people with extremely suppressed personal sex lives....



I'm in the firm belief  straight people that continually squawk about gay rights are most likely closeted and suppressing their desires


----------



## J.E.D

Vandalshandle said:


> J.E.D said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people of this community should punish the ones directly responsible.  The gay couples themselves should get some community involvement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. The RW never can seem to round up vigilantes when they really need them.....
> 
> Somebody get Clive Bundy on the phone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Real vigilantes work quite differently.  However, the law has failed.   The only thing left is covert vigilanteism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to be advocating for violence against gay people because you lost in the courts. You're as dangerous as ISIS, you psycho bitch. I expect to be seeing you on the news very soon. Hopefully, you're taken out before you harm others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No reason to get excited. Tipsy advocating violence against someone of a different opinion is about as rare as cow pies in a stockyard....
Click to expand...

I'm not excited; I just hope she chokes on a .45.


----------



## Faun

Kondor3 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...You can't even dream up a case that could overturn Obergefell, but you still delude yourself into believing it's going to  happen Yeah, sure. From your keyboard to G-d's monitor, right?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not well-versed in Constitutional Law, and don't pretend otherwise, but you don't have to be a Constitutional scholar, nor even a lawyer, to understand and appreciate the highly charged political situation, and to appreciate the old maxim: "_Where there's a will, there's a way_."
> 
> What will it take?
> 
> A changed court composition, in this context; either one of the five, willing to revisit their decision, or a replacement. And, a test case of some kind that warrants another review; either of the original decision or requiring a new ruling sufficiently distinctive to conduct that review, while sufficiently similar to overturn the original, when finalized.
> 
> The details of that case? Hell, I don't know. Haven't got a clue. And I'm happy to admit it, without reservation. Skilled and imaginative and motivated lawyers who are so inclined, would be far better equipped to answer that question than an amateur hack like myself.
> 
> But even an amateur hack can confidently observe that unpopular laws - and judicial rulings - are oftentimes hammered-at, year after year, and even decade after decade, until a weak-spot in the armor is detected, and then quickly exploited. It's more about politics than law, with law taking a back seat. Lord knows, we've seen that often enough, eh?
> 
> Is it going to happen? I dunno. But the Smart Vegas Money is on it being tried - repeatedly - until the proper 'angle' is stumbled upon.
> 
> There is a harsh Reaction coming against this recent ruling, as Conservatives prepare to take back the reins of power.
> 
> And, if you thought that Conservatives, once in power, were all hot-and-bothered about _Abortion_ - you ain't seen _nuthin'_ yet.
> 
> That's my prediction, and I'm sticking to it.
Click to expand...

Start with .... the law is not unpopular and work your way back from there. Regardless, your "prediction" falls flat on its face because heterosexuals have no standing to sue homosexuals over marriage as heterosexuals' rights are not being infringed.


----------



## Faun

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Supreme Court justices aren't "swayed" to "take second look" at cases. A new case would have to be brought to their court...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? No shit, buckwheat. Go back and look at the entire sequence, and you'll see that that's a precursor step, to submitting a case again. Missed that, didja?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Who do your delusions tell you is going to file such a suit and upon what ground would it be based?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How the hell should I know? With an entire nation of legal minds to choose from, and backed with conservative money, somebody or another will conjure one up, soon enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Same-sex marriage is here to stay. Deal with it already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free to continue believing that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation....I don't know squat but I'm going to continue to bloviate and blather about what I desperately want to have happen anyway
Click to expand...

Exactly.


----------



## Flopper

Kondor3 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, until that happens, Kim can obey the law, or rot in jail, just like everybody else. It is her choice. I'm just glad that none of my taxes are paying her salary while she sits there reading her Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> Civil Disobedience to immoral laws (and rulings) is a time-honored tradition, worldwide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting put in jail for breaking the law is also a time honored tradition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a *BAD* law, you end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'
> 
> And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article VI is not in dispute.
> 
> A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
> 
> And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.


----------



## HenryBHough

Jesus was just a folk hero at the time He was martyred.

Be patient......a whole new religion with dedicated and perhaps physically outspoken congregants could grow from this.....


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HenryBHough said:


> Jesus was just a folk hero at the time He was martyred.
> 
> Be patient......a whole new religion with dedicated and perhaps physically outspoken congregants could grow from this.....



physically outspoken congregants????   What the fuck does that mean? An inquisition? Salem style witch trials of gays? A new crusade?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Kim Davis is also a victim, even as she tries to victimize gays....


*Ted Cruz and the politics of faith and fear: How the GOP mastered the art of exploiting scared Christians  **http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/ted-cruz-and-the-politics-of-faith-and-fear-how-the-gop-mastered-the-art-of-exploiting-scared-christians/*


----------



## HenryBHough

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> physically outspoken congregants????   What the fuck does that mean? An inquisition? Salem style witch trials of gays? A new crusade?



Please do try to refrain from attempting to make the correction of your reading comprehension issue a board project.


----------



## Vandalshandle

I kind of like the phrase, "physically outspoken congregants". However, I think that they considered it, and rejected the phrase, in favor of "Moral Majority". It was more catchy, so to speak.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HenryBHough said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> physically outspoken congregants????   What the fuck does that mean? An inquisition? Salem style witch trials of gays? A new crusade?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please do try to refrain from attempting to make the correction of your reading comprehension issue a board project.
Click to expand...

  Yes Boss....


----------



## Statistikhengst

mudwhistle said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Woman is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spell "MARTYR"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I can.   If she thinks she's a martyr, I'm sure she gets all tingly about it.....Lester Maddox and George Wallace thought they were martyrs too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really. They hated blacks.
> 
> This lady says she doesn't hate Gays.
> 
> Your problem is you assume anyone who doesn't agree with you hates you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RIght...the old "I don't hate gays, I just don't serve them in my duly elected compacity" schtick.  If she refused to marry Jews, I'm SURE you wouldn't call her an anti-semite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a sin to be a Jew.
Click to expand...



Well, damn, I'm just so relieved to hear that from your mouth.


----------



## Statistikhengst

AvgGuyIA said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...for failure to obey court order of issuing marraige licenses to gay couples.
> 
> News from The Associated Press
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's and the Democrat Party's first political prisoner.  We are no longer free Americans.  The transfer of our rights is now whatever democrats tell us.  The transformation is complete.
Click to expand...


Black helicopters, black helicopters everywhere!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Statistikhengst

AvgGuyIA said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> 
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is the Christian Roa Parks, but only with God on her side.
Click to expand...



Rut-roh!!

"Roa"???


----------



## Statistikhengst

Hossfly said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Let's let her go back to work on the condition that God pays her from now on instead of taxpayers.  Think she'd agree to that?  (he-hee-hee)
> 
> I'd back her if she had made that stand and refused her pay based on her religious beliefs.
> 
> Fucking hypocrite.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God should pay her????
> 
> No problem........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After all is said and done, God is on her side, no matter what heathens think or say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if he is then her god is entirely unworthy of praise...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dick sucking and carpet munching is praiseworthy? No thanks.
Click to expand...


Wouldn't that depend on which gender is sucking the dick or munching the carpet?


----------



## paperview

Kondor3 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, until that happens, Kim can obey the law, or rot in jail, just like everybody else. It is her choice. I'm just glad that none of my taxes are paying her salary while she sits there reading her Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> Civil Disobedience to immoral laws (and rulings) is a time-honored tradition, worldwide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting put in jail for breaking the law is also a time honored tradition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a *BAD* law, you end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'
> 
> And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article VI is not in dispute.
> 
> A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
> 
> And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Civil disobedience is generally utilized by people against a government infringement 

-- here is the government, which mantle Kim Davis was wearing in her position as country clerk -- infringing on the citizens.


----------



## paperview

AvgGuyIA said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> 
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully they still fine her too.  To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No fines, so far.  The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested.  Love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is the Christian Roa Parks, but only with God on her side.
Click to expand...

In the Rosa Parks saga, Davis would be the bus driver.


----------



## Statistikhengst

AvgGuyIA said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> You liberals are evil in your celebration of this political prisoner's imprisonment.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not political, she's breaking the law, and now in jail where she belongs for doing so...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's political.  We know who is on what side here.  America has jailed a political prisoner..a Christian.  Obama has declared war on Christians and is no different than ISIS.
Click to expand...


Preach, brother, PREACH!!!!

(and then grab your smelling salts)


----------



## dcraelin

Flopper said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil Disobedience to immoral laws (and rulings) is a time-honored tradition, worldwide.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting put in jail for breaking the law is also a time honored tradition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a *BAD* law, you end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'
> 
> And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article VI is not in dispute.
> 
> A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
> 
> And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.
Click to expand...


well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9.   Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves.  Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.

Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy.  It is worth a read.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

dcraelin said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting put in jail for breaking the law is also a time honored tradition.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a *BAD* law, you end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'
> 
> And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article VI is not in dispute.
> 
> A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
> 
> And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9.   Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves.  Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
> 
> Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy.  It is worth a read.
Click to expand...

No, it's not a 'claim,' the marriage ban in fact violated the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment:

“The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

_Obergefell_ is consistent with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting put in jail for breaking the law is also a time honored tradition.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a *BAD* law, you end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'
> 
> And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article VI is not in dispute.
> 
> A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
> 
> And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9.   Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves.  Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
> 
> Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy.  It is worth a read.
Click to expand...


Kegan and Ginsberg should have recused themselves? Why? because they were outspoken and demonstrable about their position on the issue? By that criteria, Thomas and Scalia should have also recused themselves. They have spewed a lot of anti gay crap. However, the fact is that no one had a personal interest in the outcome of the case, and no one was personally acquainted with any of the litigants. Therefore, it's a bullshit argument.


----------



## Faun

dcraelin said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting put in jail for breaking the law is also a time honored tradition.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a *BAD* law, you end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'
> 
> And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article VI is not in dispute.
> 
> A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
> 
> And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9.   Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves.  Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
> 
> Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy.  It is worth a read.
Click to expand...

If justices should have recused themselves for officiating at gay weddings, shouldn't justices that have expressed contempt for gay marriages also have recused themselves?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting put in jail for breaking the law is also a time honored tradition.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a *BAD* law, you end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'
> 
> And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article VI is not in dispute.
> 
> A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
> 
> And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9.   Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves.  Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
> 
> Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy.  It is worth a read.
Click to expand...


Another horseshit argument...


The 14th was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. However, it serves to protect against all other forms of discrimination as well.



> The Fourteenth was intended by the framers of the Fourteenth to extend the jurisdiction and protection of federal courts to all rights recognized by the Constitution and Bill of Rights against actions by state government.
> 
> First, "any law" includes the state constitution, which is its supreme law, subject to the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Second, for the framers of the 14th Amendment the term of art, "immunities", meant all those rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including those of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The framers of the Fourteenth used the word "immunities" because the rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are rights against action by government, which are "immunities", as distinct from contractual or tort rights. http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm



And consider this as well:



> On Jan 12., 1866, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio began the drafting of the Fourteenth by a proposed amendment to the Joint Senate-House Committee of 15:
> 
> The Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all persons in every state within this Union equal protection in their rights of life, liberty and property.
> 
> On January 20 the Joint Committee's subcommittee considering drafts of constitutional amendments reported to the full Joint Committee an expanded form of the Bingham proposal that read as follows:
> 
> Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all citizens of the United States, in every State, the same political rights and privileges; and to all persons in every State equal protection in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property."[4]
> 
> On February 1, 1866, Senator Benjamin G. Brown of Missouri introduced, and the Senate adopted, a resolution that the Joint Committee consider an amendment to the Constitution
> 
> so as to declare with greater certainty the power of Congress to enforce and determine by appropriate legislation _all the guarantees contained in that instrument_[11] (emphasis added).
> 
> This resolution thus anticipated the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights.



It’s pretty clear what the intent was.  It has been applied in a wide variety of cases  that did  not involve race



> WASHINGTON — Oklahoma has presented the U.S. Supreme Court with some peculiar 14th Amendment cases.
> 
> In 1942, the high court ruled that an Oklahoma law allowing some “habitual criminals” to be sterilized violated the equal protection rights of an armed robber because the law didn’t subject white collar criminals to sterilization.
> 
> “Sterilization of those who have thrice committed grand larceny with immunity for those who are embezzlers is a clear, pointed, unmistakable discrimination,” the court said.
> 
> In 1976, the high court found another 14th Amendment violation with an Oklahoma law that allowed women who were 18 or older to buy 3.2 beer, but prohibited men younger than 21 from buying it.
> 
> “We conclude that the gender-based differential contained in (the Oklahoma law) constitutes a denial of the equal protection of the laws to males aged 18-20,” the court said. http://newsok.com/the-14th-amendment-does-it-protect-same-sex-marriage/article/3954825



You might also know that there were 14 Supreme Court Cases that established  Marriage as a Fundamental Right  http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

Here  are some notable cases where race was not a factor and were decided on the 14th amendment.  Does anyone think that these decisions were a liberal over reach??




> _Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson_, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
> 
> 
> _Griswold v. Connecticut_, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.
> 
> _Zablocki v. Redhail_, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”



There are more, but you get the idea. So get over it. You had better take a chill pill in June when SCOTUS rules that same  sex marriage is in fact  a right under the 14th amendment. Have a good evening.


----------



## Debra K

dcraelin said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting put in jail for breaking the law is also a time honored tradition.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a *BAD* law, you end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'
> 
> And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article VI is not in dispute.
> 
> A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
> 
> And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9.   Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. *But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves.*  Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
> 
> Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy.  It is worth a read.
Click to expand...


dcraelin said, "*But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves.*"

The Fourteenth Amendment uses the word "persons".   Former slaves fall within the category of "persons".   Thus, former slaves as well as all other persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States are protected by the Constitution.



> The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says:
> 
> "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."
> 
> *These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.*



Source:  Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 (1886)


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting put in jail for breaking the law is also a time honored tradition.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a *BAD* law, you end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'
> 
> And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article VI is not in dispute.
> 
> A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
> 
> And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9.   Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves.  Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
> 
> Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy.  It is worth a read.
Click to expand...


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting put in jail for breaking the law is also a time honored tradition.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a *BAD* law, you end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'
> 
> And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article VI is not in dispute.
> 
> A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
> 
> And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9.   Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves.  Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
> 
> Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy.  It is worth a read.
Click to expand...


Third horseshit argument


There is no need for a constitutional amendment to legalize same sex marriage and this is why:



> Although the U.S. Constitution (approved September 17, 1787) contains no _direct_ references to slavery, it includes several _indirect_ references to that "peculiar institution." The following are the references as well as translations of the legal language.  http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/i/incidents-in-the-life-of-a-slave-girl/critical-essays/we-the-people----slavery-and-the-us-constitution



In addition, the states were not bound by the bill of rights until the passage of the 14th amendment, which precluded the courts from abolishing slavery



> Women’s suffrage, as well as voting rights  based on race draw a closer parallel to the same sex marriage issue. The issue of *voting rights in the United States* has been contentious throughout United States history. Eligibility to vote in the United States is relevant at both the federal and state levels. In the absence of a specific federal law or constitutional provision, each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own respective jurisdiction.
> 
> Perhaps both of those issues concerning voting could have been resolved through the courts rather by amendment but it took a different trajectory. A court challenge was in fact mounted in 1872 which tried but failed to make the case that women had the right to vote under the 14th amendment.  http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/nineteentham.htm



That was then and this is now and it is not a reason to say that same sex marriage must be, or can only be resolved but an amendment.

It has been said that *you can't use the Constitution to support gay marriage when the wording doesn't exist.  *The fact is that you can’t use the constitution to restrict marriage based on orientation because for the same reason. Many courts have agreed with that and have said that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

paperview said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil Disobedience to immoral laws (and rulings) is a time-honored tradition, worldwide.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting put in jail for breaking the law is also a time honored tradition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a *BAD* law, you end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'
> 
> And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article VI is not in dispute.
> 
> A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
> 
> And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil disobedience is generally utilized by people against a government infringement
> 
> -- here is the government, which mantle Kim Davis was wearing in her position as country clerk -- infringing on the citizens.
Click to expand...

Correct.

What Davis is doing has nothing to do with 'civil disobedience.'

It has to do with contempt for the rule of law, contempt for the Supreme Court, and contempt for the Constitution.

Indeed, Davis isn't being held against her will, she could be home this week if she so desires. She's in jail as a result of her own free will, and she can leave any time she wants.


----------



## WorldWatcher

dcraelin said:


> Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves.



There was no need for Justices Kagan or Justice Gingsberg to recuse themselves just as their was no reason for any of the other Justices that were married or had performed marriages in the past to recuse themselves.  The question that would be coming to the court was whether states could deny SSCM.  One marriage was performed in Maryland the other in D.C.  

Maryland passed SSCM based on a ballot initiative and D.C. passed it based on the action of the governing council.  In neither jurisdiction was SSCM illegal or in any way a question before the court.


>>>>


----------



## dcraelin

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a *BAD* law, you end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> 
> 
> Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'
> 
> And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article VI is not in dispute.
> 
> A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
> 
> And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9.   Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves.  Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
> 
> Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy.  It is worth a read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not a 'claim,' the marriage ban in fact violated the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment:
> 
> “The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.”
> 
> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
> 
> _Obergefell_ is consistent with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence.
Click to expand...


gee, 4 Supremes didnt see it that way......if it was so obvious why not a unanimous decision? 

It seems like it could be an accident of politics

and are you going to agree with( I think) those same justices in their majority opinion in _Arizona _that we are a democracy?


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a *BAD* law, you end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> 
> 
> Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'
> 
> And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article VI is not in dispute.
> 
> A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
> 
> And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9.   Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves.  Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
> 
> Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy.  It is worth a read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kegan and Ginsberg should have recused themselves? Why? because they were outspoken and demonstrable about their position on the issue? By that criteria, Thomas and Scalia should have also recused themselves. They have spewed a lot of anti gay crap. However, the fact is that no one had a personal interest in the outcome of the case, and no one was personally acquainted with any of the litigants. Therefore, it's a bullshit argument.
Click to expand...


no yours is the bull shit argument...........the legality, constitutionality  of gay marriage was in question...those justices displayed bad form in presiding over marriages. ....they should have done the honorable thing and stayed away until a decision was had.


----------



## paperview

dcraelin said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'
> 
> And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'
> 
> 
> 
> Article VI is not in dispute.
> 
> A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
> 
> And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9.   Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves.  Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
> 
> Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy.  It is worth a read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not a 'claim,' the marriage ban in fact violated the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment:
> 
> “The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.”
> 
> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
> 
> _Obergefell_ is consistent with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gee, 4 Supremes didnt see it that way......if it was so obvious why not a unanimous decision?
> 
> It seems like it could be an accident of politics
> 
> and are you going to agree with( I think) those same justices in their majority opinion in _Arizona _that we are a democracy?
Click to expand...

How were you on Bush v Gore?


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a *BAD* law, you end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> 
> 
> Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'
> 
> And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article VI is not in dispute.
> 
> A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
> 
> And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9.   Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves.  Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
> 
> Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy.  It is worth a read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another horseshit argument...
> 
> 
> The 14th was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. However, it serves to protect against all other forms of discrimination as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth was intended by the framers of the Fourteenth to extend the jurisdiction and protection of federal courts to all rights recognized by the Constitution and Bill of Rights against actions by state government.
> 
> First, "any law" includes the state constitution, which is its supreme law, subject to the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Second, for the framers of the 14th Amendment the term of art, "immunities", meant all those rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including those of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The framers of the Fourteenth used the word "immunities" because the rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are rights against action by government, which are "immunities", as distinct from contractual or tort rights. http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And consider this as well:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 12., 1866, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio began the drafting of the Fourteenth by a proposed amendment to the Joint Senate-House Committee of 15:
> 
> The Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all persons in every state within this Union equal protection in their rights of life, liberty and property.
> 
> On January 20 the Joint Committee's subcommittee considering drafts of constitutional amendments reported to the full Joint Committee an expanded form of the Bingham proposal that read as follows:
> 
> Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all citizens of the United States, in every State, the same political rights and privileges; and to all persons in every State equal protection in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property."[4]
> 
> On February 1, 1866, Senator Benjamin G. Brown of Missouri introduced, and the Senate adopted, a resolution that the Joint Committee consider an amendment to the Constitution
> 
> so as to declare with greater certainty the power of Congress to enforce and determine by appropriate legislation _all the guarantees contained in that instrument_[11] (emphasis added).
> 
> This resolution thus anticipated the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s pretty clear what the intent was.  It has been applied in a wide variety of cases  that did  not involve race
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON — Oklahoma has presented the U.S. Supreme Court with some peculiar 14th Amendment cases.
> 
> In 1942, the high court ruled that an Oklahoma law allowing some “habitual criminals” to be sterilized violated the equal protection rights of an armed robber because the law didn’t subject white collar criminals to sterilization.
> 
> “Sterilization of those who have thrice committed grand larceny with immunity for those who are embezzlers is a clear, pointed, unmistakable discrimination,” the court said.
> 
> In 1976, the high court found another 14th Amendment violation with an Oklahoma law that allowed women who were 18 or older to buy 3.2 beer, but prohibited men younger than 21 from buying it.
> 
> “We conclude that the gender-based differential contained in (the Oklahoma law) constitutes a denial of the equal protection of the laws to males aged 18-20,” the court said. http://newsok.com/the-14th-amendment-does-it-protect-same-sex-marriage/article/3954825
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might also know that there were 14 Supreme Court Cases that established  Marriage as a Fundamental Right  http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/
> 
> Here  are some notable cases where race was not a factor and were decided on the 14th amendment.  Does anyone think that these decisions were a liberal over reach??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson_, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
> 
> 
> _Griswold v. Connecticut_, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.
> 
> _Zablocki v. Redhail_, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are more, but you get the idea. So get over it. You had better take a chill pill in June when SCOTUS rules that same  sex marriage is in fact  a right under the 14th amendment. Have a good evening.
Click to expand...


The very fact that womens suffrage required an amendment proves you and likely all or some of those cases wrong.

Your last line makes no sense.


----------



## dcraelin

Debra K said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a *BAD* law, you end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> 
> 
> Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'
> 
> And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article VI is not in dispute.
> 
> A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
> 
> And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9.   Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. *But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves.*  Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
> 
> Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy.  It is worth a read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dcraelin said, "*But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves.*"
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment uses the word "persons".   Former slaves fall within the category of "persons".   Thus, former slaves as well as all other persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States are protected by the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says:
> 
> "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."
> 
> *These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Source:  Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 (1886)
Click to expand...


why didnt it apply to women who wanted to vote then?


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a *BAD* law, you end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> 
> 
> Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'
> 
> And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article VI is not in dispute.
> 
> A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
> 
> And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9.   Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves.  Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
> 
> Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy.  It is worth a read.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


thats a hell of a reply there


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a *BAD* law, you end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> 
> 
> Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'
> 
> And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article VI is not in dispute.
> 
> A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
> 
> And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9.   Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves.  Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
> 
> Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy.  It is worth a read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Third horseshit argument
> 
> 
> There is no need for a constitutional amendment to legalize same sex marriage and this is why:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although the U.S. Constitution (approved September 17, 1787) contains no _direct_ references to slavery, it includes several _indirect_ references to that "peculiar institution." The following are the references as well as translations of the legal language.  http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/i/incidents-in-the-life-of-a-slave-girl/critical-essays/we-the-people----slavery-and-the-us-constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In addition, the states were not bound by the bill of rights until the passage of the 14th amendment, which precluded the courts from abolishing slavery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Women’s suffrage, as well as voting rights  based on race draw a closer parallel to the same sex marriage issue. The issue of *voting rights in the United States* has been contentious throughout United States history. Eligibility to vote in the United States is relevant at both the federal and state levels. In the absence of a specific federal law or constitutional provision, each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own respective jurisdiction.
> 
> Perhaps both of those issues concerning voting could have been resolved through the courts rather by amendment but it took a different trajectory. A court challenge was in fact mounted in 1872 which tried but failed to make the case that women had the right to vote under the 14th amendment.  http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/nineteentham.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was then and this is now and it is not a reason to say that same sex marriage must be, or can only be resolved but an amendment.
> 
> It has been said that *you can't use the Constitution to support gay marriage when the wording doesn't exist.  *The fact is that you can’t use the constitution to restrict marriage based on orientation because for the same reason. Many courts have agreed with that and have said that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


Europe, long seen as more liberal on such issues, has, I believe , said marriage is not a fundamental right.


----------



## dcraelin

WorldWatcher said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no need for Justices Kagan or Justice Gingsberg to recuse themselves just as their was no reason for any of the other Justices that were married or had performed marriages in the past to recuse themselves.  The question that would be coming to the court was whether states could deny SSCM.  One marriage was performed in Maryland the other in D.C.
> 
> Maryland passed SSCM based on a ballot initiative and D.C. passed it based on the action of the governing council.  In neither jurisdiction was SSCM illegal or in any way a question before the court.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


please.....that is just a sheer line of BS.....it was up for consideration on a national level............the justices actions show a contempt for the proper attitude of the court.


----------



## dcraelin

paperview said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article VI is not in dispute.
> 
> A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
> 
> And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9.   Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves.  Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
> 
> Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy.  It is worth a read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not a 'claim,' the marriage ban in fact violated the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment:
> 
> “The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.”
> 
> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
> 
> _Obergefell_ is consistent with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gee, 4 Supremes didnt see it that way......if it was so obvious why not a unanimous decision?
> 
> It seems like it could be an accident of politics
> 
> and are you going to agree with( I think) those same justices in their majority opinion in _Arizona _that we are a democracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How were you on Bush v Gore?
Click to expand...


I thought that was wrong......the constitution outlines procedures to use.....and there was no "constitutional crisis"


----------



## paperview

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'
> 
> And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'
> 
> 
> 
> Article VI is not in dispute.
> 
> A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
> 
> And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9.   Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves.  Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
> 
> Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy.  It is worth a read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Third horseshit argument
> 
> 
> There is no need for a constitutional amendment to legalize same sex marriage and this is why:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although the U.S. Constitution (approved September 17, 1787) contains no _direct_ references to slavery, it includes several _indirect_ references to that "peculiar institution." The following are the references as well as translations of the legal language.  http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/i/incidents-in-the-life-of-a-slave-girl/critical-essays/we-the-people----slavery-and-the-us-constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In addition, the states were not bound by the bill of rights until the passage of the 14th amendment, which precluded the courts from abolishing slavery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Women’s suffrage, as well as voting rights  based on race draw a closer parallel to the same sex marriage issue. The issue of *voting rights in the United States* has been contentious throughout United States history. Eligibility to vote in the United States is relevant at both the federal and state levels. In the absence of a specific federal law or constitutional provision, each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own respective jurisdiction.
> 
> Perhaps both of those issues concerning voting could have been resolved through the courts rather by amendment but it took a different trajectory. A court challenge was in fact mounted in 1872 which tried but failed to make the case that women had the right to vote under the 14th amendment.  http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/nineteentham.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was then and this is now and it is not a reason to say that same sex marriage must be, or can only be resolved but an amendment.
> 
> It has been said that *you can't use the Constitution to support gay marriage when the wording doesn't exist.  *The fact is that you can’t use the constitution to restrict marriage based on orientation because for the same reason. Many courts have agreed with that and have said that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Europe, long seen as more liberal on such issues, has, I believe , said marriage is not a fundamental right.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS has, on many occasions.

Too bad.  You lose.


----------



## paperview

dcraelin said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no need for Justices Kagan or Justice Gingsberg to recuse themselves just as their was no reason for any of the other Justices that were married or had performed marriages in the past to recuse themselves.  The question that would be coming to the court was whether states could deny SSCM.  One marriage was performed in Maryland the other in D.C.
> 
> Maryland passed SSCM based on a ballot initiative and D.C. passed it based on the action of the governing council.  In neither jurisdiction was SSCM illegal or in any way a question before the court.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> please.....that is just a sheer line of BS.....it was up for consideration on a national level............the justices actions show a contempt for the proper attitude of the court.
Click to expand...

Scalia, hunting with Cheney, while a case before the court involving him was up for consideration. 

Bitch.


----------



## WorldWatcher

dcraelin said:


> no yours is the bull shit argument...........the legality, constitutionality  of gay marriage was in question...those justices displayed bad form in presiding over marriages. ....they should have done the honorable thing and stayed away until a decision was had.




You incorrectly describe the question before the court.

The question was not is "gay marriage" Constitutional, it absolutely was.  

Even if the court ruled that states could ban SSCM, there would have still been a number SSCM in this country.  Because multiple states had SSCM based on state court action, based on state legislative action, and by state ballots passing SSCM.

The question before the courts was could states ban SSCM, their performing SSCM in locations there it had been passed by other means was irrelevant to the question before the court.



>>>>


----------



## dcraelin

paperview said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article VI is not in dispute.
> 
> A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
> 
> And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9.   Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves.  Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
> 
> Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy.  It is worth a read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Third horseshit argument
> 
> 
> There is no need for a constitutional amendment to legalize same sex marriage and this is why:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although the U.S. Constitution (approved September 17, 1787) contains no _direct_ references to slavery, it includes several _indirect_ references to that "peculiar institution." The following are the references as well as translations of the legal language.  http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/i/incidents-in-the-life-of-a-slave-girl/critical-essays/we-the-people----slavery-and-the-us-constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In addition, the states were not bound by the bill of rights until the passage of the 14th amendment, which precluded the courts from abolishing slavery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Women’s suffrage, as well as voting rights  based on race draw a closer parallel to the same sex marriage issue. The issue of *voting rights in the United States* has been contentious throughout United States history. Eligibility to vote in the United States is relevant at both the federal and state levels. In the absence of a specific federal law or constitutional provision, each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own respective jurisdiction.
> 
> Perhaps both of those issues concerning voting could have been resolved through the courts rather by amendment but it took a different trajectory. A court challenge was in fact mounted in 1872 which tried but failed to make the case that women had the right to vote under the 14th amendment.  http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/nineteentham.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was then and this is now and it is not a reason to say that same sex marriage must be, or can only be resolved but an amendment.
> 
> It has been said that *you can't use the Constitution to support gay marriage when the wording doesn't exist.  *The fact is that you can’t use the constitution to restrict marriage based on orientation because for the same reason. Many courts have agreed with that and have said that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Europe, long seen as more liberal on such issues, has, I believe , said marriage is not a fundamental right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SCOTUS has, on many occasions.
> 
> Too bad.  You lose.
Click to expand...


as the chief justice said.....the gay community loses.....it loses forever the chance to get this the right way........as women did with amendment....or through the state legislatures or state voters directly.


----------



## WorldWatcher

paperview said:


> How were you on Bush v Gore?



Once can only assume that if any Justice voted in the election, even though it may have been in an state not before the court and therefore a question not before the court, that any Justice that voted in that election must recuse themselves.

Same logic.


>>>>


----------



## dcraelin

WorldWatcher said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> no yours is the bull shit argument...........the legality, constitutionality  of gay marriage was in question...those justices displayed bad form in presiding over marriages. ....they should have done the honorable thing and stayed away until a decision was had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You incorrectly describe the question before the court.
> 
> The question was not is "gay marriage" Constitutional, it absolutely was.
> 
> Even if the court ruled that states could ban SSCM, there would have still been a number SSCM in this country.  Because multiple states had SSCM based on state court action, based on state legislative action, and by state ballots passing SSCM.
> 
> The question before the courts was could states ban SSCM, their performing SSCM in locations there it had been passed by other means was irrelevant to the question before the court.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


 it was still a national question in some form or another......they should have displayed decorum and stayed away from presiding..........


----------



## Faun

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'
> 
> And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'
> 
> 
> 
> Article VI is not in dispute.
> 
> A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
> 
> And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9.   Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves.  Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
> 
> Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy.  It is worth a read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Third horseshit argument
> 
> 
> There is no need for a constitutional amendment to legalize same sex marriage and this is why:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although the U.S. Constitution (approved September 17, 1787) contains no _direct_ references to slavery, it includes several _indirect_ references to that "peculiar institution." The following are the references as well as translations of the legal language.  http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/i/incidents-in-the-life-of-a-slave-girl/critical-essays/we-the-people----slavery-and-the-us-constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In addition, the states were not bound by the bill of rights until the passage of the 14th amendment, which precluded the courts from abolishing slavery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Women’s suffrage, as well as voting rights  based on race draw a closer parallel to the same sex marriage issue. The issue of *voting rights in the United States* has been contentious throughout United States history. Eligibility to vote in the United States is relevant at both the federal and state levels. In the absence of a specific federal law or constitutional provision, each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own respective jurisdiction.
> 
> Perhaps both of those issues concerning voting could have been resolved through the courts rather by amendment but it took a different trajectory. A court challenge was in fact mounted in 1872 which tried but failed to make the case that women had the right to vote under the 14th amendment.  http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/nineteentham.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was then and this is now and it is not a reason to say that same sex marriage must be, or can only be resolved but an amendment.
> 
> It has been said that *you can't use the Constitution to support gay marriage when the wording doesn't exist.  *The fact is that you can’t use the constitution to restrict marriage based on orientation because for the same reason. Many courts have agreed with that and have said that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Europe, long seen as more liberal on such issues, has, I believe , said marriage is not a fundamental right.
Click to expand...

Europe is that-a-way ---->


----------



## dcraelin

paperview said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no need for Justices Kagan or Justice Gingsberg to recuse themselves just as their was no reason for any of the other Justices that were married or had performed marriages in the past to recuse themselves.  The question that would be coming to the court was whether states could deny SSCM.  One marriage was performed in Maryland the other in D.C.
> 
> Maryland passed SSCM based on a ballot initiative and D.C. passed it based on the action of the governing council.  In neither jurisdiction was SSCM illegal or in any way a question before the court.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> please.....that is just a sheer line of BS.....it was up for consideration on a national level............the justices actions show a contempt for the proper attitude of the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scalia, hunting with Cheney, while a case before the court involving him was up for consideration.
> 
> Bitch.
Click to expand...


hunting wasnt up for and issue with the court............handgun use was I believe. I presume they werent using handguns. But regardless that not of the same import.


----------



## dcraelin

WorldWatcher said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> no yours is the bull shit argument...........the legality, constitutionality  of gay marriage was in question...those justices displayed bad form in presiding over marriages. ....they should have done the honorable thing and stayed away until a decision was had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You incorrectly describe the question before the court.
> 
> The question was not is "gay marriage" Constitutional, it absolutely was.
> 
> Even if the court ruled that states could ban SSCM, there would have still been a number SSCM in this country.  Because multiple states had SSCM based on state court action, based on state legislative action, and by state ballots passing SSCM.
> 
> The question before the courts was could states ban SSCM, their performing SSCM in locations there it had been passed by other means was irrelevant to the question before the court.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


wrong


----------



## paperview

dcraelin said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9.   Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves.  Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
> 
> Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy.  It is worth a read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Third horseshit argument
> 
> 
> There is no need for a constitutional amendment to legalize same sex marriage and this is why:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although the U.S. Constitution (approved September 17, 1787) contains no _direct_ references to slavery, it includes several _indirect_ references to that "peculiar institution." The following are the references as well as translations of the legal language.  http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/i/incidents-in-the-life-of-a-slave-girl/critical-essays/we-the-people----slavery-and-the-us-constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In addition, the states were not bound by the bill of rights until the passage of the 14th amendment, which precluded the courts from abolishing slavery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Women’s suffrage, as well as voting rights  based on race draw a closer parallel to the same sex marriage issue. The issue of *voting rights in the United States* has been contentious throughout United States history. Eligibility to vote in the United States is relevant at both the federal and state levels. In the absence of a specific federal law or constitutional provision, each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own respective jurisdiction.
> 
> Perhaps both of those issues concerning voting could have been resolved through the courts rather by amendment but it took a different trajectory. A court challenge was in fact mounted in 1872 which tried but failed to make the case that women had the right to vote under the 14th amendment.  http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/nineteentham.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was then and this is now and it is not a reason to say that same sex marriage must be, or can only be resolved but an amendment.
> 
> It has been said that *you can't use the Constitution to support gay marriage when the wording doesn't exist.  *The fact is that you can’t use the constitution to restrict marriage based on orientation because for the same reason. Many courts have agreed with that and have said that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Europe, long seen as more liberal on such issues, has, I believe , said marriage is not a fundamental right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SCOTUS has, on many occasions.
> 
> Too bad.  You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> as the chief justice said.....the gay community loses.....it loses forever the chance to get this the right way........as women did with amendment....or through the state legislatures or state voters directly.
Click to expand...

Your phone is ringing.  Mildred Loving has a few words for you.


----------



## paperview

dcraelin said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no need for Justices Kagan or Justice Gingsberg to recuse themselves just as their was no reason for any of the other Justices that were married or had performed marriages in the past to recuse themselves.  The question that would be coming to the court was whether states could deny SSCM.  One marriage was performed in Maryland the other in D.C.
> 
> Maryland passed SSCM based on a ballot initiative and D.C. passed it based on the action of the governing council.  In neither jurisdiction was SSCM illegal or in any way a question before the court.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> please.....that is just a sheer line of BS.....it was up for consideration on a national level............the justices actions show a contempt for the proper attitude of the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scalia, hunting with Cheney, while a case before the court involving him was up for consideration.
> 
> Bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hunting wasnt up for and issue with the court............handgun use was I believe. I presume they werent using handguns. But regardless that not of the same import.
Click to expand...

So you'd have been just fine and dandy if Sonia Sotomayor went fishing with James Obergefell as the case was being decided.  Ooooo-tay.


----------



## dcraelin

paperview said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no need for Justices Kagan or Justice Gingsberg to recuse themselves just as their was no reason for any of the other Justices that were married or had performed marriages in the past to recuse themselves.  The question that would be coming to the court was whether states could deny SSCM.  One marriage was performed in Maryland the other in D.C.
> 
> Maryland passed SSCM based on a ballot initiative and D.C. passed it based on the action of the governing council.  In neither jurisdiction was SSCM illegal or in any way a question before the court.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> please.....that is just a sheer line of BS.....it was up for consideration on a national level............the justices actions show a contempt for the proper attitude of the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scalia, hunting with Cheney, while a case before the court involving him was up for consideration.
> 
> Bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunting wasnt up for and issue with the court............handgun use was I believe. I presume they werent using handguns. But regardless that not of the same import.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you'd have been just fine and dandy if Sonia Sotomayor went fishing with James Obergefell as the case was being decided.  Ooooo-tay.
Click to expand...


it wasn't about who they did the activity with.....
its that they participated in a leading way with the activity,.............it is yet another reason why future generations will not look favorably on the decision.

along with the actions of the federal judge who rushed out an opinion in time for Valentines day...getting the words of the founding fathers screwed up.

It shows the federal judiciary to be the joke that they are.


----------



## WorldWatcher

dcraelin said:


> hunting wasnt up for and issue with the court............handgun use was I believe. I presume they werent using handguns. But regardless that not of the same import.



it was still a national question in some form or another......he should have displayed decorum and stayed away from presiding..........


>>>>


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'
> 
> And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'
> 
> 
> 
> Article VI is not in dispute.
> 
> A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
> 
> And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9.   Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves.  Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
> 
> Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy.  It is worth a read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Third horseshit argument
> 
> 
> There is no need for a constitutional amendment to legalize same sex marriage and this is why:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although the U.S. Constitution (approved September 17, 1787) contains no _direct_ references to slavery, it includes several _indirect_ references to that "peculiar institution." The following are the references as well as translations of the legal language.  http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/i/incidents-in-the-life-of-a-slave-girl/critical-essays/we-the-people----slavery-and-the-us-constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In addition, the states were not bound by the bill of rights until the passage of the 14th amendment, which precluded the courts from abolishing slavery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Women’s suffrage, as well as voting rights  based on race draw a closer parallel to the same sex marriage issue. The issue of *voting rights in the United States* has been contentious throughout United States history. Eligibility to vote in the United States is relevant at both the federal and state levels. In the absence of a specific federal law or constitutional provision, each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own respective jurisdiction.
> 
> Perhaps both of those issues concerning voting could have been resolved through the courts rather by amendment but it took a different trajectory. A court challenge was in fact mounted in 1872 which tried but failed to make the case that women had the right to vote under the 14th amendment.  http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/nineteentham.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was then and this is now and it is not a reason to say that same sex marriage must be, or can only be resolved but an amendment.
> 
> It has been said that *you can't use the Constitution to support gay marriage when the wording doesn't exist.  *The fact is that you can’t use the constitution to restrict marriage based on orientation because for the same reason. Many courts have agreed with that and have said that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Europe, long seen as more liberal on such issues, has, I believe , said marriage is not a fundamental right.
Click to expand...


Europe is divided on the issue:



> Same-sex marriage has been legalised in Belgium, Denmark, Finland (effective from 1 March 2017), France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (except Gibraltar and Northern Ireland). Same-sex civil unions have been legalised in Austria, Belgium, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia (effective from 1 January 2016), Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Slovenia and the United Kingdom. In Denmark and Sweden civil unions were legal from 1989 and 1995 to 2012 and 2009, respectively. However existing civil unions are still recognised.
> 
> Austria, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy and Slovenia are considering legalisation of same-sex marriage. Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Romania are considering the legalisation of some other form of registered partnership for same-sex couples. Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia have constitutionally defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. LGBT rights in the European Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



In addition




> UN Human Rights Council Votes to Support LGBT Rights http://www.dallasvoice.com/breaking-human-rights-council-votes-support-lgbt-rights-10180486.html
> 
> The United Nations Human Rights Council has approved a resolution condemning discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, a boost to supporting LGBT rights around the world.
> 
> The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission praised the vote, calling it an important step forward toward progress for equality and human rights for LGBT individuals.
> 
> “The Human Rights Council has taken a fundamental step forward by reaffirming one of the United Nations’ key principles — that everyone is equal in dignity and rights,” said Jessica Stern, executive director of IGLHRC. “This resolution puts the UN on a trajectory to address the discrimination and violence LGBT persons suffer daily across the world.”
> 
> The resolution — led by Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Uruguay — asks the UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights to gather and publish information on how best to overcome discrimination and violence.
> 
> The resolution passed by 21 votes in favor, including the United States, 16 against, and 7 abstentions.
> 
> UN passes historic resolution in support of LGBT equality  http://www.dallasvoice.com/passes-historic-resolution-support-lgbt-equality-1080564.html
> 
> “This marks a significant milestone in the long struggle for equality, and the beginning of a universal recognition that (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) persons are endowed with the same inalienable rights — and entitled to the same protections — as all human beings.”


----------



## paperview

dcraelin said:


> it is yet another reason why future generations will not look favorably on the decision.
> ....



You're talking out of your ass.

The only people who will  look unfavorably upon this decision in the future are the occasional disparate homophobes and butthurt social conservatives who cry themselves to sleep every night and see monsters under their beds  - some of the same ones who think an 1802  SCOTUS decision granting Judicial Review  was ruled in error.

The world will move on and butthurts will learn to live with the _awfullness_ of recognizing gay people as equal persons in the eyes of the law.


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article VI is not in dispute.
> 
> A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
> 
> And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9.   Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves.  Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
> 
> Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy.  It is worth a read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Third horseshit argument
> 
> 
> There is no need for a constitutional amendment to legalize same sex marriage and this is why:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although the U.S. Constitution (approved September 17, 1787) contains no _direct_ references to slavery, it includes several _indirect_ references to that "peculiar institution." The following are the references as well as translations of the legal language.  http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/i/incidents-in-the-life-of-a-slave-girl/critical-essays/we-the-people----slavery-and-the-us-constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In addition, the states were not bound by the bill of rights until the passage of the 14th amendment, which precluded the courts from abolishing slavery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Women’s suffrage, as well as voting rights  based on race draw a closer parallel to the same sex marriage issue. The issue of *voting rights in the United States* has been contentious throughout United States history. Eligibility to vote in the United States is relevant at both the federal and state levels. In the absence of a specific federal law or constitutional provision, each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own respective jurisdiction.
> 
> Perhaps both of those issues concerning voting could have been resolved through the courts rather by amendment but it took a different trajectory. A court challenge was in fact mounted in 1872 which tried but failed to make the case that women had the right to vote under the 14th amendment.  http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/nineteentham.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was then and this is now and it is not a reason to say that same sex marriage must be, or can only be resolved but an amendment.
> 
> It has been said that *you can't use the Constitution to support gay marriage when the wording doesn't exist.  *The fact is that you can’t use the constitution to restrict marriage based on orientation because for the same reason. Many courts have agreed with that and have said that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Europe, long seen as more liberal on such issues, has, I believe , said marriage is not a fundamental right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Europe is divided on the issue:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage has been legalised in Belgium, Denmark, Finland (effective from 1 March 2017), France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (except Gibraltar and Northern Ireland). Same-sex civil unions have been legalised in Austria, Belgium, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia (effective from 1 January 2016), Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Slovenia and the United Kingdom. In Denmark and Sweden civil unions were legal from 1989 and 1995 to 2012 and 2009, respectively. However existing civil unions are still recognised.
> 
> Austria, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy and Slovenia are considering legalisation of same-sex marriage. Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Romania are considering the legalisation of some other form of registered partnership for same-sex couples. Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia have constitutionally defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. LGBT rights in the European Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In addition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UN Human Rights Council Votes to Support LGBT Rights http://www.dallasvoice.com/breaking-human-rights-council-votes-support-lgbt-rights-10180486.html
> 
> The United Nations Human Rights Council has approved a resolution condemning discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, a boost to supporting LGBT rights around the world.
> 
> The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission praised the vote, calling it an important step forward toward progress for equality and human rights for LGBT individuals.
> 
> “The Human Rights Council has taken a fundamental step forward by reaffirming one of the United Nations’ key principles — that everyone is equal in dignity and rights,” said Jessica Stern, executive director of IGLHRC. “This resolution puts the UN on a trajectory to address the discrimination and violence LGBT persons suffer daily across the world.”
> 
> The resolution — led by Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Uruguay — asks the UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights to gather and publish information on how best to overcome discrimination and violence.
> 
> The resolution passed by 21 votes in favor, including the United States, 16 against, and 7 abstentions.
> 
> UN passes historic resolution in support of LGBT equality  http://www.dallasvoice.com/passes-historic-resolution-support-lgbt-equality-1080564.html
> 
> “This marks a significant milestone in the long struggle for equality, and the beginning of a universal recognition that (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) persons are endowed with the same inalienable rights — and entitled to the same protections — as all human beings.”
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I know there was plenty of opposition in France,  and I believe a court imposed it, may be wrong....but courts probably imposed it in some of those other countries too.


----------



## dcraelin

paperview said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is yet another reason why future generations will not look favorably on the decision.
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're talking out of your ass.
> 
> The only people who will  look unfavorably upon this decision in the future are the occasional disparate homophobes and butthurt social conservatives who cry themselves to sleep every night and see monsters under their beds  - some of the same ones who think an 1802  SCOTUS decision granting Judicial Review  was ruled in error.
> 
> The world will move on and butthurts will learn to live with the _awfullness_ of recognizing gay people as equal persons in the eyes of the law.
Click to expand...



well Im talking about the play on the emotions that propelled the federal judiciary to ignore the Constitution and use verbal sophistry to pass what they had a warm and fuzzy feeling about.

The Valentine decision will forever be  emblematic of this.


----------



## Vandalshandle

You can parse it anyway you like. The outcome remains unchanged. Marriage may not be denied by the government because the couple is the same sex.  Therefor, Kim is in contempt of court, for doing so. Her application for martyrdom is pending.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'
> 
> And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'
> 
> 
> 
> Article VI is not in dispute.
> 
> A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
> 
> And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9.   Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves.  Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
> 
> Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy.  It is worth a read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kegan and Ginsberg should have recused themselves? Why? because they were outspoken and demonstrable about their position on the issue? By that criteria, Thomas and Scalia should have also recused themselves. They have spewed a lot of anti gay crap. However, the fact is that no one had a personal interest in the outcome of the case, and no one was personally acquainted with any of the litigants. Therefore, it's a bullshit argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no yours is the bull shit argument...........the legality, constitutionality  of gay marriage was in question...those justices displayed bad form in presiding over marriages. ....they should have done the honorable thing and stayed away until a decision was had.
Click to expand...


Interesting how you just gloss over the point that I made about Thomas and Scalia and just repeat the same crap over again.

You might consider the fact that there was a 25 day window of opportunity to file a motion to rehear the case without Kagan and Ginsberg, However, the AGs of the 4 states involved would not do so because they knew that it was a loosing proposition. So please give it a rest!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

dcraelin said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is yet another reason why future generations will not look favorably on the decision.
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're talking out of your ass.
> 
> The only people who will  look unfavorably upon this decision in the future are the occasional disparate homophobes and butthurt social conservatives who cry themselves to sleep every night and see monsters under their beds  - some of the same ones who think an 1802  SCOTUS decision granting Judicial Review  was ruled in error.
> 
> The world will move on and butthurts will learn to live with the _awfullness_ of recognizing gay people as equal persons in the eyes of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well Im talking about the play on the emotions that propelled the federal judiciary to ignore the Constitution and use verbal sophistry to pass what they had a warm and fuzzy feeling about.
> 
> The Valentine decision will forever be  emblematic of this.
Click to expand...

No, you're talking about a ridiculous lie you've contrived and are trying to propagate.

The _Obergefell_ Court followed the Constitution, it followed settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, and it followed the rule of law.

The states may not seek to disadvantage through force of law a class of persons predicated solely on who they are, including gay Americans.

“The fourteenth amendment...prohibits any state legislation which has the effect of denying to any...class [of persons], or to any individual, the equal protection of the laws.”

_Civil Rights Cases_ (1883)


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

paperview said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is yet another reason why future generations will not look favorably on the decision.
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're talking out of your ass.
> 
> The only people who will  look unfavorably upon this decision in the future are the occasional disparate homophobes and butthurt social conservatives who cry themselves to sleep every night and see monsters under their beds  - some of the same ones who think an 1802  SCOTUS decision granting Judicial Review  was ruled in error.
> 
> The world will move on and butthurts will learn to live with the _awfullness_ of recognizing gay people as equal persons in the eyes of the law.
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO!

Now... isn't THAT _precious?_


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article VI is not in dispute.
> 
> A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
> 
> And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9.   Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves.  Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
> 
> Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy.  It is worth a read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kegan and Ginsberg should have recused themselves? Why? because they were outspoken and demonstrable about their position on the issue? By that criteria, Thomas and Scalia should have also recused themselves. They have spewed a lot of anti gay crap. However, the fact is that no one had a personal interest in the outcome of the case, and no one was personally acquainted with any of the litigants. Therefore, it's a bullshit argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no yours is the bull shit argument...........the legality, constitutionality  of gay marriage was in question...those justices displayed bad form in presiding over marriages. ....they should have done the honorable thing and stayed away until a decision was had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting how you just gloss over the point that I made about Thomas and Scalia and just repeat the same crap over again.
> 
> You might consider the fact that there was a 25 day window of opportunity to file a motion to rehear the case without Kagan and Ginsberg, However, the AGs of the 4 states involved would not do so because they knew that it was a loosing proposition. So please give it a rest!
Click to expand...


It is a losing proposition.

The decision to license degeneracy indicates a severe collapse of the moral foundation of the culture.  As a result, history shows that Western Civilization will soon collapse and a new culture will rise from it, sans the degenerates, as a more well centered people seek to do business, absent the idiots.

My guess is that 60-80% of the US population will be dead inside 10 years, as a result of the looming civil war.

At the end of that, you will not be able to start a poker game in the US with people who will admit to ever having an unclean thought... let alone that they've sexual feelings for people of the same gender.

Europe will of course be governed under Sharia Law... and shortly after we get our shit together here, we'll be forced to burn Europe to the ground, via nuclear means.  With the goal being to eradicate every living thing on the continent.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The _Obergefell_ Court followed the Constitution...



ROFLMNAO!

_OH GOD!  _THAT is _hysterical! _ (In every sense of the word)

Reader, there is absolutely no kinship with the US Constitution and the recent decision by the newly formed Supreme Legislature to federally license Degeneracy.

The decision is barely lucid, and the authority of such would not be at all effected, if it had been issued in crayon.


----------



## Kondor3

Debra K said:


> ...These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the *territorial jurisdiction*, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.


 Source:  Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 (1886)[/QUOTE]
Not *territorial* jurisdiction... merely jurisdiction. Which could make a difference, if the 14th is re-evaluated to split 'jurisdiction' into its constituent parts.


----------



## Kondor3

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> What Davis is doing has nothing to do with 'civil disobedience.' It has to do with contempt for the rule of law, contempt for the Supreme Court, and contempt for the Constitution. Indeed, Davis isn't being held against her will, she could be home this week if she so desires. She's in jail as a result of her own free will, and she can leave any time she wants.


You do not see it as Civil Disobedience. I do, as do a great many others. Impasse.


----------



## Lakhota

Kondor3 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Davis is doing has nothing to do with 'civil disobedience.' It has to do with contempt for the rule of law, contempt for the Supreme Court, and contempt for the Constitution. Indeed, Davis isn't being held against her will, she could be home this week if she so desires. She's in jail as a result of her own free will, and she can leave any time she wants.
> 
> 
> 
> You do not see it as Civil Disobedience. I do, as do a great many others. Impasse.
Click to expand...


Civil disobedience is not the same as willfully breaking a federal law.


----------



## Kondor3

Lakhota said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Davis is doing has nothing to do with 'civil disobedience.' It has to do with contempt for the rule of law, contempt for the Supreme Court, and contempt for the Constitution. Indeed, Davis isn't being held against her will, she could be home this week if she so desires. She's in jail as a result of her own free will, and she can leave any time she wants.
> 
> 
> 
> You do not see it as Civil Disobedience. I do, as do a great many others. Impasse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civil disobedience is not the same as willfully breaking a federal law.
Click to expand...

No?

Are you sure about that?

I suggest you consult three or four online dictionaries, and an online encyclopedia or two, and 'take the average' of what you find.


----------



## Lakhota

Kondor3 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Davis is doing has nothing to do with 'civil disobedience.' It has to do with contempt for the rule of law, contempt for the Supreme Court, and contempt for the Constitution. Indeed, Davis isn't being held against her will, she could be home this week if she so desires. She's in jail as a result of her own free will, and she can leave any time she wants.
> 
> 
> 
> You do not see it as Civil Disobedience. I do, as do a great many others. Impasse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civil disobedience is not the same as willfully breaking a federal law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No?
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> I suggest you consult three or four online dictionaries, and an online encyclopedia or two, and 'take the average' of what you find.
Click to expand...


One elected public servant who refuses to obey a recently decided federal law by the U.S. Supreme Court for personal religious reasons _to deny the freedoms of others_ is far beyond civil disobedience.

In other words, as a government employee, Davis has a duty to the American people. She has a duty to help those in need. She has a duty to comply with the law. Once Davis took on that responsibility, she forfeited her license to infringe on the rights of others in the name of religious freedom. If Davis no longer wished to accept her duties as a government employee, she simply should have quit.

EDITORIAL: Kim Davis and the separation of church and state - The Daily Free Press


----------



## Silhouette

Lakhota said:


> Civil disobedience is not the same as willfully breaking a federal law.


Yes it is when the law was arrived at outside the Constitutional provisions.  SCOTUS isn't allowed to create a new protected class.  Where in the Constitution does it grant rights to deviant sex behaviors erroneously calling themselves "a race of people"?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Silhouette said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil disobedience is not the same as willfully breaking a federal law.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is when the law was arrived at outside the Constitutional provisions.  SCOTUS isn't allowed to create a new protected class.  Where in the Constitution does it grant rights to deviant sex behaviors erroneously calling themselves "a race of people"?
Click to expand...

Wrong.

The Supreme Court didn't 'create' a 'new protected class,' the notion is ignorant idiocy.


----------



## Debra K

The deputy clerks might be in trouble. 

On the day the judge sent Kim Davis to jail, he later offered to release her from jail if she promised not to interfere with her deputy clerks who stated under oath that they would issue marriage licenses.  Kim Davis refused the offer and chose to stay in jail. 

The deputy clerks, however, unilaterally removed Kim Davis's name from the marriage licenses.   In the place where her name is supposed to typed, they substituted "Rowan County". 






The Equality Case Files reports that the judge asked for a status report and copies of the marriage licenses issued by the deputy clerks. 

0:15-cv-00044 #80

If it was lawful to remove the county clerk's name and substitute the name of the county, wouldn't Kim Davis have done that herself?   Her objection was that her name as the county clerk was required to be on the licenses.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Debra K said:


> The deputy clerks might be in trouble.
> 
> On the day the judge sent Kim Davis to jail, he later offered to release her from jail if she promised not to interfere with her deputy clerks who stated under oath that they would issue marriage licenses.  Kim Davis refused the offer and chose to stay in jail.
> 
> The deputy clerks, however, unilaterally removed Kim Davis's name from the marriage licenses.   In the place where her name is supposed to typed, they substituted "Rowan County".
> 
> View attachment 49591
> 
> The Equality Case Files reports that the judge asked for a status report and copies of the marriage licenses issued by the deputy clerks.
> 
> 0:15-cv-00044 #80
> 
> If it was lawful to remove the county clerk's name and substitute the name of the county, wouldn't Kim Davis have done that herself?   Her objection was that her name as the county clerk was required to be on the licenses.



Interesting. VERRRRRYY interesting.....


----------



## ConCrusher




----------



## Statistikhengst

WorldWatcher said:


> reconmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Her son's name is Nathan Davis; who knows...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was he from the first marriage?  Second marriage?  Third marriage? or Fourth marriage?
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...



Ahhhhh, family values.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Lakhota said:


> Oh, what a beautiful sight.  She looks like a deranged Bible thumper - maybe an LDS type.



You misspelled LSD...


----------



## Statistikhengst

Odium said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those supporting religious freedom are the sane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the freedom to believe in what ever mythology suits you.  Just stop imposing those superstitious beliefs on the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not a christian nor do I believe in ANY spook in the sky,I still support religious freedom.
Click to expand...


Sure you do. You worship at Hitler's cock, day in and day out. Why, I wouldn't be surprised if you had a swastika dildo up your ass. Really. I mean that quite seriously. Poor odious.


----------



## Statistikhengst

g5000 said:


> Hey, tards.
> 
> They Kentucky General Assembly is only in session for 30 days in odd numbered years.  And only for 60 days in even numbered  years.
> 
> The next session begins in January.




They sure do work hard, now don't they...


----------



## Statistikhengst

g5000 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, what a beautiful sight.  She looks like a deranged Bible thumper - maybe an LDS type.
> 
> 
> 
> It is offensive to associate her with the Bible.  She is a despicable hypocritical bigot hiding behind the Bible.
Click to expand...


----------



## Statistikhengst

mudwhistle said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> a unionized government employee?..fired??...yeah, right...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She is elected, cannot be fired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is Drawn & Quartered out of the question???
Click to expand...


Oh, you butthurteds and your strange, feral death fantasies....


----------



## Statistikhengst

SassyIrishLass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Davis' lawyer, Roger Gannam, said it was the first time in history an American citizen has been jailed for believing that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. He compared her willingness to accept imprisonment to what Martin Luther King Jr. did to advance civil rights.
> 
> BINGO! Martyr for religious rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope................sorry, but to be an actual martyr, you have to follow the teachings of your religion and dogma.
> 
> She's not doing that, because Jesus said that if your right eye offends thee, pluck it out and  throw it away, because it's better to enter Heaven missing an eye than to end up in Hell because you allowed your right eye to cause you to sin.
> 
> Here's the verse....................................
> 
> Matthew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
> 
> Now, in her case, it's not her right eye that is offending her, it's her job.  Why?  Because she feels like she's being forced to sin in issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.
> 
> So, she should pluck out her job (resign from her position), and get on with her life.
> 
> Even Jesus thinks she should resign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus would follow the Word and the Bible is clear that we are to follow human law *EXCEPT* when it violates God's law and the Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin, an abomination unto the Lord. *God's law trumps human law*
Click to expand...


"God's law trumps human law"

Only in a theocracy. Not in a Republic based on indirect Democracy. You have a lot to learn, I see.


----------



## Statistikhengst

RodISHI said:


> It alters the entire fabric of this society when you make an exception for an illness to over ride my faith and beliefs. *Marriage is a religious institution. *If the government wants to issue a license for people to whatever to one another then make a separate license with the governments name on it for they can share their deviant behavior but don't force others to lower their standards to that.
> 
> Gays used to tell me that they had a right to have sex on public ground and in public facilities. Today if I were in that same position according to many of the people that post on this board I should be thrown I jail if I tell them go do their thing in private or go rent a room. If I wanted to start a business of any kind by what you are saying judges can tell me I would be breaking their law. Again the deviants would call for me to be put in jail. If I deny access for them to my children today I'd once again be falsely arrested by some out of control judge for protecting the children God put into my charge against predators. And once again I would hope that the people when they hear the truth they would rise up and say enough and throw the out of control sickos out of their positions.



Marriage still is a religious institution within the Church.
However, legally, in terms of the state, it is a secular institution and has been so for a long, long, time, all the way back to the Roman Empire and before.

You call it a sickness. How would you feel if in 200 years, people in the majority were to be calling Christians a sickness?  I wonder how it would feel were the shoe on the other foot...


----------



## Statistikhengst

EriktheRed said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier today, her husband spoke out and said that the government was trying to squash religious freedom.
> 
> No...................he's got the right to practice ANY belief system that he wants to.  He also has the right to apply for any job that he thinks he's qualified for.
> 
> He also has the right to be offended if that job makes him go against his beliefs.
> 
> More importantly?  He has the right to find work elsewhere if he feels that his job is compromising his spirituality.
> 
> I mean.....................strip clubs are legal (and many Christian men go to them, I know, I used to work in one), but you don't see many Christians bitching about the working conditions as being sinful.
> 
> This woman needs to stay in jail until (a) she agrees to DO THE JOB SHE WAS ELECTED FOR, or (b) decides to step down.
> 
> And remember people.................this isn't about religion, this is about a county clerk who was held in contempt of court for not doing her job.  She can fix this by leaving or doing her job.
> 
> 
> 
> You guys are such hypocrites.
> You claim that when we try to stop you from getting your taxpayer funded abortions that's squashing your reproductive rights. If we don't agree with your definition of marriage we're trying to squash your civil rights.
> Now you say that putting someone in jail for her religious convictions isn't squashing her religious freedom. Doesn't matter that she gave them options to get their piece of paper a few miles down the road.
> 
> You seem to believe in having in both ways.
> 
> You should change your name from the Democratic Party to the Hypocritical Nazi party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit!  * She didn't give them any options.  She just didn't have any authority in the next county.*
> 
> And if it was all about HER religious beliefs, why did she refuse to allow the deputy clerks to issue licenses?   She wants to stop it anyway she can.
> 
> And now she will play the martyr to the fullest and people like you will send her money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove that she wanted to actively prevent these people from getting a license elsewhere.
> 
> The reason she didn't authorize the deputy clerks to issue them is because that would be asking someone else to do your sinning for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They already told the judge they would do it.  According to the scriptures you think she is jailed over, they have already sinned.
> 
> Prove?  She refused to do what she was ordered by the courts and by the Gov of KY.  If she had the authority, she wouldn't allow it anywhere.  That is blatantly obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Her actual intent is irrelevant anyway. *Her* office is obliged to follow the law and if she's actively preventing it from doing that, she's eligible for the penalty she's getting.
Click to expand...


BINGO.


----------



## Statistikhengst

ABikerSailor said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know..............this is kind of like a person joining the military and then being told they are going to a war zone, whereupon they declare themselves to be a consciencious objector stating that their religious beliefs prevent them from taking another life.
> 
> That soldier or sailor is then discharged from the military, due to being a consciencious objector, because they refuse to do the job required.
> 
> This woman is objecting to issuing gay marriage licenses because it violates her religious beliefs, and, like objectors in the military, she should be released from her job.
> 
> Oh.............and btw................if she would have stepped down in the first place, she wouldn't be in jail.  It's not for her religious beliefs that she's there, it's because she refused to obey the courts and is being held for contempt.
> 
> Same result would have happened if she was Catholic, Muslim, Jewish or whatever other belief system you want to use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe she should be glad that she is safe. Her husband took to packing heat, and they complained of death threats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally, I think they are making up the death threats, because they haven't actually gone to the cops over this and filed a report.
> 
> I think they're just saying that for the drama and to give more fuel to their fire.
Click to expand...


Yepp, sounds about right.


----------



## Statistikhengst

HUGGY said:


> I would like to know how that very stupid and ugly woman managed to find four men to marry her.



A nice, tight pussy??


----------



## Statistikhengst

Lakhota said:


> *Mike Huckabee to visit Kentucky clerk Kim Davis in jail - CNN.com*
> 
> He should just stay with her.



5th husband in the making??


----------



## Statistikhengst

Lakhota said:


> *Mike Huckabee to visit Kentucky clerk Kim Davis in jail - CNN.com*
> 
> He should just stay with her.



5th husband in the making??


----------



## Statistikhengst

boedicca said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*SHE REFUSED TO ACCEPT THAT ACCOMODATION. SHE ORDERED HER STAFF NOT TO ISSUE LICENSES. THE JUDGE OFFERED TO LET HER GO IF SHE JUST PROMISED NOT TO INTERFEAR!   SHE REFUSED!!*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her manager should have relieved her of responsibility for this.  Throwing her in Jail is a Totalitarian Thought Police Tactic.
> 
> (And btw, typing in caps in all in red doesn't make your crap any more convincing.  All red is actually a violation of the board rules as red is used for moderation.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My crap?? I think that you are just making this stuff up because you're out of ammunition. Who is her manager? Who would have such authority? I'll admit that I don't know but I suspect that the answer is no one since she is an elected official. She could have arranged here own accommodation. She did not. She was offered an accommodation by the judge. She turned it down. Now stop squirming
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that the CLERK is Empress of her County with Supreme Power.  She has a boss.  Work duties can be reassigned to accommodate Constitutionally Protected Rights.
> 
> The fact that you would rather see her life destroyed says a great deal about your corrupt little soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her immediate "boss" is the legal system that sent her to jail.  Apparently you don't know much about county government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What bright shiny new pair of Jack Boots you have...but I suspect they will give you blisters.
Click to expand...


This is the best you have to offer?

Weak sauce, boa constrictor, weak sauce...


----------



## Statistikhengst

David_42 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> She ordered her staff NOT to issue the marriage licenses.  When offered that exact accommodation by the Judge she refused.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She could have come to a reasonable accommodation that would have allowed her to maintain her religious principles and she refused.  That leads me to think it's not just about *her* religious principles but about forcing her religious principles on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, that wasn't going to be allowed by the Social Justice Snowflakes.  Just as the Baker and the Pizza Parlor owner were assassinated in Social Media, the Clerk was going to be targeted until her life was destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said it wasn't going to be allowed?  Gay couples are seem to be perfectly happy getting their licenses from the deputies.  She, however, was not.  Who's trying to destroy who?  The person who's refusing to allow any gay couple to get a license from anyone in her jurisdiction...or the couples just trying to get a marriage license?  If she had quietly stated her objections and allowed a deputy to do it - none of this would have happened.  Other states have adopted that tactic successfully.  Extremists on all sides aren't happy with it.  One side, supporting this woman are also supporting her right to refuse to allow anyone to give licenses while the other side wants to force her to do it herself.
> 
> Christian Sharia meet the Gay Mafia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, what this incident actually demonstrates is that The Rule of Law only matters when it furthers the Liberal Agenda.   If it mattered to the Left all of the time, Lois Lerner would be in jail and Hillary would not be the Dem's "inevitable" candidate.
> 
> Remember the Law Is Only Sacred When It Furthers a Liberal Value
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just give up, you're making yourself look like an idiot.
Click to expand...


She does this quite often... our very own special conservative snowflake.


----------



## Statistikhengst

WinterBorn said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals, already having created a martyr, are now building crosses on which to crucify her.  First time in history a Democrat will have resisted the urge to go near a cross without setting it afire!
> 
> This could be one for the history books!
> 
> 
> 
> If they can nail her fat ass to the cross, and it doesn't crack under the strain, I'll pick up the tab for the gas and disposable lighter.  What the hell, I'm bringing a cigar anyway.  Nothing like a good cigar and a better show...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am hoping your post is sarcasm.  Otherwise, let me be the first to say I would happily shoot anyone who tried to execute her for what she has done.   I think it is pretty obvious that I am seriously in favor of same-sex marriage.  But talking about executing someone is crossing the line.
Click to expand...


I concur with you.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Carla_Danger said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is *no* 97% against 3%. The *majority* of this country support same sex marriage, and have for at least 5 years. Each year, for the past 5 years, support for same sex marriage has increased. I'm sorry, but you are delusional...
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see who is kidding themselves, after January 20, 2017.
> 
> As I said, you are on far shakier ground than you will allow yourself to believe.
> 
> Smug, arrogance complacency, as the inevitable and righteous Reaction grows just off your scope.
> 
> Delicious.
> 
> 
> 
> ...And no, people don't become bigots once they've had children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not bigotry to call-out and shun sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality).
> 
> Nobody wants their children and grandchildren exposed to such filth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bookmarked for future entertainment.  lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the friendly service... no extra charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



"Family Values"

"Thousand points of light"

"Silent Majority"

"Take our country back!"

lol...


----------



## Statistikhengst

Lakhota said:


> *"Pray that America repents of the sin of celebrating sexual perversion and imprisoning Christian dissidents."*
> 
> *Hundreds Gather To Support Kim Davis: 'She Won't Bow'*
> 
> Well, that was interesting.  American Taliban meetings aren't quite as colorful as Klan meetings - but are still entertaining.



That's her FOURTH husband, right?

lol...


----------



## Statistikhengst

So, I read the entire thread.

Whew, someone throw me a sweat towel!

Now, there were tons of interesting responses, but one response kept NOT showing up, which is why I rotor-rooted my way through this epic thread. So, I am gonna throw this original thought out there:

There are literally thousands clerks of courts in the USA who issue marriage licenses. In fact, there have to be at least 3,143 of them total, if not many more, for many counties have more than one clerk who issues marriage licenses. But either way, we are talking about THOUSANDS of public officials who issue marriage licenses every week. *If Kim Davis is so right, why is she is the only clerk doing this?*

*Also, "Christians" now have a choice. *They can either apply the tactic that Kim Davis is just so totally right and all the other other clerks, the majority of which, I bet, are also Christian, are wrong, in which case, they should be condemning those clerks with all their might, right here and now - lol -

- _or_, they can take the tack that there are far fewer Christians out there processing and giving out marriage licenses than they are willing to admit -

- _or_, they can just claim that the other many thousands of clerks are all apostates.

Either way, no matter how you look at it, this does not look good for "Christianity", n'est ce pas?

Of course, *the most sane answer* is that possibly ex-Clerk, currently Jailbird Kim Clark comes from a backwater, insane hillbilly church where her pastor is probably pressuring her to go through all of this shit at no cost to himself but at a massive cost to her and that this actually has precious little to do with Christianity at all. It's politics, it's publicity and at the end of the day, it's part of the "Christian" $$$$-mill. This is a cottage industry thing, nothing less and nothing more.

-Stat

ABikerSailor
Luddly Neddite
AVG-JOE
ogibillm
westwall
bodecea
AvgGuyIA
Kondor3
jon_berzerk
Wry Catcher
C_Clayton_Jones
RodISHI
Dot Com
JOSweetHeart
mudwhistle
NYcarbineer
Coyote
BlueGin
AceRothstein
TheOldSchool
frigidweirdo
BlindBoo
Asclepias
David_42
HUGGY
EriktheRed
WinterBorn
Skylar
Faun
TheProgressivePatriot


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil disobedience is not the same as willfully breaking a federal law.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is when the law was arrived at outside the Constitutional provisions.  SCOTUS isn't allowed to create a new protected class.  Where in the Constitution does it grant rights to deviant sex behaviors erroneously calling themselves "a race of people"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The Supreme Court didn't 'create' a 'new protected class,' the notion is ignorant idiocy.
Click to expand...

Right! They applied heightened scrutiny without actually saying so on the basis of their right under the 14th amendment being violated, not their being a protected class, although they could have taken that rout. Silouett just says whatever the voices in her head tell her to say.No actual thought process at work there


----------



## Kondor3

Statistikhengst said:


> ..."Family Values"
> 
> "Thousand points of light"
> 
> "Silent Majority"
> 
> "Take our country back!"
> 
> lol...


----------



## Preacher

Statistikhengst said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those supporting religious freedom are the sane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the freedom to believe in what ever mythology suits you.  Just stop imposing those superstitious beliefs on the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not a christian nor do I believe in ANY spook in the sky,I still support religious freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you do. You worship at Hitler's cock, day in and day out. Why, I wouldn't be surprised if you had a swastika dildo up your ass. Really. I mean that quite seriously. Poor odious.
Click to expand...

Still crying over spilled milk? Oh I mean 6 million.....burned to a crisp!


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*Kim Davis Would Have Fit in Here—Texas Lawyer Exposes Religious Hiring Test for Peace Officers*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Odium said:


> Still crying over spilled milk?


I prefer non crucified Messiahs ....plus Jesus was poor.....


----------



## Kondor3

Statistikhengst said:


> ...Either way, no matter how you look at it, this does not look good for "Christianity", n'est ce pas?...


Why is only one Christian county-clerk in the entire country doing this?

3000 (3007, actually, but let's make it a nice, round number)...

3000 counties in the United States...

2100 Christian county clerks ( 3000 X 70% ) ( 70% Christian population in the US )

Narrow it down...

How many are 'Sunshine Patriot' -type Christians and rarely (if ever) exert any effort to adhere to the practices of their denomination? Ten percent?

2100 X 10% = 210 clerks who might even consider doing such a thing.

How many of those are scared of losing their jobs and pensions, to the point of paralysis and accommodation? Ninety-five percent?

210 X 5% = 11 ( 5% survivors of the 210 who aren't paralyzed by fear, and rounded up from 10.5)

Out of those 11, how many decided to wait until somebody else went first? 10 out of 11? Seems believable.

11 - 10 = 1

1 = Kim Davis

================================

You can throw rocks at the numbers until the cows come home, but, at least it's a first pass, at quantifying your inquiry, and introducing another concept or two (paralysis, due to fear over loss of job, pension, etc.) in a context that demonstrates just how overwhelmingly significant that particular element of the equation is.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## Vandalshandle

The holiday having past, I am sure that there will soon be another media event regarding this, so Kim is climbing back up on her cross.....


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Send out for some Pillars and Cecil B DeMille


----------



## Vandalshandle

...so she can die happily ever after......


----------



## Carla_Danger

Vandalshandle said:


> The holiday having past, I am sure that there will soon be another media event regarding this, so Kim is climbing back up on her cross.....


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Kondor3 said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the *territorial jurisdiction*, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Source:  Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 (1886)
Click to expand...

Not *territorial* jurisdiction... merely jurisdiction. Which could make a difference, if the 14th is re-evaluated to split 'jurisdiction' into its constituent parts.[/QUOTE]
What the fuck An 1886  case about a Chinese  laundry?? It's one hell of a stretch, especially coming from someone who admittedly knows NOTHING about constitutional law. I wonder why SCOTUS nor  any of the lawyers didn't think of this ?? You must be way smarter then all of them.


----------



## Silhouette

Behaviors don't have special Constitutional protections.  This would be the first time they ever did.  Behaviors cannot trump the 1st Amendment and the 9th affirming its potency.  And this of course is on its way up to SCOTUS again.  They should've thought that through but then when you blindly accept a false premise (behavior = race) and work your legal conclusions off of that, you're going to be revisiting that foolish progression and facing the flawed premise sooner or later.

Seems like Kim Davis just bumped it up into "sooner"...



Kondor3 said:


> Why is only one Christian county-clerk in the entire country doing this?


 
Because Kondor, all it takes is one lawsuit to challenge the illegal revision of the US Constitution done by 5 people last June.  The 1st Amendment and the 9th affirming its potency and just one little old litigant can change things.

But you already know this because that's what your group has been doing for years professionally.  You are professional litigants using the courts as a form of blackmail.  The bakers in Oregon are standing their ground too.  And some photographers, Memories Pizza, caterers, florists...did you forget about all them?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Silhouette said:


> Behaviors don't have special Constitutional protections.  This would be the first time they ever did.  Behaviors cannot trump the 1st Amendment and the 9th affirming its potency.  And this of course is on its way up to SCOTUS again.  They should've thought that through but then when you blindly accept a false premise (behavior = race) and work your legal conclusions off of that, you're going to be revisiting that foolish progression and facing the flawed premise sooner or later.
> 
> Seems like Kim Davis just bumped it up into "sooner"...
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is only one Christian county-clerk in the entire country doing this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Kondor, all it takes is one lawsuit to challenge the illegal revision of the US Constitution done by 5 people last June.  The 1st Amendment and the 9th affirming its potency and just one little old litigant can change things.
> 
> But you already know this because that's what your group has been doing for years professionally.  You are professional litigants using the courts as a form of blackmail.  The bakers in Oregon are standing their ground too.  And some photographers, Memories Pizza, caterers, florists...did you forget about all them?
Click to expand...


In what way was the Constitution revised----EXACTLY??  Show us the clause or the amendment that was altered.


----------



## Vandalshandle

She has become the tool of that Liberty litigation group. They are willing for her to spend as many years in jail as it takes for them to exhaust every possible legal remedy.

Interestingly enough, since Josh has embarrassed them, the Family Research Council seems to be keeping a low profile.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ogibillm said:


> lol. so the new law the supreme court made is the 14th amendment to the constitution?



You have a different 14th than I do. Mine says nothing about redefining marriage to please a special interest.


----------



## Debra K

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9.   Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves.  Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
> 
> Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy.  It is worth a read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kegan and Ginsberg should have recused themselves? Why? because they were outspoken and demonstrable about their position on the issue? By that criteria, Thomas and Scalia should have also recused themselves. They have spewed a lot of anti gay crap. However, the fact is that no one had a personal interest in the outcome of the case, and no one was personally acquainted with any of the litigants. Therefore, it's a bullshit argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no yours is the bull shit argument...........the legality, constitutionality  of gay marriage was in question...those justices displayed bad form in presiding over marriages. ....they should have done the honorable thing and stayed away until a decision was had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting how you just gloss over the point that I made about Thomas and Scalia and just repeat the same crap over again.
> 
> You might consider the fact that there was a 25 day window of opportunity to file a motion to rehear the case without Kagan and Ginsberg, However, the AGs of the 4 states involved would not do so because they knew that it was a loosing proposition. So please give it a rest!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a losing proposition.
> 
> The decision to license degeneracy indicates a severe collapse of the moral foundation of the culture.  As a result, history shows that Western Civilization will soon collapse and a new culture will rise from it, sans the degenerates, as a more well centered people seek to do business, absent the idiots.
> 
> My guess is that 60-80% of the US population will be dead inside 10 years, as a result of the looming civil war.
> 
> At the end of that, you will not be able to start a poker game in the US with people who will admit to ever having an unclean thought... let alone that they've sexual feelings for people of the same gender.
> 
> Europe will of course be governed under Sharia Law... and shortly after we get our shit together here, we'll be forced to burn Europe to the ground, via nuclear means.  With the goal being to eradicate every living thing on the continent.
Click to expand...


Your words are no better than Kim Davis's words.  She claims to be God's vessel ... acting under God's authority ... and those who clamor to her side don't care that she's a false prophet.   How often does the Bible have to warn "true believers" about the evils of wolves in sheep's clothing?


----------



## rdean

Just saw on TV that she was married FOUR FUCKING TIMES and had TWINS out of wedlock.  Is that true?  I can smell the hypocrisy.


----------



## Vandalshandle

rdean said:


> Just saw on TV that she was married FOUR FUCKING TIMES and had TWINS out of wedlock.  Is that true?  I can smell the hypocrisy.



She claims that all that happened before she and god became pals....


----------



## westwall

Statistikhengst said:


> So, I read the entire thread.
> 
> Whew, someone throw me a sweat towel!
> 
> Now, there were tons of interesting responses, but one response kept NOT showing up, which is why I rotor-rooted my way through this epic thread. So, I am gonna throw this original thought out there:
> 
> There are literally thousands clerks of courts in the USA who issue marriage licenses. In fact, there have to be at least 3,143 of them total, if not many more, for many counties have more than one clerk who issues marriage licenses. But either way, we are talking about THOUSANDS of public officials who issue marriage licenses every week. *If Kim Davis is so right, why is she is the only clerk doing this?*
> 
> *Also, "Christians" now have a choice. *They can either apply the tactic that Kim Davis is just so totally right and all the other other clerks, the majority of which, I bet, are also Christian, are wrong, in which case, they should be condemning those clerks with all their might, right here and now - lol -
> 
> - _or_, they can take the tack that there are far fewer Christians out there processing and giving out marriage licenses than they are willing to admit -
> 
> - _or_, they can just claim that the other many thousands of clerks are all apostates.
> 
> Either way, no matter how you look at it, this does not look good for "Christianity", n'est ce pas?
> 
> Of course, *the most sane answer* is that possibly ex-Clerk, currently Jailbird Kim Clark comes from a backwater, insane hillbilly church where her pastor is probably pressuring her to go through all of this shit at no cost to himself but at a massive cost to her and that this actually has precious little to do with Christianity at all. It's politics, it's publicity and at the end of the day, it's part of the "Christian" $$$$-mill. This is a cottage industry thing, nothing less and nothing more.
> 
> -Stat
> 
> ABikerSailor
> Luddly Neddite
> AVG-JOE
> ogibillm
> westwall
> bodecea
> AvgGuyIA
> Kondor3
> jon_berzerk
> Wry Catcher
> C_Clayton_Jones
> RodISHI
> Dot Com
> JOSweetHeart
> mudwhistle
> NYcarbineer
> Coyote
> BlueGin
> AceRothstein
> TheOldSchool
> frigidweirdo
> BlindBoo
> Asclepias
> David_42
> HUGGY
> EriktheRed
> WinterBorn
> Skylar
> Faun
> TheProgressivePatriot









Probably because she's batshit crazy.   Why is that not one of your options.  And that wasn't an original thought BTW.


----------



## Debra K

Silhouette said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil disobedience is not the same as willfully breaking a federal law.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is when the law was arrived at outside the Constitutional provisions.  SCOTUS isn't allowed to create a new protected class.  Where in the Constitution does it grant rights to deviant sex behaviors erroneously calling themselves "a race of people"?
Click to expand...


Really? 

You have not demonstrated that you know anything about the Constitution.

The content of your post is strong evidence of your ignorance.  Have you ever tried to educate yourself?  are you capable of learning and understanding basic concepts? 

Homosexual persons are not calling themselves a race of people. 

Anytime the government classifies people (whether by race, nationality, gender, disability, sexual orientation, etc.) and treats the classes of people differently under the law, then the classification is subject to review to determine if the classification is constitutional or unconstitutional.   There are different levels of review.

If you care about educating yourself, start here:

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause


----------



## Statistikhengst

westwall said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, I read the entire thread.
> 
> Whew, someone throw me a sweat towel!
> 
> Now, there were tons of interesting responses, but one response kept NOT showing up, which is why I rotor-rooted my way through this epic thread. So, I am gonna throw this original thought out there:
> 
> There are literally thousands clerks of courts in the USA who issue marriage licenses. In fact, there have to be at least 3,143 of them total, if not many more, for many counties have more than one clerk who issues marriage licenses. But either way, we are talking about THOUSANDS of public officials who issue marriage licenses every week. *If Kim Davis is so right, why is she is the only clerk doing this?*
> 
> *Also, "Christians" now have a choice. *They can either apply the tactic that Kim Davis is just so totally right and all the other other clerks, the majority of which, I bet, are also Christian, are wrong, in which case, they should be condemning those clerks with all their might, right here and now - lol -
> 
> - _or_, they can take the tack that there are far fewer Christians out there processing and giving out marriage licenses than they are willing to admit -
> 
> - _or_, they can just claim that the other many thousands of clerks are all apostates.
> 
> Either way, no matter how you look at it, this does not look good for "Christianity", n'est ce pas?
> 
> Of course, *the most sane answer* is that possibly ex-Clerk, currently Jailbird Kim Clark comes from a backwater, insane hillbilly church where her pastor is probably pressuring her to go through all of this shit at no cost to himself but at a massive cost to her and that this actually has precious little to do with Christianity at all. It's politics, it's publicity and at the end of the day, it's part of the "Christian" $$$$-mill. This is a cottage industry thing, nothing less and nothing more.
> 
> -Stat
> 
> ABikerSailor
> Luddly Neddite
> AVG-JOE
> ogibillm
> westwall
> bodecea
> AvgGuyIA
> Kondor3
> jon_berzerk
> Wry Catcher
> C_Clayton_Jones
> RodISHI
> Dot Com
> JOSweetHeart
> mudwhistle
> NYcarbineer
> Coyote
> BlueGin
> AceRothstein
> TheOldSchool
> frigidweirdo
> BlindBoo
> Asclepias
> David_42
> HUGGY
> EriktheRed
> WinterBorn
> Skylar
> Faun
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because she's batshit crazy.   Why is that not one of your options.  And that wasn't an original thought BTW.
Click to expand...



Good point. 

However, "batshit crazy" is no excuse for ignorance of the law, so I didn't include it.

Anything else you want on the menu, or are you now sated?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Kondor3 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Either way, no matter how you look at it, this does not look good for "Christianity", n'est ce pas?...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is only one Christian county-clerk in the entire country doing this?
> 
> 3000 (3007, actually, but let's make it a nice, round number)...
> 
> 3000 counties in the United States...
> 
> 2100 Christian county clerks ( 3000 X 70% ) ( 70% Christian population in the US )
> 
> Narrow it down...
> 
> How many are 'Sunshine Patriot' -type Christians and rarely (if ever) exert any effort to adhere to the practices of their denomination? Ten percent?
> 
> 2100 X 10% = 210 clerks who might even consider doing such a thing.
> 
> How many of those are scared of losing their jobs and pensions, to the point of paralysis and accommodation? Ninety-five percent?
> 
> 210 X 5% = 11 ( 5% survivors of the 210 who aren't paralyzed by fear, and rounded up from 10.5)
> 
> Out of those 11, how many decided to wait until somebody else went first? 10 out of 11? Seems believable.
> 
> 11 - 10 = 1
> 
> 1 = Kim Davis
> 
> ================================
> 
> You can throw rocks at the numbers until the cows come home, but, at least it's a first pass, at quantifying your inquiry, and introducing another concept or two (paralysis, due to fear over loss of job, pension, etc.) in a context that demonstrates just how overwhelmingly significant that particular element of the equation is.
Click to expand...



There are 3,140+ counties in the USA....


----------



## Silhouette

rdean said:


> Just saw on TV that she was married FOUR FUCKING TIMES and had TWINS out of wedlock.  Is that true?  I can smell the hypocrisy.


 Yes, she is a sinner.  And that's why she is a Christian.  It's a requirement to walk through the door of a church.  You don't approach Christianity from a perspective of perfection, you approach it saying "I am a flawed being, I'm struggling, I need help".  That's how it works.

On the topic of adultery and the famous story in the Bible of the stoning incident with Jesus, he said "let any of you who is without sin cast the first stone".  His point was twofold: 1. To save the poor stoning victim and 2. To really seat in the minds of the angry mob that we are all sinners and must not judge; judgment is for God.

That being said, Jude 1 spells out that a Christian (who is also a sinner, remember) must reach out to homosexuals with compassion, "making a difference".  But that to promote them as a group mentality into the fabric of any society is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN.  This message exists in the New Testament and in Jesus' teachings as I recall, there are very few examples of of him saying "Oh yeah, you know that Old Testament law and the shit that went down then with God casting people into Hell for eternity?  Yeah, this one's like that.  It's for realsies."  Yet that's what we find in Jude 1.

And it makes sense if you understand sociology.  When it comes to human behaviors and mimickry in youth, trends have a way of catching fire in any society.  And what do we see today after 30 years of nonstop campaigning by LGBT cult to the youth in media?  That's right, hordes of "bi-curious" or "gay" youth popping up like a dandelion-epidemic in a lawn that used to be relatively weed free.  God's OK with his lawn having occasional dandelions but not the whole lawn being taken over with time.  God remembers Ancient Greece and you don't.  So he is wiser than you.  God remembers Sodom and you don't.  So he is wiser than you. 

God teaches us to love the sinner but hate the sin.  And that's what Jude 1 is all about.  Jesus also extended compassion to prostitutes, thieves and lepers.  Does that mean that anyone against or refusing to participate in promoting prostitution, robbery or coming down with leprosy is a "hater"?  NO!  Of course not!  So, Kim Davis is in God's favor.  The Bible's New Testament isn't all roses and hippy love fest.  There are some hard rules and one of the hardest is not to tamper with God's lawn by helping to seed it with weeds.  Otherwise the good grass will be choked out and wouldn't have a chance to grow in that enviroment even if it wanted to desperately.  THAT is why the punishment for promoting homosexuality using God's sacred vehicle of the family (marriage) is such a pisser for God.  And you will get eternity in the slammer if you fail to heed Jude 1's warning.


----------



## Debra K

Debra K said:


> The deputy clerks might be in trouble.
> 
> 
> On the day the judge sent Kim Davis to jail, he later offered to release her from jail if she promised not to interfere with her deputy clerks who stated under oath that they would issue marriage licenses.  Kim Davis refused the offer and chose to stay in jail.
> 
> The deputy clerks, however, unilaterally removed Kim Davis's name from the marriage licenses.   In the place where her name is supposed to typed, they substituted "Rowan County".
> 
> View attachment 49591
> 
> The Equality Case Files reports that the judge asked for a status report and copies of the marriage licenses issued by the deputy clerks.
> 
> 0:15-cv-00044 #80
> 
> If it was lawful to remove the county clerk's name and substitute the name of the county, wouldn't Kim Davis have done that herself?   Her objection was that her name as the county clerk was required to be on the licenses.




0:15-cv-00044 #84

The status report filed by counsel for the Plaintiffs states that the Clerks Office altered the marriage license forms to remove Ms. Davis's name.


----------



## Vigilante

So many truisms and anti- Constitution values stated in here... one wonders what the Founders would think....


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article VI is not in dispute.
> 
> A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
> 
> And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
> 
> Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9.   Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves.  Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
> 
> Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy.  It is worth a read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kegan and Ginsberg should have recused themselves? Why? because they were outspoken and demonstrable about their position on the issue? By that criteria, Thomas and Scalia should have also recused themselves. They have spewed a lot of anti gay crap. However, the fact is that no one had a personal interest in the outcome of the case, and no one was personally acquainted with any of the litigants. Therefore, it's a bullshit argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no yours is the bull shit argument...........the legality, constitutionality  of gay marriage was in question...those justices displayed bad form in presiding over marriages. ....they should have done the honorable thing and stayed away until a decision was had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting how you just gloss over the point that I made about Thomas and Scalia and just repeat the same crap over again.
> 
> You might consider the fact that there was a 25 day window of opportunity to file a motion to rehear the case without Kagan and Ginsberg, However, the AGs of the 4 states involved would not do so because they knew that it was a loosing proposition. So please give it a rest!
Click to expand...


they perhaps knew the deck was rigged ,,yes.................and your "point" on Thomas and Scalia on guns was answered I believe


----------



## dcraelin

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is yet another reason why future generations will not look favorably on the decision.
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're talking out of your ass.
> 
> The only people who will  look unfavorably upon this decision in the future are the occasional disparate homophobes and butthurt social conservatives who cry themselves to sleep every night and see monsters under their beds  - some of the same ones who think an 1802  SCOTUS decision granting Judicial Review  was ruled in error.
> 
> The world will move on and butthurts will learn to live with the _awfullness_ of recognizing gay people as equal persons in the eyes of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well Im talking about the play on the emotions that propelled the federal judiciary to ignore the Constitution and use verbal sophistry to pass what they had a warm and fuzzy feeling about.
> 
> The Valentine decision will forever be  emblematic of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you're talking about a ridiculous lie you've contrived and are trying to propagate.
> 
> The _Obergefell_ Court followed the Constitution, it followed settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, and it followed the rule of law.
> 
> The states may not seek to disadvantage through force of law a class of persons predicated solely on who they are, including gay Americans.
> 
> “The fourteenth amendment...prohibits any state legislation which has the effect of denying to any...class [of persons], or to any individual, the equal protection of the laws.”
> 
> _Civil Rights Cases_ (1883)
Click to expand...


gee, 4 of 9 justices disagreed.  doesn't sound so cut and dried to me,.....

and my post was about how this will be remembered in the future...and the Valentine days ruling will be a lasting example of the emotional bases for these rulings, rather than a sober and logical look at the law.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Odium said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those supporting religious freedom are the sane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the freedom to believe in what ever mythology suits you.  Just stop imposing those superstitious beliefs on the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not a christian nor do I believe in ANY spook in the sky,I still support religious freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you do. You worship at Hitler's cock, day in and day out. Why, I wouldn't be surprised if you had a swastika dildo up your ass. Really. I mean that quite seriously. Poor odious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still crying over spilled milk? Oh I mean 6 million.....burned to a crisp!
Click to expand...


Showing glee on your part over millions of people who died is not going to injure me.
But it does expose you for the unbelievable anti-semitic, racist, bigoted asshole that you are.

So, thanks.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Ahhh, judge Bunning is now ordering her to be released from jail. So much for Ted Cruz' big day.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## boedicca

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil disobedience is not the same as willfully breaking a federal law.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is when the law was arrived at outside the Constitutional provisions.  SCOTUS isn't allowed to create a new protected class.  Where in the Constitution does it grant rights to deviant sex behaviors erroneously calling themselves "a race of people"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The Supreme Court didn't 'create' a 'new protected class,' the notion is ignorant idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right! They applied heightened scrutiny without actually saying so on the basis of their right under the 14th amendment being violated, not their being a protected class, although they could have taken that rout. Silouett just says whatever the voices in her head tell her to say.No actual thought process at work there
Click to expand...



Why?  Because she has the freedom of independent thought and belief....

...concepts with which you are obviously unacquainted.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

boedicca said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil disobedience is not the same as willfully breaking a federal law.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is when the law was arrived at outside the Constitutional provisions.  SCOTUS isn't allowed to create a new protected class.  Where in the Constitution does it grant rights to deviant sex behaviors erroneously calling themselves "a race of people"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The Supreme Court didn't 'create' a 'new protected class,' the notion is ignorant idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right! They applied heightened scrutiny without actually saying so on the basis of their right under the 14th amendment being violated, not their being a protected class, although they could have taken that rout. Silouett just says whatever the voices in her head tell her to say.No actual thought process at work there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  Because she has the freedom of independent thought and belief....
> 
> ...concepts with which you are obviously unacquainted.
Click to expand...


Right! Independent thought. Independent of  reality and free of facts


----------



## boedicca

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil disobedience is not the same as willfully breaking a federal law.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is when the law was arrived at outside the Constitutional provisions.  SCOTUS isn't allowed to create a new protected class.  Where in the Constitution does it grant rights to deviant sex behaviors erroneously calling themselves "a race of people"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The Supreme Court didn't 'create' a 'new protected class,' the notion is ignorant idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right! They applied heightened scrutiny without actually saying so on the basis of their right under the 14th amendment being violated, not their being a protected class, although they could have taken that rout. Silouett just says whatever the voices in her head tell her to say.No actual thought process at work there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  Because she has the freedom of independent thought and belief....
> 
> ...concepts with which you are obviously unacquainted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right! Independent thought. Independent of  reality and free of facts
Click to expand...


Of course that's your understanding.  You're an idiot.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is yet another reason why future generations will not look favorably on the decision.
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're talking out of your ass.
> 
> The only people who will  look unfavorably upon this decision in the future are the occasional disparate homophobes and butthurt social conservatives who cry themselves to sleep every night and see monsters under their beds  - some of the same ones who think an 1802  SCOTUS decision granting Judicial Review  was ruled in error.
> 
> The world will move on and butthurts will learn to live with the _awfullness_ of recognizing gay people as equal persons in the eyes of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well Im talking about the play on the emotions that propelled the federal judiciary to ignore the Constitution and use verbal sophistry to pass what they had a warm and fuzzy feeling about.
> 
> The Valentine decision will forever be  emblematic of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you're talking about a ridiculous lie you've contrived and are trying to propagate.
> 
> The _Obergefell_ Court followed the Constitution, it followed settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, and it followed the rule of law.
> 
> The states may not seek to disadvantage through force of law a class of persons predicated solely on who they are, including gay Americans.
> 
> “The fourteenth amendment...prohibits any state legislation which has the effect of denying to any...class [of persons], or to any individual, the equal protection of the laws.”
> 
> _Civil Rights Cases_ (1883)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gee, 4 of 9 justices disagreed.  doesn't sound so cut and dried to me,.....
> 
> and my post was about how this will be remembered in the future...and the Valentine days ruling will be a lasting example of the emotional bases for these rulings, rather than a sober and logical look at the law.
Click to expand...


I'm willing to be that your another one who has not bothered to read the opinion but is , nevertheless willing to dismiss it as "emotional" and as not following the law. Here are selected excerpts for you convenience.  While you read, count the number of earlier cases that were cited to support the decision....just in the portions that I provided and then tell us again how this is not based on solid case law :




> *SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES*
> 
> Syllabus
> 
> OBERGEFELL ET AL. _v_. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.
> 
> CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
> 
> No. 14–556. Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 2015*
> 
> 
> 
> *Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriagebetween two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.*
> 
> 
> 
> (1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, _e.g., *Eisenstadt *_*v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486*. Pg.2
> 
> 
> 
> (2) Four principles and traditions demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples. The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.  Pg. 3
> 
> 
> 
> A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to *Griswold v. Connecticut,* which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception,  pg.3
> 
> 
> A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguardschildren and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, _e.g.,* Pierce *_*v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510*. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. *They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents,* relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issuethus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. *See Windsor, supra, at ___.Pg.3*
> 
> 
> Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. *See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211*. States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle,yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that theStates have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instabilitymany opposite-sex couples would find intolerable.  Pg.4
> 
> 
> 
> (4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. *Baker v. Nelson is overruled*. The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23. Pg.5
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There may be an initial inclination to await further legislation, litigation, and debate, but referenda, legislative debates, and grassroots campaigns; studies and other writings; and extensive litigation in state and federal courts have led to an enhanced understanding of the issue. While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. Pg 5


----------



## Lakhota

We have plenty of factual proof that our founding fathers existed.  We have zero proof of a supernatural God.  Hence, the Constitution trumps delusional fantasy.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Uncensored2008 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol. so the new law the supreme court made is the 14th amendment to the constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a different 14th than I do. Mine says nothing about redefining marriage to please a special interest.
Click to expand...


Oh Christ!! Not that idiocy again!! The 14th does not say ANYTHING about any specific right except for birthright citizenship, voting due  process and equal protection under the law.  Yet it has been used numerous times to secure other rights:


The 14th was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. However, it serves to protect against all other forms of discrimination as well.



> The Fourteenth was intended by the framers of the Fourteenth to extend the jurisdiction and protection of federal courts to all rights recognized by the Constitution and Bill of Rights against actions by state government.
> 
> First, "any law" includes the state constitution, which is its supreme law, subject to the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Second, for the framers of the 14th Amendment the term of art, "immunities", meant all those rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including those of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The framers of the Fourteenth used the word "immunities" because the rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are rights against action by government, which are "immunities", as distinct from contractual or tort rights. http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm



And consider this as well:



> On Jan 12., 1866, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio began the drafting of the Fourteenth by a proposed amendment to the Joint Senate-House Committee of 15:
> 
> The Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all persons in every state within this Union equal protection in their rights of life, liberty and property.
> 
> On January 20 the Joint Committee's subcommittee considering drafts of constitutional amendments reported to the full Joint Committee an expanded form of the Bingham proposal that read as follows:
> 
> Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all citizens of the United States, in every State, the same political rights and privileges; and to all persons in every State equal protection in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property."[4]
> 
> On February 1, 1866, Senator Benjamin G. Brown of Missouri introduced, and the Senate adopted, a resolution that the Joint Committee consider an amendment to the Constitution
> 
> so as to declare with greater certainty the power of Congress to enforce and determine by appropriate legislation _all the guarantees contained in that instrument_[11] (emphasis added).
> 
> This resolution thus anticipated the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights.



It’s pretty clear what the intent was.  It has been applied in a wide variety of cases  that did  not involve race

WASHINGTON — Oklahoma has presented the U.S. Supreme Court with some peculiar 14th Amendment cases.



> In 1942, the high court ruled that an Oklahoma law allowing some “habitual criminals” to be sterilized violated the equal protection rights of an armed robber because the law didn’t subject white collar criminals to sterilization.
> 
> “Sterilization of those who have thrice committed grand larceny with immunity for those who are embezzlers is a clear, pointed, unmistakable discrimination,” the court said.
> 
> In 1976, the high court found another 14th Amendment violation with an Oklahoma law that allowed women who were 18 or older to buy 3.2 beer, but prohibited men younger than 21 from buying it.
> 
> “We conclude that the gender-based differential contained in (the Oklahoma law) constitutes a denial of the equal protection of the laws to males aged 18-20,” the court said. http://newsok.com/the-14th-amendment-does-it-protect-same-sex-marriage/article/3954825




You might also know that there were 14 Supreme Court Cases that established  Marriage as a Fundamental Right  http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

Here  are some notable cases where race was not a factor and were decided on the 14th amendment.  Does anyone think that these decisions were a liberal over reach??




> _Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson_, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
> 
> 
> _Griswold v. Connecticut_, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.
> 
> _Zablocki v. Redhail_, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”



There are more, but you get the idea. So get over it. You had better take a chill pill in June when SCOTUS rules that same  sex marriage is in fact  a right under the 14th amendment. Have a good evening.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Uncensored2008 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol. so the new law the supreme court made is the 14th amendment to the constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a different 14th than I do. Mine says nothing about redefining marriage to please a special interest.
Click to expand...

You might also want to read this...get educated!


*Penumbras of the Constitution:*

*charting the origins of the abolition of moral legislation  **http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/wilson/030702*

*Selected Excerpts*

The Supreme Court's decision in the case of _Lawrence v. Texas_ did not just invalidate laws against sodomy, it may have put an end to all legislation of sexual activity between consenting adults and opened the door to the end of traditional marriage.

This case was not just about the whether the Texas statute prohibiting sodomy between members of the same sex was constitutional. Though he probably could have successfully convinced the Court that the Texas law, which proscribed homosexual sodomy while leaving heterosexual sodomy legal, was unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, Mr. Smith, the lawyer for the petitioners, went above and beyond the call of duty and took advantage of the situation to ask the Court to overturn its 1986 _Bowers v. Hardwick_ decision.


----------



## Uncensored2008

rdean said:


> Just saw on TV that she was married FOUR FUCKING TIMES and had TWINS out of wedlock.  Is that true?  I can smell the hypocrisy.



You ought to be able to, since you are exuding it..

There is no prude quite like a Communist declaring the sins of others...


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9.   Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves.  Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
> 
> Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy.  It is worth a read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kegan and Ginsberg should have recused themselves? Why? because they were outspoken and demonstrable about their position on the issue? By that criteria, Thomas and Scalia should have also recused themselves. They have spewed a lot of anti gay crap. However, the fact is that no one had a personal interest in the outcome of the case, and no one was personally acquainted with any of the litigants. Therefore, it's a bullshit argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no yours is the bull shit argument...........the legality, constitutionality  of gay marriage was in question...those justices displayed bad form in presiding over marriages. ....they should have done the honorable thing and stayed away until a decision was had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting how you just gloss over the point that I made about Thomas and Scalia and just repeat the same crap over again.
> 
> You might consider the fact that there was a 25 day window of opportunity to file a motion to rehear the case without Kagan and Ginsberg, However, the AGs of the 4 states involved would not do so because they knew that it was a loosing proposition. So please give it a rest!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they perhaps knew the deck was rigged ,,yes.................and your "point" on Thomas and Scalia on guns was answered I believe
Click to expand...

  You really want to talk about Thomas and Scalia??

Kagan and Ginsburg were no  more biased that Scalia and Thomas Here is Thomas on gay rights  with Scalia also dissenting in both



> In _Lawrence v. Texas_ (2003), Thomas issued a one-page dissent where he called the Texas anti-gay sodomy statute "uncommonly silly." He then said that if he were a member of the Texas legislature he would vote to repeal the law, as it was not a worthwhile use of "law enforcement resources" to police private sexual behavior. Since he was not a member of the state legislature, but instead a federal judge, and the Due Process Clause did not (in his view) touch on the subject, he could not vote to strike it down. Accordingly, Thomas saw the issue as a matter for the states to decide for themselves.[162]


   He could not be bothered to join the majority because he though that it was sill. It's apparent that he also thought that gay rights don't matter much or that due process applies to them



> In _Romer v. Evans_ (1996), Thomas joined Scalia's dissenting opinion arguing that Amendment 2 to the Colorado State Constitution did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Colorado amendment forbade any judicial, legislative, or executive action designed to protect persons from discrimination based on "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships."[163] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas



As for Scalia:  





> Here Are the 7 Worst Things Antonin Scalia Has Said or Written About Homosexuality http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/scalia-worst-things-said-written-about-homosexuality-court



Tell us again how Kegan and Ginsberg are more biased than these guys. There is more:



> The section also provides that a judge is disqualified "where he has a *personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding"; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning the same case or has expressed an opinion concerning its outcome; or when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has* *a financial interest* in the outcome of the proceeding.  Judicial disqualification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




None of this applies to Kagan and Ginsburg. None of it. However, Thomas did in fact have a personal stake in a number of cases. :



> Virginia "Ginni" Thomas is no ordinary Supreme Court spouse. Unlike Maureen Scalia, mother of nine, or the late Martin Ginsburg, mild-mannered tax law professor who was good in the kitchen, Thomas came from the world of bare-knuckled partisan politics. Over the years, she has enmeshed herself ever more deeply in the world of political advocacy—all the while creating a heap of conflict of interest concerns surrounding her husband, Supreme Court Justice Clarence  http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/ginni-thomas-groundswell-conflict-interest]




Tell us how many times Thomas recused himself   from ANY CASE.

Finally……



> The general rule is that, to warrant recusal, *a judge's expression of an opinion about the merits of a case, or his familiarity with the facts or the parties, must have originated in a source outside the case itself. This is referred to in the United States as the "extra-judicial source rule" a*nd was recognized as a general presumption, although not an invariable one, in the 1994 U.S. Supreme Court decision in _Liteky v. United States_.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification



Now lets cut the crap. It's over!


----------



## Uncensored2008

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol. so the new law the supreme court made is the 14th amendment to the constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a different 14th than I do. Mine says nothing about redefining marriage to please a special interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Christ!! Not that idiocy again!! The 14th does not say ANYTHING about any specific right except for birthright citizenship, voting due  process and equal protection under the law.  Yet it has been used numerous times to secure other rights:
> 
> 
> The 14th was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. However, it serves to protect against all other forms of discrimination as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth was intended by the framers of the Fourteenth to extend the jurisdiction and protection of federal courts to all rights recognized by the Constitution and Bill of Rights against actions by state government.
> 
> First, "any law" includes the state constitution, which is its supreme law, subject to the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Second, for the framers of the 14th Amendment the term of art, "immunities", meant all those rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including those of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The framers of the Fourteenth used the word "immunities" because the rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are rights against action by government, which are "immunities", as distinct from contractual or tort rights. http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And consider this as well:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 12., 1866, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio began the drafting of the Fourteenth by a proposed amendment to the Joint Senate-House Committee of 15:
> 
> The Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all persons in every state within this Union equal protection in their rights of life, liberty and property.
> 
> On January 20 the Joint Committee's subcommittee considering drafts of constitutional amendments reported to the full Joint Committee an expanded form of the Bingham proposal that read as follows:
> 
> Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all citizens of the United States, in every State, the same political rights and privileges; and to all persons in every State equal protection in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property."[4]
> 
> On February 1, 1866, Senator Benjamin G. Brown of Missouri introduced, and the Senate adopted, a resolution that the Joint Committee consider an amendment to the Constitution
> 
> so as to declare with greater certainty the power of Congress to enforce and determine by appropriate legislation _all the guarantees contained in that instrument_[11] (emphasis added).
> 
> This resolution thus anticipated the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s pretty clear what the intent was.  It has been applied in a wide variety of cases  that did  not involve race
> 
> WASHINGTON — Oklahoma has presented the U.S. Supreme Court with some peculiar 14th Amendment cases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1942, the high court ruled that an Oklahoma law allowing some “habitual criminals” to be sterilized violated the equal protection rights of an armed robber because the law didn’t subject white collar criminals to sterilization.
> 
> “Sterilization of those who have thrice committed grand larceny with immunity for those who are embezzlers is a clear, pointed, unmistakable discrimination,” the court said.
> 
> In 1976, the high court found another 14th Amendment violation with an Oklahoma law that allowed women who were 18 or older to buy 3.2 beer, but prohibited men younger than 21 from buying it.
> 
> “We conclude that the gender-based differential contained in (the Oklahoma law) constitutes a denial of the equal protection of the laws to males aged 18-20,” the court said. http://newsok.com/the-14th-amendment-does-it-protect-same-sex-marriage/article/3954825
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You might also know that there were 14 Supreme Court Cases that established  Marriage as a Fundamental Right  http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/
> 
> Here  are some notable cases where race was not a factor and were decided on the 14th amendment.  Does anyone think that these decisions were a liberal over reach??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson_, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
> 
> 
> _Griswold v. Connecticut_, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.
> 
> _Zablocki v. Redhail_, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are more, but you get the idea. So get over it. You had better take a chill pill in June when SCOTUS rules that same  sex marriage is in fact  a right under the 14th amendment. Have a good evening.
Click to expand...



Again, sexual preference is not something the 14th has ever protected. Suddenly the SCOTUS has discovered a brand new right....

Bottom line, this is political payola to a special interest in exchange for support of the party,


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Uncensored2008 said:


> Again, sexual preference is not something the 14th has ever protected. Suddenly the SCOTUS has discovered a brand new right....


The brand new right is equality before the law.  It's been around for a while now...


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Uncensored2008 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol. so the new law the supreme court made is the 14th amendment to the constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a different 14th than I do. Mine says nothing about redefining marriage to please a special interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Christ!! Not that idiocy again!! The 14th does not say ANYTHING about any specific right except for birthright citizenship, voting due  process and equal protection under the law.  Yet it has been used numerous times to secure other rights:
> 
> 
> The 14th was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. However, it serves to protect against all other forms of discrimination as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth was intended by the framers of the Fourteenth to extend the jurisdiction and protection of federal courts to all rights recognized by the Constitution and Bill of Rights against actions by state government.
> 
> First, "any law" includes the state constitution, which is its supreme law, subject to the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Second, for the framers of the 14th Amendment the term of art, "immunities", meant all those rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including those of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The framers of the Fourteenth used the word "immunities" because the rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are rights against action by government, which are "immunities", as distinct from contractual or tort rights. http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And consider this as well:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 12., 1866, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio began the drafting of the Fourteenth by a proposed amendment to the Joint Senate-House Committee of 15:
> 
> The Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all persons in every state within this Union equal protection in their rights of life, liberty and property.
> 
> On January 20 the Joint Committee's subcommittee considering drafts of constitutional amendments reported to the full Joint Committee an expanded form of the Bingham proposal that read as follows:
> 
> Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all citizens of the United States, in every State, the same political rights and privileges; and to all persons in every State equal protection in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property."[4]
> 
> On February 1, 1866, Senator Benjamin G. Brown of Missouri introduced, and the Senate adopted, a resolution that the Joint Committee consider an amendment to the Constitution
> 
> so as to declare with greater certainty the power of Congress to enforce and determine by appropriate legislation _all the guarantees contained in that instrument_[11] (emphasis added).
> 
> This resolution thus anticipated the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s pretty clear what the intent was.  It has been applied in a wide variety of cases  that did  not involve race
> 
> WASHINGTON — Oklahoma has presented the U.S. Supreme Court with some peculiar 14th Amendment cases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1942, the high court ruled that an Oklahoma law allowing some “habitual criminals” to be sterilized violated the equal protection rights of an armed robber because the law didn’t subject white collar criminals to sterilization.
> 
> “Sterilization of those who have thrice committed grand larceny with immunity for those who are embezzlers is a clear, pointed, unmistakable discrimination,” the court said.
> 
> In 1976, the high court found another 14th Amendment violation with an Oklahoma law that allowed women who were 18 or older to buy 3.2 beer, but prohibited men younger than 21 from buying it.
> 
> “We conclude that the gender-based differential contained in (the Oklahoma law) constitutes a denial of the equal protection of the laws to males aged 18-20,” the court said. http://newsok.com/the-14th-amendment-does-it-protect-same-sex-marriage/article/3954825
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You might also know that there were 14 Supreme Court Cases that established  Marriage as a Fundamental Right  http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/
> 
> Here  are some notable cases where race was not a factor and were decided on the 14th amendment.  Does anyone think that these decisions were a liberal over reach??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson_, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
> 
> 
> _Griswold v. Connecticut_, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.
> 
> _Zablocki v. Redhail_, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are more, but you get the idea. So get over it. You had better take a chill pill in June when SCOTUS rules that same  sex marriage is in fact  a right under the 14th amendment. Have a good evening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, sexual preference is not something the 14th has ever protected. Suddenly the SCOTUS has discovered a brand new right....
> 
> Bottom line, this is political payola to a special interest in exchange for support of the party,
Click to expand...


Pretty quick on the trigger there with your reply, dude. Shows me that you don't even have the intellectual curiosity to actually read it, leave alone the ability to understand it.You are truly a hopeless fucking case.


----------



## HenryBHough

Statistikhengst said:


> A nice, tight pussy??



You amuse yourself by spiking that poor little kitten's milk with 'shine?


----------



## Debra K

Statistikhengst said:


> Ahhh, judge Bunning is now ordering her to be released from jail. So much for Ted Cruz' big day.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk



  Ms. Davis made it known in her court filings that she would have no problem with a deputy clerk issuing the licenses so long as her name wasn't on them.  The status report shows that the deputy clerks removed her name and issued the licenses.  Kim Davis and her counsel said the licenses are void and not worth the paper they're written on, but they are wrong.  The applicants qualified for the licenses, they paid for the licenses, they received the licenses, they will have their marriages solemnized, and their marriages will be recorded upon return of the paperwork to the clerk's office.  The only people who would have standing to challenge the validity of the marriages are the parties to the marriage.  Thus, the judge may release Kim Davis from jail and she has no reason to interfere with the rights of future applicants for licenses.  After all, even if she attempted to enforce her "no marriage license" policy and order her deputies not to issue licenses, the judge made it clear to the deputy clerks that would be an unlawful order and they would be in contempt of his order to issue the licenses.   The judge also made it clear that Kim Davis could not lawfully retaliate against them in their employment with the county.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PaintMyHouse said:


> The brand new right is equality before the law.  It's been around for a while now...



Preference as a basis for protected class is an absurd foundation.


----------



## Asclepias

Uncensored2008 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> The brand new right is equality before the law.  It's been around for a while now...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preference as a basis for protected class is an absurd foundation.
Click to expand...

Youre entitled to your wrong opinion but you are not entitled to prevent gay people from getting married. Do you understand the difference now?  If you dont we can arrange to have the dumb bitch put back in jail if you are influencing her.


----------



## rightwinger

Evidently, she is getting out with an understanding she will not interfere with her staff issuing licenses

Does this mean her 15 minutes of fame as a conservative freedom fighter is over?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Uncensored2008 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol. so the new law the supreme court made is the 14th amendment to the constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a different 14th than I do. Mine says nothing about redefining marriage to please a special interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Christ!! Not that idiocy again!! The 14th does not say ANYTHING about any specific right except for birthright citizenship, voting due  process and equal protection under the law.  Yet it has been used numerous times to secure other rights:
> 
> 
> The 14th was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. However, it serves to protect against all other forms of discrimination as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth was intended by the framers of the Fourteenth to extend the jurisdiction and protection of federal courts to all rights recognized by the Constitution and Bill of Rights against actions by state government.
> 
> First, "any law" includes the state constitution, which is its supreme law, subject to the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Second, for the framers of the 14th Amendment the term of art, "immunities", meant all those rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including those of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The framers of the Fourteenth used the word "immunities" because the rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are rights against action by government, which are "immunities", as distinct from contractual or tort rights. http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And consider this as well:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 12., 1866, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio began the drafting of the Fourteenth by a proposed amendment to the Joint Senate-House Committee of 15:
> 
> The Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all persons in every state within this Union equal protection in their rights of life, liberty and property.
> 
> On January 20 the Joint Committee's subcommittee considering drafts of constitutional amendments reported to the full Joint Committee an expanded form of the Bingham proposal that read as follows:
> 
> Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all citizens of the United States, in every State, the same political rights and privileges; and to all persons in every State equal protection in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property."[4]
> 
> On February 1, 1866, Senator Benjamin G. Brown of Missouri introduced, and the Senate adopted, a resolution that the Joint Committee consider an amendment to the Constitution
> 
> so as to declare with greater certainty the power of Congress to enforce and determine by appropriate legislation _all the guarantees contained in that instrument_[11] (emphasis added).
> 
> This resolution thus anticipated the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s pretty clear what the intent was.  It has been applied in a wide variety of cases  that did  not involve race
> 
> WASHINGTON — Oklahoma has presented the U.S. Supreme Court with some peculiar 14th Amendment cases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1942, the high court ruled that an Oklahoma law allowing some “habitual criminals” to be sterilized violated the equal protection rights of an armed robber because the law didn’t subject white collar criminals to sterilization.
> 
> “Sterilization of those who have thrice committed grand larceny with immunity for those who are embezzlers is a clear, pointed, unmistakable discrimination,” the court said.
> 
> In 1976, the high court found another 14th Amendment violation with an Oklahoma law that allowed women who were 18 or older to buy 3.2 beer, but prohibited men younger than 21 from buying it.
> 
> “We conclude that the gender-based differential contained in (the Oklahoma law) constitutes a denial of the equal protection of the laws to males aged 18-20,” the court said. http://newsok.com/the-14th-amendment-does-it-protect-same-sex-marriage/article/3954825
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You might also know that there were 14 Supreme Court Cases that established  Marriage as a Fundamental Right  http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/
> 
> Here  are some notable cases where race was not a factor and were decided on the 14th amendment.  Does anyone think that these decisions were a liberal over reach??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson_, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
> 
> 
> _Griswold v. Connecticut_, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.
> 
> _Zablocki v. Redhail_, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are more, but you get the idea. So get over it. You had better take a chill pill in June when SCOTUS rules that same  sex marriage is in fact  a right under the 14th amendment. Have a good evening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, sexual preference is not something the 14th has ever protected. Suddenly the SCOTUS has discovered a brand new right....
> 
> Bottom line, this is political payola to a special interest in exchange for support of the party,
Click to expand...


By the way, the decision was not based on sexual preference. That right was established by earlier decisions. This was about the ability to make a personal choice in marriage. That concept has been around quite awhile. Nothing new here. No new rights. You would know this if you bothered to read the opinion, but that would require using some brain cells which you apparently are lacking.


----------



## Uncensored2008

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Pretty quick on the trigger there with your reply, dude. Shows me that you don't even have the intellectual curiosity to actually read it, leave alone the ability to understand it.You are truly a hopeless fucking case.



Yes, because this is the very first time the subject has been broached and the leftist talking points listed.... 



Changing the foundation of protected class to one of preference in behavior is a substantial change in the basis of American jurisprudence. Alcohol content in beer is not relevant, nor in fact is race.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

rightwinger said:


> Evidently, she is getting out with an understanding she will not interfere with her staff issuing licenses
> 
> Does this mean her 15 minutes of fame as a conservative freedom fighter is over?


Oh no, she's going back to breaking the law again soon...


----------



## Debra K

Uncensored2008 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> The brand new right is equality before the law.  It's been around for a while now...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preference as a basis for protected class is an absurd foundation.
Click to expand...


Uncensored:

The right to marry the person of your choice is a fundamental right.  Two classes of persons:  1) Opposite sex couples who want to marry, and 2) same sex couples who want to marry.   Both classes of persons are similarly situated.  However, the state allows the first class the right to marry and forbids the second class from marrying.  Because the state has no compelling reason to deprive the second class of fundamental liberty and equal protection under the law, the state law that forbids same sex couples from marrying is unconstitutional.

That is basic constitutional law.  

Please educate yourself, Uncensored.  The way you and others like you flaunt your ignorance is an embarrassment to this country.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Debra K said:


> Ms. Davis made it known in her court filings that she would have no problem with a deputy clerk issuing the licenses so long as her name wasn't on them.  The status report shows that the deputy clerks removed her name and issued the licenses.  Kim Davis and her counsel said the licenses are void and not worth the paper they're written on, but they are wrong.  The applicants qualified for the licenses, they paid for the licenses, they received the licenses, they will have their marriages solemnized, and their marriages will be recorded upon return of the paperwork to the clerk's office.  The only people who would have standing to challenge the validity of the marriages are the parties to the marriage.  Thus, the judge may release Kim Davis from jail and she has no reason to interfere with the rights of future applicants for licenses.  After all, even if she attempted to enforce her "no marriage license" policy and order her deputies not to issue licenses, the judge made it clear to the deputy clerks that would be an unlawful order and they would be in contempt of his order to issue the licenses.   The judge also made it clear that Kim Davis could not lawfully retaliate against them in their employment with the county.



Keeping Davis in jail is a bit like keeping a lump of plutonium in your pocket. The judge had nothing to gain and everything to lose by keeping a political prisoner locked up.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Uncensored2008 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty quick on the trigger there with your reply, dude. Shows me that you don't even have the intellectual curiosity to actually read it, leave alone the ability to understand it.You are truly a hopeless fucking case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because this is the very first time the subject has been broached and the leftist talking points listed....
> 
> 
> 
> Changing the foundation of protected class to one of preference in behavior is a substantial change in the basis of American jurisprudence. Alcohol content in beer is not relevant, nor in fact is race.
Click to expand...

More evidence that you did not read the opinion. Gays were not established as a protected class. But keep on foolishly blathering about what you know little about and no desire to learn.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Uncensored2008 said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ms. Davis made it known in her court filings that she would have no problem with a deputy clerk issuing the licenses so long as her name wasn't on them.  The status report shows that the deputy clerks removed her name and issued the licenses.  Kim Davis and her counsel said the licenses are void and not worth the paper they're written on, but they are wrong.  The applicants qualified for the licenses, they paid for the licenses, they received the licenses, they will have their marriages solemnized, and their marriages will be recorded upon return of the paperwork to the clerk's office.  The only people who would have standing to challenge the validity of the marriages are the parties to the marriage.  Thus, the judge may release Kim Davis from jail and she has no reason to interfere with the rights of future applicants for licenses.  After all, even if she attempted to enforce her "no marriage license" policy and order her deputies not to issue licenses, the judge made it clear to the deputy clerks that would be an unlawful order and they would be in contempt of his order to issue the licenses.   The judge also made it clear that Kim Davis could not lawfully retaliate against them in their employment with the county.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keeping Davis in jail is a bit like keeping a lump of plutonium in your pocket. The judge had nothing to gain and everything to lose by keeping a political prisoner locked up.
Click to expand...

She was nothing of the kind, and won't be out for long...


----------



## Asclepias

Uncensored2008 said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ms. Davis made it known in her court filings that she would have no problem with a deputy clerk issuing the licenses so long as her name wasn't on them.  The status report shows that the deputy clerks removed her name and issued the licenses.  Kim Davis and her counsel said the licenses are void and not worth the paper they're written on, but they are wrong.  The applicants qualified for the licenses, they paid for the licenses, they received the licenses, they will have their marriages solemnized, and their marriages will be recorded upon return of the paperwork to the clerk's office.  The only people who would have standing to challenge the validity of the marriages are the parties to the marriage.  Thus, the judge may release Kim Davis from jail and she has no reason to interfere with the rights of future applicants for licenses.  After all, even if she attempted to enforce her "no marriage license" policy and order her deputies not to issue licenses, the judge made it clear to the deputy clerks that would be an unlawful order and they would be in contempt of his order to issue the licenses.   The judge also made it clear that Kim Davis could not lawfully retaliate against them in their employment with the county.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keeping Davis in jail is a bit like keeping a lump of plutonium in your pocket. The judge had nothing to gain and everything to lose by keeping a political prisoner locked up.
Click to expand...

The judge gained the publics respect by making sure Davis couldnt discriminate.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Debra K said:


> Uncensored:
> 
> The right to marry the person of your choice is a fundamental right.  Two classes of persons:  1) Opposite sex couples who want to marry, and 2) same sex couples who want to marry.   Both classes of persons are similarly situated.  However, the state allows the first class the right to marry and forbids the second class from marrying.  Because the state has no compelling reason to deprive the second class of fundamental liberty and equal protection under the law, the state law that forbids same sex couples from marrying is unconstitutional.
> 
> That is basic constitutional law.
> 
> Please educate yourself, Uncensored.  The way you and others like you flaunt your ignorance is an embarrassment to this country.



I find that leftists in the desire to distort reality in favor of their agenda are the most ignorant of all creatures.

The right to marry the person of your choice is not a right. When I was young, I wanted to marry Christine Brinkley, and have her support me in opulent style. However, I had no right to marry the person of my choice, lacking a political pact that could entice the corrupt left to forgo sanity in favor of political expediency, I had no ability to force the beauty to marry me against her will.

The first ingredient is two willing adults - again given the propensity of leftists to insanity, this is subject to change at the whim of the SCOTUS. The second ingredient is that the two be of complementary sex. Now this is where you, the fakers of reality jump the shark; but marriage isn't a prize in a crackerjack box as leftists believe it to be. Marriage has a foundation in human history, yes, it predates Karl Marx and thus all of the intellectual foundation of the democratic party.

So, what is "marriage?" In a basic sense, the familial structure supported by a society to ensure that progeny is cared and nurtured for.

No wait a minute, the above doesn't really support the concept that sexual attraction is the basis, nor should it, because sexual attraction does nothing to foment a stable and solid society.

The truth of the matter is that the left is at war to dismantle the American culture - whether you have the intellect to grasp this or not. The reason that stable cultures around the globe have developed marriage is PRECISELY why you of the left attack the institution. Marriage is a stabilizing factor in a culture, where you seek to rend the culture of the nation to dust, to be replaced with one more conducive to collectivist and authoritarian rule.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PaintMyHouse said:


> She was nothing of the kind, and won't be out for long...



Sadly, the judge in the case is far smarter than you and grasped the implications that you cannot.


----------



## Seawytch

Uncensored2008 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> She was nothing of the kind, and won't be out for long...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, the judge in the case is far smarter than you and grasped the implications that you cannot.
Click to expand...


Oh we all grasp it...

Davis must "not interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples," 

Cool!


----------



## Asclepias

Uncensored2008 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> She was nothing of the kind, and won't be out for long...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, the judge in the case is far smarter than you and grasped the implications that you cannot.
Click to expand...

Are you talking to yourself? The judge said she had to get her ass straight or go back to jail. I know you are uneducated but even you should realized the implications of that.


----------



## Debra K

Uncensored2008 said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ms. Davis made it known in her court filings that she would have no problem with a deputy clerk issuing the licenses so long as her name wasn't on them.  The status report shows that the deputy clerks removed her name and issued the licenses.  Kim Davis and her counsel said the licenses are void and not worth the paper they're written on, but they are wrong.  The applicants qualified for the licenses, they paid for the licenses, they received the licenses, they will have their marriages solemnized, and their marriages will be recorded upon return of the paperwork to the clerk's office.  The only people who would have standing to challenge the validity of the marriages are the parties to the marriage.  Thus, the judge may release Kim Davis from jail and she has no reason to interfere with the rights of future applicants for licenses.  After all, even if she attempted to enforce her "no marriage license" policy and order her deputies not to issue licenses, the judge made it clear to the deputy clerks that would be an unlawful order and they would be in contempt of his order to issue the licenses.   The judge also made it clear that Kim Davis could not lawfully retaliate against them in their employment with the county.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keeping Davis in jail is a bit like keeping a lump of plutonium in your pocket. The judge had nothing to gain and everything to lose by keeping a political prisoner locked up.
Click to expand...


There are two types of contempt:  Criminal (punitive) and Civil (remedial, i.e., coercive).


The deputy clerks were instructed by the judge that Kim Davis's "no marriage license" policy was unlawful.  The judge had the deputy clerks in the courtroom to watch as he placed Kim Davis into custody and had the federal authorities escort her to jail.  He put the deputy clerks on notice that he would hold them in contempt if they reinstated her unlawful policy and violated his lawful order.  He also put the deputy clerks on notice that Kim Davis could not retaliate against them in their employment; it would not be a wise thing for her to attempt such a  thing. 

The deputy clerks removed Kim Davis's name from the marriage licenses (appeasing their boss's demands) and issued the marriage licenses.   Thus, the situation has been remedied through the judge's swift action.   Upon receiving official word this morning through a status report that the situation is resolved, there is no reason to continue to keep Ms. Davis in jail because it would no longer be remedial (it would be punitive).  She is released and may stay released so long as she doesn't take steps to enforce an unlawful policy and thereby harm someone.  For instance, if she attempts to fire her deputy clerks who agreed to follow the court's order, she will probably go back to jail until she promises not to retaliate against the employees.

Your reference to Kim Davis as a "political prisoner" only places your ignorance on display, again ... and probably for the millionth plus time you have done that.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Debra K said:


> There are two types of contempt:  Criminal (punitive) and Civil (remedial, i.e., coercive).
> 
> 
> The deputy clerks were instructed by the judge that Kim Davis's "no marriage license" policy was unlawful.  The judge had the deputy clerks in the courtroom to watch as he placed Kim Davis into custody and had the federal authorities escort her to jail.  He put the deputy clerks on notice that he would hold them in contempt if they reinstated her unlawful policy and violated his lawful order.  He also put the deputy clerks on notice that Kim Davis could not retaliate against them in their employment; it would not be a wise thing for her to attempt such a  thing.
> 
> The deputy clerks removed Kim Davis's name from the marriage licenses (appeasing their boss's demands) and issued the marriage licenses.   Thus, the situation has been remedied through the judge's swift action.   Upon receiving official word this morning through a status report that the situation is resolved, there is no reason to continue to keep Ms. Davis in jail because it would no longer be remedial (it would be punitive).  She is released and may stay released so long as she doesn't take steps to enforce an unlawful policy and thereby harm someone.  For instance, if she attempts to fire her deputy clerks who agreed to follow the court's order, she will probably go back to jail until she promises not to retaliate against the employees.
> 
> Your reference to Kim Davis as a "political prisoner" only places your ignorance on display, again ... and probably for the millionth plus time you have done that.



You should link to (cite) the hate sites that you get your words from.


----------



## Asclepias

Debra K said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ms. Davis made it known in her court filings that she would have no problem with a deputy clerk issuing the licenses so long as her name wasn't on them.  The status report shows that the deputy clerks removed her name and issued the licenses.  Kim Davis and her counsel said the licenses are void and not worth the paper they're written on, but they are wrong.  The applicants qualified for the licenses, they paid for the licenses, they received the licenses, they will have their marriages solemnized, and their marriages will be recorded upon return of the paperwork to the clerk's office.  The only people who would have standing to challenge the validity of the marriages are the parties to the marriage.  Thus, the judge may release Kim Davis from jail and she has no reason to interfere with the rights of future applicants for licenses.  After all, even if she attempted to enforce her "no marriage license" policy and order her deputies not to issue licenses, the judge made it clear to the deputy clerks that would be an unlawful order and they would be in contempt of his order to issue the licenses.   The judge also made it clear that Kim Davis could not lawfully retaliate against them in their employment with the county.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keeping Davis in jail is a bit like keeping a lump of plutonium in your pocket. The judge had nothing to gain and everything to lose by keeping a political prisoner locked up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are two types of contempt:  Criminal (punitive) and Civil (remedial, i.e., coercive).
> 
> 
> The deputy clerks were instructed by the judge that Kim Davis's "no marriage license" policy was unlawful.  The judge had the deputy clerks in the courtroom to watch as he placed Kim Davis into custody and had the federal authorities escort her to jail.  He put the deputy clerks on notice that he would hold them in contempt if they reinstated her unlawful policy and violated his lawful order.  He also put the deputy clerks on notice that Kim Davis could not retaliate against them in their employment; it would not be a wise thing for her to attempt such a  thing.
> 
> The deputy clerks removed Kim Davis's name from the marriage licenses (appeasing their boss's demands) and issued the marriage licenses.   Thus, the situation has been remedied through the judge's swift action.   Upon receiving official word this morning through a status report that the situation is resolved, there is no reason to continue to keep Ms. Davis in jail because it would no longer be remedial (it would be punitive).  She is released and may stay released so long as she doesn't take steps to enforce an unlawful policy and thereby harm someone.  For instance, if she attempts to fire her deputy clerks who agreed to follow the court's order, she will probably go back to jail until she promises not to retaliate against the employees.
> 
> Your reference to Kim Davis as a "political prisoner" only places your ignorance on display, again ... and probably for the millionth plus time you have done that.
Click to expand...

I stopped giving this guy any credit the day he claimed Vancouver was in europe.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Her mother held that job for decades. She is holding that job. Her son is working there, and he is waiting for his turn to hold that job. I feel sorry for the other clerks there, now that she is out. There are all kinds of subtle ways that she can make her displeasure known to them.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Vandalshandle said:


> Her mother held that job for decades. She is holding that job. Her son is working there, and he is waiting for his turn to hold that job. I feel sorry for the other clerks there, now that she is out. There are all kinds of subtle ways that she can make her displeasure known to them.




Did her mother give licenses to Homosexuals?

Why or why not?


----------



## Lakhota

I'm listening to crazy Huckabee speak live on CNN.  What a crock of shit.  The clerk lost - so what's he crowing about?

Huckabee said: "If somebody needs to go to jail, I'm willing to go in her place".  Fine, I would welcome that.

Kim Davis Released From Jail Before Defiant Crowd


----------



## Vandalshandle

Apparently, all it took to save her soul from eternal damnation was to remove her printed name from the marriage license. That made Jesus happy. Jesus has no problem with her name of her paycheck.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Lakhota said:


> I'm listening to crazy Huckabee speak live on CNN.  What a crock of shit.  The clerk lost - so what's he crowing about?
> 
> Huckabee said: "If somebody needs to go to jail, I'm willing to go in her place".  Fine, I would welcome that.
> 
> Kim Davis Released From Jail Before Defiant Crowd



That would be cool. Maybe Obama can dispatch troops to round up all suspected Christians in Congress and lock them up?

You democrats need to go forward with these ideas.


----------



## Lakhota

Vandalshandle said:


> Her mother held that job for decades. She is holding that job. Her son is working there, and he is waiting for his turn to hold that job. I feel sorry for the other clerks there, now that she is out. There are all kinds of subtle ways that she can make her displeasure known to them.



Yes, that office has been full of nepotism for decades.

Davis served as Rowan County chief deputy clerk, reporting to her mother, Jean W. Bailey, for 24 years.[13] Kentucky law permits elected county officials to employ their family members and to determine their compensation; it is common practice in the state.[13]

In 2011, county residents complained about Davis' compensation, an annual wage of $51,812 and an additional $11,301 in overtime and other compensation during 2011.[13] Davis earned substantially more than the county's other chief deputies, including $38,000 for the Chief Deputy Sheriff Joe Cline and $36,000 to the Deputy Judge-Executive Jerry Alderman, neither of whom receive overtime pay.[13] The County Fiscal Court reviewed the compensation of clerks in the office and voted unanimously to cut the department's salary budget by one-third for 2012.[13]

More: Kim Davis (county clerk) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Lakhota

Praise God.  The whacko clerk is about to speak live.  Will Huckabee be her fifth husband?


----------



## Katzndogz

She's free.   Liberals can stick their thumbs up their asses.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Lakhota said:


> Praise God.  The whacko clerk is about to speak live.



Maybe a glorious Obamunist will assassinate her?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Tipsycatlover said:


> She's free.   Liberals can stick their thumbs up their asses.




Shitting Bull would have to remove his head first - and that will never happen....


----------



## Lakhota

Tipsycatlover said:


> She's free.   Liberals can stick their thumbs up their asses.



She is free because the plaintiffs in the case are satisfied that her office is now complying with the court order to issue same-sex marriage licenses.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Uncensored2008 said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored:
> 
> The right to marry the person of your choice is a fundamental right.  Two classes of persons:  1) Opposite sex couples who want to marry, and 2) same sex couples who want to marry.   Both classes of persons are similarly situated.  However, the state allows the first class the right to marry and forbids the second class from marrying.  Because the state has no compelling reason to deprive the second class of fundamental liberty and equal protection under the law, the state law that forbids same sex couples from marrying is unconstitutional.
> 
> That is basic constitutional law.
> 
> Please educate yourself, Uncensored.  The way you and others like you flaunt your ignorance is an embarrassment to this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find that leftists in the desire to distort reality in favor of their agenda are the most ignorant of all creatures.
> 
> The right to marry the person of your choice is not a right. When I was young, I wanted to marry Christine Brinkley, and have her support me in opulent style. However, I had no right to marry the person of my choice, lacking a political pact that could entice the corrupt left to forgo sanity in favor of political expediency, I had no ability to force the beauty to marry me against her will.
> 
> The first ingredient is two willing adults - again given the propensity of leftists to insanity, this is subject to change at the whim of the SCOTUS. The second ingredient is that the two be of complementary sex. Now this is where you, the fakers of reality jump the shark; but marriage isn't a prize in a crackerjack box as leftists believe it to be. Marriage has a foundation in human history, yes, it predates Karl Marx and thus all of the intellectual foundation of the democratic party.
> 
> So, what is "marriage?" In a basic sense, the familial structure supported by a society to ensure that progeny is cared and nurtured for.
> 
> No wait a minute, the above doesn't really support the concept that sexual attraction is the basis, nor should it, because sexual attraction does nothing to foment a stable and solid society.
> 
> The truth of the matter is that the left is at war to dismantle the American culture - whether you have the intellect to grasp this or not. The reason that stable cultures around the globe have developed marriage is PRECISELY why you of the left attack the institution. Marriage is a stabilizing factor in a culture, where you seek to rend the culture of the nation to dust, to be replaced with one more conducive to collectivist and authoritarian rule.
Click to expand...



First of all, this is not a “left-right issue”  -not any longer. A good many prominent Republicans, business leaders and even clergy got behind the plaintiffs because they realized that discrimination is no longer sustainable and bad for business. While fewer Republicans supported same sex marriage, there numbers are growing , especially among younger people.

Your reference to wanting to marry Christie Brinkley is ridiculous on the face of it. We are talking about the right to choose who you marry from among those who will choose to marry you. Heterosexuals could do that, before Obergefell, gays did not have that same right. This has to be just more of your manipulation and game playing because I don’t

You go on to say “The first ingredient is two willing adults - again given the propensity of leftists to insanity, this is subject to change at the whim of the SCOTUS” What the fuck does that mean.?? That the next thing will be to do away with mutual consent . Who is insane??


Then you blather on about sexual attraction which you seem to think is unimportant and that, old sport, may actually be the crux of your problem. Perhaps there is not enough love in your life? Is that why you are so angry and want to deprive others of what you can take for granted…or at least could if you were able to find love yourself. Then you allude to marriage being about procreation which is just more horseshit.

The biggest bunch of bovine excrement in this is your contention that “the left” wants to destroy American culture. Are you fucking serious? Collectivism and authoritarian rule.? Right, authoritarian rule was those laws that banned gay marriage you fool!

Yes marriage is a stabilizing force-you actually got something right. That is why it must be open to all who wish to engage in it. If you broaden the base of an institution and make it more inclusive, you strengthen it.

I just can't believe that you are stupid enough to believe your own bovine excrement. This has got to be some sick game. Please give me a sign that you have a brain.


----------



## Lakhota

*Report: Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis Terrorized Staff*

*A bigot and a tyrant:* Anti-gay Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis terrorized her staff and made life miserable for her employees.

Kim Davis, the Rowan County clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses, terrorized her staff, who wanted to follow the law and issue same-sex marriage licenses, but were too afraid of Davis to do so.

Yesterday  a judge found Davis in contempt of court and had her placed in jail. Today, with their boss safely in jail and powerless, the county’s deputy clerks began issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

In an interview with the Kentucky Trial Court Review, Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins explains that the deputy clerks in Kim Davis’ office wanted to obey the law and issue same-sex marriage licenses, but they were too afraid of their boss to come forward and say so.

The following is an excerpt from a report on the interview with Watkins posted to the Kentucky Trial Court Review Facebook page:

See more at: Report: Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis Terrorized Staff

I really feel sorry for the staff in Davis' office when she returns to work.


----------



## Lakhota

rdean said:


> Just saw on TV that she was married FOUR FUCKING TIMES and had TWINS out of wedlock.  Is that true?  I can smell the hypocrisy.



Huckabee may be her fifth.


----------



## Lakhota

Davis looks like she really needs a gay hairdresser!


----------



## Debra K

Uncensored2008 said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two types of contempt:  Criminal (punitive) and Civil (remedial, i.e., coercive).
> 
> 
> The deputy clerks were instructed by the judge that Kim Davis's "no marriage license" policy was unlawful.  The judge had the deputy clerks in the courtroom to watch as he placed Kim Davis into custody and had the federal authorities escort her to jail.  He put the deputy clerks on notice that he would hold them in contempt if they reinstated her unlawful policy and violated his lawful order.  He also put the deputy clerks on notice that Kim Davis could not retaliate against them in their employment; it would not be a wise thing for her to attempt such a  thing.
> 
> The deputy clerks removed Kim Davis's name from the marriage licenses (appeasing their boss's demands) and issued the marriage licenses.   Thus, the situation has been remedied through the judge's swift action.   Upon receiving official word this morning through a status report that the situation is resolved, there is no reason to continue to keep Ms. Davis in jail because it would no longer be remedial (it would be punitive).  She is released and may stay released so long as she doesn't take steps to enforce an unlawful policy and thereby harm someone.  For instance, if she attempts to fire her deputy clerks who agreed to follow the court's order, she will probably go back to jail until she promises not to retaliate against the employees.
> 
> Your reference to Kim Davis as a "political prisoner" only places your ignorance on display, again ... and probably for the millionth plus time you have done that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should link to (cite) the hate sites that you get your words from.
Click to expand...


Your response fails to address the content of my post. 

Despite the fact that you never reciprocate, I will address the content of your one-liner.

I provided links numerous times in many threads to the legal documents, including the hearing transcript, in the case against Kim Davis.  The facts are the facts ... and the law is the law ... and I retain what I have learned about those things in my brain.   You, on the other hand, just pull shit out of your ass.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Debra K said:


> Your response fails to address the content of my post.



There was no content in your post. You again cut and pasted nonsense from one of the hate sites as if it were pertinent. Types of contempt are no meaningful to the strategy of political prisoners and civil disobedience.



> Despite the fact that you never reciprocate, I will address the content of your one-liner.
> 
> I provided links numerous times in many threads to the legal documents, including the hearing transcript, in the case against Kim Davis.  The facts are the facts ... and the law is the law ... and I retain what I have learned about those things in my brain.   You, on the other hand, just pull shit out of your ass.



Davis initially outmaneuvered you of the anti-culture. Being locked up as a political prisoner made her a martyr. I believe the judge outwitted her on this round. Davis would have served her cause better by refusing to sign for her deputies to issue licenses.


----------



## Uncensored2008

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> First of all, this is not a “left-right issue”



BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## westwall

Statistikhengst said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, I read the entire thread.
> 
> Whew, someone throw me a sweat towel!
> 
> Now, there were tons of interesting responses, but one response kept NOT showing up, which is why I rotor-rooted my way through this epic thread. So, I am gonna throw this original thought out there:
> 
> There are literally thousands clerks of courts in the USA who issue marriage licenses. In fact, there have to be at least 3,143 of them total, if not many more, for many counties have more than one clerk who issues marriage licenses. But either way, we are talking about THOUSANDS of public officials who issue marriage licenses every week. *If Kim Davis is so right, why is she is the only clerk doing this?*
> 
> *Also, "Christians" now have a choice. *They can either apply the tactic that Kim Davis is just so totally right and all the other other clerks, the majority of which, I bet, are also Christian, are wrong, in which case, they should be condemning those clerks with all their might, right here and now - lol -
> 
> - _or_, they can take the tack that there are far fewer Christians out there processing and giving out marriage licenses than they are willing to admit -
> 
> - _or_, they can just claim that the other many thousands of clerks are all apostates.
> 
> Either way, no matter how you look at it, this does not look good for "Christianity", n'est ce pas?
> 
> Of course, *the most sane answer* is that possibly ex-Clerk, currently Jailbird Kim Clark comes from a backwater, insane hillbilly church where her pastor is probably pressuring her to go through all of this shit at no cost to himself but at a massive cost to her and that this actually has precious little to do with Christianity at all. It's politics, it's publicity and at the end of the day, it's part of the "Christian" $$$$-mill. This is a cottage industry thing, nothing less and nothing more.
> 
> -Stat
> 
> ABikerSailor
> Luddly Neddite
> AVG-JOE
> ogibillm
> westwall
> bodecea
> AvgGuyIA
> Kondor3
> jon_berzerk
> Wry Catcher
> C_Clayton_Jones
> RodISHI
> Dot Com
> JOSweetHeart
> mudwhistle
> NYcarbineer
> Coyote
> BlueGin
> AceRothstein
> TheOldSchool
> frigidweirdo
> BlindBoo
> Asclepias
> David_42
> HUGGY
> EriktheRed
> WinterBorn
> Skylar
> Faun
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because she's batshit crazy.   Why is that not one of your options.  And that wasn't an original thought BTW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good point.
> 
> However, "batshit crazy" is no excuse for ignorance of the law, so I didn't include it.
> 
> Anything else you want on the menu, or are you now sated?
Click to expand...








Trust me she's not ignorant of the law.  She just chose to ignore it.  I just look at the fact that she's been married four times as evidence of her craziness.  It's certainly not conclusive in and of itself, but it is a significant bit of evidence.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Uncensored2008 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, this is not a “left-right issue”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Click to expand...


Nice! I asked for a sign that you have a brain, and I get confirmation that do not have one. I'm sure that those baboons are smarter than you. We're done here. You waited enough of my time.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Hey all of you looney, anti gay crusaders......you have a friend in Huckabee!! Send him a check. If he gets  in (fat chance) maybe he'll make one of you his Minister of Truth, or head of the Bureau of Moral Enforcement.

*Mike Huckabee Thinks Gay Marriage Is Still Illegal*. Here's What's Wrong With That. Submitted by Brian Tashman on Tuesday, 9/8/2015 2:30 pm

The way Mike Huckabee sees it, the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling was “illegal, unconstitutional and unlawful” and thus Kentucky clerk Kim Davis is actually the only clerk in Kentucky, and possibly America, who is following the law by denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples. As Huckabee said on MSNBC last week, the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell has not yet come into effect because “you have to have enabling legislation” and neither Congress nor the Kentucky legislature have passed a law legalizing same-sex marriage. - See more at: Mike Huckabee Thinks Gay Marriage Is Still Illegal. Here's What's Wrong With That.


----------



## Asclepias

Lakhota said:


> Davis looks like she really needs a gay hairdresser!


White Power!!!!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Here is another darling of the religious right that all of you bigots can relate to:

*Christian Reconstrucionist Michael Peroutka Joins Kim Davis Fan Club *Submitted by Peter Montgomery on Tuesday, 9/8/2015 11:42 am

  Michael Peroutka, a neo-confederate whose Institute on the Constitution promotes a far-right Christian Reconstructionist view of religion and government, has joined the chorus of right-wing voices that have gathered to defend Kim Davis, the county clerk jailed for contempt of court after refusing to obey a court order that she issue marriage licenses to qualified same-sex couples. Peroutka appeared at a rally with other Davis supporters over the weekend, declaring, “Kim Davis has given all believers a lesson in faithfulness.” - See more at: Christian Reconstrucionist Michael Peroutka Joins Kim Davis Fan Club


----------



## koshergrl

Asclepias said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Davis looks like she really needs a gay hairdresser!
> 
> 
> 
> White Power!!!!
Click to expand...

 Are you going to put a fatwah on Christian court clerks now?


----------



## Asclepias

koshergrl said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Davis looks like she really needs a gay hairdresser!
> 
> 
> 
> White Power!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you going to put a fatwah on Christian court clerks now?
Click to expand...

A fat what?


----------



## WorldWatcher

Debra K said:


> I provided links numerous times in many threads to the legal documents, including the hearing transcript, in the case against Kim Davis.



You have a link to the hearing transcripts?

Could I humbly request that you post it again, I'd love to read it.

Thank you in advance.

WW

>>>>


----------



## Uncensored2008

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> First of all, this is not a “left-right issue”  -not any longer. A good many prominent Republicans, business leaders and even clergy got behind the plaintiffs because they realized that discrimination is no longer sustainable and bad for business. While fewer Republicans supported same sex marriage, there numbers are growing , especially among younger people.



Let's try this again, I had to just laugh at you the first time.



> Your reference to wanting to marry Christie Brinkley is ridiculous on the face of it. We are talking about the right to choose who you marry from among those who will choose to marry you. Heterosexuals could do that, before Obergefell, gays did not have that same right. This has to be just more of your manipulation and game playing because I don’t




What is ridiculous is the claim that people have the "right" marry whomever they please. As with most of what the left claims, this is absurdity couched in fantasy.



> You go on to say “The first ingredient is two willing adults - again given the propensity of leftists to insanity, this is subject to change at the whim of the SCOTUS” What the fuck does that mean.?? That the next thing will be to do away with mutual consent . Who is insane??



I find that the left has no anchor to rationality. Ayn Rand referred to you as the "fakers of reality," who not liking the constraints of reality, simply pretend that what you desire is in fact real, despite the fact that it is not. The fable of the Emperor's New Clothes was penned to describe exactly what it is the left does.



> Then you blather on about sexual attraction which you seem to think is unimportant and that, old sport, may actually be the crux of your problem. Perhaps there is not enough love in your life? Is that why you are so angry and want to deprive others of what you can take for granted…or at least could if you were able to find love yourself. Then you allude to marriage being about procreation which is just more horseshit.



I'm sure I lost you once I spoke of society and culture predating Marx, and yet reality still is...

The institution of marriage is not a Jewish or Christian one. Oddly it developed in virtually every successful society throughout history. Some people have wondered why that is? We can call these people "anthropologists."

Before we go on, we have to make an assumption, that is that evolution is real. It's not a huge leap, the evidence is overwhelming, irrefutable actually. So evolution is real, and there is an innate drive in humans to survive. Because humans are social animals, part of the survival strategy of the species is the formation of societies.

Now a couple of things, a pregnant female is vulnerable, as is one nursing or caring for young children. Granted, you are a leftist and think history started with MTV, but that which makes man a successful species is actually a bit older. Cultures developed to protect pregnant females and their offspring. This is because the evolutionary impetus of the species is to survive. 

I know, this is hard for you to grasp, Jon Stewart never said anything about replication of genetic codes and the propagation of ones own DNA. Marriage developed in the species as a means to entice males to remain with the females to protect the vulnerable female and offspring. This is what anthropologists call a "survival strategy." Enticing two males to cohabit confers no advantage to the species, quite the opposite. Homosexuality in fact is most likely a genetic kill switch, an evolutionary mechanism to remove unwanted DNA from the species.




> The biggest bunch of bovine excrement in this is your contention that “the left” wants to destroy American culture. Are you fucking serious? Collectivism and authoritarian rule.? Right, authoritarian rule was those laws that banned gay marriage you fool!
> 
> Yes marriage is a stabilizing force-you actually got something right. That is why it must be open to all who wish to engage in it. If you broaden the base of an institution and make it more inclusive, you strengthen it.
> 
> I just can't believe that you are stupid enough to believe your own bovine excrement. This has got to be some sick game. Please give me a sign that you have a brain.



Lenin wrote that if given control of one generation of children, he could create a society completely loyal to the state. Lenin failed, but the ideal of the left to destroy the nuclear family remains. The dream of a collectivist society under authoritarian rule is retarded (I'll say!) by the presence of the family. People are more loyal to family (remember, evolution is real - reality is.) than they are to the rulers of the state, You of the left have waged war on the family and on marriage since the days of Marx.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Lakhota said:


> *Report: Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis Terrorized Staff*
> 
> *A bigot and a tyrant:* Anti-gay Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis terrorized her staff and made life miserable for her employees.
> 
> Kim Davis, the Rowan County clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses, terrorized her staff, who wanted to follow the law and issue same-sex marriage licenses, but were too afraid of Davis to do so.
> 
> Yesterday  a judge found Davis in contempt of court and had her placed in jail. Today, with their boss safely in jail and powerless, the county’s deputy clerks began issuing same-sex marriage licenses.
> 
> In an interview with the Kentucky Trial Court Review, Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins explains that the deputy clerks in Kim Davis’ office wanted to obey the law and issue same-sex marriage licenses, but they were too afraid of their boss to come forward and say so.
> 
> The following is an excerpt from a report on the interview with Watkins posted to the Kentucky Trial Court Review Facebook page:
> 
> See more at: Report: Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis Terrorized Staff
> 
> I really feel sorry for the staff in Davis' office when she returns to work.



Oh look, a leftist is slandering and libeling an enemy of the party, how unique.

Must be day ending in "y" for the demagogues to spew their filth like this...


----------



## Asclepias

Uncensored2008 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, this is not a “left-right issue”  -not any longer. A good many prominent Republicans, business leaders and even clergy got behind the plaintiffs because they realized that discrimination is no longer sustainable and bad for business. While fewer Republicans supported same sex marriage, there numbers are growing , especially among younger people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try this again, I had to just laugh at you the first time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your reference to wanting to marry Christie Brinkley is ridiculous on the face of it. We are talking about the right to choose who you marry from among those who will choose to marry you. Heterosexuals could do that, before Obergefell, gays did not have that same right. This has to be just more of your manipulation and game playing because I don’t
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is ridiculous is the claim that people have the "right" marry whomever they please. As with most of what the left claims, this is absurdity couched in fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You go on to say “The first ingredient is two willing adults - again given the propensity of leftists to insanity, this is subject to change at the whim of the SCOTUS” What the fuck does that mean.?? That the next thing will be to do away with mutual consent . Who is insane??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find that the left has no anchor to rationality. Ayn Rand referred to you as the "fakers of reality," who not liking the constraints of reality, simply pretend that what you desire is in fact real, despite the fact that it is not. The fable of the Emperor's New Clothes was penned to describe exactly what it is the left does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you blather on about sexual attraction which you seem to think is unimportant and that, old sport, may actually be the crux of your problem. Perhaps there is not enough love in your life? Is that why you are so angry and want to deprive others of what you can take for granted…or at least could if you were able to find love yourself. Then you allude to marriage being about procreation which is just more horseshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure I lost you once I spoke of society and culture predating Marx, and yet reality still is...
> 
> The institution of marriage is not a Jewish or Christian one. Oddly it developed in virtually every successful society throughout history. Some people have wondered why that is? We can call these people "anthropologists."
> 
> Before we go on, we have to make an assumption, that is that evolution is real. It's not a huge leap, the evidence is overwhelming, irrefutable actually. So evolution is real, and there is an innate drive in humans to survive. Because humans are social animals, part of the survival strategy of the species is the formation of societies.
> 
> Now a couple of things, a pregnant female is vulnerable, as is one nursing or caring for young children. Granted, you are a leftist and think history started with MTV, but that which makes man a successful species is actually a bit older. Cultures developed to protect pregnant females and their offspring. This is because the evolutionary impetus of the species is to survive. I know, this is hard for you to grasp, Jon Stewart never said anything about replication of genetic codes and the propagation of ones own DNA. Marriage developed in the species as a means to entice males to remain with the females to protect the vulnerable female and offspring. This is what anthropologists call a "survival strategy." Enticing two males to cohabit confers no advantage to the species, quite the opposite. Homosexuality in fact is most likely a genetic kill switch, an evolutionary mechanism to remove unwanted DNC from the species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest bunch of bovine excrement in this is your contention that “the left” wants to destroy American culture. Are you fucking serious? Collectivism and authoritarian rule.? Right, authoritarian rule was those laws that banned gay marriage you fool!
> 
> Yes marriage is a stabilizing force-you actually got something right. That is why it must be open to all who wish to engage in it. If you broaden the base of an institution and make it more inclusive, you strengthen it.
> 
> I just can't believe that you are stupid enough to believe your own bovine excrement. This has got to be some sick game. Please give me a sign that you have a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lenin wrote that if given control of one generation of children, he could create a society completely loyal to the state. Lenin failed, but the ideal of the left to destroy the nuclear family remains. The dream of a collectivist society under authoritarian rule is retarded (I'll say!) by the presence of the family. People are more loyal to family (remember, evolution is real - reality is.) than they are to the rulers of the state, You of the left have waged war on the family and on marriage since the days of Marx.
Click to expand...

All this from the guy that thinks Vancouver is in europe.  Then he wonders why everyone laughs at him.


----------



## Asclepias




----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

And once again the right is demonstrated to be wrong.

Davis complied with the court order, resulting in her release, where she was being held in contempt for failing to comply with that court order, having nothing to do whatsoever with her 'religious liberty.'


----------



## Uncensored2008

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Nice! I asked for a sign that you have a brain, and I get confirmation that do not have one. I'm sure that those baboons are smarter than you. We're done here. You waited enough of my time.



Those are orangutans. No wonder you have trouble with gender roles, basic identification appears to baffle you.


----------



## Debra K

Uncensored2008 said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your response fails to address the content of my post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no content in your post. You again cut and pasted nonsense from one of the hate sites as if it were pertinent. Types of contempt are no meaningful to the strategy of political prisoners and civil disobedience.
Click to expand...


You're a dumb-ass.  What "hate site" did I allegedly copy and paste?   Kim Davis was not a political prisoner.  She was jailed for civil contempt.  However, I don't expect you to understand the difference.  Your limited intellectual capacity is a handicap to your understanding rather simple things.  



Uncensored2008 said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the fact that you never reciprocate, I will address the content of your one-liner.
> 
> I provided links numerous times in many threads to the legal documents, including the hearing transcript, in the case against Kim Davis.  The facts are the facts ... and the law is the law ... and I retain what I have learned about those things in my brain.   You, on the other hand, just pull shit out of your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Davis initially outmaneuvered you of the anti-culture. Being locked up as a political prisoner made her a martyr. I believe the judge outwitted her on this round. Davis would have served her cause better by refusing to sign for her deputies to issue licenses.
Click to expand...


She maneuvered herself into a jail cell.  She is a useful idiot for the con-artists who latched onto her for the purpose of relieving rubes (like you) of their money and placing it in their own pockets.  Send them money, dumb-ass; they want your money.


----------



## koshergrl

Debra K said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your response fails to address the content of my post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no content in your post. You again cut and pasted nonsense from one of the hate sites as if it were pertinent. Types of contempt are no meaningful to the strategy of political prisoners and civil disobedience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a dumb-ass.  What "hate site" did I allegedly copy and paste?   Kim Davis was not a political prisoner.  She was jailed for civil contempt.  However, I don't expect you to understand the difference.  Your limited intellectual capacity is a handicap to your understanding rather simple things.
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the fact that you never reciprocate, I will address the content of your one-liner.
> 
> I provided links numerous times in many threads to the legal documents, including the hearing transcript, in the case against Kim Davis.  The facts are the facts ... and the law is the law ... and I retain what I have learned about those things in my brain.   You, on the other hand, just pull shit out of your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Davis initially outmaneuvered you of the anti-culture. Being locked up as a political prisoner made her a martyr. I believe the judge outwitted her on this round. Davis would have served her cause better by refusing to sign for her deputies to issue licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She maneuvered herself into a jail cell.  She is a useful idiot for the con-artists who latched onto her for the purpose of relieving rubes (like you) of their money and placing it in their own pockets.  Send them money, dumb-ass; they want your money.
Click to expand...

 
Shouldn't Judge Parker have been jailed for civil contempt as well?

Gay Judge Refuses to Perform Marriages


----------



## Asclepias

koshergrl said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your response fails to address the content of my post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no content in your post. You again cut and pasted nonsense from one of the hate sites as if it were pertinent. Types of contempt are no meaningful to the strategy of political prisoners and civil disobedience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a dumb-ass.  What "hate site" did I allegedly copy and paste?   Kim Davis was not a political prisoner.  She was jailed for civil contempt.  However, I don't expect you to understand the difference.  Your limited intellectual capacity is a handicap to your understanding rather simple things.
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the fact that you never reciprocate, I will address the content of your one-liner.
> 
> I provided links numerous times in many threads to the legal documents, including the hearing transcript, in the case against Kim Davis.  The facts are the facts ... and the law is the law ... and I retain what I have learned about those things in my brain.   You, on the other hand, just pull shit out of your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Davis initially outmaneuvered you of the anti-culture. Being locked up as a political prisoner made her a martyr. I believe the judge outwitted her on this round. Davis would have served her cause better by refusing to sign for her deputies to issue licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She maneuvered herself into a jail cell.  She is a useful idiot for the con-artists who latched onto her for the purpose of relieving rubes (like you) of their money and placing it in their own pockets.  Send them money, dumb-ass; they want your money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shouldn't Judge Parker have been jailed for civil contempt as well?
> 
> Gay Judge Refuses to Perform Marriages
Click to expand...

False equivalence. Nowhere did she direct other judges to refuse to perform any marriages.

False equivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. *False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.*"


----------



## Uncensored2008

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And once again the right is demonstrated to be wrong.
> 
> Davis complied with the court order, resulting in her release, where she was being held in contempt for failing to comply with that court order, having nothing to do whatsoever with her 'religious liberty.'



Actually Saul, the court order was modified to compromise with Davis to get her out. Holding a political prisoner did more damage to Judge Bunning than to Davis, so he scrambled to find a compromise to get her out of his jail.


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is yet another reason why future generations will not look favorably on the decision.
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're talking out of your ass.
> 
> The only people who will  look unfavorably upon this decision in the future are the occasional disparate homophobes and butthurt social conservatives who cry themselves to sleep every night and see monsters under their beds  - some of the same ones who think an 1802  SCOTUS decision granting Judicial Review  was ruled in error.
> 
> The world will move on and butthurts will learn to live with the _awfullness_ of recognizing gay people as equal persons in the eyes of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well Im talking about the play on the emotions that propelled the federal judiciary to ignore the Constitution and use verbal sophistry to pass what they had a warm and fuzzy feeling about.
> 
> The Valentine decision will forever be  emblematic of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you're talking about a ridiculous lie you've contrived and are trying to propagate.
> 
> The _Obergefell_ Court followed the Constitution, it followed settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, and it followed the rule of law.
> 
> The states may not seek to disadvantage through force of law a class of persons predicated solely on who they are, including gay Americans.
> 
> “The fourteenth amendment...prohibits any state legislation which has the effect of denying to any...class [of persons], or to any individual, the equal protection of the laws.”
> 
> _Civil Rights Cases_ (1883)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gee, 4 of 9 justices disagreed.  doesn't sound so cut and dried to me,.....
> 
> and my post was about how this will be remembered in the future...and the Valentine days ruling will be a lasting example of the emotional bases for these rulings, rather than a sober and logical look at the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm willing to be that your another one who has not bothered to read the opinion but is , nevertheless willing to dismiss it as "emotional" and as not following the law. Here are selected excerpts for you convenience.  While you read, count the number of earlier cases that were cited to support the decision....just in the portions that I provided and then tell us again how this is not based on solid case law :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES*
> 
> Syllabus
> 
> OBERGEFELL ET AL. _v_. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.
> 
> CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
> 
> No. 14–556. Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 2015*
> 
> 
> 
> *Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriagebetween two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.*
> 
> 
> 
> (1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, _e.g., *Eisenstadt *_*v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486*. Pg.2
> 
> 
> 
> (2) Four principles and traditions demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples. The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.  Pg. 3
> 
> 
> 
> A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to *Griswold v. Connecticut,* which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception,  pg.3
> 
> 
> A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguardschildren and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, _e.g.,* Pierce *_*v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510*. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. *They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents,* relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issuethus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. *See Windsor, supra, at ___.Pg.3*
> 
> 
> Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. *See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211*. States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle,yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that theStates have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instabilitymany opposite-sex couples would find intolerable.  Pg.4
> 
> 
> 
> (4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. *Baker v. Nelson is overruled*. The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23. Pg.5
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There may be an initial inclination to await further legislation, litigation, and debate, but referenda, legislative debates, and grassroots campaigns; studies and other writings; and extensive litigation in state and federal courts have led to an enhanced understanding of the issue. While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. Pg 5
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I almost never read majority opinions,....the dissents contain the most true wisdom in our joke of a federal court system.

I did see one case mentioned *Baker v. Nelson *

which they said they overruled ...........so much for a solid basis in precedent.


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9.   Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves.  Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
> 
> Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy.  It is worth a read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kegan and Ginsberg should have recused themselves? Why? because they were outspoken and demonstrable about their position on the issue? By that criteria, Thomas and Scalia should have also recused themselves. They have spewed a lot of anti gay crap. However, the fact is that no one had a personal interest in the outcome of the case, and no one was personally acquainted with any of the litigants. Therefore, it's a bullshit argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no yours is the bull shit argument...........the legality, constitutionality  of gay marriage was in question...those justices displayed bad form in presiding over marriages. ....they should have done the honorable thing and stayed away until a decision was had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting how you just gloss over the point that I made about Thomas and Scalia and just repeat the same crap over again.
> 
> You might consider the fact that there was a 25 day window of opportunity to file a motion to rehear the case without Kagan and Ginsberg, However, the AGs of the 4 states involved would not do so because they knew that it was a loosing proposition. So please give it a rest!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they perhaps knew the deck was rigged ,,yes.................and your "point" on Thomas and Scalia on guns was answered I believe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really want to talk about Thomas and Scalia??
> 
> Kagan and Ginsburg were no  more biased that Scalia and Thomas Here is Thomas on gay rights  with Scalia also dissenting in both
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In _Lawrence v. Texas_ (2003), Thomas issued a one-page dissent where he called the Texas anti-gay sodomy statute "uncommonly silly." He then said that if he were a member of the Texas legislature he would vote to repeal the law, as it was not a worthwhile use of "law enforcement resources" to police private sexual behavior. Since he was not a member of the state legislature, but instead a federal judge, and the Due Process Clause did not (in his view) touch on the subject, he could not vote to strike it down. Accordingly, Thomas saw the issue as a matter for the states to decide for themselves.[162]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He could not be bothered to join the majority because he though that it was sill. It's apparent that he also thought that gay rights don't matter much or that due process applies to them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In _Romer v. Evans_ (1996), Thomas joined Scalia's dissenting opinion arguing that Amendment 2 to the Colorado State Constitution did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Colorado amendment forbade any judicial, legislative, or executive action designed to protect persons from discrimination based on "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships."[163] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for Scalia:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here Are the 7 Worst Things Antonin Scalia Has Said or Written About Homosexuality http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/scalia-worst-things-said-written-about-homosexuality-court
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us again how Kegan and Ginsberg are more biased than these guys. There is more:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The section also provides that a judge is disqualified "where he has a *personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding"; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning the same case or has expressed an opinion concerning its outcome; or when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has* *a financial interest* in the outcome of the proceeding.  Judicial disqualification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> None of this applies to Kagan and Ginsburg. None of it. However, Thomas did in fact have a personal stake in a number of cases. :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia "Ginni" Thomas is no ordinary Supreme Court spouse. Unlike Maureen Scalia, mother of nine, or the late Martin Ginsburg, mild-mannered tax law professor who was good in the kitchen, Thomas came from the world of bare-knuckled partisan politics. Over the years, she has enmeshed herself ever more deeply in the world of political advocacy—all the while creating a heap of conflict of interest concerns surrounding her husband, Supreme Court Justice Clarence  http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/ginni-thomas-groundswell-conflict-interest]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us how many times Thomas recused himself   from ANY CASE.
> 
> Finally……
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The general rule is that, to warrant recusal, *a judge's expression of an opinion about the merits of a case, or his familiarity with the facts or the parties, must have originated in a source outside the case itself. This is referred to in the United States as the "extra-judicial source rule" a*nd was recognized as a general presumption, although not an invariable one, in the 1994 U.S. Supreme Court decision in _Liteky v. United States_.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now lets cut the crap. It's over!
Click to expand...


your complaining about Thomas in  lawrence v texas where he apparently sided with you?

Ive tried to get through Romer v Evans.....it is a muddled mess of an opinion, with double negatives negated and similar verbal gymnastics.......I have other comment on the board about that case.

Scalia and Thomas may have had opinions on the matter, maybe even been biased,,.............but they didnt opt to preside over gay weddings publicly when the issue was before the court..........thus proclaiming for all the world how seriously they would take opposition arguments.....it also shows, as does the Valentines Day opinion, that their opinions were based more on emotions than law and logic.


----------



## ABikerSailor

You know............I worked for the government for over 20 years in the U.S. Navy as a Personnelman (ship's clerk), and can tell you that the regulations change on a regular basis.  Shoot...........we got manual changes every quarter that we had to incorporate into our manuals, and it was because procedures and regulations were changed.

Now, like I said............I was a ship's clerk, responsible for taking care of the personnel records and pay for all the enlisted onboard the ship.  Now, if I'd refused to process a Record of Emergency Data (page 2), because 2 gay people got married, because if I did that, I'd be going against my spiritual beliefs because by typing the page 2, I'm affirming their marriage, I would have been busted and possibly discharged for doing pretty much what she did.

If she won't do the job, she has no business in staying.  If she interrupts the issuance of marriage licenses again, she should be jailed until she's been impeached and fired from her job.

Besides..................even Jesus thinks she should step down.  Matter of fact, He said it when He said this:

Matthew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

Now, basically, what He was saying was that if something causes you to sin, you should get rid of it, because it's better to go to Heaven missing parts, than to have the behavior continue and your whole body ends up in Hell.

In her case, it's her job that offends her because gay marriage is against her dogma and faith.  What should she do, according to Jesus?  Pluck it out, or in this case, leave her job and find another one.

Why is it that you Christians fight so hard for cherry picked parts of the Bible, while ignoring important ones?


----------



## koshergrl

ABikerSailor said:


> You know............I worked for the government for over 20 years in the U.S. Navy as a Personnelman (ship's clerk), and can tell you that the regulations change on a regular basis.  Shoot...........we got manual changes every quarter that we had to incorporate into our manuals, and it was because procedures and regulations were changed.
> 
> Now, like I said............I was a ship's clerk, responsible for taking care of the personnel records and pay for all the enlisted onboard the ship.  Now, if I'd refused to process a Record of Emergency Data (page 2), because 2 gay people got married, because if I did that, I'd be going against my spiritual beliefs because by typing the page 2, I'm affirming their marriage, I would have been busted and possibly discharged for doing pretty much what she did.
> 
> If she won't do the job, she has no business in staying.  If she interrupts the issuance of marriage licenses again, she should be jailed until she's been impeached and fired from her job.
> 
> Besides..................even Jesus thinks she should step down.  Matter of fact, He said it when He said this:
> 
> Matthew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
> 
> Now, basically, what He was saying was that if something causes you to sin, you should get rid of it, because it's better to go to Heaven missing parts, than to have the behavior continue and your whole body ends up in Hell.
> 
> In her case, it's her job that offends her because gay marriage is against her dogma and faith.  What should she do, according to Jesus?  Pluck it out, or in this case, leave her job and find another one.
> 
> Why is it that you Christians fight so hard for cherry picked parts of the Bible, while ignoring important ones?


 
Shut up, you piece of shit. I'm sure you sucked as much at clerking as you have at everything else in your lifetime, and performed your duties with as much officiousness as you could manage. I can imagine how well beloved you were.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kegan and Ginsberg should have recused themselves? Why? because they were outspoken and demonstrable about their position on the issue? By that criteria, Thomas and Scalia should have also recused themselves. They have spewed a lot of anti gay crap. However, the fact is that no one had a personal interest in the outcome of the case, and no one was personally acquainted with any of the litigants. Therefore, it's a bullshit argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no yours is the bull shit argument...........the legality, constitutionality  of gay marriage was in question...those justices displayed bad form in presiding over marriages. ....they should have done the honorable thing and stayed away until a decision was had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting how you just gloss over the point that I made about Thomas and Scalia and just repeat the same crap over again.
> 
> You might consider the fact that there was a 25 day window of opportunity to file a motion to rehear the case without Kagan and Ginsberg, However, the AGs of the 4 states involved would not do so because they knew that it was a loosing proposition. So please give it a rest!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they perhaps knew the deck was rigged ,,yes.................and your "point" on Thomas and Scalia on guns was answered I believe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really want to talk about Thomas and Scalia??
> 
> Kagan and Ginsburg were no  more biased that Scalia and Thomas Here is Thomas on gay rights  with Scalia also dissenting in both
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In _Lawrence v. Texas_ (2003), Thomas issued a one-page dissent where he called the Texas anti-gay sodomy statute "uncommonly silly." He then said that if he were a member of the Texas legislature he would vote to repeal the law, as it was not a worthwhile use of "law enforcement resources" to police private sexual behavior. Since he was not a member of the state legislature, but instead a federal judge, and the Due Process Clause did not (in his view) touch on the subject, he could not vote to strike it down. Accordingly, Thomas saw the issue as a matter for the states to decide for themselves.[162]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He could not be bothered to join the majority because he though that it was sill. It's apparent that he also thought that gay rights don't matter much or that due process applies to them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In _Romer v. Evans_ (1996), Thomas joined Scalia's dissenting opinion arguing that Amendment 2 to the Colorado State Constitution did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Colorado amendment forbade any judicial, legislative, or executive action designed to protect persons from discrimination based on "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships."[163] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for Scalia:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here Are the 7 Worst Things Antonin Scalia Has Said or Written About Homosexuality http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/scalia-worst-things-said-written-about-homosexuality-court
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us again how Kegan and Ginsberg are more biased than these guys. There is more:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The section also provides that a judge is disqualified "where he has a *personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding"; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning the same case or has expressed an opinion concerning its outcome; or when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has* *a financial interest* in the outcome of the proceeding.  Judicial disqualification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> None of this applies to Kagan and Ginsburg. None of it. However, Thomas did in fact have a personal stake in a number of cases. :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia "Ginni" Thomas is no ordinary Supreme Court spouse. Unlike Maureen Scalia, mother of nine, or the late Martin Ginsburg, mild-mannered tax law professor who was good in the kitchen, Thomas came from the world of bare-knuckled partisan politics. Over the years, she has enmeshed herself ever more deeply in the world of political advocacy—all the while creating a heap of conflict of interest concerns surrounding her husband, Supreme Court Justice Clarence  http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/ginni-thomas-groundswell-conflict-interest]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us how many times Thomas recused himself   from ANY CASE.
> 
> Finally……
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The general rule is that, to warrant recusal, *a judge's expression of an opinion about the merits of a case, or his familiarity with the facts or the parties, must have originated in a source outside the case itself. This is referred to in the United States as the "extra-judicial source rule" a*nd was recognized as a general presumption, although not an invariable one, in the 1994 U.S. Supreme Court decision in _Liteky v. United States_.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now lets cut the crap. It's over!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your complaining about Thomas in  lawrence v texas where he apparently sided with you?
> 
> Ive tried to get through Romer v Evans.....it is a muddled mess of an opinion, with double negatives negated and similar verbal gymnastics.......I have other comment on the board about that case.
> 
> Scalia and Thomas may have had opinions on the matter, maybe even been biased,,.............but they didnt opt to preside over gay weddings publicly when the issue was before the court..........thus proclaiming for all the world how seriously they would take opposition arguments.....it also shows, as does the Valentines Day opinion, that their opinions were based more on emotions than law and logic.
Click to expand...


Thomas was callously indifferent to the issue in Lawrence. Of course he and Thomas did not preside over same sex marriages....geeeeze.  Their opinions were based on emotion? Is that supposed to be a defense of their bias. You mention Romer, but gloss over all of the other damaging information that I presented on both Scalia and Thomas.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're talking out of your ass.
> 
> The only people who will  look unfavorably upon this decision in the future are the occasional disparate homophobes and butthurt social conservatives who cry themselves to sleep every night and see monsters under their beds  - some of the same ones who think an 1802  SCOTUS decision granting Judicial Review  was ruled in error.
> 
> The world will move on and butthurts will learn to live with the _awfullness_ of recognizing gay people as equal persons in the eyes of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well Im talking about the play on the emotions that propelled the federal judiciary to ignore the Constitution and use verbal sophistry to pass what they had a warm and fuzzy feeling about.
> 
> The Valentine decision will forever be  emblematic of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you're talking about a ridiculous lie you've contrived and are trying to propagate.
> 
> The _Obergefell_ Court followed the Constitution, it followed settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, and it followed the rule of law.
> 
> The states may not seek to disadvantage through force of law a class of persons predicated solely on who they are, including gay Americans.
> 
> “The fourteenth amendment...prohibits any state legislation which has the effect of denying to any...class [of persons], or to any individual, the equal protection of the laws.”
> 
> _Civil Rights Cases_ (1883)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gee, 4 of 9 justices disagreed.  doesn't sound so cut and dried to me,.....
> 
> and my post was about how this will be remembered in the future...and the Valentine days ruling will be a lasting example of the emotional bases for these rulings, rather than a sober and logical look at the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm willing to be that your another one who has not bothered to read the opinion but is , nevertheless willing to dismiss it as "emotional" and as not following the law. Here are selected excerpts for you convenience.  While you read, count the number of earlier cases that were cited to support the decision....just in the portions that I provided and then tell us again how this is not based on solid case law :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES*
> 
> Syllabus
> 
> OBERGEFELL ET AL. _v_. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.
> 
> CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
> 
> No. 14–556. Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 2015*
> 
> 
> 
> *Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriagebetween two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.*
> 
> 
> 
> (1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, _e.g., *Eisenstadt *_*v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486*. Pg.2
> 
> 
> 
> (2) Four principles and traditions demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples. The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.  Pg. 3
> 
> 
> 
> A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to *Griswold v. Connecticut,* which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception,  pg.3
> 
> 
> A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguardschildren and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, _e.g.,* Pierce *_*v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510*. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. *They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents,* relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issuethus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. *See Windsor, supra, at ___.Pg.3*
> 
> 
> Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. *See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211*. States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle,yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that theStates have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instabilitymany opposite-sex couples would find intolerable.  Pg.4
> 
> 
> 
> (4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. *Baker v. Nelson is overruled*. The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23. Pg.5
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There may be an initial inclination to await further legislation, litigation, and debate, but referenda, legislative debates, and grassroots campaigns; studies and other writings; and extensive litigation in state and federal courts have led to an enhanced understanding of the issue. While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. Pg 5
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I almost never read majority opinions,....the dissents contain the most true wisdom in our joke of a federal court system.
> 
> I did see one case mentioned *Baker v. Nelson *
> 
> which they said they overruled ...........so much for a solid basis in precedent.
Click to expand...


You never read majority opinions? Maybe that's your problem. You think that the senseless  rants of Thomas and Scalia were the truest wisdom? Seriously?

The issue  of Baker being a controlling precedent had been  questionable for some time as it was from a prior era  in case law, long before gay rights were considered at all. This was just the final blow.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Debra K said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9.   Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves.  Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
> 
> Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy.  It is worth a read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kegan and Ginsberg should have recused themselves? Why? because they were outspoken and demonstrable about their position on the issue? By that criteria, Thomas and Scalia should have also recused themselves. They have spewed a lot of anti gay crap. However, the fact is that no one had a personal interest in the outcome of the case, and no one was personally acquainted with any of the litigants. Therefore, it's a bullshit argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no yours is the bull shit argument...........the legality, constitutionality  of gay marriage was in question...those justices displayed bad form in presiding over marriages. ....they should have done the honorable thing and stayed away until a decision was had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting how you just gloss over the point that I made about Thomas and Scalia and just repeat the same crap over again.
> 
> You might consider the fact that there was a 25 day window of opportunity to file a motion to rehear the case without Kagan and Ginsberg, However, the AGs of the 4 states involved would not do so because they knew that it was a loosing proposition. So please give it a rest!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a losing proposition.
> 
> The decision to license degeneracy indicates a severe collapse of the moral foundation of the culture.  As a result, history shows that Western Civilization will soon collapse and a new culture will rise from it, sans the degenerates, as a more well centered people seek to do business, absent the idiots.
> 
> My guess is that 60-80% of the US population will be dead inside 10 years, as a result of the looming civil war.
> 
> At the end of that, you will not be able to start a poker game in the US with people who will admit to ever having an unclean thought... let alone that they've sexual feelings for people of the same gender.
> 
> Europe will of course be governed under Sharia Law... and shortly after we get our shit together here, we'll be forced to burn Europe to the ground, via nuclear means.  With the goal being to eradicate every living thing on the continent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your words are no better than Kim Davis's words.  She claims to be God's vessel ... acting under God's authority ... and those who clamor to her side don't care that she's a false prophet.   How often does the Bible have to warn "true believers" about the evils of wolves in sheep's clothing?
Click to expand...


She's not a prophet, false or otherwise.  

She can read the Bible and as a result has no problem understanding God's law.  There's nothing complex about it.  And this remains true, without regard to you being incapable of working through an otherwise elementary equation.

Let me break it down for you: Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.  

We KNOW this because Nature, OKA: GOD... designed the human species with two distinct, but complimenting genders; each designed SPECIFICALLY to join with the other. 

See how simple that is?  

There's absolutely nothing to debate... .


----------



## Debra K

WorldWatcher said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> I provided links numerous times in many threads to the legal documents, including the hearing transcript, in the case against Kim Davis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a link to the hearing transcripts?
> 
> Could I humbly request that you post it again, I'd love to read it.
> 
> Thank you in advance.
> 
> WW
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


0:15-cv-00044 #29

The above link contains the file (329 pages) regarding Defendant Kim Davis's Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction.  The transcript of the hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is Davis's Exhibits A & B (pages 50-162; 163-246).  The hearing was had over two days:  July 13, 2015, and July 20, 2015.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> ...



There is no such thing as a Progressive Patriot.

And this is because: 

*THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS*
​And THAT is because Nature precludes the means of one to simultaneously adhere to both the Thesis and the Antithesis.


----------



## Vandalshandle

i think it would have been hilarious if the jailor had refused to let her out, because letting a homophobe out of jail was against his religious beliefs.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Debra K said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> I provided links numerous times in many threads to the legal documents, including the hearing transcript, in the case against Kim Davis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a link to the hearing transcripts?
> 
> Could I humbly request that you post it again, I'd love to read it.
> 
> Thank you in advance.
> 
> WW
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 0:15-cv-00044 #29
> 
> The above link contains the file (329 pages) regarding Defendant Kim Davis's Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction.  The transcript of the hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is Davis's Exhibits A & B (pages 50-162; 163-246).  The hearing was had over two days:  July 13, 2015, and July 20, 2015.
Click to expand...


The link is worthless.  And that is because the reader is forced to wade through 329 pages of drivel, in hopes of culling from such: YOUR POINT.

Fact: Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Fact: The Law in Davis' State remains: Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Fact: Davis is the Clerk of her County's Court, she is a Christiana and recognizes God's law FORBIDDING Deviant Sexual Behavior... and Christ's teaching which defines Marriage as: THe Joining of One Man and One Woman.

And the First Amendment of the USC, which precludes the State from passing any law, which usurps her means to exercise her religion.

That is ALL that is relevant here.


----------



## koshergrl

Vandalshandle said:


> i think it would have been hilarious if the jailor had refused to let her out, because letting a homophobe out of jail was against his religious beliefs.


 Of course you do. Because you don't understand the difference between imprisoning someone for their beliefs, vs. failing to sign a document that can be signed by anyone else. One is representative of fascism, the other of liberty.


----------



## MaryL

They crucified Jesus, they imprisoned MLK for believing in something that offended and violated laws of the status quo.


----------



## Debra K

Uncensored2008 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> And once again the right is demonstrated to be wrong.
> 
> Davis complied with the court order, resulting in her release, where she was being held in contempt for failing to comply with that court order, having nothing to do whatsoever with her 'religious liberty.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Saul, the court order was modified to compromise with Davis to get her out. Holding a political prisoner did more damage to Judge Bunning than to Davis, so he scrambled to find a compromise to get her out of his jail.
Click to expand...


Provide the link to the modified court order.

Linking to the shit that comes out of your ass doesn't count.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Vandalshandle said:


> i think it would have been hilarious if the jailor had refused to let her out, because letting a homophobe out of jail was against his religious beliefs.



How adorable is it, that the Intellectually Less Fortunate _'believe'_ in "HOMOPHOBES", a total fabrication, which doesn't exist anywhere... but they can't BELIEVE IN THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE, which exists all around them!

ROFL!  You can NOT make this stuff up!


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

MaryL said:


> They crucified Jesus, they imprisoned MLK for believing in something that offended and violated laws of the status quo.


They probably had to drum up some law they said MLK was violating. Now they throw political dissidents in jail on a whim. I think this judge needs to see the inside of a jail cell.


----------



## MaryL

What do you call someone so afraid of being called a homophobe, they will do anything to prove they aren't? A homophoboaphobe? Liberals. That will do.


----------



## Debra K

Debra K said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> And once again the right is demonstrated to be wrong.
> 
> Davis complied with the court order, resulting in her release, where she was being held in contempt for failing to comply with that court order, having nothing to do whatsoever with her 'religious liberty.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Saul, the court order was modified to compromise with Davis to get her out. Holding a political prisoner did more damage to Judge Bunning than to Davis, so he scrambled to find a compromise to get her out of his jail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Provide the link to the modified court order.
> 
> Linking to the shit that comes out of your ass doesn't count.
Click to expand...


This is the order issued today:





Miller Et Al v Davis Et Al


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

The FIrst Amendment has two clauses that are relevant here. One is the Establishment Clause, and the other is the Prohibition clause. Congress may not prohibit free worship, and that is what so many claim is being violated. But it is also not empowered to establish any religion, nor to enact any laws favoring one religion over the other. *Permitting a state employee to foist her religion upon others, denying them a fundamental right as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell, would be to give government, through this agent, the power to impose religious doctrine and viewpoint. That it cannot do. Ms. Davis is in effect establishing religion by using her governmental powers to impose her religion views.* I know the First Amendment, Shawn. Do you?

George Takei - Well this is a bit of a circus. So let us... | Facebook


----------



## MaryL

She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would  have rolled over and let gays  marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and  we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.


----------



## Silhouette

TyroneSlothrop said:


> The FIrst Amendment has two clauses that are relevant here. One is the Establishment Clause, and the other is the Prohibition clause. Congress may not prohibit free worship, and that is what so many claim is being violated. But it is also not empowered to establish any religion, nor to enact any laws favoring one religion over the other. *Permitting a state employee to foist her religion upon others, denying them a fundamental right..*


You are laboring under the delusion that passively refusing to participate in a gay marriage is not "foisting" her religion upon others anymore than a jew refusing to eat pork is his foisting his religion on a pig farmer.

No laws favoring one religion over another eh?  Correct.  So you're finally admitting that LGBT is a cult.  Better late than never.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Silhouette said:


> You are laboring under the delusion that passively refusing to participate in a gay marriage is not "foisting" her religion upon others anymore than a jew refusing to eat pork is his foisting his religion on a pig farmer.
> .


This person is an agent of the State Government of Kentucky...if she cannot do the job...resign.....if you make a Jewish person the manager of a BBQ joint that manager will have to handle pork orders or quit...........


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> They crucified Jesus, they imprisoned MLK for believing in something that offended and violated laws of the status quo.
> 
> 
> 
> They probably had to drum up some law they said MLK was violating. Now they throw political dissidents in jail on a whim. I think this judge needs to see the inside of a jail cell.
Click to expand...

I think that you need to see the inside of a mental institution


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

MaryL said:


> She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would  have rolled over and let gays  marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and  we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.


MLK stood for equality and inclusion

Davis stands for discrimination and religious oppression of those who believe differently

Gays don't need to get married? Common stupidity and bigotry.


----------



## koshergrl

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would  have rolled over and let gays  marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and  we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> MLK stood for equality and inclusion
> 
> Davis stands for discrimination and religious oppression of those who believe differently
> 
> Gays don't need to get married? Common stupidity and bigotry.
Click to expand...

 MLK was a Christian PREACHER who was anti-abortion and adamant about the right of people to act as their conscience dictates, REGARDLESS of bad and discriminatory law.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Uncensored2008 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, this is not a “left-right issue”  -not any longer. A good many prominent Republicans, business leaders and even clergy got behind the plaintiffs because they realized that discrimination is no longer sustainable and bad for business. While fewer Republicans supported same sex marriage, there numbers are growing , especially among younger people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try this again, I had to just laugh at you the first time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your reference to wanting to marry Christie Brinkley is ridiculous on the face of it. We are talking about the right to choose who you marry from among those who will choose to marry you. Heterosexuals could do that, before Obergefell, gays did not have that same right. This has to be just more of your manipulation and game playing because I don’t
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is ridiculous is the claim that people have the "right" marry whomever they please. As with most of what the left claims, this is absurdity couched in fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You go on to say “The first ingredient is two willing adults - again given the propensity of leftists to insanity, this is subject to change at the whim of the SCOTUS” What the fuck does that mean.?? That the next thing will be to do away with mutual consent . Who is insane??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find that the left has no anchor to rationality. Ayn Rand referred to you as the "fakers of reality," who not liking the constraints of reality, simply pretend that what you desire is in fact real, despite the fact that it is not. The fable of the Emperor's New Clothes was penned to describe exactly what it is the left does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you blather on about sexual attraction which you seem to think is unimportant and that, old sport, may actually be the crux of your problem. Perhaps there is not enough love in your life? Is that why you are so angry and want to deprive others of what you can take for granted…or at least could if you were able to find love yourself. Then you allude to marriage being about procreation which is just more horseshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure I lost you once I spoke of society and culture predating Marx, and yet reality still is...
> 
> The institution of marriage is not a Jewish or Christian one. Oddly it developed in virtually every successful society throughout history. Some people have wondered why that is? We can call these people "anthropologists."
> 
> Before we go on, we have to make an assumption, that is that evolution is real. It's not a huge leap, the evidence is overwhelming, irrefutable actually. So evolution is real, and there is an innate drive in humans to survive. Because humans are social animals, part of the survival strategy of the species is the formation of societies.
> 
> Now a couple of things, a pregnant female is vulnerable, as is one nursing or caring for young children. Granted, you are a leftist and think history started with MTV, but that which makes man a successful species is actually a bit older. Cultures developed to protect pregnant females and their offspring. This is because the evolutionary impetus of the species is to survive.
> 
> I know, this is hard for you to grasp, Jon Stewart never said anything about replication of genetic codes and the propagation of ones own DNA. Marriage developed in the species as a means to entice males to remain with the females to protect the vulnerable female and offspring. This is what anthropologists call a "survival strategy." Enticing two males to cohabit confers no advantage to the species, quite the opposite. Homosexuality in fact is most likely a genetic kill switch, an evolutionary mechanism to remove unwanted DNA from the species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest bunch of bovine excrement in this is your contention that “the left” wants to destroy American culture. Are you fucking serious? Collectivism and authoritarian rule.? Right, authoritarian rule was those laws that banned gay marriage you fool!
> 
> Yes marriage is a stabilizing force-you actually got something right. That is why it must be open to all who wish to engage in it. If you broaden the base of an institution and make it more inclusive, you strengthen it.
> 
> I just can't believe that you are stupid enough to believe your own bovine excrement. This has got to be some sick game. Please give me a sign that you have a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lenin wrote that if given control of one generation of children, he could create a society completely loyal to the state. Lenin failed, but the ideal of the left to destroy the nuclear family remains. The dream of a collectivist society under authoritarian rule is retarded (I'll say!) by the presence of the family. People are more loyal to family (remember, evolution is real - reality is.) than they are to the rulers of the state, You of the left have waged war on the family and on marriage since the days of Marx.
Click to expand...


I'm not even going to attempt to deal with all of your inane ranting.  Just one thing. What about the destruction of nuclear family ? Are you saying that two people of the same sex who are loving parents-who have children who love them and regard them as their parents are not a nuclear family. That is just fucking stupid!


----------



## koshergrl

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, this is not a “left-right issue”  -not any longer. A good many prominent Republicans, business leaders and even clergy got behind the plaintiffs because they realized that discrimination is no longer sustainable and bad for business. While fewer Republicans supported same sex marriage, there numbers are growing , especially among younger people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try this again, I had to just laugh at you the first time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your reference to wanting to marry Christie Brinkley is ridiculous on the face of it. We are talking about the right to choose who you marry from among those who will choose to marry you. Heterosexuals could do that, before Obergefell, gays did not have that same right. This has to be just more of your manipulation and game playing because I don’t
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is ridiculous is the claim that people have the "right" marry whomever they please. As with most of what the left claims, this is absurdity couched in fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You go on to say “The first ingredient is two willing adults - again given the propensity of leftists to insanity, this is subject to change at the whim of the SCOTUS” What the fuck does that mean.?? That the next thing will be to do away with mutual consent . Who is insane??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find that the left has no anchor to rationality. Ayn Rand referred to you as the "fakers of reality," who not liking the constraints of reality, simply pretend that what you desire is in fact real, despite the fact that it is not. The fable of the Emperor's New Clothes was penned to describe exactly what it is the left does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you blather on about sexual attraction which you seem to think is unimportant and that, old sport, may actually be the crux of your problem. Perhaps there is not enough love in your life? Is that why you are so angry and want to deprive others of what you can take for granted…or at least could if you were able to find love yourself. Then you allude to marriage being about procreation which is just more horseshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure I lost you once I spoke of society and culture predating Marx, and yet reality still is...
> 
> The institution of marriage is not a Jewish or Christian one. Oddly it developed in virtually every successful society throughout history. Some people have wondered why that is? We can call these people "anthropologists."
> 
> Before we go on, we have to make an assumption, that is that evolution is real. It's not a huge leap, the evidence is overwhelming, irrefutable actually. So evolution is real, and there is an innate drive in humans to survive. Because humans are social animals, part of the survival strategy of the species is the formation of societies.
> 
> Now a couple of things, a pregnant female is vulnerable, as is one nursing or caring for young children. Granted, you are a leftist and think history started with MTV, but that which makes man a successful species is actually a bit older. Cultures developed to protect pregnant females and their offspring. This is because the evolutionary impetus of the species is to survive.
> 
> I know, this is hard for you to grasp, Jon Stewart never said anything about replication of genetic codes and the propagation of ones own DNA. Marriage developed in the species as a means to entice males to remain with the females to protect the vulnerable female and offspring. This is what anthropologists call a "survival strategy." Enticing two males to cohabit confers no advantage to the species, quite the opposite. Homosexuality in fact is most likely a genetic kill switch, an evolutionary mechanism to remove unwanted DNA from the species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest bunch of bovine excrement in this is your contention that “the left” wants to destroy American culture. Are you fucking serious? Collectivism and authoritarian rule.? Right, authoritarian rule was those laws that banned gay marriage you fool!
> 
> Yes marriage is a stabilizing force-you actually got something right. That is why it must be open to all who wish to engage in it. If you broaden the base of an institution and make it more inclusive, you strengthen it.
> 
> I just can't believe that you are stupid enough to believe your own bovine excrement. This has got to be some sick game. Please give me a sign that you have a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lenin wrote that if given control of one generation of children, he could create a society completely loyal to the state. Lenin failed, but the ideal of the left to destroy the nuclear family remains. The dream of a collectivist society under authoritarian rule is retarded (I'll say!) by the presence of the family. People are more loyal to family (remember, evolution is real - reality is.) than they are to the rulers of the state, You of the left have waged war on the family and on marriage since the days of Marx.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not even going to attempt to deal with all of your inane ranting.  Just one thing. What about the destruction of nuclear family ? Are you saying that two people of the same sex who are loving parents-who have children who love them and regard them as their parents are not a nuclear family. That is just fucking stupid!
Click to expand...

 
Homosexuals are mentally ill. They always have been, and they have no business raising kids.


Mother's lawsuit over mistaken sperm donation dismissed

The little boy who started a sex change aged eight because he (and his lesbian parents) knew he always wanted to be a girl

Gay rights campaigner led a double life as leader of paedophile ring that carried out a  catalogue of child abuse


----------



## Debra K

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> I provided links numerous times in many threads to the legal documents, including the hearing transcript, in the case against Kim Davis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a link to the hearing transcripts?
> 
> Could I humbly request that you post it again, I'd love to read it.
> 
> Thank you in advance.
> 
> WW
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 0:15-cv-00044 #29
> 
> The above link contains the file (329 pages) regarding Defendant Kim Davis's Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction.  The transcript of the hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is Davis's Exhibits A & B (pages 50-162; 163-246).  The hearing was had over two days:  July 13, 2015, and July 20, 2015.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The link is worthless.  And that is because the reader is forced to wade through 329 pages of drivel, in hopes of culling from such: YOUR POINT.
> 
> Fact: Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
> 
> Fact: The Law in Davis' State remains: Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
> 
> Fact: Davis is the Clerk of her County's Court, she is a Christiana and recognizes God's law FORBIDDING Deviant Sexual Behavior... and Christ's teaching which defines Marriage as: THe Joining of One Man and One Woman.
> 
> And the First Amendment of the USC, which precludes the State from passing any law, which usurps her means to exercise her religion.
> 
> That is ALL that is relevant here.
Click to expand...


I didn't provide the link for you.  I provided the link because another poster wanted to read the transcripts of the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction.   I provided the page numbers where the transcripts are located.   Perhaps others would like to peruse the file, but I didn't expect that you would care to do so.  After all, I understand that reading the actual court papers and transcripts is too much trouble when you prefer to pull shit out of  your ass.   It's much easier for you to just make it up as you go ... just like you did above. 

BTW, what law did the State of Kentucky pass that prohibits the free exercise of Kim Davis's religion?  Why don't you scratch around your butt for the answer and give us an update.


----------



## koshergrl

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would  have rolled over and let gays  marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and  we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> MLK stood for equality and inclusion
> 
> Davis stands for discrimination and religious oppression of those who believe differently
> 
> Gays don't need to get married? Common stupidity and bigotry.
Click to expand...

 Nobody cares if they get married. Let them get married by people who want to marry them, and let them eat cake that people who want to bake cakes for them make for them.

Leave the majority of us alone. You fags can do your own thing, but leave us out of it. We aren't interested, we never have been interested.


----------



## Vigilante

Many times this QUEER SHIT is simply a diversion from much more important topics....


----------



## Debra K

MaryL said:


> She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would  have rolled over and let gays  marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and  we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.



You don't have any common sense if you think it's up to you to "let gays marry".


----------



## koshergrl

Debra K said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would  have rolled over and let gays  marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and  we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have any common sense if you think it's up to you to "let gays marry".
Click to expand...

 Gays can do anything they want.

Except force people who see homo unions as sacrilege to endorse their marriages.


----------



## Faun

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9.   Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves.  Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
> 
> Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy.  It is worth a read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kegan and Ginsberg should have recused themselves? Why? because they were outspoken and demonstrable about their position on the issue? By that criteria, Thomas and Scalia should have also recused themselves. They have spewed a lot of anti gay crap. However, the fact is that no one had a personal interest in the outcome of the case, and no one was personally acquainted with any of the litigants. Therefore, it's a bullshit argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no yours is the bull shit argument...........the legality, constitutionality  of gay marriage was in question...those justices displayed bad form in presiding over marriages. ....they should have done the honorable thing and stayed away until a decision was had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting how you just gloss over the point that I made about Thomas and Scalia and just repeat the same crap over again.
> 
> You might consider the fact that there was a 25 day window of opportunity to file a motion to rehear the case without Kagan and Ginsberg, However, the AGs of the 4 states involved would not do so because they knew that it was a loosing proposition. So please give it a rest!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a losing proposition.
> 
> The decision to license degeneracy indicates a severe collapse of the moral foundation of the culture.  As a result, history shows that Western Civilization will soon collapse and a new culture will rise from it, sans the degenerates, as a more well centered people seek to do business, absent the idiots.
> 
> My guess is that 60-80% of the US population will be dead inside 10 years, as a result of the looming civil war.
> 
> At the end of that, you will not be able to start a poker game in the US with people who will admit to ever having an unclean thought... let alone that they've sexual feelings for people of the same gender.
> 
> Europe will of course be governed under Sharia Law... and shortly after we get our shit together here, we'll be forced to burn Europe to the ground, via nuclear means.  With the goal being to eradicate every living thing on the continent.
Click to expand...

Puh-lease. Conservatives are bigger degenerates than gays and we let folks like you marry.


----------



## Kondor3

Statistikhengst said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Either way, no matter how you look at it, this does not look good for "Christianity", n'est ce pas?...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is only one Christian county-clerk in the entire country doing this?
> 
> 3000 (3007, actually, but let's make it a nice, round number)...
> 
> 3000 counties in the United States...
> 
> 2100 Christian county clerks ( 3000 X 70% ) ( 70% Christian population in the US )
> 
> Narrow it down...
> 
> How many are 'Sunshine Patriot' -type Christians and rarely (if ever) exert any effort to adhere to the practices of their denomination? Ten percent?
> 
> 2100 X 10% = 210 clerks who might even consider doing such a thing.
> 
> How many of those are scared of losing their jobs and pensions, to the point of paralysis and accommodation? Ninety-five percent?
> 
> 210 X 5% = 11 ( 5% survivors of the 210 who aren't paralyzed by fear, and rounded up from 10.5)
> 
> Out of those 11, how many decided to wait until somebody else went first? 10 out of 11? Seems believable.
> 
> 11 - 10 = 1
> 
> 1 = Kim Davis
> 
> ================================
> 
> You can throw rocks at the numbers until the cows come home, but, at least it's a first pass, at quantifying your inquiry, and introducing another concept or two (paralysis, due to fear over loss of job, pension, etc.) in a context that demonstrates just how overwhelmingly significant that particular element of the equation is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There are 3,140+ counties in the USA....
Click to expand...

I read a few minutes before writing that post that there were 3007. Maybe I was wrong. Doesn't matter. It's in the low threes. I'm sure I can fudge the math well enough to distill it down to one, without much trouble, but we really don't have to do that.

It was merely an exercise designed to answer the original inquiry about why she was the only one doing it.


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> no yours is the bull shit argument...........the legality, constitutionality  of gay marriage was in question...those justices displayed bad form in presiding over marriages. ....they should have done the honorable thing and stayed away until a decision was had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting how you just gloss over the point that I made about Thomas and Scalia and just repeat the same crap over again.
> 
> You might consider the fact that there was a 25 day window of opportunity to file a motion to rehear the case without Kagan and Ginsberg, However, the AGs of the 4 states involved would not do so because they knew that it was a loosing proposition. So please give it a rest!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they perhaps knew the deck was rigged ,,yes.................and your "point" on Thomas and Scalia on guns was answered I believe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really want to talk about Thomas and Scalia??
> 
> Kagan and Ginsburg were no  more biased that Scalia and Thomas Here is Thomas on gay rights  with Scalia also dissenting in both
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In _Lawrence v. Texas_ (2003), Thomas issued a one-page dissent where he called the Texas anti-gay sodomy statute "uncommonly silly." He then said that if he were a member of the Texas legislature he would vote to repeal the law, as it was not a worthwhile use of "law enforcement resources" to police private sexual behavior. Since he was not a member of the state legislature, but instead a federal judge, and the Due Process Clause did not (in his view) touch on the subject, he could not vote to strike it down. Accordingly, Thomas saw the issue as a matter for the states to decide for themselves.[162]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He could not be bothered to join the majority because he though that it was sill. It's apparent that he also thought that gay rights don't matter much or that due process applies to them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In _Romer v. Evans_ (1996), Thomas joined Scalia's dissenting opinion arguing that Amendment 2 to the Colorado State Constitution did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Colorado amendment forbade any judicial, legislative, or executive action designed to protect persons from discrimination based on "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships."[163] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for Scalia:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here Are the 7 Worst Things Antonin Scalia Has Said or Written About Homosexuality http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/scalia-worst-things-said-written-about-homosexuality-court
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us again how Kegan and Ginsberg are more biased than these guys. There is more:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The section also provides that a judge is disqualified "where he has a *personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding"; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning the same case or has expressed an opinion concerning its outcome; or when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has* *a financial interest* in the outcome of the proceeding.  Judicial disqualification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> None of this applies to Kagan and Ginsburg. None of it. However, Thomas did in fact have a personal stake in a number of cases. :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia "Ginni" Thomas is no ordinary Supreme Court spouse. Unlike Maureen Scalia, mother of nine, or the late Martin Ginsburg, mild-mannered tax law professor who was good in the kitchen, Thomas came from the world of bare-knuckled partisan politics. Over the years, she has enmeshed herself ever more deeply in the world of political advocacy—all the while creating a heap of conflict of interest concerns surrounding her husband, Supreme Court Justice Clarence  http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/ginni-thomas-groundswell-conflict-interest]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us how many times Thomas recused himself   from ANY CASE.
> 
> Finally……
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The general rule is that, to warrant recusal, *a judge's expression of an opinion about the merits of a case, or his familiarity with the facts or the parties, must have originated in a source outside the case itself. This is referred to in the United States as the "extra-judicial source rule" a*nd was recognized as a general presumption, although not an invariable one, in the 1994 U.S. Supreme Court decision in _Liteky v. United States_.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now lets cut the crap. It's over!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your complaining about Thomas in  lawrence v texas where he apparently sided with you?
> 
> Ive tried to get through Romer v Evans.....it is a muddled mess of an opinion, with double negatives negated and similar verbal gymnastics.......I have other comment on the board about that case.
> 
> Scalia and Thomas may have had opinions on the matter, maybe even been biased,,.............but they didnt opt to preside over gay weddings publicly when the issue was before the court..........thus proclaiming for all the world how seriously they would take opposition arguments.....it also shows, as does the Valentines Day opinion, that their opinions were based more on emotions than law and logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thomas was callously indifferent to the issue in Lawrence. Of course he and Thomas did not preside over same sex marriages....geeeeze.  Their opinions were based on emotion? Is that supposed to be a defense of their bias. You mention Romer, but gloss over all of the other damaging information that I presented on both Scalia and Thomas.
Click to expand...


there was no damaging information......the presiding role in a ceremony like marriage is given to judges precisely because they are judges and it shows poor judgement to take up such a role when the issue was before the courts.


----------



## Faun

Kondor3 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Davis is doing has nothing to do with 'civil disobedience.' It has to do with contempt for the rule of law, contempt for the Supreme Court, and contempt for the Constitution. Indeed, Davis isn't being held against her will, she could be home this week if she so desires. She's in jail as a result of her own free will, and she can leave any time she wants.
> 
> 
> 
> You do not see it as Civil Disobedience. I do, as do a great many others. Impasse.
Click to expand...

WTF?? Since when does the government partake in civil disobedience against the public??

You conservatives get everything ass backwards. Civil disobedience is the complete opposite of what you think it is. It's the public acting defiantly against the government -- not the other way around.


----------



## MaryL

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would  have rolled over and let gays  marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and  we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> MLK stood for equality and inclusion
> 
> Davis stands for discrimination and religious oppression of those who believe differently
> 
> Gays don't need to get married? Common stupidity and bigotry.
Click to expand...

Surprise surprise, more hate speech from a liberal. We all have the same rights.Gays want...more. Because that's "equal".  We all have the same rights. There isn't ANY  oppression, accept in your mind. Life liberty, freedom of expression, we ALL have that. So were did this same sex marriage thing come from?  You can LOVE who ever or how many other different folks and sexes real imagined or whatever. But marriage is, or should be reserved for those that CAN and DO reproduce, not sexual dysfunctional whinners with a bankroll and lawyers seeking validation.


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> well Im talking about the play on the emotions that propelled the federal judiciary to ignore the Constitution and use verbal sophistry to pass what they had a warm and fuzzy feeling about.
> 
> The Valentine decision will forever be  emblematic of this.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're talking about a ridiculous lie you've contrived and are trying to propagate.
> 
> The _Obergefell_ Court followed the Constitution, it followed settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, and it followed the rule of law.
> 
> The states may not seek to disadvantage through force of law a class of persons predicated solely on who they are, including gay Americans.
> 
> “The fourteenth amendment...prohibits any state legislation which has the effect of denying to any...class [of persons], or to any individual, the equal protection of the laws.”
> 
> _Civil Rights Cases_ (1883)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gee, 4 of 9 justices disagreed.  doesn't sound so cut and dried to me,.....
> 
> and my post was about how this will be remembered in the future...and the Valentine days ruling will be a lasting example of the emotional bases for these rulings, rather than a sober and logical look at the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm willing to be that your another one who has not bothered to read the opinion but is , nevertheless willing to dismiss it as "emotional" and as not following the law. Here are selected excerpts for you convenience.  While you read, count the number of earlier cases that were cited to support the decision....just in the portions that I provided and then tell us again how this is not based on solid case law :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES*
> 
> Syllabus
> 
> OBERGEFELL ET AL. _v_. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.
> 
> CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
> 
> No. 14–556. Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 2015*
> 
> 
> 
> *Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriagebetween two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.*
> 
> 
> 
> (1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, _e.g., *Eisenstadt *_*v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486*. Pg.2
> 
> 
> 
> (2) Four principles and traditions demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples. The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.  Pg. 3
> 
> 
> 
> A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to *Griswold v. Connecticut,* which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception,  pg.3
> 
> 
> A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguardschildren and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, _e.g.,* Pierce *_*v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510*. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. *They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents,* relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issuethus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. *See Windsor, supra, at ___.Pg.3*
> 
> 
> Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. *See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211*. States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle,yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that theStates have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instabilitymany opposite-sex couples would find intolerable.  Pg.4
> 
> 
> 
> (4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. *Baker v. Nelson is overruled*. The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23. Pg.5
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There may be an initial inclination to await further legislation, litigation, and debate, but referenda, legislative debates, and grassroots campaigns; studies and other writings; and extensive litigation in state and federal courts have led to an enhanced understanding of the issue. While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. Pg 5
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I almost never read majority opinions,....the dissents contain the most true wisdom in our joke of a federal court system.
> 
> I did see one case mentioned *Baker v. Nelson *
> 
> which they said they overruled ...........so much for a solid basis in precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never read majority opinions? Maybe that's your problem. You think that the senseless  rants of Thomas and Scalia were the truest wisdom? Seriously?
> 
> The issue  of Baker being a controlling precedent had been  questionable for some time as it was from a prior era  in case law, long before gay rights were considered at all. This was just the final blow.
Click to expand...


some of the greatest judges in the history of the court were known by their dissents......one is called the great dissenter I believe. 

Baker v. Nelson should have been controlling precedent in all the cases leading up to Obergefell....which......AGAIN,  .....shows the idiocy of the lower federal courts in this matter.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Debra K said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> I provided links numerous times in many threads to the legal documents, including the hearing transcript, in the case against Kim Davis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a link to the hearing transcripts?
> 
> Could I humbly request that you post it again, I'd love to read it.
> 
> Thank you in advance.
> 
> WW
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 0:15-cv-00044 #29
> 
> The above link contains the file (329 pages) regarding Defendant Kim Davis's Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction.  The transcript of the hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is Davis's Exhibits A & B (pages 50-162; 163-246).  The hearing was had over two days:  July 13, 2015, and July 20, 2015.
Click to expand...


Thank for the courtsey, it is much appreciated.

WW


>>>>


----------



## Vigilante

Wonder how the pond scum liberals would react if she had been a practicing muslim?..Who would they side with... the 2% of the BTGL voting public, or ones that have proven to KILL over such trivials as a Muhammad cartoon, and take their Queers seriously!


----------



## Faun

koshergrl said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would  have rolled over and let gays  marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and  we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> MLK stood for equality and inclusion
> 
> Davis stands for discrimination and religious oppression of those who believe differently
> 
> Gays don't need to get married? Common stupidity and bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody cares if they get married. Let them get married by people who want to marry them, and let them eat cake that people who want to bake cakes for them make for them.
> 
> Leave the majority of us alone. You fags can do your own thing, but leave us out of it. We aren't interested, we never have been interested.
Click to expand...

Conservatives sure do care that they can marry. But it's over now and conservatives lost.


----------



## boedicca

MaryL said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would  have rolled over and let gays  marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and  we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> MLK stood for equality and inclusion
> 
> Davis stands for discrimination and religious oppression of those who believe differently
> 
> Gays don't need to get married? Common stupidity and bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surprise surprise, more hate speech from a liberal. We all have the same rights.Gays want...more. Because that's "equal".  We all have the same rights. There isn't ANY  oppression, accept in your mind. Life liberty, freedom of expression, we ALL have that. So were did this same sex marriage thing come from?  You can LOVE who ever or how many other different folks and sexes real imagined or whatever. But marriage is, or should be reserved for those that CAN and DO reproduce, not sexual dysfunctional whinners with a bankroll and lawyers.
Click to expand...


In real intolerant countries, Gays are executed.

In the U.S., gays are perfectly free to live their lifestyles, but the  Prog loons insist on Participation and Elimination of Badthink.   Sore Leftie losers are the new Inquisition of Intolerance


----------



## Faun

koshergrl said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would  have rolled over and let gays  marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and  we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have any common sense if you think it's up to you to "let gays marry".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gays can do anything they want.
> 
> Except force people who see homo unions as sacrilege to endorse their marriages.
Click to expand...

True, no one can force anyone to endorse homo marriages. But we sure can throw folks like Kim Davis in jail if they don't.


----------



## Kondor3

Faun said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Davis is doing has nothing to do with 'civil disobedience.' It has to do with contempt for the rule of law, contempt for the Supreme Court, and contempt for the Constitution. Indeed, Davis isn't being held against her will, she could be home this week if she so desires. She's in jail as a result of her own free will, and she can leave any time she wants.
> 
> 
> 
> You do not see it as Civil Disobedience. I do, as do a great many others. Impasse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF?? Since when does the government partake in civil disobedience against the public??...
Click to expand...

My reference pertains to Davis.

Davis is engaging in Civil Disobedience against a law (ruling) that she believes to be immoral.



> ...You conservatives get everything ass backwards. Civil disobedience is the complete opposite of what you think it is. It's the public acting defiantly against the government -- not the other way around.


Rubbish.

I'll take Webster's definition over yours, thank you.

civil disobedience | refusal to obey laws as a way of forcing the government to do or change something


----------



## MaryL

Faun said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would  have rolled over and let gays  marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and  we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> MLK stood for equality and inclusion
> 
> Davis stands for discrimination and religious oppression of those who believe differently
> 
> Gays don't need to get married? Common stupidity and bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody cares if they get married. Let them get married by people who want to marry them, and let them eat cake that people who want to bake cakes for them make for them.
> 
> Leave the majority of us alone. You fags can do your own thing, but leave us out of it. We aren't interested, we never have been interested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatives sure do care that they can marry. But it's over now and conservatives lost.
Click to expand...

Marriage is NOT a trophy blindly handed  out to lovers, period . And it seems painfully apparent some posters aren't getting that. It isn't guaranteed in the constitution, neither is happiness. Some of you are going to have to get over it.Marriage  is about people coupling and having children, not validating broken sexualitity for political gain.


----------



## Faun

boedicca said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would  have rolled over and let gays  marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and  we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> MLK stood for equality and inclusion
> 
> Davis stands for discrimination and religious oppression of those who believe differently
> 
> Gays don't need to get married? Common stupidity and bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surprise surprise, more hate speech from a liberal. We all have the same rights.Gays want...more. Because that's "equal".  We all have the same rights. There isn't ANY  oppression, accept in your mind. Life liberty, freedom of expression, we ALL have that. So were did this same sex marriage thing come from?  You can LOVE who ever or how many other different folks and sexes real imagined or whatever. But marriage is, or should be reserved for those that CAN and DO reproduce, not sexual dysfunctional whinners with a bankroll and lawyers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In real intolerant countries, Gays are executed.
> 
> In the U.S., gays are perfectly free to live their lifestyles, but the  Prog loons insist on Participation and Elimination of Badthink.   Sore Leftie losers are the new Inquisition of Intolerance
Click to expand...

Umm, the left won on this issue. Equal rights prevailed 

Your projection is noted and laughed at.


----------



## Debra K

boedicca said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would  have rolled over and let gays  marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and  we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> MLK stood for equality and inclusion
> 
> Davis stands for discrimination and religious oppression of those who believe differently
> 
> Gays don't need to get married? Common stupidity and bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surprise surprise, more hate speech from a liberal. We all have the same rights.Gays want...more. Because that's "equal".  We all have the same rights. There isn't ANY  oppression, accept in your mind. Life liberty, freedom of expression, we ALL have that. So were did this same sex marriage thing come from?  You can LOVE who ever or how many other different folks and sexes real imagined or whatever. But marriage is, or should be reserved for those that CAN and DO reproduce, not sexual dysfunctional whinners with a bankroll and lawyers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In real intolerant countries, Gays are executed.
> 
> In the U.S., gays are perfectly free to live their lifestyles, but the  Prog loons insist on Participation and Elimination of Badthink.   Sore Leftie losers are the new Inquisition of Intolerance
Click to expand...


Your words prove that you're intolerant about the emancipation of homosexual persons from the chains of oppression.   You wish you could have them executed.


----------



## Faun

Kondor3 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Davis is doing has nothing to do with 'civil disobedience.' It has to do with contempt for the rule of law, contempt for the Supreme Court, and contempt for the Constitution. Indeed, Davis isn't being held against her will, she could be home this week if she so desires. She's in jail as a result of her own free will, and she can leave any time she wants.
> 
> 
> 
> You do not see it as Civil Disobedience. I do, as do a great many others. Impasse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF?? Since when does the government partake in civil disobedience against the public??...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My reference pertains to Davis.
> 
> Davis is engaging in Civil Disobedience against a law (ruling) that she believes to be immoral.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...You conservatives get everything ass backwards. Civil disobedience is the complete opposite of what you think it is. It's the public acting defiantly against the government -- not the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rubbish.
> 
> I'll take Webster's definition over yours, thank you.
> 
> civil disobedience | refusal to obey laws as a way of forcing the government to do or change something
Click to expand...

Again -- she IS the government. The government does not act out in civil disobedience, which is an act against the government.

That's why you're wrong and she sits in a cell.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Debra K said:


> I didn't provide the link for you.



No one cares... .  Count me among them.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Debra K said:


> Your words prove that you're intolerant about the emancipation of homosexual persons from the chains of oppression.




*ROFLMNAO! *​


----------



## Vandalshandle

koshergrl said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> i think it would have been hilarious if the jailor had refused to let her out, because letting a homophobe out of jail was against his religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you do. Because you don't understand the difference between imprisoning someone for their beliefs, vs. failing to sign a document that can be signed by anyone else. One is representative of fascism, the other of liberty.
Click to expand...


You guys have been so victimized. It is a wonder you don't go around showing the nail holes in your hands.....


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would  have rolled over and let gays  marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and  we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> MLK stood for equality and inclusion
> 
> Davis stands for discrimination and religious oppression of those who believe differently
> 
> Gays don't need to get married? Common stupidity and bigotry.
Click to expand...


Well, this proves once again, that YA CAN'T HIDE THE IDIOTS!  They simply will not allow it!

FYI: Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.  And this is so, without regard to the populist drivel of the lowest common denominators.


----------



## boedicca

Debra K said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would  have rolled over and let gays  marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and  we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> MLK stood for equality and inclusion
> 
> Davis stands for discrimination and religious oppression of those who believe differently
> 
> Gays don't need to get married? Common stupidity and bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surprise surprise, more hate speech from a liberal. We all have the same rights.Gays want...more. Because that's "equal".  We all have the same rights. There isn't ANY  oppression, accept in your mind. Life liberty, freedom of expression, we ALL have that. So were did this same sex marriage thing come from?  You can LOVE who ever or how many other different folks and sexes real imagined or whatever. But marriage is, or should be reserved for those that CAN and DO reproduce, not sexual dysfunctional whinners with a bankroll and lawyers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In real intolerant countries, Gays are executed.
> 
> In the U.S., gays are perfectly free to live their lifestyles, but the  Prog loons insist on Participation and Elimination of Badthink.   Sore Leftie losers are the new Inquisition of Intolerance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your words prove that you're intolerant about the emancipation of homosexual persons from the chains of oppression.   You wish you could have them executed.
Click to expand...


You clearly don't know me very well, hun.   

I personally have no issues with gay marriage.  I do have an issue with violating the religious freedom of others to accomplish it.  In a Free Society, those who wish to have nothing to do with gay marriage should be respected equally.   

I have posted in other threads that one of my sisters is a lesbian. I would hate to see her marriage marred by the ugliness of forcing others to participate against their wills.  I would hope for her, as I would for anyone about whom I care, that her ceremony be surrounded by love and support.


----------



## Vandalshandle

MaryL said:


> She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would  have rolled over and let gays  marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and  we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.



I don't need to get married either. We will make up our minds if you need to get married, and let you know what we decide.


----------



## boedicca

Faun said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would  have rolled over and let gays  marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and  we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have any common sense if you think it's up to you to "let gays marry".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gays can do anything they want.
> 
> Except force people who see homo unions as sacrilege to endorse their marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, no one can force anyone to endorse homo marriages. But we sure can throw folks like Kim Davis in jail if they don't.
Click to expand...



Nice shiny pair of Jack Boots you've got there, bub.   I suspect they'll give you a nasty set of blisters.


----------



## Faun

MaryL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would  have rolled over and let gays  marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and  we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> MLK stood for equality and inclusion
> 
> Davis stands for discrimination and religious oppression of those who believe differently
> 
> Gays don't need to get married? Common stupidity and bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody cares if they get married. Let them get married by people who want to marry them, and let them eat cake that people who want to bake cakes for them make for them.
> 
> Leave the majority of us alone. You fags can do your own thing, but leave us out of it. We aren't interested, we never have been interested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatives sure do care that they can marry. But it's over now and conservatives lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is NOT a trophy blindly handed  out to lovers, period . And it seems painfully apparent some posters aren't getting that. It isn't guaranteed in the constitution, neither is happiness. Some of you are going to have to get over it.Marriage  is about people coupling and having children, not validating broken sexualitity for political gain.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right. Lovers don't marry .... people only get married to have kids .... no one marries to validate sex .... and most of all, you're right -- the folks defending equal protection who prevailed at the highest level of our judicial system really should just get over it already.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Vandalshandle said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> i think it would have been hilarious if the jailor had refused to let her out, because letting a homophobe out of jail was against his religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you do. Because you don't understand the difference between imprisoning someone for their beliefs, vs. failing to sign a document that can be signed by anyone else. One is representative of fascism, the other of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You guys have been so victimized. It is a wonder you don't go around showing the nail holes in your hands.....
Click to expand...


We don't have any nail holes in our hands, Christ has nail holes in his hands.  

But... in fairness, he's the one that is going to sentence you to eternity of incomprehensible anguish and torment, for your inability to be a decent human being and at least try to obey God's law, while having the humility to accepting God's grace through Christ, so if you've got a bitch, take it up with him.


----------



## Vandalshandle

MaryL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would  have rolled over and let gays  marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and  we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> MLK stood for equality and inclusion
> 
> Davis stands for discrimination and religious oppression of those who believe differently
> 
> Gays don't need to get married? Common stupidity and bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody cares if they get married. Let them get married by people who want to marry them, and let them eat cake that people who want to bake cakes for them make for them.
> 
> Leave the majority of us alone. You fags can do your own thing, but leave us out of it. We aren't interested, we never have been interested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatives sure do care that they can marry. But it's over now and conservatives lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is NOT a trophy blindly handed  out to lovers, period . And it seems painfully apparent some posters aren't getting that. It isn't guaranteed in the constitution, neither is happiness. Some of you are going to have to get over it.Marriage  is about people coupling and having children, not validating broken sexualitity for political gain.
Click to expand...


Well, I guess that invalidates my marriage that happened at age 53, after my vasectomy.....


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Vandalshandle said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would  have rolled over and let gays  marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and  we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> MLK stood for equality and inclusion
> 
> Davis stands for discrimination and religious oppression of those who believe differently
> 
> Gays don't need to get married? Common stupidity and bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody cares if they get married. Let them get married by people who want to marry them, and let them eat cake that people who want to bake cakes for them make for them.
> 
> Leave the majority of us alone. You fags can do your own thing, but leave us out of it. We aren't interested, we never have been interested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatives sure do care that they can marry. But it's over now and conservatives lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is NOT a trophy blindly handed  out to lovers, period . And it seems painfully apparent some posters aren't getting that. It isn't guaranteed in the constitution, neither is happiness. Some of you are going to have to get over it.Marriage  is about people coupling and having children, not validating broken sexualitity for political gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I guess that invalidates my marriage that happened at age 53, after my vasectomy.....
Click to expand...


No, you invalidated it.  Through your failure to understand what Marriage is.  

But hey... such is the nature of evil.


----------



## MaryL

How were gays excluded? Blacks weren't  segregated, I never saw a gays only drinking fountain or restrooms or excluded from registering from voting. Same access to education, no exclusion there, either, all these phony arguments. Everything was acceptable to gay. It boggles my mind, they see themselves as victims when they are just rich white whinny men that want exceptional privileges NOBODY even though they were due.


----------



## Vandalshandle

MaryL said:


> How were gays excluded? Blacks weren't  segregated, I never saw a gays only drinking fountain or restrooms or excluded from registering from voting. Same access to education, no exclusion there, either, all these phony arguments. Everything was acceptable to gay. It boggles my mind, they see themselves as victims when they are just rich white whinny men that want exceptional privileges NOBODY even though they were due.



Everything except a marriage license in Kim's county.

We used to have a system like that in the South. Blacks could do anything that we did, as long as blacks stayed away from places where we went to do it. When the federal courts told New Orleans that they had to integrate the swimming pools, New Orleans closed every public pool in the city.

Just more of the same ol', same ol'.


----------



## Faun

boedicca said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would  have rolled over and let gays  marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and  we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have any common sense if you think it's up to you to "let gays marry".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gays can do anything they want.
> 
> Except force people who see homo unions as sacrilege to endorse their marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, no one can force anyone to endorse homo marriages. But we sure can throw folks like Kim Davis in jail if they don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nice shiny pair of Jack Boots you've got there, bub.   I suspect they'll give you a nasty set of blisters.
Click to expand...

That's what sore losers says when they're pissed the government enforces laws they don't like.


----------



## MaryL

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> MLK stood for equality and inclusion
> 
> Davis stands for discrimination and religious oppression of those who believe differently
> 
> Gays don't need to get married? Common stupidity and bigotry.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody cares if they get married. Let them get married by people who want to marry them, and let them eat cake that people who want to bake cakes for them make for them.
> 
> Leave the majority of us alone. You fags can do your own thing, but leave us out of it. We aren't interested, we never have been interested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatives sure do care that they can marry. But it's over now and conservatives lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is NOT a trophy blindly handed  out to lovers, period . And it seems painfully apparent some posters aren't getting that. It isn't guaranteed in the constitution, neither is happiness. Some of you are going to have to get over it.Marriage  is about people coupling and having children, not validating broken sexualitity for political gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I guess that invalidates my marriage that happened at age 53, after my vasectomy.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you invalidated it.  Through your failure to understand what Marriage is.
> 
> But hey... such is the nature of evil.
Click to expand...

Hateful. Gays never had to drink out of separate drinking fountains, or live in ghettos. Theirs  is a sexual dysfunction, and they don't know what oppression is, and neither do you.They buy out rich white punks like you  and portray themselves as victims. They can't have children, and they don't need to get married. And we all know it is that simple.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Vandalshandle said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How were gays excluded? Blacks weren't  segregated, I never saw a gays only drinking fountain or restrooms or excluded from registering from voting. Same access to education, no exclusion there, either, all these phony arguments. Everything was acceptable to gay. It boggles my mind, they see themselves as victims when they are just rich white whinny men that want exceptional privileges NOBODY even though they were due.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything except a marriage license in Kim's county.
> 
> We used to have a system like that in the South. Blacks could do anything that we did, as long as blacks stayed away from places where we went to do it.
Click to expand...



Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with sexual degenerates and their feckless attempt to find legitimacy through marriage.


----------



## Vandalshandle

MaryL said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody cares if they get married. Let them get married by people who want to marry them, and let them eat cake that people who want to bake cakes for them make for them.
> 
> Leave the majority of us alone. You fags can do your own thing, but leave us out of it. We aren't interested, we never have been interested.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives sure do care that they can marry. But it's over now and conservatives lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is NOT a trophy blindly handed  out to lovers, period . And it seems painfully apparent some posters aren't getting that. It isn't guaranteed in the constitution, neither is happiness. Some of you are going to have to get over it.Marriage  is about people coupling and having children, not validating broken sexualitity for political gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I guess that invalidates my marriage that happened at age 53, after my vasectomy.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you invalidated it.  Through your failure to understand what Marriage is.
> 
> But hey... such is the nature of evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hateful. Gays never had to drink out of separate drinking fountains, or live in ghettos. Theirs  is a sexual dysfunction, and they don't know what oppression is, and neither do you.They buy out rich white punks like you  and portray themselves as victims. They can't have children, and they don't need to get married. And we all know it is that simple.
Click to expand...


Well, apparently not ALL know it is that simple. the Supreme Court, for example.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> i think it would have been hilarious if the jailor had refused to let her out, because letting a homophobe out of jail was against his religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you do. Because you don't understand the difference between imprisoning someone for their beliefs, vs. failing to sign a document that can be signed by anyone else. One is representative of fascism, the other of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You guys have been so victimized. It is a wonder you don't go around showing the nail holes in your hands.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't have any nail holes in our hands, Christ has nail holes in his hands.
> 
> But... in fairness, he's the one that is going to sentence you to eternity of incomprehensible anguish and torment, for your inability to be a decent human being and at least try to obey God's law, while having the humility to accepting God's grace through Christ, so if you've got a bitch, take it up with him.
Click to expand...




Thank you for the wonderful sermon, Ted Haggard.


----------



## MaryL

Vandalshandle said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives sure do care that they can marry. But it's over now and conservatives lost.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is NOT a trophy blindly handed  out to lovers, period . And it seems painfully apparent some posters aren't getting that. It isn't guaranteed in the constitution, neither is happiness. Some of you are going to have to get over it.Marriage  is about people coupling and having children, not validating broken sexualitity for political gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I guess that invalidates my marriage that happened at age 53, after my vasectomy.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you invalidated it.  Through your failure to understand what Marriage is.
> 
> But hey... such is the nature of evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hateful. Gays never had to drink out of separate drinking fountains, or live in ghettos. Theirs  is a sexual dysfunction, and they don't know what oppression is, and neither do you.They buy out rich white punks like you  and portray themselves as victims. They can't have children, and they don't need to get married. And we all know it is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, apparently not ALL know it is that simple. the Supreme Court, for example.
Click to expand...

Sometimes we over complicate things. Simplicity and elegance go hand in hand. So far, I am reading a lot of people beating their chests like naked apes and trying to intimidate us into thinking   gays iare on  parity to hetroseualy. Humans do not reproduce by whatever sexuality is popular, kids. Biology 101. Love whomever you want, for what ever reason. But it won't make babies. And marriage IS about protecting and encouraging our offspring, it's not a prize for sexual  dysfunctional whiners.


----------



## Vandalshandle

MaryL said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is NOT a trophy blindly handed  out to lovers, period . And it seems painfully apparent some posters aren't getting that. It isn't guaranteed in the constitution, neither is happiness. Some of you are going to have to get over it.Marriage  is about people coupling and having children, not validating broken sexualitity for political gain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I guess that invalidates my marriage that happened at age 53, after my vasectomy.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you invalidated it.  Through your failure to understand what Marriage is.
> 
> But hey... such is the nature of evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hateful. Gays never had to drink out of separate drinking fountains, or live in ghettos. Theirs  is a sexual dysfunction, and they don't know what oppression is, and neither do you.They buy out rich white punks like you  and portray themselves as victims. They can't have children, and they don't need to get married. And we all know it is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, apparently not ALL know it is that simple. the Supreme Court, for example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes we over complicate things. Simplicity and elegance go hand in hand. So far, I am reading a lot of people beating their chests like naked apes and trying to intimidate us into thinking   gays iare on  parity to hetroseualy. Humans do not reproduce by whatever sexuality is popular, kids. Biology 101. Love whomever you want, for what ever reason. But it won't make babies. And marriage IS about protecting and encouraging our offspring, it's not a prize for sexual  dysfunctional whiners.
Click to expand...


Again, you just told me that I have no reason, or right, to get married, since my reproductive days are over. Frankly, you are starting to piss me off. Where do you get off telling me that my marriage is not worthy enough to have been validated?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Vandalshandle said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I guess that invalidates my marriage that happened at age 53, after my vasectomy.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you invalidated it.  Through your failure to understand what Marriage is.
> 
> But hey... such is the nature of evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hateful. Gays never had to drink out of separate drinking fountains, or live in ghettos. Theirs  is a sexual dysfunction, and they don't know what oppression is, and neither do you.They buy out rich white punks like you  and portray themselves as victims. They can't have children, and they don't need to get married. And we all know it is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, apparently not ALL know it is that simple. the Supreme Court, for example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes we over complicate things. Simplicity and elegance go hand in hand. So far, I am reading a lot of people beating their chests like naked apes and trying to intimidate us into thinking   gays iare on  parity to hetroseualy. Humans do not reproduce by whatever sexuality is popular, kids. Biology 101. Love whomever you want, for what ever reason. But it won't make babies. And marriage IS about protecting and encouraging our offspring, it's not a prize for sexual  dysfunctional whiners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you just told me that I have no reason, or right, to get married, since my reproductive days are over. Frankly, you are starting to piss me off. Where do you get off telling me that my marriage is not worthy enough to have been validated?
Click to expand...


That you marry without the means to reproduce, IN NO WAY alters the PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE!

I have a hammer sitting on my bench holding down paperwork.  That HAMMER is being useful as something other than what it built to do.  THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE PURPOSE OF THE HAMMER.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman, for the PURPOSE of PROCREATION. 

* >>> PERIOD <<<*​


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman, for the PURPOSE of PROCREATION.


Not true then, not true now.  And since that isn't true, why are bothering to say it?  Are you just a total moron?


----------



## Camp

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman, for the PURPOSE of PROCREATION.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true then, not true now.  And since that isn't true, why are bothering to say it?  Are you just a total moron?
Click to expand...

Beware of the POS who sees sex and identifies with sexual perversion at every opportunity. For them the thoughts have become obsessions. The key guy fits the bill.


----------



## Kondor3

Faun said:


> ...Again -- she IS the government. The government does not act out in civil disobedience, which is an act against the government. That's why you're wrong and she sits in a cell.


And there, apparently, is the gist of the difference in positions.

You (apparently) believe that it is impossible for a member of the government to engage in Civil Disobedience while on-duty.

I believe that is it possible for a member of the government to refuse to conform to an immoral law, while on-duty, and that, in doing so, she is engaged in an act of Civil Disobedience.

I believe that Davis is in jail because - member of the government or no - she is engaged in an act of Civil Disobedience.

Doesn't mean she's right.

Doesn't mean that she can't be charged with a failure to execute or for contempt.

It's just the label that we hang on her actions.

You (and others less sympathetic) label it as Simple Lawbreaking.

I (and others more sympathetic) label it as Civil Disobedience - which has much the same effect, at-law, but which suggests a nobler purpose and self-sacrifice.

An appellation that you-and-yours are desperate to try to suppress, for fear that it will gain enough traction to become irreversible in the collective public psyche.

And, if that's the case, I think you're already too late.

She's already been awarded the mantle of hero and martyr.

Sucks, eh?


----------



## Flopper

Kondor3 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Again -- she IS the government. The government does not act out in civil disobedience, which is an act against the government. That's why you're wrong and she sits in a cell.
> 
> 
> 
> And there, apparently, is the gist of the difference in positions.
> 
> You (apparently) believe that it is impossible for a member of the government to engage in Civil Disobedience while on-duty.
> 
> I believe that is it possible for a member of the government to refuse to conform to an immoral law, while on-duty, and that, in doing so, she is engaged in an act of Civil Disobedience.
> 
> I believe that Davis is in jail because - member of the government or no - she is engaged in an act of Civil Disobedience.
> 
> Doesn't mean she's right.
> 
> Doesn't mean that she can't be charged with a failure to execute or for contempt.
> 
> It's just the label that we hang on her actions.
> 
> You (and others less sympathetic) label it as Simple Lawbreaking.
> 
> I (and others more sympathetic) label it as Civil Disobedience - which has much the same effect, at-law, but which suggests a nobler purpose and self-sacrifice.
> 
> An appellation that you-and-yours are desperate to try to suppress, for fear that it will gain enough traction to become irreversible in the collective public psyche.
> 
> And, if that's the case, I think you're already too late.
> 
> She's already been awarded the mantle of hero and martyr.
> 
> Sucks, eh?
Click to expand...

Kim Davis's office is obligated to perform the state function of issuing marriage licenses. She disagrees that marriage can exist between two people of the same sex. However, the state of Kentucky has little choice other than to respect the ruling of the Supreme Court.  Davis's opinion is completely irrelevant to performance of her job.  If she will not allow her office to preform their function, then she has to go just like any employee who finds their conscience will not allow them to do their job.


----------



## Vandalshandle

The long and short of it is that if she interferes with the assigned duties of the county clerk's office, she will return to the slammer. 

End of story.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Vandalshandle said:


> The long and short of it is that if she interferes with the assigned duties of the county clerk's office, she will return to the slammer.
> 
> End of story.


I love a happy ending.  Let's watch it again, soon...


----------



## Kondor3

Flopper said:


> ...Kim Davis's office is obligated to perform the state function of issuing marriage licenses. She disagrees that marriage can exist between two people of the same sex. However, the state of Kentucky has little choice other than to respect the ruling of the Supreme Court.  Davis's opinion is completely irrelevant to performance of her job.  If she will not allow her office to preform their function, then she has to go just like any employee who finds their conscience will not allow them to do their job.


True.

Also irrelevant, to the question of whether or not Davis is, indeed, engaged in Civil Disobedience, rather than simple law-breaking or failure to execute her office.

The ruling is new, the public blood is 'up' over this, and her jailing did more to elevate her to the status of Martyr and Folk Hero than it did to tarnish her image or that of her dept.

In truth, it seems likely that Davis is not simply '_still swinging after the bell has rung_'.

Rather, it seems likely that Davis is 'priming the pump' for the *NEXT* round in what promises to be a *long*-running battle for America's soul.

Every time that someone takes a hit in a lawsuit or goes to jail for refusing to submit to wickedness, as many perceive this ruling to be, the more fence-sitters (and that number is vast) will be driven into the Opposition camp. Support for Gay Marriage may have grown in recent years, but it's a far more fragile thing than Gay advocates will ever admit.

And, of course, if Liberals lose the general election in 2016, keeping both chambers of Congress in Conservative hands, and if the Conservatives take the White House as well, with someone sufficiently forceful and motivational to lead the charge, who knows? Individuals can be swayed. Fresh challenges can be mounted. Old rulings can be overturned.

We live in interesting times, and it seems likely that it's about to grow even more interesting in the near future; just not in the way that the Gay Mafia might be hoping for.


----------



## Seawytch

Kondor3 said:


> We live in interesting times, and it seems likely that it's about to grow even more interesting in the near future; just not in the way that the Gay Mafia might be hoping for.



Your delusional fantasies about how you're going to "take your country back" are just that, delusional fantasies. You're never going to get rid of gay marriage...but do keep trying, please.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're talking about a ridiculous lie you've contrived and are trying to propagate.
> 
> The _Obergefell_ Court followed the Constitution, it followed settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, and it followed the rule of law.
> 
> The states may not seek to disadvantage through force of law a class of persons predicated solely on who they are, including gay Americans.
> 
> “The fourteenth amendment...prohibits any state legislation which has the effect of denying to any...class [of persons], or to any individual, the equal protection of the laws.”
> 
> _Civil Rights Cases_ (1883)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gee, 4 of 9 justices disagreed.  doesn't sound so cut and dried to me,.....
> 
> and my post was about how this will be remembered in the future...and the Valentine days ruling will be a lasting example of the emotional bases for these rulings, rather than a sober and logical look at the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm willing to be that your another one who has not bothered to read the opinion but is , nevertheless willing to dismiss it as "emotional" and as not following the law. Here are selected excerpts for you convenience.  While you read, count the number of earlier cases that were cited to support the decision....just in the portions that I provided and then tell us again how this is not based on solid case law :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES*
> 
> Syllabus
> 
> OBERGEFELL ET AL. _v_. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.
> 
> CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
> 
> No. 14–556. Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 2015*
> 
> 
> 
> *Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriagebetween two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.*
> 
> 
> 
> (1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, _e.g., *Eisenstadt *_*v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486*. Pg.2
> 
> 
> 
> (2) Four principles and traditions demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples. The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.  Pg. 3
> 
> 
> 
> A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to *Griswold v. Connecticut,* which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception,  pg.3
> 
> 
> A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguardschildren and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, _e.g.,* Pierce *_*v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510*. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. *They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents,* relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issuethus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. *See Windsor, supra, at ___.Pg.3*
> 
> 
> Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. *See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211*. States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle,yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that theStates have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instabilitymany opposite-sex couples would find intolerable.  Pg.4
> 
> 
> 
> (4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. *Baker v. Nelson is overruled*. The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23. Pg.5
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There may be an initial inclination to await further legislation, litigation, and debate, but referenda, legislative debates, and grassroots campaigns; studies and other writings; and extensive litigation in state and federal courts have led to an enhanced understanding of the issue. While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. Pg 5
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I almost never read majority opinions,....the dissents contain the most true wisdom in our joke of a federal court system.
> 
> I did see one case mentioned *Baker v. Nelson *
> 
> which they said they overruled ...........so much for a solid basis in precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never read majority opinions? Maybe that's your problem. You think that the senseless  rants of Thomas and Scalia were the truest wisdom? Seriously?
> 
> The issue  of Baker being a controlling precedent had been  questionable for some time as it was from a prior era  in case law, long before gay rights were considered at all. This was just the final blow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> some of the greatest judges in the history of the court were known by their dissents......one is called the great dissenter I believe.
> 
> Baker v. Nelson should have been controlling precedent in all the cases leading up to Obergefell....which......AGAIN,  .....shows the idiocy of the lower federal courts in this matter.
Click to expand...


Your living in a by-gone fantasy world as all bigots are. A few dozen lower court brushed Baker aside or just ignored it and for good reason........


“New York Law School Professor Art Leonard says:

“Many lower federal courts have cited Baker v. Nelson as precluding any federal constitutional challenge to the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage”.  He goes on to say “This was before the modern gay rights movement really got going in the courts, before we won Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, before the establishment of a growing body of case law protecting gay rights.  Clearly, what was not a ‘substantial federal question’ in the 1970s is today a ‘substantial federal question.’” I would add: It is quite conceivable that the language of a majority opinion-in which the court said “in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.”  -today would be very different given rulings on subsequent cases .

In December of 2013 US District Judge Robert Shelby ruled that Utah’s Amendment 3 banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, violating protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. In his ruling, he focused on several views of the subject, mostly focusing on decisions in _Baker v. Nelson_ and _Loving v. Virginia_. While both have relevance, to some degree, Shelby drew from the Loving case to decide that the amendment passed by Utah voters by 66% violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. That same month the New Mexico Supreme Court, overturning a statute banning same-sex marriage.


Reading the decision, two points become clear in that the court, at that time,( of Baker v. Nelson) relied on archaic language relevant at a time prior to two key decisions that have helped shape the national conversation on LGBT rights, _Lawrence v. Texas_ and _Romer v. Evans_. The former struck down Texas’ sodomy statute and decriminalized homosexuality. The later provided protections for gays and lesbians in that a state could not target and deny rights to a particular class of individuals. Western State University College of Law professor David Groshoff argues, “_Baker’s_ relevance in this debate more or less disappeared in Minnesota in 2001, and several years later nationwide, when sodomy laws no longer applied to consenting adults.” Searching for Greater Freedom


----------



## Kondor3

Seawytch said:


> ...Your delusional fantasies about how you're going to "take your country back" are just that, delusional fantasies. You're never going to get rid of gay marriage...but do keep trying, please.


Yes. Vae victus. ("Woe unto the vanquished"). "Resistance is futile". "Surrender. You have no choice." "You're delusional." --- Yes, indeed, we've heard it all, before.

Let's see what happens after January 20, 2017, once Republicans are back in charge of the White House, as well as both chambers of Congress.

This isn't over yet - it's only beginning - and you(r side) is square in the metaphorical targeting-sights.

Meanwhile, enjoy your phyrric victory while it lasts, because it seems highly unlikely that it will last much beyond Barack Obama's term in office, once a more Conservative leadership is online, to lead the charge.

In any event, we will know, soon enough.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Kondor3 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Your delusional fantasies about how you're going to "take your country back" are just that, delusional fantasies. You're never going to get rid of gay marriage...but do keep trying, please.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Vae victus. ("Woe unto the vanquished"). "Resistance is futile". "Surrender. You have no choice." "You're delusional." --- Yes, indeed, we've heard it all, before.
> 
> Let's see what happens after January 20, 2017, once Republicans are back in charge of the White House, as well as both chambers of Congress.
> 
> This isn't over yet - it's only beginning - and you(r side) is square in the metaphorical targeting-sights.
> 
> Meanwhile, enjoy your phyrric victory while it lasts, because it seems highly unlikely that it will last much beyond Barack Obama's term in office, once a more Conservative leadership is online, to lead the charge.
> 
> In any event, we will know, soon enough.
Click to expand...

 phyrric victory  ???? Funny, it doesn't feel like that.


----------



## Faun

Kondor3 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Again -- she IS the government. The government does not act out in civil disobedience, which is an act against the government. That's why you're wrong and she sits in a cell.
> 
> 
> 
> And there, apparently, is the gist of the difference in positions.
> 
> You (apparently) believe that it is impossible for a member of the government to engage in Civil Disobedience while on-duty.
> 
> I believe that is it possible for a member of the government to refuse to conform to an immoral law, while on-duty, and that, in doing so, she is engaged in an act of Civil Disobedience.
> 
> I believe that Davis is in jail because - member of the government or no - she is engaged in an act of Civil Disobedience.
> 
> Doesn't mean she's right.
> 
> Doesn't mean that she can't be charged with a failure to execute or for contempt.
> 
> It's just the label that we hang on her actions.
> 
> You (and others less sympathetic) label it as Simple Lawbreaking.
> 
> I (and others more sympathetic) label it as Civil Disobedience - which has much the same effect, at-law, but which suggests a nobler purpose and self-sacrifice.
> 
> An appellation that you-and-yours are desperate to try to suppress, for fear that it will gain enough traction to become irreversible in the collective public psyche.
> 
> And, if that's the case, I think you're already too late.
> 
> She's already been awarded the mantle of hero and martyr.
> 
> Sucks, eh?
Click to expand...

Sucks? Hell no. Why would it suck? She represents the fringe right who just can't accept they lost the fight. She is like the diehard birthers who refused to accept they were beaten when Obama released his long form certificate. The majority of Americans are in favor of gay marriage. The majority of Americans support the U.S.S.C. decision. The majority of Americans think what Kim Davis is doing is wrong.

Politically speaking, all she can do is hurt the Republican party as we approach an election year.

That doesn't suck for Liberals.

As far as it being civil disobedience ... it's not civil disobedience when the government protests the people. It wasn't just her protesting -- it was her office. She refused to let her office perform its governmental responsibilities. That's not civil disobedience -- it's anarchy.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

MaryL said:


> She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would  have rolled over and let gays  marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and  we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.


What law did she violate?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> They crucified Jesus, they imprisoned MLK for believing in something that offended and violated laws of the status quo.
> 
> 
> 
> They probably had to drum up some law they said MLK was violating. Now they throw political dissidents in jail on a whim. I think this judge needs to see the inside of a jail cell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that you need to see the inside of a mental institution
Click to expand...

Will you settle for the inside of my autistic son's developmental therapist's clinic?


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would  have rolled over and let gays  marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and  we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> What law did she violate?
Click to expand...


As posted in another thread by WorldWatcher
Ms. Davis was found in violation of 42 USC 1983 and a preliminary injunction issued in Federal court for not doing her job. She refused to comply with the courts order and was fund to be in contempt of court under 18 USC 401-402.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would  have rolled over and let gays  marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and  we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> What law did she violate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As posted in another thread by WorldWatcher
> Ms. Davis was found in violation of 42 USC 1983 and a preliminary injunction issued in Federal court for not doing her job. She refused to comply with the courts order and was fund to be in contempt of court under 18 USC 401-402.
Click to expand...

That's not a law. Which law did she violate?


----------



## Faun

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would  have rolled over and let gays  marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and  we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> What law did she violate?
Click to expand...

The Constitution.


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> gee, 4 of 9 justices disagreed.  doesn't sound so cut and dried to me,.....
> 
> and my post was about how this will be remembered in the future...and the Valentine days ruling will be a lasting example of the emotional bases for these rulings, rather than a sober and logical look at the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm willing to be that your another one who has not bothered to read the opinion but is , nevertheless willing to dismiss it as "emotional" and as not following the law. Here are selected excerpts for you convenience.  While you read, count the number of earlier cases that were cited to support the decision....just in the portions that I provided and then tell us again how this is not based on solid case law :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES*
> 
> Syllabus
> 
> OBERGEFELL ET AL. _v_. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.
> 
> CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
> 
> No. 14–556. Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 2015*
> 
> 
> 
> *Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriagebetween two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.*
> 
> 
> 
> (1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, _e.g., *Eisenstadt *_*v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486*. Pg.2
> 
> 
> 
> (2) Four principles and traditions demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples. The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.  Pg. 3
> 
> 
> 
> A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to *Griswold v. Connecticut,* which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception,  pg.3
> 
> 
> A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguardschildren and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, _e.g.,* Pierce *_*v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510*. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. *They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents,* relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issuethus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. *See Windsor, supra, at ___.Pg.3*
> 
> 
> Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. *See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211*. States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle,yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that theStates have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instabilitymany opposite-sex couples would find intolerable.  Pg.4
> 
> 
> 
> (4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. *Baker v. Nelson is overruled*. The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23. Pg.5
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There may be an initial inclination to await further legislation, litigation, and debate, but referenda, legislative debates, and grassroots campaigns; studies and other writings; and extensive litigation in state and federal courts have led to an enhanced understanding of the issue. While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. Pg 5
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I almost never read majority opinions,....the dissents contain the most true wisdom in our joke of a federal court system.
> 
> I did see one case mentioned *Baker v. Nelson *
> 
> which they said they overruled ...........so much for a solid basis in precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never read majority opinions? Maybe that's your problem. You think that the senseless  rants of Thomas and Scalia were the truest wisdom? Seriously?
> 
> The issue  of Baker being a controlling precedent had been  questionable for some time as it was from a prior era  in case law, long before gay rights were considered at all. This was just the final blow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> some of the greatest judges in the history of the court were known by their dissents......one is called the great dissenter I believe.
> 
> Baker v. Nelson should have been controlling precedent in all the cases leading up to Obergefell....which......AGAIN,  .....shows the idiocy of the lower federal courts in this matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your living in a by-gone fantasy world as all bigots are. A few dozen lower court brushed Baker aside or just ignored it and for good reason........
> 
> 
> “New York Law School Professor Art Leonard says:
> 
> “Many lower federal courts have cited Baker v. Nelson as precluding any federal constitutional challenge to the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage”.  He goes on to say “This was before the modern gay rights movement really got going in the courts, before we won Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, before the establishment of a growing body of case law protecting gay rights.  Clearly, what was not a ‘substantial federal question’ in the 1970s is today a ‘substantial federal question.’” I would add: It is quite conceivable that the language of a majority opinion-in which the court said “in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.”  -today would be very different given rulings on subsequent cases .
> 
> In December of 2013 US District Judge Robert Shelby ruled that Utah’s Amendment 3 banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, violating protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. In his ruling, he focused on several views of the subject, mostly focusing on decisions in _Baker v. Nelson_ and _Loving v. Virginia_. While both have relevance, to some degree, Shelby drew from the Loving case to decide that the amendment passed by Utah voters by 66% violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. That same month the New Mexico Supreme Court, overturning a statute banning same-sex marriage.
> 
> 
> Reading the decision, two points become clear in that the court, at that time,( of Baker v. Nelson) relied on archaic language relevant at a time prior to two key decisions that have helped shape the national conversation on LGBT rights, _Lawrence v. Texas_ and _Romer v. Evans_. The former struck down Texas’ sodomy statute and decriminalized homosexuality. The later provided protections for gays and lesbians in that a state could not target and deny rights to a particular class of individuals. Western State University College of Law professor David Groshoff argues, “_Baker’s_ relevance in this debate more or less disappeared in Minnesota in 2001, and several years later nationwide, when sodomy laws no longer applied to consenting adults.” Searching for Greater Freedom
Click to expand...



archaic language is what the Constitution is. archaic language is what the Court derives its power from.......to dismiss archaic language is really to dismiss the reasoning for the courts. 

To say that the mess of a decision in Romer v Evans makes Baker v. Nelson obsolete is pathetic. No person who tries to read through the muddle that that decision is comes away with any confidence in the logic of the court.  I don't recall it saying it overturned Baker v. Nelson though...............if it didnt say it did, it wasn't claiming it did......

Lawrence v. Texas seems like it has more to do with the right to privacy among couples....that wasnt a concern in the gay marriage debate.


----------



## Debra K

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you invalidated it.  Through your failure to understand what Marriage is.
> 
> But hey... such is the nature of evil.
> 
> 
> 
> Hateful. Gays never had to drink out of separate drinking fountains, or live in ghettos. Theirs  is a sexual dysfunction, and they don't know what oppression is, and neither do you.They buy out rich white punks like you  and portray themselves as victims. They can't have children, and they don't need to get married. And we all know it is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, apparently not ALL know it is that simple. the Supreme Court, for example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes we over complicate things. Simplicity and elegance go hand in hand. So far, I am reading a lot of people beating their chests like naked apes and trying to intimidate us into thinking   gays iare on  parity to hetroseualy. Humans do not reproduce by whatever sexuality is popular, kids. Biology 101. Love whomever you want, for what ever reason. But it won't make babies. And marriage IS about protecting and encouraging our offspring, it's not a prize for sexual  dysfunctional whiners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you just told me that I have no reason, or right, to get married, since my reproductive days are over. Frankly, you are starting to piss me off. Where do you get off telling me that my marriage is not worthy enough to have been validated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you marry without the means to reproduce, IN NO WAY alters the PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE!
Click to expand...


Exactly.  The ability to reproduce is not a requirement.  The parties to the marriage contract incur mutual obligations of respect, fidelity, and support.  Accordingly, mental cruelty, infidelity, and non-support are grounds for divorce based on fault, i.e., breach of a contract obligation.



> I have a hammer sitting on my bench holding down paperwork.  That HAMMER is being useful as something other than what it built to do.  THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE PURPOSE OF THE HAMMER.



A merchant is not forbidden from selling a hammer based on how the hammer will be used.  It's none of the merchant's business if the hammer will be used as a paper weight or an instrument to pound nails into wood, etc.



> Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman, for the PURPOSE of PROCREATION.



You are confusing a civil contract with a physical act.   Copulation sometimes results in a pregnancy.  But the promise to copulate for the purpose of producing offspring is not a prerequisite to forming a valid contract of marriage.  It is lawful for people to use birth control, and the use of birth control dispels the notion that people copulate solely for the purpose of procreation.  In case you haven't noticed, both heterosexual and homosexual persons raise children.   Your animus directed at a class of people is harmful to society.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm willing to be that your another one who has not bothered to read the opinion but is , nevertheless willing to dismiss it as "emotional" and as not following the law. Here are selected excerpts for you convenience.  While you read, count the number of earlier cases that were cited to support the decision....just in the portions that I provided and then tell us again how this is not based on solid case law :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I almost never read majority opinions,....the dissents contain the most true wisdom in our joke of a federal court system.
> 
> I did see one case mentioned *Baker v. Nelson *
> 
> which they said they overruled ...........so much for a solid basis in precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never read majority opinions? Maybe that's your problem. You think that the senseless  rants of Thomas and Scalia were the truest wisdom? Seriously?
> 
> The issue  of Baker being a controlling precedent had been  questionable for some time as it was from a prior era  in case law, long before gay rights were considered at all. This was just the final blow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> some of the greatest judges in the history of the court were known by their dissents......one is called the great dissenter I believe.
> 
> Baker v. Nelson should have been controlling precedent in all the cases leading up to Obergefell....which......AGAIN,  .....shows the idiocy of the lower federal courts in this matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your living in a by-gone fantasy world as all bigots are. A few dozen lower court brushed Baker aside or just ignored it and for good reason........
> 
> 
> “New York Law School Professor Art Leonard says:
> 
> “Many lower federal courts have cited Baker v. Nelson as precluding any federal constitutional challenge to the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage”.  He goes on to say “This was before the modern gay rights movement really got going in the courts, before we won Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, before the establishment of a growing body of case law protecting gay rights.  Clearly, what was not a ‘substantial federal question’ in the 1970s is today a ‘substantial federal question.’” I would add: It is quite conceivable that the language of a majority opinion-in which the court said “in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.”  -today would be very different given rulings on subsequent cases .
> 
> In December of 2013 US District Judge Robert Shelby ruled that Utah’s Amendment 3 banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, violating protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. In his ruling, he focused on several views of the subject, mostly focusing on decisions in _Baker v. Nelson_ and _Loving v. Virginia_. While both have relevance, to some degree, Shelby drew from the Loving case to decide that the amendment passed by Utah voters by 66% violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. That same month the New Mexico Supreme Court, overturning a statute banning same-sex marriage.
> 
> 
> Reading the decision, two points become clear in that the court, at that time,( of Baker v. Nelson) relied on archaic language relevant at a time prior to two key decisions that have helped shape the national conversation on LGBT rights, _Lawrence v. Texas_ and _Romer v. Evans_. The former struck down Texas’ sodomy statute and decriminalized homosexuality. The later provided protections for gays and lesbians in that a state could not target and deny rights to a particular class of individuals. Western State University College of Law professor David Groshoff argues, “_Baker’s_ relevance in this debate more or less disappeared in Minnesota in 2001, and several years later nationwide, when sodomy laws no longer applied to consenting adults.” Searching for Greater Freedom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> archaic language is what the Constitution is. archaic language is what the Court derives its power from.......to dismiss archaic language is really to dismiss the reasoning for the courts.
> 
> To say that the mess of a decision in Romer v Evans makes Baker v. Nelson obsolete is pathetic. No person who tries to read through the muddle that that decision is comes away with any confidence in the logic of the court.  I don't recall it saying it overturned Baker v. Nelson though...............if it didnt say it did, it wasn't claiming it did......
> 
> Lawrence v. Texas seems like it has more to do with the right to privacy among couples....that wasnt a concern in the gay marriage debate.
Click to expand...

What  are you blathering about now?? It's stupid to be discussing Baker at this late date. Before Obergefell, the bigots continued to cling to it as there last pathetic hope despite the questionable applicability. Then Justice Kennedy SPECIFICALLY stated in the majority opinion that Baker is overturned. If you don't know that, look it up. Get over it already


----------



## Debra K

Kondor3 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Kim Davis's office is obligated to perform the state function of issuing marriage licenses. She disagrees that marriage can exist between two people of the same sex. However, the state of Kentucky has little choice other than to respect the ruling of the Supreme Court.  Davis's opinion is completely irrelevant to performance of her job.  If she will not allow her office to preform their function, then she has to go just like any employee who finds their conscience will not allow them to do their job.
> 
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> Also irrelevant, to the question of whether or not Davis is, indeed, engaged in Civil Disobedience, rather than simple law-breaking or failure to execute her office.
> 
> The ruling is new, the public blood is 'up' over this, and her jailing did more to elevate her to the status of Martyr and Folk Hero than it did to tarnish her image or that of her dept.
> 
> In truth, it seems likely that Davis is not simply '_still swinging after the bell has rung_'.
> 
> Rather, it seems likely that Davis is 'priming the pump' for the *NEXT* round in what promises to be a *long*-running battle for America's soul.
> 
> Every time that someone takes a hit in a lawsuit or goes to jail for refusing to submit to wickedness, as many perceive this ruling to be, the more fence-sitters (and that number is vast) will be driven into the Opposition camp. Support for Gay Marriage may have grown in recent years, but it's a far more fragile thing than Gay advocates will ever admit.
> 
> And, of course, if Liberals lose the general election in 2016, keeping both chambers of Congress in Conservative hands, and if the Conservatives take the White House as well, with someone sufficiently forceful and motivational to lead the charge, who knows? Individuals can be swayed. Fresh challenges can be mounted. Old rulings can be overturned.
> 
> We live in interesting times, and it seems likely that it's about to grow even more interesting in the near future; just not in the way that the Gay Mafia might be hoping for.
Click to expand...


Your crystal ball and my crystal ball see and foretell different things.

Most onlookers view Kim Davis's actions as repugnant to basic human decency.  Her supporters, although vocal, are small in number.  They serve to draw public attention to the existence of the hate and oppression of a minority group of persons.  Most people find hate and oppression to be reprehensible.  It is equally appalling that Kim Davis portrays herself as God's voice and vessel and justifies the deprivation of people's civil rights under the guise of God's authority.  The Bible warns against false prophets.


----------



## WorldWatcher

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> That's not a law. Which law did she violate?




United States Code isn't a law?

That's news.


>>>>


----------



## Asclepias

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would  have rolled over and let gays  marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and  we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> What law did she violate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As posted in another thread by WorldWatcher
> Ms. Davis was found in violation of 42 USC 1983 and a preliminary injunction issued in Federal court for not doing her job. She refused to comply with the courts order and was fund to be in contempt of court under 18 USC 401-402.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not a law. Which law did she violate?
Click to expand...

The one that got her thrown in jail and will get her incarcerated once more should she chose to break it again.


----------



## airplanemechanic

The surpreme court doesn't make laws. that's the legislative branch. That's legislating from the bench. They far overstepped their bounds.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

airplanemechanic said:


> The surpreme court doesn't make laws. that's the legislative branch. That's legislating from the bench. They far overstepped their bounds.


The Supreme Court invalidates laws, when they are unconstitutional.  Exactly what they did in this case making gay marriage bans illegal.  Care to try again?


----------



## Debra K

airplanemechanic said:


> The surpreme court doesn't make laws. that's the legislative branch. That's legislating from the bench. They far overstepped their bounds.



The Supreme Court has the power to decide cases and controversies.  

In this country, we resolve disputes peaceably by resorting to courts of law.  Plaintiffs brought claims against the State of Kentucky alleging the state prohibition against same sex marriage deprived the Plaintiffs of liberty and equal protection under law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The Defendant State denied the allegation.   Thus, there was a case and controversy.   The case went through the appeals process and wound up at the United States Supreme Court.  The Court applied the law to the facts and determined that the State of Kentucky was indeed violating the Plaintiff's rights secured by the due process and equal protection clauses.   That is not an act of legislating; that is an act of adjudicating a case and controversy for the peaceful resolution thereof.  

Do you understand?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

airplanemechanic said:


> The surpreme court doesn't make laws. that's the legislative branch. That's legislating from the bench. They far overstepped their bounds.


What law did they make? Statute please 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Asclepias said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would  have rolled over and let gays  marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and  we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> What law did she violate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As posted in another thread by WorldWatcher
> Ms. Davis was found in violation of 42 USC 1983 and a preliminary injunction issued in Federal court for not doing her job. She refused to comply with the courts order and was fund to be in contempt of court under 18 USC 401-402.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not a law. Which law did she violate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one that got her thrown in jail and will get her incarcerated once more should she chose to break it again.
Click to expand...

Which law would that be?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The surpreme court doesn't make laws. that's the legislative branch. That's legislating from the bench. They far overstepped their bounds.
> 
> 
> 
> What law did they make? Statute please
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Exactly. No law was passed by any legislature that this woman violated. I'm glad you see it too.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The surpreme court doesn't make laws. that's the legislative branch. That's legislating from the bench. They far overstepped their bounds.
> 
> 
> 
> What law did they make? Statute please
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. No law was passed by any legislature that this woman violated. I'm glad you see it too.
Click to expand...


The court overturned same sex marriage bans as unconstitutional. She was ordered by the governor of the State to issue the licenses. She refused, imposing her religion unconstitutionally on unwilling people.

She was checked. I suspect she'll go back to jail whenever a gay couple is denied a marriage license. And in her 'vacation', the license will be issued.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Skylar said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The surpreme court doesn't make laws. that's the legislative branch. That's legislating from the bench. They far overstepped their bounds.
> 
> 
> 
> What law did they make? Statute please
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. No law was passed by any legislature that this woman violated. I'm glad you see it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The court overturned same sex marriage bans as unconstitutional. She was ordered by the governor of the State to issue the licenses. She refused, imposing her religion unconstitutionally on unwilling people.
> 
> She was checked. I suspect she'll go back to jail whenever a gay couple is denied a marriage license. And in her 'vacation', the license will be issued.
Click to expand...

We are a nation of laws. No governor can issue an executive order except to enforce an existing law. Courts do not make laws neither do governors. 

So what law did she violate?

Stop lying, Leftists!


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The surpreme court doesn't make laws. that's the legislative branch. That's legislating from the bench. They far overstepped their bounds.
> 
> 
> 
> What law did they make? Statute please
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. No law was passed by any legislature that this woman violated. I'm glad you see it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The court overturned same sex marriage bans as unconstitutional. She was ordered by the governor of the State to issue the licenses. She refused, imposing her religion unconstitutionally on unwilling people.
> 
> She was checked. I suspect she'll go back to jail whenever a gay couple is denied a marriage license. And in her 'vacation', the license will be issued.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a nation of laws.
Click to expand...


We are. And in our system of laws, the judiciary can overturn unconstitutional laws and protect the rights of individual citizens. They did so in Obergefell. All laws prohibiting same sex marriage are thus null and void.

You ignore this. Our nation of laws doesn't. And your willful ignorance doesn't magically change our nation of laws to suit your religious beliefs.



> No governor can issue an executive order except to enforce an existing law. Courts do not make laws neither do governors.



A governor can absolutely issue an order that mandates that clerks abide a court ruling. And the governor did.

Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about. The governor does.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> No law was passed by any legislature that this woman violated.


Which wasn't necessary in this case.

Tell us, are all the other clerks issuing marriage licenses to gay couple there wrong?


----------



## Skylar

PaintMyHouse said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> No law was passed by any legislature that this woman violated.
> 
> 
> 
> Which wasn't necessary in this case.
> 
> Tell us, are all the other clerks issuing marriage licenses to gay couple there wrong?
Click to expand...


120 counties, each with on average, 6 clerks. All but 2 will issue the licenses.

But they are all wrong.....and only Kim Davis and her kid are right? That seems......improbable.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Skylar said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The surpreme court doesn't make laws. that's the legislative branch. That's legislating from the bench. They far overstepped their bounds.
> 
> 
> 
> What law did they make? Statute please
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. No law was passed by any legislature that this woman violated. I'm glad you see it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The court overturned same sex marriage bans as unconstitutional. She was ordered by the governor of the State to issue the licenses. She refused, imposing her religion unconstitutionally on unwilling people.
> 
> She was checked. I suspect she'll go back to jail whenever a gay couple is denied a marriage license. And in her 'vacation', the license will be issued.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a nation of laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are. And in our system of laws, the judiciary can overturn unconstitutional laws and protect the rights of individual citizens. They did so in Obergefell. All laws prohibiting same sex marriage are thus null and void.
> 
> You ignore this. Our nation of laws doesn't. And your willful ignorance doesn't magically change our nation of laws to suit your religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No governor can issue an executive order except to enforce an existing law. Courts do not make laws neither do governors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A governor can absolutely issue an order that mandates that clerks abide a court ruling. And the governor did.
> 
> Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about. The governor does.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. The SC does not have the power to make a clerk issue fag licenses. In fact, a state can respond to the ruling by abolishing all state recognition of marriage altogether rendering ludicrous your claim that every clerk all across the country is bound by the ruling. 

You still haven't answered the question. What law did the clerk violate?


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What law did they make? Statute please
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. No law was passed by any legislature that this woman violated. I'm glad you see it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The court overturned same sex marriage bans as unconstitutional. She was ordered by the governor of the State to issue the licenses. She refused, imposing her religion unconstitutionally on unwilling people.
> 
> She was checked. I suspect she'll go back to jail whenever a gay couple is denied a marriage license. And in her 'vacation', the license will be issued.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a nation of laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are. And in our system of laws, the judiciary can overturn unconstitutional laws and protect the rights of individual citizens. They did so in Obergefell. All laws prohibiting same sex marriage are thus null and void.
> 
> You ignore this. Our nation of laws doesn't. And your willful ignorance doesn't magically change our nation of laws to suit your religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No governor can issue an executive order except to enforce an existing law. Courts do not make laws neither do governors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A governor can absolutely issue an order that mandates that clerks abide a court ruling. And the governor did.
> 
> Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about. The governor does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. The SC does not have the power to make a clerk issue fag licenses.
Click to expand...


The SC does have the power to rule that laws forbidding same sex marriage violate constitutional guarantees. And have. The ruling in question applies to the entire US. Including every county in Kentucky. 

You claim it doesn't. You don't know what you're talking about. Remember, just because you ignore our system of laws doesn't mean it magically ceases to exist. Alas, the world doesn't disappear when you close your eyes.



> In fact, a state can respond to the ruling by abolishing all state recognition of marriage altogether rendering ludicrous your claim that every clerk all across the country is bound by the ruling.



Kentucky did no such thing. Rendering even your hypothetical argument moot.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Skylar said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. No law was passed by any legislature that this woman violated. I'm glad you see it too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The court overturned same sex marriage bans as unconstitutional. She was ordered by the governor of the State to issue the licenses. She refused, imposing her religion unconstitutionally on unwilling people.
> 
> She was checked. I suspect she'll go back to jail whenever a gay couple is denied a marriage license. And in her 'vacation', the license will be issued.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a nation of laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are. And in our system of laws, the judiciary can overturn unconstitutional laws and protect the rights of individual citizens. They did so in Obergefell. All laws prohibiting same sex marriage are thus null and void.
> 
> You ignore this. Our nation of laws doesn't. And your willful ignorance doesn't magically change our nation of laws to suit your religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No governor can issue an executive order except to enforce an existing law. Courts do not make laws neither do governors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A governor can absolutely issue an order that mandates that clerks abide a court ruling. And the governor did.
> 
> Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about. The governor does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. The SC does not have the power to make a clerk issue fag licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC does have the power to rule that laws forbidding same sex marriage violate constitutional guarantees. And have. The ruling in question applies to the entire US. Including every county in Kentucky.
> 
> You claim it doesn't. You don't know what you're talking about. Remember, just because you ignore our system of laws doesn't mean it magically ceases to exist. Alas, the world doesn't disappear when you close your eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, a state can respond to the ruling by abolishing all state recognition of marriage altogether rendering ludicrous your claim that every clerk all across the country is bound by the ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kentucky did no such thing. Rendering even your hypothetical argument moot.
Click to expand...


I really have to wonder if some of these people actually believe their own equine excrement or if it is just a sick game they play.  One would have to be bat-shit crazy and delusional, or profoundly intellectually challenged to actually think they are right.


----------



## Skylar

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The court overturned same sex marriage bans as unconstitutional. She was ordered by the governor of the State to issue the licenses. She refused, imposing her religion unconstitutionally on unwilling people.
> 
> She was checked. I suspect she'll go back to jail whenever a gay couple is denied a marriage license. And in her 'vacation', the license will be issued.
> 
> 
> 
> We are a nation of laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are. And in our system of laws, the judiciary can overturn unconstitutional laws and protect the rights of individual citizens. They did so in Obergefell. All laws prohibiting same sex marriage are thus null and void.
> 
> You ignore this. Our nation of laws doesn't. And your willful ignorance doesn't magically change our nation of laws to suit your religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No governor can issue an executive order except to enforce an existing law. Courts do not make laws neither do governors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A governor can absolutely issue an order that mandates that clerks abide a court ruling. And the governor did.
> 
> Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about. The governor does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. The SC does not have the power to make a clerk issue fag licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC does have the power to rule that laws forbidding same sex marriage violate constitutional guarantees. And have. The ruling in question applies to the entire US. Including every county in Kentucky.
> 
> You claim it doesn't. You don't know what you're talking about. Remember, just because you ignore our system of laws doesn't mean it magically ceases to exist. Alas, the world doesn't disappear when you close your eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, a state can respond to the ruling by abolishing all state recognition of marriage altogether rendering ludicrous your claim that every clerk all across the country is bound by the ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kentucky did no such thing. Rendering even your hypothetical argument moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder if some of these people actually believe their own equine excrement or if it is just a sick game they play.  One would have to be bat-shit crazy and delusional, or profoundly intellectually challenged to actually think they are right.
Click to expand...


The Christian right feels attacked because they are being stripped of their position of privilege. They used to be able to get away with all sorts of heinous shit. With 'religion' being the basis of everything from sodomy laws to interracial marriage bans.

Neither the law nor society is accepting this reasoning as valid anymore. Religious belief is no longer a valid basis of law. And Christianity is being treated as a religion among religions rather than having a special status in our culture.

This loss of stature of and influence has left some adherents rather desperate and given rise to Christian Dominionism. Where all civil law is to be subject to and subordinate to Christian dogma. Any Christian can ignore any law that they don't like. But this point is key:

*ONLY Christians can do this.* A Muslim couldn't ignore civil law in favor of Sharia. Any Muslim attempting to override civil law with Sharia would be checked by these exact same Christians.

The result is an inconsistent, deeply hypocritical religiously based 'Sovereign Citizen' argument. Where a Christian is only subject to laws that they agree with. And can ignore any that they don't feel should apply to them.

And they're finding no love in our legal system for this pseudo-legal gibberish.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Skylar said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. No law was passed by any legislature that this woman violated. I'm glad you see it too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The court overturned same sex marriage bans as unconstitutional. She was ordered by the governor of the State to issue the licenses. She refused, imposing her religion unconstitutionally on unwilling people.
> 
> She was checked. I suspect she'll go back to jail whenever a gay couple is denied a marriage license. And in her 'vacation', the license will be issued.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a nation of laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are. And in our system of laws, the judiciary can overturn unconstitutional laws and protect the rights of individual citizens. They did so in Obergefell. All laws prohibiting same sex marriage are thus null and void.
> 
> You ignore this. Our nation of laws doesn't. And your willful ignorance doesn't magically change our nation of laws to suit your religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No governor can issue an executive order except to enforce an existing law. Courts do not make laws neither do governors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A governor can absolutely issue an order that mandates that clerks abide a court ruling. And the governor did.
> 
> Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about. The governor does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. The SC does not have the power to make a clerk issue fag licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC does have the power to rule that laws forbidding same sex marriage violate constitutional guarantees. And have. The ruling in question applies to the entire US. Including every county in Kentucky.
> 
> You claim it doesn't. You don't know what you're talking about. Remember, just because you ignore our system of laws doesn't mean it magically ceases to exist. Alas, the world doesn't disappear when you close your eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, a state can respond to the ruling by abolishing all state recognition of marriage altogether rendering ludicrous your claim that every clerk all across the country is bound by the ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kentucky did no such thing. Rendering even your hypothetical argument moot.
Click to expand...

So you can't answer the question. I'll answer it for you. You can't keep people in jail unless they've broken a law.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The court overturned same sex marriage bans as unconstitutional. She was ordered by the governor of the State to issue the licenses. She refused, imposing her religion unconstitutionally on unwilling people.
> 
> She was checked. I suspect she'll go back to jail whenever a gay couple is denied a marriage license. And in her 'vacation', the license will be issued.
> 
> 
> 
> We are a nation of laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are. And in our system of laws, the judiciary can overturn unconstitutional laws and protect the rights of individual citizens. They did so in Obergefell. All laws prohibiting same sex marriage are thus null and void.
> 
> You ignore this. Our nation of laws doesn't. And your willful ignorance doesn't magically change our nation of laws to suit your religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No governor can issue an executive order except to enforce an existing law. Courts do not make laws neither do governors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A governor can absolutely issue an order that mandates that clerks abide a court ruling. And the governor did.
> 
> Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about. The governor does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. The SC does not have the power to make a clerk issue fag licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC does have the power to rule that laws forbidding same sex marriage violate constitutional guarantees. And have. The ruling in question applies to the entire US. Including every county in Kentucky.
> 
> You claim it doesn't. You don't know what you're talking about. Remember, just because you ignore our system of laws doesn't mean it magically ceases to exist. Alas, the world doesn't disappear when you close your eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, a state can respond to the ruling by abolishing all state recognition of marriage altogether rendering ludicrous your claim that every clerk all across the country is bound by the ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kentucky did no such thing. Rendering even your hypothetical argument moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't answer the question. I'll answer it for you. You can't keep people in jail unless they've broken a law.
Click to expand...


You can keep people in jail for contempt of court. And Kim Davis refused to abide a court order.

Again, your imaginary version of the law is gloriously irrelevant to the real world. As we're not bound to your pseudo-legal gibberish. We're bound to the actual system of laws that we have. Which includes court orders and contempt of court.

Ignore as you wish. Your willful ignorance and imagination has no effect nor point.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Which law would that be?



As provided already...

42 USC 1983

http://www.constitution.org/brief/forsythe_42-1983.htm


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What law did they make? Statute please
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. No law was passed by any legislature that this woman violated. I'm glad you see it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The court overturned same sex marriage bans as unconstitutional. She was ordered by the governor of the State to issue the licenses. She refused, imposing her religion unconstitutionally on unwilling people.
> 
> She was checked. I suspect she'll go back to jail whenever a gay couple is denied a marriage license. And in her 'vacation', the license will be issued.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a nation of laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are. And in our system of laws, the judiciary can overturn unconstitutional laws and protect the rights of individual citizens. They did so in Obergefell. All laws prohibiting same sex marriage are thus null and void.
> 
> You ignore this. Our nation of laws doesn't. And your willful ignorance doesn't magically change our nation of laws to suit your religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No governor can issue an executive order except to enforce an existing law. Courts do not make laws neither do governors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A governor can absolutely issue an order that mandates that clerks abide a court ruling. And the governor did.
> 
> Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about. The governor does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. The SC does not have the power to make a clerk issue fag licenses. In fact, a state can respond to the ruling by abolishing all state recognition of marriage altogether rendering ludicrous your claim that every clerk all across the country is bound by the ruling.
> 
> You still haven't answered the question. What law did the clerk violate?
Click to expand...


Really Sparky ? Abolish state marriage  You have your head so far up that dark place that you don't even know that it was tried and was a disaster!


Weird Bill Intended To Block Marriage Equality In Oklahoma May Totally Backfirehttp://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/03/13/3633556/is-this-real-life/

AOklahoma lawmakers took the first step in passing a bill that was originally poised to hinder marriage equality. But after a wave of criticism pressured lawmakers to tweak the measure, it now might actually end up supporting LGBT people — assuming it doesn’t send the state’s marriage system into chaos first.

The Oklahoma state house passed H.B. 1125, a Republican-backed bill which has raised concerns for potentially violating the U.S. Constitution. The sponsor of the bill, state Rep. Todd Russ (R), said the proposed law was designed with two goals in mind: remove government from the business of issuing marriage licenses by requiring clergy who officiate weddings to file “certificates of marriage” on their own, and preventing judges who disapprove of marriage equality from having to officiate same-sex weddings, which are legal in the state.

He went on to say:

“The point of my legislation is to take the state out of the process and leave marriage in the hands of the clergy,” Russ told the Oklahoman.

Russ openly admitted in an interview with ThinkProgress that the bill stemmed from his opposition to marriage equality, saying that he wrote it after the Supreme Court “crammed” same-sex marriage “down our throats” when it upheld a decision by a federal judge to strike down the state’s same-sex marriage ban last October — something Russ contends is an example of government “overreach.”


Actually, the supreme court did not uphold the decision. They just refused to hear the appeal from the state on the decision of the 10th circuit. A minor point perhaps but it also exposes a sloppy thought process and inattention to detail.


The initial bill waswidelycriticized for being unconstitutional, with LGBT advocates, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and news outlets blasting its requirement that only “an ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination” or a rabbi be allowed to contract a formal marriage.


The really stupid thing about the initial version of the bill was that while violating the constitution, it would not prevent gays from marrying:


Oddly, if the bill’s goal was to inhibit same-sex couples from getting married, it failed out of the gate. Troy Stevenson, head of the LGBT advocacy group Freedom Oklahoma, noted that Russ may not have realized that “there are … 160 members of clergy who have publicly declared their willingness to marry LGBT people,” and that severalmajorChristiandenominations already allow clergy to officiate same-sex marriages, many of which already have a presence in Oklahoma.


Perhaps the sponsors didn’t know this , or they thought that opponents of same sex marriage would be appeased because it was not state sponsored. I don’t think so, it would still be ”marriage”


As pressure mounted on Russ to kill the legislation, however, something strange happened: instead of pulling the bill, Russ simply amended it, re-inserting a clause that allowed judges to officiate weddings. The change was initially welcomed by LGBT advocates such as Stevenson, but also caused confusion, because it defeated the bill’s aim of fully removing government officials from marriages services. In fact, without the clergy-only provision, some Democrats noted that the bill was arguably pro-LGBT, since it does not define marriage specifically as a union between a man and a woman, effectively re-affirming the legitimacy of same-sex unions in the state.

In addition

Other lawmakers also pointed out that, since Russ’ bill requires the government to simply file marriage certificates, it removes the state’s ability to prevent instances bigamy or polygamy.


Well maybe not because other laws cover those things, but you can see how confusion can arise

Clearly the Supreme Court [said] that it cannot be constitutionally appropriate to have an opposite sex stated in the language, so that was struck,” he told ThinkProgress. “My objective here today is not to overthrow the [Supreme Court] ruling. My bill is basically an attempt to sidestep what is basically the claim by the Supreme Court … [The bill] doesn’t condone same-sex marriage, and it doesn’t disallow same-sex marriage — my bill is silent on that matter.”

So then what the hell is the point of all of this? They might as well just accept marriage equality and be done with it.


But as the vote neared Wednesday, Republicans doubled down on what many were now calling the “Marriage Chaos Bill” — even if they weren’t exactly sure what they were voting for.


Indeed, Russ’ claim that the law allows government to “exit the [marriage] game” appears incomplete at best. True, while judges are able to officiate marriages under the law, they are not required to, and whereas previously clerks issued _marriage licenses_, they are now asked simply to file “marriage certificates” (or common law affidavits) created elsewhere. But this only tweaks some aspects of how government interacts with the beginning of the marriage process — it doesn’t change the fact that marriages are still legal entities recognized by the state.


And it gets even crazier


Also, while the most offensive parts of the bill appear to be corrected, there remain several legal concerns. The measure, for instance, might expose a violation of the establishment clause already existent in Oklahoma law. In its current form, the bill makes concessions for accepting marriage certificates from Quakers, Baha’is, and Mormons who do not _have_ traditional clergy, but it _does not_ outline similar explanations for Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists, groups who also lack Christian-style clergy but which have communities in the state. There are also lingering questions over whether or not same-sex marriages — or really _any_ marriage performed under this system — would still be recognized if people moved out-of-state.



Any more brilliant ideas bubba?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Skylar said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a nation of laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are. And in our system of laws, the judiciary can overturn unconstitutional laws and protect the rights of individual citizens. They did so in Obergefell. All laws prohibiting same sex marriage are thus null and void.
> 
> You ignore this. Our nation of laws doesn't. And your willful ignorance doesn't magically change our nation of laws to suit your religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No governor can issue an executive order except to enforce an existing law. Courts do not make laws neither do governors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A governor can absolutely issue an order that mandates that clerks abide a court ruling. And the governor did.
> 
> Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about. The governor does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. The SC does not have the power to make a clerk issue fag licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC does have the power to rule that laws forbidding same sex marriage violate constitutional guarantees. And have. The ruling in question applies to the entire US. Including every county in Kentucky.
> 
> You claim it doesn't. You don't know what you're talking about. Remember, just because you ignore our system of laws doesn't mean it magically ceases to exist. Alas, the world doesn't disappear when you close your eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, a state can respond to the ruling by abolishing all state recognition of marriage altogether rendering ludicrous your claim that every clerk all across the country is bound by the ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kentucky did no such thing. Rendering even your hypothetical argument moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't answer the question. I'll answer it for you. You can't keep people in jail unless they've broken a law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can keep people in jail for contempt of court. And Kim Davis refused to abide a court order.
> 
> Again, your imaginary version of the law is gloriously irrelevant to the real world. As we're not bound to your pseudo-legal gibberish. We're bound to the actual system of laws that we have. Which includes court orders and contempt of court.
> 
> Ignore as you wish. Your willful ignorance and imagination has no effect nor point.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Even court orders must have basis in law. We are a nation of laws, not of men and their arbitrary commands. 

You lose. She's out because there was no legal mechanism to detain her. 

Faggots can't win every battle.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are. And in our system of laws, the judiciary can overturn unconstitutional laws and protect the rights of individual citizens. They did so in Obergefell. All laws prohibiting same sex marriage are thus null and void.
> 
> You ignore this. Our nation of laws doesn't. And your willful ignorance doesn't magically change our nation of laws to suit your religious beliefs.
> 
> A governor can absolutely issue an order that mandates that clerks abide a court ruling. And the governor did.
> 
> Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about. The governor does.
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. The SC does not have the power to make a clerk issue fag licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC does have the power to rule that laws forbidding same sex marriage violate constitutional guarantees. And have. The ruling in question applies to the entire US. Including every county in Kentucky.
> 
> You claim it doesn't. You don't know what you're talking about. Remember, just because you ignore our system of laws doesn't mean it magically ceases to exist. Alas, the world doesn't disappear when you close your eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, a state can respond to the ruling by abolishing all state recognition of marriage altogether rendering ludicrous your claim that every clerk all across the country is bound by the ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kentucky did no such thing. Rendering even your hypothetical argument moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't answer the question. I'll answer it for you. You can't keep people in jail unless they've broken a law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can keep people in jail for contempt of court. And Kim Davis refused to abide a court order.
> 
> Again, your imaginary version of the law is gloriously irrelevant to the real world. As we're not bound to your pseudo-legal gibberish. We're bound to the actual system of laws that we have. Which includes court orders and contempt of court.
> 
> Ignore as you wish. Your willful ignorance and imagination has no effect nor point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Even court orders must have basis in law. We are a nation of laws, not of men and their arbitrary commands.
> 
> You lose. She's out because there was no legal mechanism to detain her.
> 
> Faggots can't win every battle.
Click to expand...


Wrong. She's out because her office is issuing licenses. A reasonable accommodation was made and the plaintiffs were happy. She can go back in if she interferes with that process.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are. And in our system of laws, the judiciary can overturn unconstitutional laws and protect the rights of individual citizens. They did so in Obergefell. All laws prohibiting same sex marriage are thus null and void.
> 
> You ignore this. Our nation of laws doesn't. And your willful ignorance doesn't magically change our nation of laws to suit your religious beliefs.
> 
> A governor can absolutely issue an order that mandates that clerks abide a court ruling. And the governor did.
> 
> Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about. The governor does.
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. The SC does not have the power to make a clerk issue fag licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC does have the power to rule that laws forbidding same sex marriage violate constitutional guarantees. And have. The ruling in question applies to the entire US. Including every county in Kentucky.
> 
> You claim it doesn't. You don't know what you're talking about. Remember, just because you ignore our system of laws doesn't mean it magically ceases to exist. Alas, the world doesn't disappear when you close your eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, a state can respond to the ruling by abolishing all state recognition of marriage altogether rendering ludicrous your claim that every clerk all across the country is bound by the ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kentucky did no such thing. Rendering even your hypothetical argument moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't answer the question. I'll answer it for you. You can't keep people in jail unless they've broken a law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can keep people in jail for contempt of court. And Kim Davis refused to abide a court order.
> 
> Again, your imaginary version of the law is gloriously irrelevant to the real world. As we're not bound to your pseudo-legal gibberish. We're bound to the actual system of laws that we have. Which includes court orders and contempt of court.
> 
> Ignore as you wish. Your willful ignorance and imagination has no effect nor point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Even court orders must have basis in law. We are a nation of laws, not of men and their arbitrary commands.
> 
> You lose. She's out because there was no legal mechanism to detain her.
> 
> Faggots can't win every battle.
Click to expand...


They won this one old sport. They are getting married in Rowan County and if  the drama queen tries to stop them her ass will be back in the slammer


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are. And in our system of laws, the judiciary can overturn unconstitutional laws and protect the rights of individual citizens. They did so in Obergefell. All laws prohibiting same sex marriage are thus null and void.
> 
> You ignore this. Our nation of laws doesn't. And your willful ignorance doesn't magically change our nation of laws to suit your religious beliefs.
> 
> A governor can absolutely issue an order that mandates that clerks abide a court ruling. And the governor did.
> 
> Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about. The governor does.
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. The SC does not have the power to make a clerk issue fag licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC does have the power to rule that laws forbidding same sex marriage violate constitutional guarantees. And have. The ruling in question applies to the entire US. Including every county in Kentucky.
> 
> You claim it doesn't. You don't know what you're talking about. Remember, just because you ignore our system of laws doesn't mean it magically ceases to exist. Alas, the world doesn't disappear when you close your eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, a state can respond to the ruling by abolishing all state recognition of marriage altogether rendering ludicrous your claim that every clerk all across the country is bound by the ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kentucky did no such thing. Rendering even your hypothetical argument moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't answer the question. I'll answer it for you. You can't keep people in jail unless they've broken a law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can keep people in jail for contempt of court. And Kim Davis refused to abide a court order.
> 
> Again, your imaginary version of the law is gloriously irrelevant to the real world. As we're not bound to your pseudo-legal gibberish. We're bound to the actual system of laws that we have. Which includes court orders and contempt of court.
> 
> Ignore as you wish. Your willful ignorance and imagination has no effect nor point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Even court orders must have basis in law. We are a nation of laws, not of men and their arbitrary commands.
Click to expand...


The court order was in accordance with the Obergefell ruling which overturned all laws that forbid the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples.

You ignore this. Who cares?

Again, you pretending that Supreme Court rulings don't create binding precedent is gloriously irrelevant. As our system of laws isn't bound to whatever you choose to ignore.



> You lose. She's out because there was no legal mechanism to detain her.
> 
> Faggots can't win every battle.



She's out because every same sex couple in her county that wanted a marriage license....got one. 

Your ilk lose again.


----------



## Skylar

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. The SC does not have the power to make a clerk issue fag licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The SC does have the power to rule that laws forbidding same sex marriage violate constitutional guarantees. And have. The ruling in question applies to the entire US. Including every county in Kentucky.
> 
> You claim it doesn't. You don't know what you're talking about. Remember, just because you ignore our system of laws doesn't mean it magically ceases to exist. Alas, the world doesn't disappear when you close your eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, a state can respond to the ruling by abolishing all state recognition of marriage altogether rendering ludicrous your claim that every clerk all across the country is bound by the ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kentucky did no such thing. Rendering even your hypothetical argument moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't answer the question. I'll answer it for you. You can't keep people in jail unless they've broken a law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can keep people in jail for contempt of court. And Kim Davis refused to abide a court order.
> 
> Again, your imaginary version of the law is gloriously irrelevant to the real world. As we're not bound to your pseudo-legal gibberish. We're bound to the actual system of laws that we have. Which includes court orders and contempt of court.
> 
> Ignore as you wish. Your willful ignorance and imagination has no effect nor point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Even court orders must have basis in law. We are a nation of laws, not of men and their arbitrary commands.
> 
> You lose. She's out because there was no legal mechanism to detain her.
> 
> Faggots can't win every battle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They won this one old sport. They are getting married in Rowan County and if  the drama queen tries to stop them her ass will be back in the slammer
Click to expand...


Yup. Every time a same sex couple wants a marriage license in Rowan County, Kim takes a 6 day 'vacation'. The licenses are issued. And Bob's your uncle.


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I almost never read majority opinions,....the dissents contain the most true wisdom in our joke of a federal court system.
> 
> I did see one case mentioned *Baker v. Nelson *
> 
> which they said they overruled ...........so much for a solid basis in precedent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never read majority opinions? Maybe that's your problem. You think that the senseless  rants of Thomas and Scalia were the truest wisdom? Seriously?
> 
> The issue  of Baker being a controlling precedent had been  questionable for some time as it was from a prior era  in case law, long before gay rights were considered at all. This was just the final blow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> some of the greatest judges in the history of the court were known by their dissents......one is called the great dissenter I believe.
> 
> Baker v. Nelson should have been controlling precedent in all the cases leading up to Obergefell....which......AGAIN,  .....shows the idiocy of the lower federal courts in this matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your living in a by-gone fantasy world as all bigots are. A few dozen lower court brushed Baker aside or just ignored it and for good reason........
> 
> 
> “New York Law School Professor Art Leonard says:
> 
> “Many lower federal courts have cited Baker v. Nelson as precluding any federal constitutional challenge to the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage”.  He goes on to say “This was before the modern gay rights movement really got going in the courts, before we won Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, before the establishment of a growing body of case law protecting gay rights.  Clearly, what was not a ‘substantial federal question’ in the 1970s is today a ‘substantial federal question.’” I would add: It is quite conceivable that the language of a majority opinion-in which the court said “in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.”  -today would be very different given rulings on subsequent cases .
> 
> In December of 2013 US District Judge Robert Shelby ruled that Utah’s Amendment 3 banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, violating protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. In his ruling, he focused on several views of the subject, mostly focusing on decisions in _Baker v. Nelson_ and _Loving v. Virginia_. While both have relevance, to some degree, Shelby drew from the Loving case to decide that the amendment passed by Utah voters by 66% violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. That same month the New Mexico Supreme Court, overturning a statute banning same-sex marriage.
> 
> 
> Reading the decision, two points become clear in that the court, at that time,( of Baker v. Nelson) relied on archaic language relevant at a time prior to two key decisions that have helped shape the national conversation on LGBT rights, _Lawrence v. Texas_ and _Romer v. Evans_. The former struck down Texas’ sodomy statute and decriminalized homosexuality. The later provided protections for gays and lesbians in that a state could not target and deny rights to a particular class of individuals. Western State University College of Law professor David Groshoff argues, “_Baker’s_ relevance in this debate more or less disappeared in Minnesota in 2001, and several years later nationwide, when sodomy laws no longer applied to consenting adults.” Searching for Greater Freedom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> archaic language is what the Constitution is. archaic language is what the Court derives its power from.......to dismiss archaic language is really to dismiss the reasoning for the courts.
> 
> To say that the mess of a decision in Romer v Evans makes Baker v. Nelson obsolete is pathetic. No person who tries to read through the muddle that that decision is comes away with any confidence in the logic of the court.  I don't recall it saying it overturned Baker v. Nelson though...............if it didnt say it did, it wasn't claiming it did......
> 
> Lawrence v. Texas seems like it has more to do with the right to privacy among couples....that wasnt a concern in the gay marriage debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What  are you blathering about now?? It's stupid to be discussing Baker at this late date. Before Obergefell, the bigots continued to cling to it as there last pathetic hope despite the questionable applicability. Then Justice Kennedy SPECIFICALLY stated in the majority opinion that Baker is overturned. If you don't know that, look it up. Get over it already
Click to expand...



look it up?!  I pointed it out to YOU, from your "list of cases cited in support"..... indicating you didnt even read your own cut and paste post, or if you did, didn't understand it.

It's lack of citation in numerous pre-obergefell lower federal court rulings however shows,....just as the Valentines Day ruling,  that the lower courts were ruling out of emotion rather than law.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never read majority opinions? Maybe that's your problem. You think that the senseless  rants of Thomas and Scalia were the truest wisdom? Seriously?
> 
> The issue  of Baker being a controlling precedent had been  questionable for some time as it was from a prior era  in case law, long before gay rights were considered at all. This was just the final blow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> some of the greatest judges in the history of the court were known by their dissents......one is called the great dissenter I believe.
> 
> Baker v. Nelson should have been controlling precedent in all the cases leading up to Obergefell....which......AGAIN,  .....shows the idiocy of the lower federal courts in this matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your living in a by-gone fantasy world as all bigots are. A few dozen lower court brushed Baker aside or just ignored it and for good reason........
> 
> 
> “New York Law School Professor Art Leonard says:
> 
> “Many lower federal courts have cited Baker v. Nelson as precluding any federal constitutional challenge to the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage”.  He goes on to say “This was before the modern gay rights movement really got going in the courts, before we won Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, before the establishment of a growing body of case law protecting gay rights.  Clearly, what was not a ‘substantial federal question’ in the 1970s is today a ‘substantial federal question.’” I would add: It is quite conceivable that the language of a majority opinion-in which the court said “in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.”  -today would be very different given rulings on subsequent cases .
> 
> In December of 2013 US District Judge Robert Shelby ruled that Utah’s Amendment 3 banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, violating protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. In his ruling, he focused on several views of the subject, mostly focusing on decisions in _Baker v. Nelson_ and _Loving v. Virginia_. While both have relevance, to some degree, Shelby drew from the Loving case to decide that the amendment passed by Utah voters by 66% violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. That same month the New Mexico Supreme Court, overturning a statute banning same-sex marriage.
> 
> 
> Reading the decision, two points become clear in that the court, at that time,( of Baker v. Nelson) relied on archaic language relevant at a time prior to two key decisions that have helped shape the national conversation on LGBT rights, _Lawrence v. Texas_ and _Romer v. Evans_. The former struck down Texas’ sodomy statute and decriminalized homosexuality. The later provided protections for gays and lesbians in that a state could not target and deny rights to a particular class of individuals. Western State University College of Law professor David Groshoff argues, “_Baker’s_ relevance in this debate more or less disappeared in Minnesota in 2001, and several years later nationwide, when sodomy laws no longer applied to consenting adults.” Searching for Greater Freedom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> archaic language is what the Constitution is. archaic language is what the Court derives its power from.......to dismiss archaic language is really to dismiss the reasoning for the courts.
> 
> To say that the mess of a decision in Romer v Evans makes Baker v. Nelson obsolete is pathetic. No person who tries to read through the muddle that that decision is comes away with any confidence in the logic of the court.  I don't recall it saying it overturned Baker v. Nelson though...............if it didnt say it did, it wasn't claiming it did......
> 
> Lawrence v. Texas seems like it has more to do with the right to privacy among couples....that wasnt a concern in the gay marriage debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What  are you blathering about now?? It's stupid to be discussing Baker at this late date. Before Obergefell, the bigots continued to cling to it as there last pathetic hope despite the questionable applicability. Then Justice Kennedy SPECIFICALLY stated in the majority opinion that Baker is overturned. If you don't know that, look it up. Get over it already
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> look it up?!  I pointed it out to YOU, from your "list of cases cited in support"..... indicating you didnt even read your own cut and paste post, or if you did, didn't understand it.
> 
> It's lack of citation in numerous pre-obergefell lower federal court rulings however shows,....just as the Valentines Day ruling,  that the lower courts were ruling out of emotion rather than law.
Click to expand...


Equine excrement. You said 





> I don't recall it saying it overturned Baker v. Nelson though.............



The facts as of now

1. Obergefell rules

2. Baker is history

I have better things to do than to have this stupid ass and pointless discussion


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> some of the greatest judges in the history of the court were known by their dissents......one is called the great dissenter I believe.
> 
> Baker v. Nelson should have been controlling precedent in all the cases leading up to Obergefell....which......AGAIN,  .....shows the idiocy of the lower federal courts in this matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your living in a by-gone fantasy world as all bigots are. A few dozen lower court brushed Baker aside or just ignored it and for good reason........
> 
> 
> “New York Law School Professor Art Leonard says:
> 
> “Many lower federal courts have cited Baker v. Nelson as precluding any federal constitutional challenge to the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage”.  He goes on to say “This was before the modern gay rights movement really got going in the courts, before we won Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, before the establishment of a growing body of case law protecting gay rights.  Clearly, what was not a ‘substantial federal question’ in the 1970s is today a ‘substantial federal question.’” I would add: It is quite conceivable that the language of a majority opinion-in which the court said “in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.”  -today would be very different given rulings on subsequent cases .
> 
> In December of 2013 US District Judge Robert Shelby ruled that Utah’s Amendment 3 banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, violating protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. In his ruling, he focused on several views of the subject, mostly focusing on decisions in _Baker v. Nelson_ and _Loving v. Virginia_. While both have relevance, to some degree, Shelby drew from the Loving case to decide that the amendment passed by Utah voters by 66% violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. That same month the New Mexico Supreme Court, overturning a statute banning same-sex marriage.
> 
> 
> Reading the decision, two points become clear in that the court, at that time,( of Baker v. Nelson) relied on archaic language relevant at a time prior to two key decisions that have helped shape the national conversation on LGBT rights, _Lawrence v. Texas_ and _Romer v. Evans_. The former struck down Texas’ sodomy statute and decriminalized homosexuality. The later provided protections for gays and lesbians in that a state could not target and deny rights to a particular class of individuals. Western State University College of Law professor David Groshoff argues, “_Baker’s_ relevance in this debate more or less disappeared in Minnesota in 2001, and several years later nationwide, when sodomy laws no longer applied to consenting adults.” Searching for Greater Freedom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> archaic language is what the Constitution is. archaic language is what the Court derives its power from.......to dismiss archaic language is really to dismiss the reasoning for the courts.
> 
> To say that the mess of a decision in Romer v Evans makes Baker v. Nelson obsolete is pathetic. No person who tries to read through the muddle that that decision is comes away with any confidence in the logic of the court.  I don't recall it saying it overturned Baker v. Nelson though...............if it didnt say it did, it wasn't claiming it did......
> 
> Lawrence v. Texas seems like it has more to do with the right to privacy among couples....that wasnt a concern in the gay marriage debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What  are you blathering about now?? It's stupid to be discussing Baker at this late date. Before Obergefell, the bigots continued to cling to it as there last pathetic hope despite the questionable applicability. Then Justice Kennedy SPECIFICALLY stated in the majority opinion that Baker is overturned. If you don't know that, look it up. Get over it already
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> look it up?!  I pointed it out to YOU, from your "list of cases cited in support"..... indicating you didnt even read your own cut and paste post, or if you did, didn't understand it.
> 
> It's lack of citation in numerous pre-obergefell lower federal court rulings however shows,....just as the Valentines Day ruling,  that the lower courts were ruling out of emotion rather than law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equine excrement. You said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall it saying it overturned Baker v. Nelson though.............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts as of now
> 
> 1. Obergefell rules
> 
> 2. Baker is history
> 
> I have better things to do than to have this stupid ass and pointless discussion
Click to expand...


precedent is there to keep the court in line.......perhaps in the future other courts will ignore obergefell like the lower courts ignored Baker the last few years. ...the courts attitude toward Baker shows what a joke the federal judiciary is.  

my initial post here had to do with the hypocrisy of the judicial system, you led us down this "pointless discussion".


----------



## HenryBHough

So this clerk stands in front of St. Peter who's refusing to open the gates because the clerk issued same-sex marriage licenses.

In his defense, the clerk tells St. Peter:

_*"I vass only following orrrrddddderrrrrs".*_


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your living in a by-gone fantasy world as all bigots are. A few dozen lower court brushed Baker aside or just ignored it and for good reason........
> 
> 
> “New York Law School Professor Art Leonard says:
> 
> “Many lower federal courts have cited Baker v. Nelson as precluding any federal constitutional challenge to the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage”.  He goes on to say “This was before the modern gay rights movement really got going in the courts, before we won Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, before the establishment of a growing body of case law protecting gay rights.  Clearly, what was not a ‘substantial federal question’ in the 1970s is today a ‘substantial federal question.’” I would add: It is quite conceivable that the language of a majority opinion-in which the court said “in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.”  -today would be very different given rulings on subsequent cases .
> 
> In December of 2013 US District Judge Robert Shelby ruled that Utah’s Amendment 3 banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, violating protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. In his ruling, he focused on several views of the subject, mostly focusing on decisions in _Baker v. Nelson_ and _Loving v. Virginia_. While both have relevance, to some degree, Shelby drew from the Loving case to decide that the amendment passed by Utah voters by 66% violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. That same month the New Mexico Supreme Court, overturning a statute banning same-sex marriage.
> 
> 
> Reading the decision, two points become clear in that the court, at that time,( of Baker v. Nelson) relied on archaic language relevant at a time prior to two key decisions that have helped shape the national conversation on LGBT rights, _Lawrence v. Texas_ and _Romer v. Evans_. The former struck down Texas’ sodomy statute and decriminalized homosexuality. The later provided protections for gays and lesbians in that a state could not target and deny rights to a particular class of individuals. Western State University College of Law professor David Groshoff argues, “_Baker’s_ relevance in this debate more or less disappeared in Minnesota in 2001, and several years later nationwide, when sodomy laws no longer applied to consenting adults.” Searching for Greater Freedom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> archaic language is what the Constitution is. archaic language is what the Court derives its power from.......to dismiss archaic language is really to dismiss the reasoning for the courts.
> 
> To say that the mess of a decision in Romer v Evans makes Baker v. Nelson obsolete is pathetic. No person who tries to read through the muddle that that decision is comes away with any confidence in the logic of the court.  I don't recall it saying it overturned Baker v. Nelson though...............if it didnt say it did, it wasn't claiming it did......
> 
> Lawrence v. Texas seems like it has more to do with the right to privacy among couples....that wasnt a concern in the gay marriage debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What  are you blathering about now?? It's stupid to be discussing Baker at this late date. Before Obergefell, the bigots continued to cling to it as there last pathetic hope despite the questionable applicability. Then Justice Kennedy SPECIFICALLY stated in the majority opinion that Baker is overturned. If you don't know that, look it up. Get over it already
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> look it up?!  I pointed it out to YOU, from your "list of cases cited in support"..... indicating you didnt even read your own cut and paste post, or if you did, didn't understand it.
> 
> It's lack of citation in numerous pre-obergefell lower federal court rulings however shows,....just as the Valentines Day ruling,  that the lower courts were ruling out of emotion rather than law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equine excrement. You said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall it saying it overturned Baker v. Nelson though.............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts as of now
> 
> 1. Obergefell rules
> 
> 2. Baker is history
> 
> I have better things to do than to have this stupid ass and pointless discussion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> precedent is there to keep the court in line.......perhaps in the future other courts will ignore obergefell like the lower courts ignored Baker the last few years. ...the courts attitude toward Baker shows what a joke the federal judiciary is.
> 
> my initial post here had to do with the hypocrisy of the judicial system, you led us down this "pointless discussion".
Click to expand...


Ridiculous! They can't ignore Obergefell like they ignored Baker. Baker was not actually reviewed It was dismissed for "lack of a substantial federal question" That procedusre is not even used anymore

 While it was considered a binding precedent at the time , when dealing with precedents like _Baker,_ lower courts may have to guess at the meaning of these unexplained decisions.[18] The Supreme Court has laid out rules, however, to guide lower courts in narrowly applying these summary dispositions:[19]


The facts in the potentially binding case must not bear any legally significant differences to the case under consideration.[20]
The binding precedent encompasses only the issues presented to the Court, not the reasoning found in the lower court's decision.[21]
Of the issues presented, only those necessarily decided by the Court in dismissing the case control.[22]
Subsequent developments by the Court on the relevant doctrines may cast doubt on the continuing validity of a summary judgment.[23] 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> archaic language is what the Constitution is. archaic language is what the Court derives its power from.......to dismiss archaic language is really to dismiss the reasoning for the courts.
> 
> To say that the mess of a decision in Romer v Evans makes Baker v. Nelson obsolete is pathetic. No person who tries to read through the muddle that that decision is comes away with any confidence in the logic of the court.  I don't recall it saying it overturned Baker v. Nelson though...............if it didnt say it did, it wasn't claiming it did......
> 
> Lawrence v. Texas seems like it has more to do with the right to privacy among couples....that wasnt a concern in the gay marriage debate.
> 
> 
> 
> What  are you blathering about now?? It's stupid to be discussing Baker at this late date. Before Obergefell, the bigots continued to cling to it as there last pathetic hope despite the questionable applicability. Then Justice Kennedy SPECIFICALLY stated in the majority opinion that Baker is overturned. If you don't know that, look it up. Get over it already
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> look it up?!  I pointed it out to YOU, from your "list of cases cited in support"..... indicating you didnt even read your own cut and paste post, or if you did, didn't understand it.
> 
> It's lack of citation in numerous pre-obergefell lower federal court rulings however shows,....just as the Valentines Day ruling,  that the lower courts were ruling out of emotion rather than law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equine excrement. You said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall it saying it overturned Baker v. Nelson though.............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts as of now
> 
> 1. Obergefell rules
> 
> 2. Baker is history
> 
> I have better things to do than to have this stupid ass and pointless discussion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> precedent is there to keep the court in line.......perhaps in the future other courts will ignore obergefell like the lower courts ignored Baker the last few years. ...the courts attitude toward Baker shows what a joke the federal judiciary is.
> 
> my initial post here had to do with the hypocrisy of the judicial system, you led us down this "pointless discussion".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ridiculous! They can't ignore Obergefell like they ignored Baker. Baker was not actually reviewed It was dismissed for "lack of a substantial federal question" That procedusre is not even used anymore
> 
> While it was considered a binding precedent at the time , when dealing with precedents like _Baker,_ lower courts may have to guess at the meaning of these unexplained decisions.[18] The Supreme Court has laid out rules, however, to guide lower courts in narrowly applying these summary dispositions:[19]
> 
> 
> The facts in the potentially binding case must not bear any legally significant differences to the case under consideration.[20]
> The binding precedent encompasses only the issues presented to the Court, not the reasoning found in the lower court's decision.[21]
> Of the issues presented, only those necessarily decided by the Court in dismissing the case control.[22]
> Subsequent developments by the Court on the relevant doctrines may cast doubt on the continuing validity of a summary judgment.[23]
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson
Click to expand...


Im not sure what all the above lawyer speak means.....................but I suggest it is just a fancy way of giving an excuse for court laziness and desire for a different outcome.

the failure even to mention it in numerous lower court opinions shows however that the above guidelines weren't even considered.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What  are you blathering about now?? It's stupid to be discussing Baker at this late date. Before Obergefell, the bigots continued to cling to it as there last pathetic hope despite the questionable applicability. Then Justice Kennedy SPECIFICALLY stated in the majority opinion that Baker is overturned. If you don't know that, look it up. Get over it already
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> look it up?!  I pointed it out to YOU, from your "list of cases cited in support"..... indicating you didnt even read your own cut and paste post, or if you did, didn't understand it.
> 
> It's lack of citation in numerous pre-obergefell lower federal court rulings however shows,....just as the Valentines Day ruling,  that the lower courts were ruling out of emotion rather than law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equine excrement. You said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall it saying it overturned Baker v. Nelson though.............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts as of now
> 
> 1. Obergefell rules
> 
> 2. Baker is history
> 
> I have better things to do than to have this stupid ass and pointless discussion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> precedent is there to keep the court in line.......perhaps in the future other courts will ignore obergefell like the lower courts ignored Baker the last few years. ...the courts attitude toward Baker shows what a joke the federal judiciary is.
> 
> my initial post here had to do with the hypocrisy of the judicial system, you led us down this "pointless discussion".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ridiculous! They can't ignore Obergefell like they ignored Baker. Baker was not actually reviewed It was dismissed for "lack of a substantial federal question" That procedusre is not even used anymore
> 
> While it was considered a binding precedent at the time , when dealing with precedents like _Baker,_ lower courts may have to guess at the meaning of these unexplained decisions.[18] The Supreme Court has laid out rules, however, to guide lower courts in narrowly applying these summary dispositions:[19]
> 
> 
> The facts in the potentially binding case must not bear any legally significant differences to the case under consideration.[20]
> The binding precedent encompasses only the issues presented to the Court, not the reasoning found in the lower court's decision.[21]
> Of the issues presented, only those necessarily decided by the Court in dismissing the case control.[22]
> Subsequent developments by the Court on the relevant doctrines may cast doubt on the continuing validity of a summary judgment.[23]
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not sure what all the above lawyer speak means.....................but I suggest it is just a fancy way of giving an excuse for court laziness and desire for a different outcome.
> 
> the failure even to mention it in numerous lower court opinions shows however that the above guidelines weren't even considered.
Click to expand...


In many cases it was mentioned and the reasons why it was considered to be not controlling were spelled out. Give it a rest already. It is OVER

From the Utah case....................

_*Baker v. Nelson*_
* Is No Longer Controlling Precedent

Utah Same-Sex Marriage Ruling*
In 1971, two men from Minnesota brought a lawsuit in state court arguing that Minnesotawas constitutionally required to allow them to marry.
_ Baker v. Nelson_
, 191 N.W.2d 185, 187(Minn. 1971). The Minnesota Supreme Court found that Minnesota’s restriction of marriage toopposite-sex couples did not violate either the Equal Protection Clause or the Due ProcessClause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
_ Id._
 at 186-87. On appeal, the United States SupremeCourt summarily dismissed the case “for want of a substantial federal question.”
_ Baker v. Nelson_
, 409 U.S. 810, 810 (1972). Utah argues that the Court’s summary dismissal in
_ Baker _ is binding on this court and thatthe present lawsuit should therefore be dismissed for lack of a substantial federal question. *But the Supreme Court has stated that a summary dismissal is not binding “when doctrinaldevelopments indicate otherwise.”*
_ Hicks v. Miranda
_
, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975). Here, several doctrinal developments in the Court’s analysis of both the Equal ProtectionClause and the Due Process Clause as they apply to gay men and lesbians demonstrate that theCourt’s summary dismissal in
_ Baker _has little if any precedential effect today. Not only was
_ Baker _ decided before the Supreme Court held that sex is a quasi-suspect classification,
_ see Craig v. Boren_
, 429 U.S. 190, 197 (1976);
_ Frontiero v. Richardson_
, 411 U.S. 677, 688 (1973) (pluralityop.), but also before the Court recognized that the Constitution protects individuals fromdiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
_See
 Romer v. Evans_
, 517 U.S. 620, 635-36(1996). Moreover,
_ Baker _
 was decided before the Supreme Court held in
_ Lawrence v. Texas_
 thatit was unconstitutional for a state to “demean [the] existence [of gay men and lesbians] or controltheir destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.” 539 U.S. 558, 578 (2003). As14
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 90 Filed 12/20/13 Page 14 of 53










discussed below, the Supreme Court’s decision in 
_ Lawrence_
 removes a justification that statescould formerly cite as a reason to prohibit same-sex marriage.


----------



## Skylar

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What  are you blathering about now?? It's stupid to be discussing Baker at this late date. Before Obergefell, the bigots continued to cling to it as there last pathetic hope despite the questionable applicability. Then Justice Kennedy SPECIFICALLY stated in the majority opinion that Baker is overturned. If you don't know that, look it up. Get over it already
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> look it up?!  I pointed it out to YOU, from your "list of cases cited in support"..... indicating you didnt even read your own cut and paste post, or if you did, didn't understand it.
> 
> It's lack of citation in numerous pre-obergefell lower federal court rulings however shows,....just as the Valentines Day ruling,  that the lower courts were ruling out of emotion rather than law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equine excrement. You said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall it saying it overturned Baker v. Nelson though.............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts as of now
> 
> 1. Obergefell rules
> 
> 2. Baker is history
> 
> I have better things to do than to have this stupid ass and pointless discussion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> precedent is there to keep the court in line.......perhaps in the future other courts will ignore obergefell like the lower courts ignored Baker the last few years. ...the courts attitude toward Baker shows what a joke the federal judiciary is.
> 
> my initial post here had to do with the hypocrisy of the judicial system, you led us down this "pointless discussion".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ridiculous! They can't ignore Obergefell like they ignored Baker. Baker was not actually reviewed It was dismissed for "lack of a substantial federal question" That procedusre is not even used anymore
> 
> While it was considered a binding precedent at the time , when dealing with precedents like _Baker,_ lower courts may have to guess at the meaning of these unexplained decisions.[18] The Supreme Court has laid out rules, however, to guide lower courts in narrowly applying these summary dispositions:[19]
> 
> 
> The facts in the potentially binding case must not bear any legally significant differences to the case under consideration.[20]
> The binding precedent encompasses only the issues presented to the Court, not the reasoning found in the lower court's decision.[21]
> Of the issues presented, only those necessarily decided by the Court in dismissing the case control.[22]
> Subsequent developments by the Court on the relevant doctrines may cast doubt on the continuing validity of a summary judgment.[23]
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not sure what all the above lawyer speak means.....................but I suggest it is just a fancy way of giving an excuse for court laziness and desire for a different outcome.
> 
> the failure even to mention it in numerous lower court opinions shows however that the above guidelines weren't even considered.
Click to expand...


The more recent rulings are more relevant. The lower courts would naturally cite the more recent rulings. With the most relevant before Obergefell being Windsor and Romer. These were actual rulings rather than merely a sentence.


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> look it up?!  I pointed it out to YOU, from your "list of cases cited in support"..... indicating you didnt even read your own cut and paste post, or if you did, didn't understand it.
> 
> It's lack of citation in numerous pre-obergefell lower federal court rulings however shows,....just as the Valentines Day ruling,  that the lower courts were ruling out of emotion rather than law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equine excrement. You said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall it saying it overturned Baker v. Nelson though.............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts as of now
> 
> 1. Obergefell rules
> 
> 2. Baker is history
> 
> I have better things to do than to have this stupid ass and pointless discussion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> precedent is there to keep the court in line.......perhaps in the future other courts will ignore obergefell like the lower courts ignored Baker the last few years. ...the courts attitude toward Baker shows what a joke the federal judiciary is.
> 
> my initial post here had to do with the hypocrisy of the judicial system, you led us down this "pointless discussion".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ridiculous! They can't ignore Obergefell like they ignored Baker. Baker was not actually reviewed It was dismissed for "lack of a substantial federal question" That procedusre is not even used anymore
> 
> While it was considered a binding precedent at the time , when dealing with precedents like _Baker,_ lower courts may have to guess at the meaning of these unexplained decisions.[18] The Supreme Court has laid out rules, however, to guide lower courts in narrowly applying these summary dispositions:[19]
> 
> 
> The facts in the potentially binding case must not bear any legally significant differences to the case under consideration.[20]
> The binding precedent encompasses only the issues presented to the Court, not the reasoning found in the lower court's decision.[21]
> Of the issues presented, only those necessarily decided by the Court in dismissing the case control.[22]
> Subsequent developments by the Court on the relevant doctrines may cast doubt on the continuing validity of a summary judgment.[23]
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not sure what all the above lawyer speak means.....................but I suggest it is just a fancy way of giving an excuse for court laziness and desire for a different outcome.
> 
> the failure even to mention it in numerous lower court opinions shows however that the above guidelines weren't even considered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In many cases it was mentioned and the reasons why it was considered to be not controlling were spelled out. Give it a rest already. It is OVER
Click to expand...


the arguments will never be over......as the obergefell decision and those leading to it are a joke.


----------



## dcraelin

Skylar said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> look it up?!  I pointed it out to YOU, from your "list of cases cited in support"..... indicating you didnt even read your own cut and paste post, or if you did, didn't understand it.
> 
> It's lack of citation in numerous pre-obergefell lower federal court rulings however shows,....just as the Valentines Day ruling,  that the lower courts were ruling out of emotion rather than law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equine excrement. You said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall it saying it overturned Baker v. Nelson though.............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts as of now
> 
> 1. Obergefell rules
> 
> 2. Baker is history
> 
> I have better things to do than to have this stupid ass and pointless discussion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> precedent is there to keep the court in line.......perhaps in the future other courts will ignore obergefell like the lower courts ignored Baker the last few years. ...the courts attitude toward Baker shows what a joke the federal judiciary is.
> 
> my initial post here had to do with the hypocrisy of the judicial system, you led us down this "pointless discussion".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ridiculous! They can't ignore Obergefell like they ignored Baker. Baker was not actually reviewed It was dismissed for "lack of a substantial federal question" That procedusre is not even used anymore
> 
> While it was considered a binding precedent at the time , when dealing with precedents like _Baker,_ lower courts may have to guess at the meaning of these unexplained decisions.[18] The Supreme Court has laid out rules, however, to guide lower courts in narrowly applying these summary dispositions:[19]
> 
> 
> The facts in the potentially binding case must not bear any legally significant differences to the case under consideration.[20]
> The binding precedent encompasses only the issues presented to the Court, not the reasoning found in the lower court's decision.[21]
> Of the issues presented, only those necessarily decided by the Court in dismissing the case control.[22]
> Subsequent developments by the Court on the relevant doctrines may cast doubt on the continuing validity of a summary judgment.[23]
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not sure what all the above lawyer speak means.....................but I suggest it is just a fancy way of giving an excuse for court laziness and desire for a different outcome.
> 
> the failure even to mention it in numerous lower court opinions shows however that the above guidelines weren't even considered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The more recent rulings are more relevant. The lower courts would naturally cite the more recent rulings. With the most relevant before Obergefell being Windsor and Romer. These were actual rulings rather than merely a sentence.
Click to expand...


and didn't deal directly with the question...which the Baker decision did.  As I said before...it shows to be contemptible the joke of the federal judiciary.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equine excrement. You said The facts as of now
> 
> 1. Obergefell rules
> 
> 2. Baker is history
> 
> I have better things to do than to have this stupid ass and pointless discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> precedent is there to keep the court in line.......perhaps in the future other courts will ignore obergefell like the lower courts ignored Baker the last few years. ...the courts attitude toward Baker shows what a joke the federal judiciary is.
> 
> my initial post here had to do with the hypocrisy of the judicial system, you led us down this "pointless discussion".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ridiculous! They can't ignore Obergefell like they ignored Baker. Baker was not actually reviewed It was dismissed for "lack of a substantial federal question" That procedusre is not even used anymore
> 
> While it was considered a binding precedent at the time , when dealing with precedents like _Baker,_ lower courts may have to guess at the meaning of these unexplained decisions.[18] The Supreme Court has laid out rules, however, to guide lower courts in narrowly applying these summary dispositions:[19]
> 
> 
> The facts in the potentially binding case must not bear any legally significant differences to the case under consideration.[20]
> The binding precedent encompasses only the issues presented to the Court, not the reasoning found in the lower court's decision.[21]
> Of the issues presented, only those necessarily decided by the Court in dismissing the case control.[22]
> Subsequent developments by the Court on the relevant doctrines may cast doubt on the continuing validity of a summary judgment.[23]
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not sure what all the above lawyer speak means.....................but I suggest it is just a fancy way of giving an excuse for court laziness and desire for a different outcome.
> 
> the failure even to mention it in numerous lower court opinions shows however that the above guidelines weren't even considered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In many cases it was mentioned and the reasons why it was considered to be not controlling were spelled out. Give it a rest already. It is OVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the arguments will never be over......as the obergefell decision and those leading to it are a joke.
Click to expand...


----------



## Asclepias

Kim Davis freed, barred from interfering with licenses - CNNPolitics.com


"If Ms. Davis stops them from issuing licenses, then we are right back where we started," Toobin said. "And *Judge Bunning has made it quite clear, he will lock her back up*."


----------



## ABikerSailor

She's supposed to go back to work tomorrow.

I'm guessing she's back in jail by Friday afternoon.


----------



## Lakhota

Here is another reason why I say that Shep Smith is the only anchor worth watching on Fox News.  The article is short - but Shep makes his point crystal clear.

*Shepard Smith On Kim Davis: 'Haters Are Gonna Hate'*


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

*Ten Horrific Things Kim Davis' Attorney Has Said About Gay People*
Submitted by Brian Tashman on Wednesday, 9/9/2015 2:30 pm
Yesterday, anti-gay Kentucky clerk Kim Davis was released from jail and almost immediately took the stage at a campaign rally for Mike Huckabee, arm-in-arm with the GOP presidential candidate and with her attorney, Mat Staver, the head of Liberty Counsel.

This is the moment that Staver has been waiting for. The former dean of Liberty University’s School of Law has  repeatedly urged public officials to break the law  when it comes to gay marriage, and with Davis he finally has his test case.

Much of the public attention on Staver has focused on his bizarre, and so far unsuccessful, legal argument that Davis should be able to order her entire county clerk’s office to follow her personal religious views, even in defiance of several court orders. Staver has gone all-in on the Religious Right’s claim that LGBT rights is leading to the persecution of Christians, claiming that obeying gay marriage law is  tantamount to handing over a Jewish person to Nazi enforcers  and comparing Davis to victims of the Holocaust.

But it’s important to remember that when Staver is not playing the victim of LGBT rights, he is spouting virulently anti-LGBT rhetoric, going so far as to suggest that supporters of gay rights are ineligible to hold public office and defending laws criminalizing homosexuality in the U.S. and abroad.

*As these 10 anti-gay comments make clear, Staver isn’t seeking a live-and-let-live world, but rather one where the government is a religious tool of conservative Christians and LGBT people are forced into the shadows.*

- See more at: Ten Horrific Things Kim Davis' Attorney Has Said About Gay People


----------



## Skylar

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equine excrement. You said The facts as of now
> 
> 1. Obergefell rules
> 
> 2. Baker is history
> 
> I have better things to do than to have this stupid ass and pointless discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> precedent is there to keep the court in line.......perhaps in the future other courts will ignore obergefell like the lower courts ignored Baker the last few years. ...the courts attitude toward Baker shows what a joke the federal judiciary is.
> 
> my initial post here had to do with the hypocrisy of the judicial system, you led us down this "pointless discussion".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ridiculous! They can't ignore Obergefell like they ignored Baker. Baker was not actually reviewed It was dismissed for "lack of a substantial federal question" That procedusre is not even used anymore
> 
> While it was considered a binding precedent at the time , when dealing with precedents like _Baker,_ lower courts may have to guess at the meaning of these unexplained decisions.[18] The Supreme Court has laid out rules, however, to guide lower courts in narrowly applying these summary dispositions:[19]
> 
> 
> The facts in the potentially binding case must not bear any legally significant differences to the case under consideration.[20]
> The binding precedent encompasses only the issues presented to the Court, not the reasoning found in the lower court's decision.[21]
> Of the issues presented, only those necessarily decided by the Court in dismissing the case control.[22]
> Subsequent developments by the Court on the relevant doctrines may cast doubt on the continuing validity of a summary judgment.[23]
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not sure what all the above lawyer speak means.....................but I suggest it is just a fancy way of giving an excuse for court laziness and desire for a different outcome.
> 
> the failure even to mention it in numerous lower court opinions shows however that the above guidelines weren't even considered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In many cases it was mentioned and the reasons why it was considered to be not controlling were spelled out. Give it a rest already. It is OVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the arguments will never be over......as the obergefell decision and those leading to it are a joke.
Click to expand...


The legal questions asked in Obergefell have definitely been answered. Yes, a State has to issue a marriage license for same sex couples. Yes, it has to honor marriage licenses from other states for same sex couples.


----------



## ABikerSailor

I saw it yesterday when she was let out of jail.  Not only was Huckabee using her as a political point, but it was clear from the way the lawyer phrased things that he and Huckabee were going to be her spokespersons, and they're looking to make a lot of money.

It was especially funny yesterday to see one of Huckabee's staffers physically block Cruz from getting to the cameras.


----------



## Lakhota

It's time for those who cherish secular government to declare war on these hateful theocrats.  Our founding fathers gave us a Godless Constitution - which we must protect from those who wish to transform our government into a theocracy.  America needs more freedom _from_ religion.


----------



## WorldWatcher

dcraelin said:


> the failure even to mention it in numerous lower court opinions shows however that the above guidelines weren't even considered.



As a previous post shows, "precedent" can be overcome by events as the legal landscape changes.  In the early 1970's there was no Federal question for the Federal government to address because there were (a) no states that recognized SSCM and (b) no SSCM recognition at the federal level.  Over the years that landscape changed.  States passed SSCM, the Federal governemnt enacted DOMA to prevent federal recognition of SSCM and that was found to be unconstitutional.

Yes the guidelines were considered and found to be lacking.

If the United States Supreme Court held precedence and the lower courts were wrong, then would have remained the cases back to the lower court with instructions to apply backer but they didn't. In fact the SCOTUS said: (Obergerfell v. Hodges)  "Baker v. Nelson must be and now is overruled, and the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite sex couples."  http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Below is where the lower courts DID address Baker in their rulings:

2nd Circuit Marriage decision (Windsor), Baker is discussed beginning on PDF PDF Page 15 -->> http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141167.P.pdf

4th Circuit Marriage decision, Baker is discussed beginning on PDF PDF Page 33 -->> http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141167.P.pdf

5th Circuit Marriage decision, Baker is discussed beginning on PDF Page 12 -->> http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0275p-06.pdf

7th Circuit Marriage decision, Baker is discussed beginning on PDF page 14 -->> http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...4/C:14-2526:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1412339:S:0

9th Circuit Marriage decision, Baker is discussed beginning on PDF 9 -->> http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/10/07/14-35420 opinion.pdf​

>>>>


----------



## Debra K

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equine excrement. You said The facts as of now
> 
> 1. Obergefell rules
> 
> 2. Baker is history
> 
> I have better things to do than to have this stupid ass and pointless discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> precedent is there to keep the court in line.......perhaps in the future other courts will ignore obergefell like the lower courts ignored Baker the last few years. ...the courts attitude toward Baker shows what a joke the federal judiciary is.
> 
> my initial post here had to do with the hypocrisy of the judicial system, you led us down this "pointless discussion".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ridiculous! They can't ignore Obergefell like they ignored Baker. Baker was not actually reviewed It was dismissed for "lack of a substantial federal question" That procedusre is not even used anymore
> 
> While it was considered a binding precedent at the time , when dealing with precedents like _Baker,_ lower courts may have to guess at the meaning of these unexplained decisions.[18] The Supreme Court has laid out rules, however, to guide lower courts in narrowly applying these summary dispositions:[19]
> 
> 
> The facts in the potentially binding case must not bear any legally significant differences to the case under consideration.[20]
> The binding precedent encompasses only the issues presented to the Court, not the reasoning found in the lower court's decision.[21]
> Of the issues presented, only those necessarily decided by the Court in dismissing the case control.[22]
> Subsequent developments by the Court on the relevant doctrines may cast doubt on the continuing validity of a summary judgment.[23]
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not sure what all the above lawyer speak means.....................but I suggest it is just a fancy way of giving an excuse for court laziness and desire for a different outcome.
> 
> the failure even to mention it in numerous lower court opinions shows however that the above guidelines weren't even considered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In many cases it was mentioned and the reasons why it was considered to be not controlling were spelled out. Give it a rest already. It is OVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the arguments will never be over......as the obergefell decision and those leading to it are a joke.
Click to expand...


.... meaning, you simply disagree that people you dislike should have the same rights and protection under the law that you enjoy.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Flopper said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Again -- she IS the government. The government does not act out in civil disobedience, which is an act against the government. That's why you're wrong and she sits in a cell.
> 
> 
> 
> And there, apparently, is the gist of the difference in positions.
> 
> You (apparently) believe that it is impossible for a member of the government to engage in Civil Disobedience while on-duty.
> 
> I believe that is it possible for a member of the government to refuse to conform to an immoral law, while on-duty, and that, in doing so, she is engaged in an act of Civil Disobedience.
> 
> I believe that Davis is in jail because - member of the government or no - she is engaged in an act of Civil Disobedience.
> 
> Doesn't mean she's right.
> 
> Doesn't mean that she can't be charged with a failure to execute or for contempt.
> 
> It's just the label that we hang on her actions.
> 
> You (and others less sympathetic) label it as Simple Lawbreaking.
> 
> I (and others more sympathetic) label it as Civil Disobedience - which has much the same effect, at-law, but which suggests a nobler purpose and self-sacrifice.
> 
> An appellation that you-and-yours are desperate to try to suppress, for fear that it will gain enough traction to become irreversible in the collective public psyche.
> 
> And, if that's the case, I think you're already too late.
> 
> She's already been awarded the mantle of hero and martyr.
> 
> Sucks, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kim Davis's office is obligated to perform the state function of issuing marriage licenses. She disagrees that marriage can exist between two people of the same sex. However, the state of Kentucky has little choice other than to respect the ruling of the Supreme Court.  Davis's opinion is completely irrelevant to performance of her job.  If she will not allow her office to preform their function, then she has to go just like any employee who finds their conscience will not allow them to do their job.
Click to expand...


The State of Kentucky has every choice to reject the irrational, irrefutably unconstitutional decree by the newly formed Supreme Legislature.  

Davis's Job is to follow Kentucky law.  

Kentucky Law defines Marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> The State of Kentucky has every choice to reject the irrational, irrefutably unconstitutional decree by the newly formed Supreme Legislature.
> 
> Davis's Job is to follow Kentucky law.
> 
> Kentucky Law defines Marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman.



Kentucky doesn't have a valid law that defines marriage as only a man and a woman.

It was unconstitutional and Kentucky recognized that and is not issuing them licenses across the state.


>>>>


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

WorldWatcher said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> the failure even to mention it in numerous lower court opinions shows however that the above guidelines weren't even considered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a previous post shows, "precedent" can be overcome by events as the legal landscape changes.  In the early 1970's there was no Federal question for the Federal government to address because there were (a) no states that recognized SSCM and (b) no SSCM recognition at the federal level.  Over the years that landscape changed.  States passed SSCM, the Federal governemnt enacted DOMA to prevent federal recognition of SSCM and that was found to be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


And that would-be 'finding' was on hysterically specious basis.   The finding was NOT set upon the letter of the US Constitution, the principles on which the Constitution rests or any sense of reason which would provide that DOMA was unconstitutional.

The degenerates are simply making it up out of whole cloth.  And no American is IN ANY WAY obligated to so much as recognize these decisions, let alone obey any sense of law that arises out of them.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

WorldWatcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> The State of Kentucky has every choice to reject the irrational, irrefutably unconstitutional decree by the newly formed Supreme Legislature.
> 
> Davis's Job is to follow Kentucky law.
> 
> Kentucky Law defines Marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kentucky doesn't have a valid law that defines marriage as only a man and a woman.
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Kentucky exists in reality.  In reality, Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman... as God created humanity with two distinct, but complimenting genders; each designed SPECIFICALLY to JOIN WITH the OTHER... Forming ONE SUSTAINABLE BODY... from two... and Kentucky's CONSTITUTION recognizes the right of the citizen to exercise their religion, ABOVE ALL OTHER CONSIDERATION... INCLUDING: THE LAW!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Debra K said:


> Exactly.  The ability to reproduce is not a requirement.




 Nope.

And procreation _not being a requirement_, does *not* provide that marriage is anything else beyond one man joining with one woman.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Debra K said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> precedent is there to keep the court in line.......perhaps in the future other courts will ignore obergefell like the lower courts ignored Baker the last few years. ...the courts attitude toward Baker shows what a joke the federal judiciary is.
> 
> my initial post here had to do with the hypocrisy of the judicial system, you led us down this "pointless discussion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous! They can't ignore Obergefell like they ignored Baker. Baker was not actually reviewed It was dismissed for "lack of a substantial federal question" That procedusre is not even used anymore
> 
> While it was considered a binding precedent at the time , when dealing with precedents like _Baker,_ lower courts may have to guess at the meaning of these unexplained decisions.[18] The Supreme Court has laid out rules, however, to guide lower courts in narrowly applying these summary dispositions:[19]
> 
> 
> The facts in the potentially binding case must not bear any legally significant differences to the case under consideration.[20]
> The binding precedent encompasses only the issues presented to the Court, not the reasoning found in the lower court's decision.[21]
> Of the issues presented, only those necessarily decided by the Court in dismissing the case control.[22]
> Subsequent developments by the Court on the relevant doctrines may cast doubt on the continuing validity of a summary judgment.[23]
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not sure what all the above lawyer speak means.....................but I suggest it is just a fancy way of giving an excuse for court laziness and desire for a different outcome.
> 
> the failure even to mention it in numerous lower court opinions shows however that the above guidelines weren't even considered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In many cases it was mentioned and the reasons why it was considered to be not controlling were spelled out. Give it a rest already. It is OVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the arguments will never be over......as the obergefell decision and those leading to it are a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .... meaning, you simply disagree that people you dislike should have the same rights and protection under the law that you enjoy.
Click to expand...


It is really interesting that some people are so distraught and freaked out about this that they will create a whole alternate reality so that they can believe that it is wrong and unjust. Yet 99% of these people are completely unaffected by it in their personal lives. If they didn't read the news or seek out these threads to troll, they would not even notice the change. There is something really sick about their obsession with it.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Kentucky exists in reality.  In reality, Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman... as God created humanity with two distinct, but complimenting genders; each designed SPECIFICALLY to JOIN WITH the OTHER... Forming ONE SUSTAINABLE BODY... from two... and Kentucky's CONSTITUTION recognizes the right of the citizen to exercise their religion, ABOVE ALL OTHER CONSIDERATION... INCLUDING: THE LAW!



Reality is that same-sex couple can enter into Civil Marriage just like the rest of us.

Reality is that same-sex couples can enter into Religious Marriage and the number of Churches and religious organizations accepting them is growing.


That is reality.


>>>>


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> It is really interesting that some people are so distraught and freaked out about this that they will create a whole alternate reality so that they can believe that it is wrong and unjust. *Yet 99% of these people are completely unaffected by it in their personal lives*. ... .



Reader, what you witnessed in the above trail of drivel, is what is known as *"R E L A T I V I S M"*.

Relativism is the _doctrine_ which holds that "_knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context and, as such, can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes"_.

Such is a presentation of mental disorder; a perversion of human reasoning.

Through this perversion of reason the relativist axiomatically rejects the very existence of *objectivity; *which is essential to truth, that we find that such precludes the means for Left-think to serve justice.

With truth being essential to trust and, _both: truth and trust_ being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality and, because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

And the above twaddle is a perfect example of just that.


----------



## koshergrl

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> *Ten Horrific Things Kim Davis' Attorney Has Said About Gay People*
> Submitted by Brian Tashman on Wednesday, 9/9/2015 2:30 pm
> Yesterday, anti-gay Kentucky clerk Kim Davis was released from jail and almost immediately took the stage at a campaign rally for Mike Huckabee, arm-in-arm with the GOP presidential candidate and with her attorney, Mat Staver, the head of Liberty Counsel.
> 
> This is the moment that Staver has been waiting for. The former dean of Liberty University’s School of Law has  repeatedly urged public officials to break the law  when it comes to gay marriage, and with Davis he finally has his test case.
> 
> Much of the public attention on Staver has focused on his bizarre, and so far unsuccessful, legal argument that Davis should be able to order her entire county clerk’s office to follow her personal religious views, even in defiance of several court orders. Staver has gone all-in on the Religious Right’s claim that LGBT rights is leading to the persecution of Christians, claiming that obeying gay marriage law is  tantamount to handing over a Jewish person to Nazi enforcers  and comparing Davis to victims of the Holocaust.
> 
> But it’s important to remember that when Staver is not playing the victim of LGBT rights, he is spouting virulently anti-LGBT rhetoric, going so far as to suggest that supporters of gay rights are ineligible to hold public office and defending laws criminalizing homosexuality in the U.S. and abroad.
> 
> *As these 10 anti-gay comments make clear, Staver isn’t seeking a live-and-let-live world, but rather one where the government is a religious tool of conservative Christians and LGBT people are forced into the shadows.*
> 
> - See more at: Ten Horrific Things Kim Davis' Attorney Has Said About Gay People


 
Fascists always view the truth as "horrific"..which it is..what they fail to grasp is that their actions induce horror in normal people.


----------



## koshergrl

WorldWatcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kentucky exists in reality.  In reality, Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman... as God created humanity with two distinct, but complimenting genders; each designed SPECIFICALLY to JOIN WITH the OTHER... Forming ONE SUSTAINABLE BODY... from two... and Kentucky's CONSTITUTION recognizes the right of the citizen to exercise their religion, ABOVE ALL OTHER CONSIDERATION... INCLUDING: THE LAW!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality is that same-sex couple can enter into Civil Marriage just like the rest of us.
> 
> Reality is that same-sex couples can enter into Religious Marriage and the number of Churches and religious organizations accepting them is growing.
> 
> 
> That is reality.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

It is indeed. And the queers' ability to get married is in no way hampered by leaving off the name of the people who don't care to endorse their revolting, depraved and sacrilegious coupling.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

WorldWatcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kentucky exists in reality.  In reality, Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman... as God created humanity with two distinct, but complimenting genders; each designed SPECIFICALLY to JOIN WITH the OTHER... Forming ONE SUSTAINABLE BODY... from two... and Kentucky's CONSTITUTION recognizes the right of the citizen to exercise their religion, ABOVE ALL OTHER CONSIDERATION... INCLUDING: THE LAW!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality is that same-sex couple can enter into Civil Marriage just like the rest of us.
Click to expand...


No... The Reality is that a severe degeneracy has now been found to exist in the highest elements of the US Federal Government, which has caused the US Federal Government to federally license degeneracy; literally making it _legal to promote the decay and overall moral deterioration of the US Culture_, that which is unjust and overtly harmful to the individuals they represent, thus severely injurious to the culture on the whole.

That such is legal, does not make it real; which is to say that something is legal does not make it morally sound... thus it exists outside the scope of human viability, therefore such is a fiction being played out as reality.

We saw the same thing in Europe, during the 1930s and 40s... . The consequences were catastrophic.

Such will be no less so in the here and now.

The Reality is that Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.  And all the pretense, by the lowest common denominators, cannot alter reality.


----------



## paperview

This just in:
*"Although a federal judge ordered she not interfere with the issuance of marriage licenses, her legal team said her mind "has not changed," and she intends to block gay couples from getting licenses once again."*

Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Plans To Go Back To Work On Monday

Toldja so.

She's a Gawd Warrior, with the cross on her back and ready to push to have the nails of Geezuz pushed through her wrists to fight this thing    to the Bigot Bucks end.

What happened this past week is only Act 1.


----------



## paperview

koshergrl said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kentucky exists in reality.  In reality, Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman... as God created humanity with two distinct, but complimenting genders; each designed SPECIFICALLY to JOIN WITH the OTHER... Forming ONE SUSTAINABLE BODY... from two... and Kentucky's CONSTITUTION recognizes the right of the citizen to exercise their religion, ABOVE ALL OTHER CONSIDERATION... INCLUDING: THE LAW!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality is that same-sex couple can enter into Civil Marriage just like the rest of us.
> 
> Reality is that same-sex couples can enter into Religious Marriage and the number of Churches and religious organizations accepting them is growing.
> 
> 
> That is reality.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is indeed. And the queers' ability to get married is in no way hampered by leaving off the name of the people who don't care to endorse their revolting, depraved and sacrilegious coupling.
Click to expand...

Her name IS off the licenses.

That's not good enough for her.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

paperview said:


> This just in:
> *"Although a federal judge ordered she not interfere with the issuance of marriage licenses, her legal team said her mind "has not changed," and she intends to block gay couples from getting licenses once again."*
> 
> Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Plans To Go Back To Work On Monday
> 
> Toldja so.
> 
> She's a Gawd Warrior, with the cross on her back and ready to push to have the nails of Geezuz pushed through her wrists to fight this thing to to the Bigot Bucks end.
> 
> What happened this past week is only Act 1.



Of course she will.  She's an American and to BE an American you must first recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles that define America.  "Degeneracy" and the purveyance of such, is not such a principle.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

WHERE_R_MY_KEYS SAID:

"No... The Reality is that a severe degeneracy has now been found to exist in the highest elements of the US Federal Government..."

No, the reality is that you and most others on the social right are ridiculous and delusional, contriving inane lies about 'severe degeneracy' existing in the highest elements of the Federal government.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

paperview said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kentucky exists in reality.  In reality, Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman... as God created humanity with two distinct, but complimenting genders; each designed SPECIFICALLY to JOIN WITH the OTHER... Forming ONE SUSTAINABLE BODY... from two... and Kentucky's CONSTITUTION recognizes the right of the citizen to exercise their religion, ABOVE ALL OTHER CONSIDERATION... INCLUDING: THE LAW!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality is that same-sex couple can enter into Civil Marriage just like the rest of us.
> 
> Reality is that same-sex couples can enter into Religious Marriage and the number of Churches and religious organizations accepting them is growing.
> 
> 
> That is reality.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is indeed. And the queers' ability to get married is in no way hampered by leaving off the name of the people who don't care to endorse their revolting, depraved and sacrilegious coupling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her name IS off the licenses.
> 
> That's not good enough for her.
Click to expand...


Her name is not off the licenses.

She is the Clerk of the Court... The Clerk's office issues the licenses... therefore everything that the Clerks office does, bears her name.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> WHERE_R_MY_KEYS SAID:
> 
> "No... The Reality is that a severe degeneracy has now been found to exist in the highest elements of the US Federal Government..."
> 
> No.



False.

_Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## Lakhota

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kentucky exists in reality.  In reality, Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman... as God created humanity with two distinct, but complimenting genders; each designed SPECIFICALLY to JOIN WITH the OTHER... Forming ONE SUSTAINABLE BODY... from two... and Kentucky's CONSTITUTION recognizes the right of the citizen to exercise their religion, ABOVE ALL OTHER CONSIDERATION... INCLUDING: THE LAW!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality is that same-sex couple can enter into Civil Marriage just like the rest of us.
> 
> Reality is that same-sex couples can enter into Religious Marriage and the number of Churches and religious organizations accepting them is growing.
> 
> 
> That is reality.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is indeed. And the queers' ability to get married is in no way hampered by leaving off the name of the people who don't care to endorse their revolting, depraved and sacrilegious coupling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her name IS off the licenses.
> 
> That's not good enough for her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her name is not off the licenses.
> 
> She is the Clerk of the Court... The Clerk's office issues the licenses... therefore everything that the Clerks office does, bears her name.
Click to expand...


Her name is Satan!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Lakhota said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kentucky exists in reality.  In reality, Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman... as God created humanity with two distinct, but complimenting genders; each designed SPECIFICALLY to JOIN WITH the OTHER... Forming ONE SUSTAINABLE BODY... from two... and Kentucky's CONSTITUTION recognizes the right of the citizen to exercise their religion, ABOVE ALL OTHER CONSIDERATION... INCLUDING: THE LAW!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality is that same-sex couple can enter into Civil Marriage just like the rest of us.
> 
> Reality is that same-sex couples can enter into Religious Marriage and the number of Churches and religious organizations accepting them is growing.
> 
> 
> That is reality.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is indeed. And the queers' ability to get married is in no way hampered by leaving off the name of the people who don't care to endorse their revolting, depraved and sacrilegious coupling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her name IS off the licenses.
> 
> That's not good enough for her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her name is not off the licenses.
> 
> She is the Clerk of the Court... The Clerk's office issues the licenses... therefore everything that the Clerks office does, bears her name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her name is Satan!
Click to expand...


Yes... Satan is standing up for God's law.  

You've clearly given this a lot of thought. 

LOL!  Folks you can NOT hide the anti-theist (Douchebags)... they simply will not allow it.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Yes... Satan is standing up for God's law.


*
Here is proof*


*Take a look at those who support the Christo Fascist clerk Flying the Slave monger and treason Flag*


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Again -- she IS the government. The government does not act out in civil disobedience, which is an act against the government. That's why you're wrong and she sits in a cell.
> 
> 
> 
> And there, apparently, is the gist of the difference in positions.
> 
> You (apparently) believe that it is impossible for a member of the government to engage in Civil Disobedience while on-duty.
> 
> I believe that is it possible for a member of the government to refuse to conform to an immoral law, while on-duty, and that, in doing so, she is engaged in an act of Civil Disobedience.
> 
> I believe that Davis is in jail because - member of the government or no - she is engaged in an act of Civil Disobedience.
> 
> Doesn't mean she's right.
> 
> Doesn't mean that she can't be charged with a failure to execute or for contempt.
> 
> It's just the label that we hang on her actions.
> 
> You (and others less sympathetic) label it as Simple Lawbreaking.
> 
> I (and others more sympathetic) label it as Civil Disobedience - which has much the same effect, at-law, but which suggests a nobler purpose and self-sacrifice.
> 
> An appellation that you-and-yours are desperate to try to suppress, for fear that it will gain enough traction to become irreversible in the collective public psyche.
> 
> And, if that's the case, I think you're already too late.
> 
> She's already been awarded the mantle of hero and martyr.
> 
> Sucks, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kim Davis's office is obligated to perform the state function of issuing marriage licenses. She disagrees that marriage can exist between two people of the same sex. However, the state of Kentucky has little choice other than to respect the ruling of the Supreme Court.  Davis's opinion is completely irrelevant to performance of her job.  If she will not allow her office to preform their function, then she has to go just like any employee who finds their conscience will not allow them to do their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The State of Kentucky has every choice to reject the irrational, irrefutably unconstitutional decree by the newly formed Supreme Legislature.
> 
> Davis's Job is to follow Kentucky law.
> 
> Kentucky Law defines Marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

In this matter Davis' job is to acknowledge the Constitution, Article VI in particular, obey the Supreme Court, and follow the rule of law, where by doing so in no way 'violates' her religious liberty. 

Federal laws, the rulings of the Supreme Court, and Constitutional jurisprudence are the supreme law of the land, where state and local laws are subordinate to that.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*They go nuts about civil Rights for Gays but look at the Religionist bastards when they have a child sexual predator among them....*




Texas church hires pastor after he’s charged with 29 counts of child sex abuse at another church


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Asclepias

paperview said:


> This just in:
> *"Although a federal judge ordered she not interfere with the issuance of marriage licenses, her legal team said her mind "has not changed," and she intends to block gay couples from getting licenses once again."*
> 
> Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Plans To Go Back To Work On Monday
> 
> Toldja so.
> 
> She's a Gawd Warrior, with the cross on her back and ready to push to have the nails of Geezuz pushed through her wrists to fight this thing    to the Bigot Bucks end.
> 
> What happened this past week is only Act 1.


Good. They can put her back in the pokey. This time they should make it a month.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*‘What a puke': Conservatives furious after Fox News’ Shep Smith mocks Kim Davis’ hypocrisy*
*"This is the same crowd that says, ‘We don’t want Sharia law, don’t let them tell us what to do, keep their religion out of our lives and out of our government."*


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is really interesting that some people are so distraught and freaked out about this that they will create a whole alternate reality so that they can believe that it is wrong and unjust. *Yet 99% of these people are completely unaffected by it in their personal lives*. ... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reader, what you witnessed in the above trail of drivel, is what is known as *"R E L A T I V I S M"*.
> 
> Relativism is the _doctrine_ which holds that "_knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context and, as such, can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes"_.
> 
> Such is a presentation of mental disorder; a perversion of human reasoning.
> 
> Through this perversion of reason the relativist axiomatically rejects the very existence of *objectivity; *which is essential to truth, that we find that such precludes the means for Left-think to serve justice.
> 
> With truth being essential to trust and, _both: truth and trust_ being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality and, because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.
> 
> And the above twaddle is a perfect example of just that.
Click to expand...


Horseshit! Who the hell are you, and who the hell is Kim Davis to decide that your truth, your morality is the only truth and superior to others?. Who the hell are you people to declare that discrimination and hatred are supported by your contrived objectivism? There is nothing objective at all about your delusional , inane ranting.  Your views are in stark contrast to the evolving standards of human decency and human rights. Relativism and Objectivity are not at odds when you apply a rational thought process to a cultural and historical context. However, you are clearly not capable of rational thought.


----------



## koshergrl

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kentucky exists in reality.  In reality, Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman... as God created humanity with two distinct, but complimenting genders; each designed SPECIFICALLY to JOIN WITH the OTHER... Forming ONE SUSTAINABLE BODY... from two... and Kentucky's CONSTITUTION recognizes the right of the citizen to exercise their religion, ABOVE ALL OTHER CONSIDERATION... INCLUDING: THE LAW!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality is that same-sex couple can enter into Civil Marriage just like the rest of us.
> 
> Reality is that same-sex couples can enter into Religious Marriage and the number of Churches and religious organizations accepting them is growing.
> 
> 
> That is reality.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is indeed. And the queers' ability to get married is in no way hampered by leaving off the name of the people who don't care to endorse their revolting, depraved and sacrilegious coupling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her name IS off the licenses.
> 
> That's not good enough for her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her name is not off the licenses.
> 
> She is the Clerk of the Court... The Clerk's office issues the licenses... therefore everything that the Clerks office does, bears her name.
Click to expand...

 Yup. And removing her name is perfectly do-able. It's just a clerical/administrative tweak that would cost almost nothing and resolve everything.

But that's not what homo Nazis want. They want to make Christians crawl, and if they won't, they want them in jail.

More fools they.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Kim Davis is an idiotic Religionist  mental midget ...God laughs at her outlandish claims to know what God's views are...God rejects Dixie flag  Right wing slags ...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> In this matter Davis' job is to acknowledge the Constitution.



Which she is doing: Amendment1: _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, *or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

paperview said:


> This just in:
> *"Although a federal judge ordered she not interfere with the issuance of marriage licenses, her legal team said her mind "has not changed," and she intends to block gay couples from getting licenses once again."*
> 
> Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Plans To Go Back To Work On Monday
> 
> Toldja so.
> 
> She's a Gawd Warrior, with the cross on her back and ready to push to have the nails of Geezuz pushed through her wrists to fight this thing    to the Bigot Bucks end.
> 
> What happened this past week is only Act 1.


And if she ends up back on jail she'll have only herself to blame.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

She is using her role in the Government to inflict others with her crazy Apostolic Church conversion Doctrines...screw the Apostolic Church...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

koshergrl said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kentucky exists in reality.  In reality, Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman... as God created humanity with two distinct, but complimenting genders; each designed SPECIFICALLY to JOIN WITH the OTHER... Forming ONE SUSTAINABLE BODY... from two... and Kentucky's CONSTITUTION recognizes the right of the citizen to exercise their religion, ABOVE ALL OTHER CONSIDERATION... INCLUDING: THE LAW!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality is that same-sex couple can enter into Civil Marriage just like the rest of us.
> 
> Reality is that same-sex couples can enter into Religious Marriage and the number of Churches and religious organizations accepting them is growing.
> 
> 
> That is reality.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is indeed. And the queers' ability to get married is in no way hampered by leaving off the name of the people who don't care to endorse their revolting, depraved and sacrilegious coupling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her name IS off the licenses.
> 
> That's not good enough for her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her name is not off the licenses.
> 
> She is the Clerk of the Court... The Clerk's office issues the licenses... therefore everything that the Clerks office does, bears her name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup. And removing her name is perfectly do-able. It's just a clerical/administrative tweak that would cost almost nothing and resolve everything.
> 
> But that's not what homo Nazis want. They want to make Christians crawl, and if they won't, they want them in jail.
> 
> More fools they.
Click to expand...


She's the Clerk of Courts, as long as she is the Clerk of the Court and the Clerks office issues licenses... her name is part and parcel of every action taken by HER OFFICE.

What she SHOULD DO, is what she IS DOING: REFUSE TO ISSUE LICENSES TO UNQUALIFIED CANDIDATES.  As Marriage IS: The Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

The minute that Be-Otch interferes with people's licensing she needs to be slammed with heavy sanctions....


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> This just in:
> *"Although a federal judge ordered she not interfere with the issuance of marriage licenses, her legal team said her mind "has not changed," and she intends to block gay couples from getting licenses once again."*
> 
> Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Plans To Go Back To Work On Monday
> 
> Toldja so.
> 
> She's a Gawd Warrior, with the cross on her back and ready to push to have the nails of Geezuz pushed through her wrists to fight this thing    to the Bigot Bucks end.
> 
> What happened this past week is only Act 1.
> 
> 
> 
> And if she ends up back on jail she'll have only herself to blame.
Click to expand...


She isn't going back to jail...  The Next time the Court tries to jail her, there will be blood spilled in defense of American Principle.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*No thank you Christ is not my savior and Kim Davis is an Idiot...........*


----------



## koshergrl

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reality is that same-sex couple can enter into Civil Marriage just like the rest of us.
> 
> Reality is that same-sex couples can enter into Religious Marriage and the number of Churches and religious organizations accepting them is growing.
> 
> 
> That is reality.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> It is indeed. And the queers' ability to get married is in no way hampered by leaving off the name of the people who don't care to endorse their revolting, depraved and sacrilegious coupling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her name IS off the licenses.
> 
> That's not good enough for her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her name is not off the licenses.
> 
> She is the Clerk of the Court... The Clerk's office issues the licenses... therefore everything that the Clerks office does, bears her name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup. And removing her name is perfectly do-able. It's just a clerical/administrative tweak that would cost almost nothing and resolve everything.
> 
> But that's not what homo Nazis want. They want to make Christians crawl, and if they won't, they want them in jail.
> 
> More fools they.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She's the Clerk of Courts, as long as she is the Clerk of the Court and the Clerks office issues licenses... her name is part and parcel of every action taken by HER OFFICE.
> 
> What she SHOULD DO, is what she IS DOING: REFUSE TO ISSUE LICENSES TO UNQUALIFIED CANDIDATES.  As Marriage IS: The Joining of One Man and One Woman.
Click to expand...

 
She is under no obligation to do anything to _prevent_ them from marrying. But she has the right not to endorse it, even if her job is to issue license, based on her closely held personal conviction that issuing marriage licenses to gays is an act of sacrilege, and her soul is in danger if she endorses it.  The licenses may still be issued by the office WITHOUT HER NAME printed on the forms. She has said from the beginning that this would be acceptable to her. It is a reasonable accommodation.

It's funny that you can't get one homonazi to say anything about Tonya Parker, who refused for YEARS to marry anybody (which is exactly what Kim Davis did) based on her closely held, personal belief that it would be wrong to issue licenses until she could issue them to fags as well. Nobody sued her. Nobody dragged her to court. Nobody threw her in jail. She hasn't received death threats. And nobody on the left will say that if what she did was right, then what Davis is doing is right.

And that is the truth. That judge had the right to do that.

And so does this court admin.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> She isn't going back to jail...  The Next time the Court tries to jail her, there will be blood spilled in defense of American Principle.




waahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha you are blow hard ...she interferes with civil Rights she is going back in the slammer..No none of those Dixie Flag flying slave mongers are going to bleed...lol


----------



## Lakhota

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reality is that same-sex couple can enter into Civil Marriage just like the rest of us.
> 
> Reality is that same-sex couples can enter into Religious Marriage and the number of Churches and religious organizations accepting them is growing.
> 
> 
> That is reality.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> It is indeed. And the queers' ability to get married is in no way hampered by leaving off the name of the people who don't care to endorse their revolting, depraved and sacrilegious coupling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her name IS off the licenses.
> 
> That's not good enough for her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her name is not off the licenses.
> 
> She is the Clerk of the Court... The Clerk's office issues the licenses... therefore everything that the Clerks office does, bears her name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her name is Satan!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes... Satan is standing up for God's law.
> 
> You've clearly given this a lot of thought.
> 
> LOL!  Folks you can NOT hide the anti-theist (Douchebags)... they simply will not allow it.
Click to expand...


God's law?  I keep hearing about this God person.  Who is this God person?  Can you provide some "credible" proof that such a person exists?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Wed Sep 09, 2015 at 08:47 AM PDT

*Rowan County deputy clerk goes rogue—pledges to follow the judge's orders, not Kim Davis*
*




*
*Brian Mason is breaking free of the crazy in Kentucky*


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

koshergrl said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is indeed. And the queers' ability to get married is in no way hampered by leaving off the name of the people who don't care to endorse their revolting, depraved and sacrilegious coupling.
> 
> 
> 
> Her name IS off the licenses.
> 
> That's not good enough for her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her name is not off the licenses.
> 
> She is the Clerk of the Court... The Clerk's office issues the licenses... therefore everything that the Clerks office does, bears her name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup. And removing her name is perfectly do-able. It's just a clerical/administrative tweak that would cost almost nothing and resolve everything.
> 
> But that's not what homo Nazis want. They want to make Christians crawl, and if they won't, they want them in jail.
> 
> More fools they.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She's the Clerk of Courts, as long as she is the Clerk of the Court and the Clerks office issues licenses... her name is part and parcel of every action taken by HER OFFICE.
> 
> What she SHOULD DO, is what she IS DOING: REFUSE TO ISSUE LICENSES TO UNQUALIFIED CANDIDATES.  As Marriage IS: The Joining of One Man and One Woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She is under no obligation to do anything to _prevent_ them from marrying.
Click to expand...


I agree completely.

But as long as she is the Clerk, her name is intrinsic to ALL business done by the Clerk's office.  

Now, if they remove such licenses from the purvey of the Clerk's office... she's good to go and bear no responsibility for such.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Lakhota said:


> God's law?  I keep hearing about this God person.  Who is this God person?  Can you provide some "credible" proof that such a person exists?


*At the bottom line these crazed fools want "God's Word" to belong to them and to inflict their version of "God's will" on people....I reject the Christian fools who try to inflict their ignorance on Society...*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

If the Christo Fascist Kim Davis cannot do the job  RESIGN...........


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*Thank God for the US Constitution protecting us from these crazed Christians........*


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

WorldWatcher said:


> Kentucky doesn't have a valid law ...



Irrational, disembodied 'decisions' by a feckless communist cult, does not invalidate law.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Again -- she IS the government. The government does not act out in civil disobedience, which is an act against the government. That's why you're wrong and she sits in a cell.
> 
> 
> 
> And there, apparently, is the gist of the difference in positions.
> 
> You (apparently) believe that it is impossible for a member of the government to engage in Civil Disobedience while on-duty.
> 
> I believe that is it possible for a member of the government to refuse to conform to an immoral law, while on-duty, and that, in doing so, she is engaged in an act of Civil Disobedience.
> 
> I believe that Davis is in jail because - member of the government or no - she is engaged in an act of Civil Disobedience.
> 
> Doesn't mean she's right.
> 
> Doesn't mean that she can't be charged with a failure to execute or for contempt.
> 
> It's just the label that we hang on her actions.
> 
> You (and others less sympathetic) label it as Simple Lawbreaking.
> 
> I (and others more sympathetic) label it as Civil Disobedience - which has much the same effect, at-law, but which suggests a nobler purpose and self-sacrifice.
> 
> An appellation that you-and-yours are desperate to try to suppress, for fear that it will gain enough traction to become irreversible in the collective public psyche.
> 
> And, if that's the case, I think you're already too late.
> 
> She's already been awarded the mantle of hero and martyr.
> 
> Sucks, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kim Davis's office is obligated to perform the state function of issuing marriage licenses. She disagrees that marriage can exist between two people of the same sex. However, the state of Kentucky has little choice other than to respect the ruling of the Supreme Court.  Davis's opinion is completely irrelevant to performance of her job.  If she will not allow her office to preform their function, then she has to go just like any employee who finds their conscience will not allow them to do their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The State of Kentucky has every choice to reject the irrational, irrefutably unconstitutional decree by the newly formed Supreme Legislature.
> 
> Davis's Job is to follow Kentucky law.
> 
> Kentucky Law defines Marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> In this matter Davis' job is to acknowledge the Constitution, Article VI in particular, obey the Supreme Court, and follow the rule of law, where by doing so in no way 'violates' her religious liberty.
> 
> Federal laws, the rulings of the Supreme Court, and Constitutional jurisprudence are the supreme law of the land, where state and local laws are subordinate to that.
Click to expand...

So which law did she violate? You Leftwats have yet to answer that.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Her name is not off the licenses.
> 
> She is the Clerk of the Court... The Clerk's office issues the licenses... therefore everything that the Clerks office does, bears her name.









Here is one of the licenses issued while she was in custody.


>>>>


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Kim Davis is an idiotic Religionist  mental midget ...God laughs at her outlandish claims to know what God's views are...God rejects Dixie flag  Right wing slags ...


Brazenly speaking for the Almighty. Judgment day will be truly dreadful for you.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is really interesting that some people are so distraught and freaked out about this that they will create a whole alternate reality so that they can believe that it is wrong and unjust. *Yet 99% of these people are completely unaffected by it in their personal lives*. ... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reader, what you witnessed in the above trail of drivel, is what is known as *"R E L A T I V I S M"*.
> 
> Relativism is the _doctrine_ which holds that "_knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context and, as such, can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes"_.
> 
> Such is a presentation of mental disorder; a perversion of human reasoning.
> 
> Through this perversion of reason the relativist axiomatically rejects the very existence of *objectivity; *which is essential to truth, that we find that such precludes the means for Left-think to serve justice.
> 
> With truth being essential to trust and, _both: truth and trust_ being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality and, because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.
> 
> And the above twaddle is a perfect example of just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit! ...
Click to expand...


_Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

WorldWatcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Her name is not off the licenses.
> 
> She is the Clerk of the Court... The Clerk's office issues the licenses... therefore everything that the Clerks office does, bears her name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is one of the licenses issued while she was in custody.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

WorldWatcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Her name is not off the licenses.
> 
> She is the Clerk of the Court... The Clerk's office issues the licenses... therefore everything that the Clerks office does, bears her name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is one of the licenses issued while she was in custody.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

It's invalid.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kentucky doesn't have a valid law ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrational, disembodied 'decisions' by a feckless communist cult, does not invalidate law.
Click to expand...

Is that the new name you wing nuts are giving the US Constitution ". a feckless communist cult".. * No we say No to the Christian cultist trying to Inflict Podunk Religion on Americans......... *


----------



## WorldWatcher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Which she is doing: Amendment1: _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and *to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.*_




And which the plaintiff's (two different-sex and two same-sex couples) did when they filed suit.


>>>>


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

WorldWatcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Her name is not off the licenses.
> 
> She is the Clerk of the Court... The Clerk's office issues the licenses... therefore everything that the Clerks office does, bears her name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is one of the licenses issued while she was in custody.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


The document was signed by the "Deputy Clerk", who works exclusively FOR: THE CLERK. 

That is who "SHE" is... thus her 'name' is right there.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

The Deputy clerk will continue to obey the Judge..*.if the freakazoid Kim Davis tries to interfere she is gone to do more Jail time.............*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kim Davis is an idiotic Religionist  mental midget ...God laughs at her outlandish claims to know what God's views are...God rejects Dixie flag  Right wing slags ...
> 
> 
> 
> Brazenly speaking for the Almighty. Judgment day will be truly dreadful for you.
Click to expand...

God and you can both kiss my ass,.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> In this matter Davis' job is to acknowledge the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which she is doing: Amendment1: _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, *or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._
Click to expand...


And allowing here to use her government office to advance her own religious beliefs would in fact be
_using government to advance a religion and religious beliefs- a direct violation of the first amendment.

You were blathering about objectivity being superior to relativism?? Here is some objectivity for you.

Gay people are human beings.

Gay people have feelings, they have lives and they have people who they love and who love them

They are part of the community and contribute to the community.

Discrimination hurts them and hurts their families and children, and yes asshole, they do have families and children '

What the fuck is wrong with you? 
_


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

WorldWatcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which she is doing: Amendment1: _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and *to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And which the plaintiff's (two different-sex and two same-sex couples) did when they filed suit.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Yep... and all they have to do is to find a way to turn half of those applicants into people of a gender distinct from the other applicant.  And everything will be fine.

And that is because MARRIAGE: is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

They actually think threats from their Gods are believable...OHHH I am scared the Christian God is going to torture me....aint no Christian God going to do Jack shit to me...


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is really interesting that some people are so distraught and freaked out about this that they will create a whole alternate reality so that they can believe that it is wrong and unjust. *Yet 99% of these people are completely unaffected by it in their personal lives*. ... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reader, what you witnessed in the above trail of drivel, is what is known as *"R E L A T I V I S M"*.
> 
> Relativism is the _doctrine_ which holds that "_knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context and, as such, can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes"_.
> 
> Such is a presentation of mental disorder; a perversion of human reasoning.
> 
> Through this perversion of reason the relativist axiomatically rejects the very existence of *objectivity; *which is essential to truth, that we find that such precludes the means for Left-think to serve justice.
> 
> With truth being essential to trust and, _both: truth and trust_ being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality and, because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.
> 
> And the above twaddle is a perfect example of just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit! ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
Click to expand...


Interesting how you edit my post to make it look like my entire reply was just the word "horseshit" because you can't actually deal with the entirety of what I said.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> And allowing here to use her government office to advance her own religious beliefs would in fact be
> _using government to advance a religion and religious beliefs- a direct violation of the first amendment._


_

No, it would not.

She's not advancing anything accept common sense and a healthy respect for REALITY.

That you and the cult need to pretend that Marriage is something other than The Joining of One Man and One Woman, doesn't change a dam' thing.

YOU are the oddball freak here, Chester... not the lady who recognizes marriage as nature defines it._


----------



## koshergrl

TyroneSlothrop said:


> They actually think threats from their Gods are believable...OHHH I am scared the Christian God is going to torture me....aint no Christian God going to do Jack shit to me...


 Who cares what scares you? Not me. Lefties are senseless, and totally irrelevant.


----------



## WorldWatcher

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> It's invalid.



Not according to the County Attorney and the Kentucky Attorney General.


"This case was brought to ensure that all residents of Rowan County, gay and straight, could obtain marriage licenses. That goal has been achieved," said William Sharp, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky. "*The Kentucky Attorney General and counsel for Rowan County have said the marriage licenses are valid.* We are relying on those representations, and our clients look forward to proceeding with their plans to marry."

Kim Davis freed, barred from interfering with licenses - CNNPolitics.com


>>>>


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Interesting how you edit my post...



Yes... as a relativist... relevance is probably a foreign element for you.  But for Americans, it's just another Wednesday.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*No some ignorant freak from Podunk Kentucky does not speak for God...are you all so crazed you believe the mental midget Kim Davis speaks for God ...have you all been drinking...*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

God uses Kim Davis and her supporters as toilet paper............


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

WorldWatcher said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to the County Attorney and the Kentucky Attorney General.
> 
> 
> "This case was brought to ensure that all residents of Rowan County, gay and straight, could obtain marriage licenses. That goal has been achieved," said William Sharp, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky. "*The Kentucky Attorney General and counsel for Rowan County have said the marriage licenses are valid.* We are relying on those representations, and our clients look forward to proceeding with their plans to marry."
> 
> Kim Davis freed, barred from interfering with licenses - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

More fiat power? Amazing how you people think politicians can just say something and it becomes true. There is a legal process for issuing legal marriage licenses that must include the clerk's approval and no governor, AG, or Mr. Hanky the Chrismas Poo can make something valid by fiat.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

*GOD FEARING DEMOCRATS: THIS MESSAGE IS FOR YOU, ABOUT YOU AND SAYS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW, TO KNOW WHAT YOUR PARTY HAS TO SAY ABOUT YOU:*



TyroneSlothrop said:


> *No some ignorant freak from Podunk Kentucky does not speak for God...are you all so crazed you believe the mental midget Kim Davis speaks for God ...have you all been drinking...*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Kim Davis freed, barred from interfering with licenses - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> 
> fiat.


You think some crazed snake handler from Kentucky speaks for God and trumps the US Constitution...you are a wing nut idiot...


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

TyroneSlothrop said:


> They actually think threats from their Gods are believable...OHHH I am scared the Christian God is going to torture me....aint no Christian God going to do Jack shit to me...


Keep talking, you fool.


----------



## koshergrl

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is really interesting that some people are so distraught and freaked out about this that they will create a whole alternate reality so that they can believe that it is wrong and unjust. *Yet 99% of these people are completely unaffected by it in their personal lives*. ... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reader, what you witnessed in the above trail of drivel, is what is known as *"R E L A T I V I S M"*.
> 
> Relativism is the _doctrine_ which holds that "_knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context and, as such, can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes"_.
> 
> Such is a presentation of mental disorder; a perversion of human reasoning.
> 
> Through this perversion of reason the relativist axiomatically rejects the very existence of *objectivity; *which is essential to truth, that we find that such precludes the means for Left-think to serve justice.
> 
> With truth being essential to trust and, _both: truth and trust_ being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality and, because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.
> 
> And the above twaddle is a perfect example of just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit! ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting how you edit my post to make it look like my entire reply was just the word "horseshit" because you can't actually deal with the entirety of what I said.
Click to expand...




Where_r_my_Keys said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And allowing here to use her government office to advance her own religious beliefs would in fact be
> _using government to advance a religion and religious beliefs- a direct violation of the first amendment._
> 
> 
> 
> _
> No, it would not.
> 
> She's not advancing anything accept common sense and a healthy respect for REALITY.
> 
> That you and the cult need to pretend that Marriage is something other than The Joining of One Man and One Woman, doesn't change a dam' thing.
> 
> YOU are the oddball freak here, Chester... not the lady who recognizes marriage as nature defines it._
Click to expand...

 
No, the homo Nazis are, as always, the extremist lunatic fringe.

The majority is firmly on Davis' side.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> *GOD FEARING DEMOCRATS: THIS MESSAGE IS FOR YOU, ABOUT YOU AND SAYS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW, TO KNOW WHAT YOUR PARTY HAS TO SAY ABOUT YOU:*
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No some ignorant freak from Podunk Kentucky does not speak for God...are you all so crazed you believe the mental midget Kim Davis speaks for God ...have you all been drinking...*
Click to expand...

To everything turn turn turn [Ecclesiastes]


----------



## Asclepias

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> *GOD FEARING DEMOCRATS: THIS MESSAGE IS FOR YOU, ABOUT YOU AND SAYS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW, TO KNOW WHAT YOUR PARTY HAS TO SAY ABOUT YOU:*
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No some ignorant freak from Podunk Kentucky does not speak for God...are you all so crazed you believe the mental midget Kim Davis speaks for God ...have you all been drinking...*
Click to expand...

I'm not afraid of god nor am I a democrat but it seems most people with some sense would agree with Tyrones statement.


----------



## koshergrl

WorldWatcher said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to the County Attorney and the Kentucky Attorney General.
> 
> 
> "This case was brought to ensure that all residents of Rowan County, gay and straight, could obtain marriage licenses. That goal has been achieved," said William Sharp, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky. "*The Kentucky Attorney General and counsel for Rowan County have said the marriage licenses are valid.* We are relying on those representations, and our clients look forward to proceeding with their plans to marry."
> 
> Kim Davis freed, barred from interfering with licenses - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

 However, there is a rejoinder that states that the licenses provided during her absence may not be binding.

Dumbass homonazis waltzing into a situation where they have no business being. She's an elected official, and her constituents are happy with her. Get over it. The democratic process continually exposes you guys as fruitcakes and extremists. And you continue to try to subvert the process when things don't go your way. By targeting and suing, by calling for violence.

You're lunatics and criminals. Plus in this case, you're fags. This isn't going to go well for you.


----------



## koshergrl

Asclepias said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> *GOD FEARING DEMOCRATS: THIS MESSAGE IS FOR YOU, ABOUT YOU AND SAYS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW, TO KNOW WHAT YOUR PARTY HAS TO SAY ABOUT YOU:*
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No some ignorant freak from Podunk Kentucky does not speak for God...are you all so crazed you believe the mental midget Kim Davis speaks for God ...have you all been drinking...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not afraid of god nor am I a democrat but it seems most people with some sense would agree with Tyrones statement.
Click to expand...

 How on earth would you know, schlep? You don't have a nodding acquaintance with normal people, or with common sense.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

koshergrl said:


> How on earth would you know, schlep? You don't have a nodding acquaintance with normal people, or with common sense.



Here is how voters in Arkansas not exactly a "liberal hotbed"  Voted ..




*Arkansas voters approve LGBT protections — which Duggars fought in jaw-dropping display of hypocrisy*
Voters in Fayetteville, Arkansas voted on Tuesday to pass a civil rights ordinance the Duggars had campaigned against. The ordin


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*Josh Duggar....Christian Role Model......Any Questions ?*


----------



## koshergrl

Ah, the cattle call of "social justice"...near and dear to commies and depraved thugs everywhere.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> *GOD FEARING DEMOCRATS: THIS MESSAGE IS FOR YOU, ABOUT YOU AND SAYS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW, TO KNOW WHAT YOUR PARTY HAS TO SAY ABOUT YOU:*
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No some ignorant freak from Podunk Kentucky does not speak for God...are you all so crazed you believe the mental midget Kim Davis speaks for God ...have you all been drinking...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To everything turn turn turn [Ecclesiastes]
Click to expand...

I'm impressed. Most Leftwats think the Birds came up with that themselves. 

It would have been even more impressive if you referred to it by its Hebrew name Qoheleth. 

Baby steps, I guess.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*Myth #1: Marriage licenses issued without Davis’ signature are invalid.*
*5 Myths About Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis You Shouldn’t Fall For*
When U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning held Davis in contempt last week, he gave her a pretty generous offer: he would save her from jail if she simply allowed her deputies to issue the marriage licenses. She refused, and the deputies began issuing the licenses on Friday anyway. There is a question, however — that even Bunning acknowledged — as to whether the licenses are valid without her name on it.

Certainly her lawyers, the grandstanding Liberty Counsel, have insisted that the licenses are “void.” According to Liberty Counsel head Mat Staver, “They are not worth the paper that they are written on.” This narrative certainly keeps the stakes high for his client and makes it seem like there is merit to refusal to participate in issuing licenses.

However, a simple sentence found in Kentucky law seems to clear things up. According to statute 61.035, “Any duty enjoined by law or by the Rules of Civil Procedure upon a ministerial officer, and any act permitted to be done by him, may be performed by his lawful deputy.” If Davis can issue licenses, so can her deputies. There is little to suggest that these licenses would or could ever be rejected as legal and binding.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> *GOD FEARING DEMOCRATS: THIS MESSAGE IS FOR YOU, ABOUT YOU AND SAYS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW, TO KNOW WHAT YOUR PARTY HAS TO SAY ABOUT YOU:*
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No some ignorant freak from Podunk Kentucky does not speak for God...are you all so crazed you believe the mental midget Kim Davis speaks for God ...have you all been drinking...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To everything turn turn turn [Ecclesiastes]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm impressed. Most Leftwats think the Birds came up with that themselves.
> 
> It would have been even more impressive if you referred to it by its Hebrew name Qoheleth.
> 
> Baby steps, I guess.
Click to expand...

I know a whole lot about the Bible dude get clear on that ...you wing nuts are like a Sepulcher ...white marble on the outside with death and corruption inside ....Repent ........


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*Kim Davis Is Not a Patriot*
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, TIME


----------



## Asclepias

koshergrl said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> *GOD FEARING DEMOCRATS: THIS MESSAGE IS FOR YOU, ABOUT YOU AND SAYS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW, TO KNOW WHAT YOUR PARTY HAS TO SAY ABOUT YOU:*
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No some ignorant freak from Podunk Kentucky does not speak for God...are you all so crazed you believe the mental midget Kim Davis speaks for God ...have you all been drinking...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not afraid of god nor am I a democrat but it seems most people with some sense would agree with Tyrones statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How on earth would you know, schlep? You don't have a nodding acquaintance with normal people, or with common sense.
Click to expand...

Easy. I would know because I'm not a crack ho like you are.


----------



## Debra K

I'm surprised her crowdfunding enterprise hasn't raised much money yet.  Only $6,723.50 so far, so her time in jail wasn't as profitable as she had hoped.  Don't you feel bad for her?


----------



## Asclepias

Debra K said:


> I'm surprised her crowdfunding enterprise hasn't raised much money yet.  Only $6,723.50 so far, so her time in jail wasn't as profitable as she had hoped.  Don't you feel bad for her?



I think most people are quietly realizing she is crazy.  She is nothing more than a useful idiot right now.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Asclepias said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm surprised her crowdfunding enterprise hasn't raised much money yet.  Only $6,723.50 so far, so her time in jail wasn't as profitable as she had hoped.  Don't you feel bad for her?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think most people are quietly realizing she is crazy.  She is nothing more than a useful idiot right now.
Click to expand...

*Her Lawyers are not looking out for her they are pushing an ideological political agenda....*


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

TyroneSlothrop said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> *GOD FEARING DEMOCRATS: THIS MESSAGE IS FOR YOU, ABOUT YOU AND SAYS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW, TO KNOW WHAT YOUR PARTY HAS TO SAY ABOUT YOU:*
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No some ignorant freak from Podunk Kentucky does not speak for God...are you all so crazed you believe the mental midget Kim Davis speaks for God ...have you all been drinking...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To everything turn turn turn [Ecclesiastes]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm impressed. Most Leftwats think the Birds came up with that themselves.
> 
> It would have been even more impressive if you referred to it by its Hebrew name Qoheleth.
> 
> Baby steps, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know a whole lot about the Bible dude get clear on that ...you wing nuts are like a Sepulcher ...white marble on the outside with death and corruption inside ....Repent ........
Click to expand...

Familiarity with the Bible will not redeem your soul. Only the blood of Christ can do that.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Are you Serious,...you all think this person "Speaks for God" and that her opinions should Over Rule the US Constitution..*.are you all crazy on drugs or drunk ?*
*Kim Davis' Marriage History In One Handy Flowchart*


----------



## Asclepias

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> *GOD FEARING DEMOCRATS: THIS MESSAGE IS FOR YOU, ABOUT YOU AND SAYS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW, TO KNOW WHAT YOUR PARTY HAS TO SAY ABOUT YOU:*
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No some ignorant freak from Podunk Kentucky does not speak for God...are you all so crazed you believe the mental midget Kim Davis speaks for God ...have you all been drinking...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To everything turn turn turn [Ecclesiastes]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm impressed. Most Leftwats think the Birds came up with that themselves.
> 
> It would have been even more impressive if you referred to it by its Hebrew name Qoheleth.
> 
> Baby steps, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know a whole lot about the Bible dude get clear on that ...you wing nuts are like a Sepulcher ...white marble on the outside with death and corruption inside ....Repent ........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Familiarity with the Bible will not redeem your soul. Only the blood of Christ can do that.
Click to expand...

Why are christians so consumed with blood?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Familiarity with the Bible will not redeem your soul. Only the blood of Christ can do that.



*You are aware that billions of human beings have lived and died without once hearing of Jesus right.....all of them "gone to hell" for not acknowledging the Blood of Christ etc ...have you been heavily drinking today ? that is ridiculous ...sent to hell for no reason by a "Loving God" get real bro ..gosh*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Asclepias said:


> [
> Why are christians so consumed with blood?


 
*I think of it as "the Church of the Gooey Death"*


----------



## Asclepias

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Why are christians so consumed with blood?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I think of it as "the Church of the Gooey Death"*
Click to expand...

Weird because thats one more thing they share in common with satanic cults.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

and when they attempt to sway one they use threats of what God is gonna do to me ...this is really Infantile .... I am a Man... I do not live scared...Yes Life is a huge Challenge because I have to balance the Terror of being alive with the Wonder of being alive ....but giving in to fear and cosmic intimidation is  not where its at for me..............


----------



## Faun

Where_r_my_Gay_Keys said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> In this matter Davis' job is to acknowledge the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which she is doing: Amendment1: _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, *or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._
Click to expand...

You're a fucking retard. No one is preventing her from exercising her religion. She is perfectly free to hate on gays as much as Jesus guides her to. If she can't do her job as the county clerk because it interferes with her religious beliefs then it's time for her to find a new job. Perhaps being a nun would be more suitable for her?


----------



## Debra K

Asclepias said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm surprised her crowdfunding enterprise hasn't raised much money yet.  Only $6,723.50 so far, so her time in jail wasn't as profitable as she had hoped.  Don't you feel bad for her?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think most people are quietly realizing she is crazy.  She is nothing more than a useful idiot right now.
Click to expand...


I see another crowdfunding site raised $23 and another site raised 1 percent of its $150,000 goal.  

I'm beginning to think most of the people at her get-out-of-jail rally were journalists and their crews, politicians and their associated people, and non-supporters who simply wanted to watch the circus.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Kim Davis with ticket for jail to go
No , she couldn't look much stranger
standing at the jail with her long hair and all
Claims that she is God's Lone Ranger


----------



## koshergrl

Debra K said:


> I'm surprised her crowdfunding enterprise hasn't raised much money yet.  Only $6,723.50 so far, so her time in jail wasn't as profitable as she had hoped.  Don't you feel bad for her?


 What you mean to say is that obviously she isn't in this for the money, despite the fact that you pretend she is.

She's not a couple of faggoty assholes who just see $$$$ when they can't get the targeted Christians to endorse them. That has you all confused, doesn't it...


----------



## koshergrl

Debra K said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm surprised her crowdfunding enterprise hasn't raised much money yet.  Only $6,723.50 so far, so her time in jail wasn't as profitable as she had hoped.  Don't you feel bad for her?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think most people are quietly realizing she is crazy.  She is nothing more than a useful idiot right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see another crowdfunding site raised $23 and another site raised 1 percent of its $150,000 goal.
> 
> I'm beginning to think most of the people at her get-out-of-jail rally were journalists and their crews, politicians and their associated people, and non-supporters who simply wanted to watch the circus.
Click to expand...

 She doesn't need money. But if the fags sue her, I promise her funding will skyrocket.


----------



## Debra K

Check this out:   H.R.3185 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Equality Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

*Introduced in House (07/23/2015)

Equality Act*

Amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation.

Also:

 Prohibits the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 from providing a claim, defense, or basis for challenging such protections.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

koshergrl said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is really interesting that some people are so distraught and freaked out about this that they will create a whole alternate reality so that they can believe that it is wrong and unjust. *Yet 99% of these people are completely unaffected by it in their personal lives*. ... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reader, what you witnessed in the above trail of drivel, is what is known as *"R E L A T I V I S M"*.
> 
> Relativism is the _doctrine_ which holds that "_knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context and, as such, can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes"_.
> 
> Such is a presentation of mental disorder; a perversion of human reasoning.
> 
> Through this perversion of reason the relativist axiomatically rejects the very existence of *objectivity; *which is essential to truth, that we find that such precludes the means for Left-think to serve justice.
> 
> With truth being essential to trust and, _both: truth and trust_ being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality and, because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.
> 
> And the above twaddle is a perfect example of just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit! ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting how you edit my post to make it look like my entire reply was just the word "horseshit" because you can't actually deal with the entirety of what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And allowing here to use her government office to advance her own religious beliefs would in fact be
> _using government to advance a religion and religious beliefs- a direct violation of the first amendment._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> No, it would not.
> 
> She's not advancing anything accept common sense and a healthy respect for REALITY.
> 
> That you and the cult need to pretend that Marriage is something other than The Joining of One Man and One Woman, doesn't change a dam' thing.
> 
> YOU are the oddball freak here, Chester... not the lady who recognizes marriage as nature defines it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the homo Nazis are, as always, the extremist lunatic fringe.
> 
> The majority is firmly on Davis' side.
Click to expand...


More of your delusional, moron  horseshit

*Most Americans Support Sending Kim Davis To Jail, Poll Shows*
*And even more people, including Republican born-again Christians, think she should quit.*




Ariel Edwards-LevyReporter, The Huffington Post
Posted: 09/09/2015 01:00 PM EDT | Edited: 5 hours ago


Most Americans think that Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis should have been sent to jail for contempt of court, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll.


In the survey, which was conducted prior to Davis' release from jail on Tuesday, a 56 percent majority of respondents said they supported the judge's decision to jail her for contempt of court, although fewer wanted her to actually remain behind bars. 


Most respondents also thought Davis should be required to issue same-sex marriage licenses, and an even greater majority said she should resign if she's unwilling to do so.


----------



## koshergrl

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reader, what you witnessed in the above trail of drivel, is what is known as *"R E L A T I V I S M"*.
> 
> Relativism is the _doctrine_ which holds that "_knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context and, as such, can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes"_.
> 
> Such is a presentation of mental disorder; a perversion of human reasoning.
> 
> Through this perversion of reason the relativist axiomatically rejects the very existence of *objectivity; *which is essential to truth, that we find that such precludes the means for Left-think to serve justice.
> 
> With truth being essential to trust and, _both: truth and trust_ being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality and, because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.
> 
> And the above twaddle is a perfect example of just that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit! ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting how you edit my post to make it look like my entire reply was just the word "horseshit" because you can't actually deal with the entirety of what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And allowing here to use her government office to advance her own religious beliefs would in fact be
> _using government to advance a religion and religious beliefs- a direct violation of the first amendment._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> No, it would not.
> 
> She's not advancing anything accept common sense and a healthy respect for REALITY.
> 
> That you and the cult need to pretend that Marriage is something other than The Joining of One Man and One Woman, doesn't change a dam' thing.
> 
> YOU are the oddball freak here, Chester... not the lady who recognizes marriage as nature defines it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the homo Nazis are, as always, the extremist lunatic fringe.
> 
> The majority is firmly on Davis' side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More of your delusional, moron  horseshit
> 
> *Most Americans Support Sending Kim Davis To Jail, Poll Shows*
> *And even more people, including Republican born-again Christians, think she should quit.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ariel Edwards-LevyReporter, The Huffington Post
> Posted: 09/09/2015 01:00 PM EDT | Edited: 5 hours ago
> 
> 
> Most Americans think that Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis should have been sent to jail for contempt of court, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll.
> 
> 
> In the survey, which was conducted prior to Davis' release from jail on Tuesday, a 56 percent majority of respondents said they supported the judge's decision to jail her for contempt of court, although fewer wanted her to actually remain behind bars.
> 
> 
> Most respondents also thought Davis should be required to issue same-sex marriage licenses, and an even greater majority said she should resign if she's unwilling to do so.
Click to expand...

 
Lololol...a Huff Post poll. I'm sure it's wildly representative of the rest of the nation.

Get the fuck out of here, you driveling nitwit.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> *Most Americans Support Sending Kim Davis To Jail, Poll Shows*



ROFLMNAO!

Isn't it cool when leftist try to count themselves as "Americans"?

I guess I will never tire of that... it cracks me up EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT.


----------



## Asclepias

koshergrl said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit! ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting how you edit my post to make it look like my entire reply was just the word "horseshit" because you can't actually deal with the entirety of what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And allowing here to use her government office to advance her own religious beliefs would in fact be
> _using government to advance a religion and religious beliefs- a direct violation of the first amendment._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> No, it would not.
> 
> She's not advancing anything accept common sense and a healthy respect for REALITY.
> 
> That you and the cult need to pretend that Marriage is something other than The Joining of One Man and One Woman, doesn't change a dam' thing.
> 
> YOU are the oddball freak here, Chester... not the lady who recognizes marriage as nature defines it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the homo Nazis are, as always, the extremist lunatic fringe.
> 
> The majority is firmly on Davis' side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More of your delusional, moron  horseshit
> 
> *Most Americans Support Sending Kim Davis To Jail, Poll Shows*
> *And even more people, including Republican born-again Christians, think she should quit.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ariel Edwards-LevyReporter, The Huffington Post
> Posted: 09/09/2015 01:00 PM EDT | Edited: 5 hours ago
> 
> 
> Most Americans think that Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis should have been sent to jail for contempt of court, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll.
> 
> 
> In the survey, which was conducted prior to Davis' release from jail on Tuesday, a 56 percent majority of respondents said they supported the judge's decision to jail her for contempt of court, although fewer wanted her to actually remain behind bars.
> 
> 
> Most respondents also thought Davis should be required to issue same-sex marriage licenses, and an even greater majority said she should resign if she's unwilling to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lololol...a Huff Post poll. I'm sure it's wildly representative of the rest of the nation.
> 
> Get the fuck out of here, you driveling nitwit.
Click to expand...

Sorry crackho. You wont be able to get more money for your fix. Back to being a streetwalker for you.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Debra K said:


> Check this out:   H.R.3185 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Equality Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
> 
> *Introduced in House (07/23/2015)
> 
> Equality Act*
> 
> Amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation.
> 
> Also:
> 
> Prohibits the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 from providing a claim, defense, or basis for challenging such protections.



Yeah!  Why not... Alter one "Act" to include every manny of crap that the "Act" did not include and PRETEND IT DID!

Here's a clue, there are TWO and ONLY TWO sexual orientations: Men who crave woman sexually and vice versa...  EVERYTHING ELSE is a deviancy which is the function of mental disorder, thus which is wholly invalid.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

koshergrl said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit! ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting how you edit my post to make it look like my entire reply was just the word "horseshit" because you can't actually deal with the entirety of what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And allowing here to use her government office to advance her own religious beliefs would in fact be
> _using government to advance a religion and religious beliefs- a direct violation of the first amendment._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> No, it would not.
> 
> She's not advancing anything accept common sense and a healthy respect for REALITY.
> 
> That you and the cult need to pretend that Marriage is something other than The Joining of One Man and One Woman, doesn't change a dam' thing.
> 
> YOU are the oddball freak here, Chester... not the lady who recognizes marriage as nature defines it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the homo Nazis are, as always, the extremist lunatic fringe.
> 
> The majority is firmly on Davis' side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More of your delusional, moron  horseshit
> 
> *Most Americans Support Sending Kim Davis To Jail, Poll Shows*
> *And even more people, including Republican born-again Christians, think she should quit.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ariel Edwards-LevyReporter, The Huffington Post
> Posted: 09/09/2015 01:00 PM EDT | Edited: 5 hours ago
> 
> 
> Most Americans think that Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis should have been sent to jail for contempt of court, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll.
> 
> 
> In the survey, which was conducted prior to Davis' release from jail on Tuesday, a 56 percent majority of respondents said they supported the judge's decision to jail her for contempt of court, although fewer wanted her to actually remain behind bars.
> 
> 
> Most respondents also thought Davis should be required to issue same-sex marriage licenses, and an even greater majority said she should resign if she's unwilling to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lololol...a Huff Post poll. I'm sure it's wildly representative of the rest of the nation.
> 
> Get the fuck out of here, you driveling nitwit.
Click to expand...


OK Nurse Rat Shit- I'm gone honney


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> OK Nurse Rat Shit- I'm gone honney



NEWSFLASH: *You've BEEN GONE... you just lack sufficient cognitive acuity to understand that.*


----------



## koshergrl

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting how you edit my post to make it look like my entire reply was just the word "horseshit" because you can't actually deal with the entirety of what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And allowing here to use her government office to advance her own religious beliefs would in fact be
> _using government to advance a religion and religious beliefs- a direct violation of the first amendment._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> No, it would not.
> 
> She's not advancing anything accept common sense and a healthy respect for REALITY.
> 
> That you and the cult need to pretend that Marriage is something other than The Joining of One Man and One Woman, doesn't change a dam' thing.
> 
> YOU are the oddball freak here, Chester... not the lady who recognizes marriage as nature defines it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the homo Nazis are, as always, the extremist lunatic fringe.
> 
> The majority is firmly on Davis' side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More of your delusional, moron  horseshit
> 
> *Most Americans Support Sending Kim Davis To Jail, Poll Shows*
> *And even more people, including Republican born-again Christians, think she should quit.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ariel Edwards-LevyReporter, The Huffington Post
> Posted: 09/09/2015 01:00 PM EDT | Edited: 5 hours ago
> 
> 
> Most Americans think that Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis should have been sent to jail for contempt of court, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll.
> 
> 
> In the survey, which was conducted prior to Davis' release from jail on Tuesday, a 56 percent majority of respondents said they supported the judge's decision to jail her for contempt of court, although fewer wanted her to actually remain behind bars.
> 
> 
> Most respondents also thought Davis should be required to issue same-sex marriage licenses, and an even greater majority said she should resign if she's unwilling to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lololol...a Huff Post poll. I'm sure it's wildly representative of the rest of the nation.
> 
> Get the fuck out of here, you driveling nitwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK Nurse Rat Shit- I'm gone honney
Click to expand...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

It w


koshergrl said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting how you edit my post to make it look like my entire reply was just the word "horseshit" because you can't actually deal with the entirety of what I said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> _
> No, it would not.
> 
> She's not advancing anything accept common sense and a healthy respect for REALITY.
> 
> That you and the cult need to pretend that Marriage is something other than The Joining of One Man and One Woman, doesn't change a dam' thing.
> 
> YOU are the oddball freak here, Chester... not the lady who recognizes marriage as nature defines it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the homo Nazis are, as always, the extremist lunatic fringe.
> 
> The majority is firmly on Davis' side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More of your delusional, moron  horseshit
> 
> *Most Americans Support Sending Kim Davis To Jail, Poll Shows*
> *And even more people, including Republican born-again Christians, think she should quit.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ariel Edwards-LevyReporter, The Huffington Post
> Posted: 09/09/2015 01:00 PM EDT | Edited: 5 hours ago
> 
> 
> Most Americans think that Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis should have been sent to jail for contempt of court, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll.
> 
> 
> In the survey, which was conducted prior to Davis' release from jail on Tuesday, a 56 percent majority of respondents said they supported the judge's decision to jail her for contempt of court, although fewer wanted her to actually remain behind bars.
> 
> 
> Most respondents also thought Davis should be required to issue same-sex marriage licenses, and an even greater majority said she should resign if she's unwilling to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lololol...a Huff Post poll. I'm sure it's wildly representative of the rest of the nation.
> 
> Get the fuck out of here, you driveling nitwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK Nurse Rat Shit- I'm gone honney
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


It was a semi-literate attempt to bid you 'good-day'.  (Bitch said 'she leavin'.')


----------



## Debra K

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Most Americans Support Sending Kim Davis To Jail, Poll Shows*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Isn't it cool when leftist try to count themselves as "Americans"?
> 
> I guess I will never tire of that... it cracks me up EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT.
Click to expand...


It's fun to laugh.  I've laughed a lot over your "rightist" hysteria.

What do you think about irony?  does that get you laughing?

This is a laugh:



> Supporters of Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples due to her religious beliefs, said on Wednesday that any of her deputies who provide the documents without her permission should be fired. . . .
> 
> Ante Pavkovic, one of the people who helped organize pro-Davis rallies outside the Grayson, Kentucky, detention center where Davis was jailed, lectured the deputy clerks not to violate their oaths of office. He criticized Bunning and the U.S. Supreme Court justices who backed gay marriage.
> 
> "Do not join them in this any further, and if you can't do that, then you should just quit," Pavkovic, 49, of North Carolina, said, standing in the clerk's office in Morehead, Kentucky.
> 
> He waved a sign in the faces of the deputy clerks that read, "Fire the cowardly clerks that are lawbreakers." He was asked to leave by a deputy sheriff.



Source:  Defiant Kentucky clerk's backers: fire aides over gay marriage licenses

How ironic is that?  ROFLMAO!

Or maybe that's not irony, maybe that's hypocrisy.   Oh well ... I'll check the dictionary later.   ROFL


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Debra K said:


> It's fun to laugh. ... (_Americans reject the Ideological Left, call for the firing of Godless subordinates_)


_
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## koshergrl

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> It w
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the homo Nazis are, as always, the extremist lunatic fringe.
> 
> The majority is firmly on Davis' side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More of your delusional, moron  horseshit
> 
> *Most Americans Support Sending Kim Davis To Jail, Poll Shows*
> *And even more people, including Republican born-again Christians, think she should quit.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ariel Edwards-LevyReporter, The Huffington Post
> Posted: 09/09/2015 01:00 PM EDT | Edited: 5 hours ago
> 
> 
> Most Americans think that Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis should have been sent to jail for contempt of court, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll.
> 
> 
> In the survey, which was conducted prior to Davis' release from jail on Tuesday, a 56 percent majority of respondents said they supported the judge's decision to jail her for contempt of court, although fewer wanted her to actually remain behind bars.
> 
> 
> Most respondents also thought Davis should be required to issue same-sex marriage licenses, and an even greater majority said she should resign if she's unwilling to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lololol...a Huff Post poll. I'm sure it's wildly representative of the rest of the nation.
> 
> Get the fuck out of here, you driveling nitwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK Nurse Rat Shit- I'm gone honney
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a semi-literate attempt to bid you 'good-day'.  (Bitch said 'she leavin'.')
Click to expand...

 
Mentally ill and stupid. Great combo.

David just announced he likes anal, giving and receiving. I imagine all the statist/winterborn wackos are racing to be near him.


----------



## koshergrl

Debra K said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Most Americans Support Sending Kim Davis To Jail, Poll Shows*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Isn't it cool when leftist try to count themselves as "Americans"?
> 
> I guess I will never tire of that... it cracks me up EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's fun to laugh.  I've laughed a lot over your "rightist" hysteria.
> 
> What do you think about irony?  does that get you laughing?
> 
> This is a laugh:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supporters of Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples due to her religious beliefs, said on Wednesday that any of her deputies who provide the documents without her permission should be fired. . . .
> 
> Ante Pavkovic, one of the people who helped organize pro-Davis rallies outside the Grayson, Kentucky, detention center where Davis was jailed, lectured the deputy clerks not to violate their oaths of office. He criticized Bunning and the U.S. Supreme Court justices who backed gay marriage.
> 
> "Do not join them in this any further, and if you can't do that, then you should just quit," Pavkovic, 49, of North Carolina, said, standing in the clerk's office in Morehead, Kentucky.
> 
> He waved a sign in the faces of the deputy clerks that read, "Fire the cowardly clerks that are lawbreakers." He was asked to leave by a deputy sheriff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Source:  Defiant Kentucky clerk's backers: fire aides over gay marriage licenses
> 
> How ironic is that?  ROFLMAO!
> 
> Or maybe that's not irony, maybe that's hypocrisy.   Oh well ... I'll check the dictionary later.   ROFL
Click to expand...

 Actually, it's neither. You should probably have checked the dictionary first, illiterate.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Even compulsive shoppers ain't buying Kim Davis Holly Roller BS..........


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Luke 16:18? Here it is. _“Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”_


----------



## HenryBHough

I'm still laughing, several pages on, about the words:  "God fearing Democrats".

What nonsense....not a single one of them fears Comrade Obama....well, maybe Mrs. Rodham-Clinton/Lewinsky might be a lone exception.....


----------



## WorldWatcher

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> More fiat power? Amazing how you people think politicians can just say something and it becomes true. There is a legal process for issuing legal marriage licenses that must include the clerk's approval and no governor, AG, or Mr. Hanky the Chrismas Poo can make something valid by fiat.



So Ms. Davis goes no vacation, they call her every time someone gets a Civil Marriage license to do they review the couples application against requirements for legal marriage and if the couple is qualified, the issue the license.

Please don't try to say that Ms. Davis's office requires that she personally review and approve each and every license issued - we all know that isn't true and Kentucky law allows that the Deputy Clerk can sign the license.



>>>>>


----------



## asaratis

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Are you Serious,...you all think this person "Speaks for God" and that her opinions should Over Rule the US Constitution..*.are you all crazy on drugs or drunk ?*
> *Kim Davis' Marriage History In One Handy Flowchart*


You show little understanding of Christianity as it relates to forgiveness.  I suspect that liberals are more likely to forgive hedonistic Hollywood celebrities for multiple failed marriages than to forgive a homely Christian 'church lady' for the same.

Small minded people do not often make intelligent conversation. You, my friend, have no chance.


----------



## Vandalshandle

asaratis said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you Serious,...you all think this person "Speaks for God" and that her opinions should Over Rule the US Constitution..*.are you all crazy on drugs or drunk ?*
> *Kim Davis' Marriage History In One Handy Flowchart*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You show little understanding of Christianity as it relates to forgiveness.  I suspect that liberals are more likely to forgive hedonistic Hollywood celebrities for multiple failed marriages than to forgive a homely Christian 'church lady' for the same.
> 
> Small minded people do not often make intelligent conversation. You, my friend, have no chance.
Click to expand...


Does Kim need our forgiveness? To put it in her words, "Then she is going to have a long day".


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

asaratis said:


> Small minded people do not often make intelligent conversation. You, my friend, have no chance.


Are you on drugs ? I am not your friend by the way...small minded is denying gays constitutional Rights because Kim Davis "feels like it" based on "God's authority" by her own words. God does not sign the woman's paycheck ...Caesar signs her paychecks and she needs to "govern herself accordingly"...


----------



## Vandalshandle

God told me that Kim is batsdhit crazy. In fact, he feels that most of Kentucky has left their baggage at the station.


----------



## Lakhota

*Kim Davis -- Violence in Relationship with Baby Daddy*

Kim Davis may have a fundamental problem with marriage between same-sex couples, but she's certainly not saying all relationships between men and women are good, because she's had an incident violent enough that the courts got involved.

The now-famous county clerk had 2 children out of wedlock with Thomas McIntyre. According to court docs obtained by TMZ, on May 14, 1996, McIntyre went to Davis' home to visit the kids. He saw a bouquet of flowers on her kitchen table, and he got jealous.

According to the docs, McIntyre called Davis a "whore," and she slapped him and ordered him to leave. He challenged her to hit him again, and she said she didn't want to strike him and then picked up the phone to call the cops. She says he then ripped the phone cord out of the wall.






Davis says they began arguing and she slapped him again after he refused to leave the house.

When he finally left he said, "I see you in jail," and she responded, "No, in jail's where you'll be."

Davis went to court and got a restraining order, prohibiting McIntyre from coming within 1,000 feet of her and the kids.

P.S. She married McIntyre in 2007, but divorced him a year later.

Read more: Kim Davis -- Violence in Relationship with Baby Daddy

Oh my, oh dear.  They remind me of the hicks I used to watch on Hee Haw.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

If I have to chose between Religious leaders I am going with the Pope not "Kim"
The Pope Is Ready to Trash Capitalism to Money-Loving Americans 

As the U.S. presidential campaign exposes contempt for elites and angst over the future, Pope Francis arrives for his first visit with plans to denounce gross inequality and planetary neglect.


----------



## Silhouette

TyroneSlothrop said:


> If I have to chose between Religious leaders I am going with the Pope not "Kim"
> The Pope Is Ready to Trash Capitalism to Money-Loving Americans
> 
> As the U.S. presidential campaign exposes contempt for elites and angst over the future, Pope Francis arrives for his first visit with plans to denounce gross inequality and planetary neglect.


 I'm sure that John Boehner, who invited the Pope to speak at Congress, was well aware of the Pope's leanings when the invitation was extended by the GOP house leader.


----------



## dcraelin

WorldWatcher said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> the failure even to mention it in numerous lower court opinions shows however that the above guidelines weren't even considered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a previous post shows, "precedent" can be overcome by events as the legal landscape changes.  In the early 1970's there was no Federal question for the Federal government to address because there were (a) no states that recognized SSCM and (b) no SSCM recognition at the federal level.  Over the years that landscape changed.  States passed SSCM, the Federal governemnt enacted DOMA to prevent federal recognition of SSCM and that was found to be unconstitutional.
> 
> Yes the guidelines were considered and found to be lacking.
> 
> If the United States Supreme Court held precedence and the lower courts were wrong, then would have remained the cases back to the lower court with instructions to apply backer but they didn't. In fact the SCOTUS said: (Obergerfell v. Hodges)  "Baker v. Nelson must be and now is overruled, and the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite sex couples."  http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
> 
> Below is where the lower courts DID address Baker in their rulings:
> 
> 2nd Circuit Marriage decision (Windsor), Baker is discussed beginning on PDF PDF Page 15 -->> http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141167.P.pdf
> 
> 4th Circuit Marriage decision, Baker is discussed beginning on PDF PDF Page 33 -->> http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141167.P.pdf
> 
> 5th Circuit Marriage decision, Baker is discussed beginning on PDF Page 12 -->> http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0275p-06.pdf
> 
> 7th Circuit Marriage decision, Baker is discussed beginning on PDF page 14 -->> http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...4/C:14-2526:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1412339:S:0
> 
> 9th Circuit Marriage decision, Baker is discussed beginning on PDF 9 -->> http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/10/07/14-35420 opinion.pdf​
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


your link for the 2nd circuit is the same link for the 4th......so one of these links, at least, is a lie..........regardless they did not have the right to avoid that precedent


----------



## dcraelin

WorldWatcher said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> the failure even to mention it in numerous lower court opinions shows however that the above guidelines weren't even considered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a previous post shows, "precedent" can be overcome by events as the legal landscape changes.  In the early 1970's there was no Federal question for the Federal government to address because there were (a) no states that recognized SSCM and (b) no SSCM recognition at the federal level.  Over the years that landscape changed.  States passed SSCM, the Federal governemnt enacted DOMA to prevent federal recognition of SSCM and that was found to be unconstitutional.
> 
> Yes the guidelines were considered and found to be lacking.
> 
> If the United States Supreme Court held precedence and the lower courts were wrong, then would have remained the cases back to the lower court with instructions to apply backer but they didn't. In fact the SCOTUS said: (Obergerfell v. Hodges)  "Baker v. Nelson must be and now is overruled, and the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite sex couples."  http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
> 
> Below is where the lower courts DID address Baker in their rulings:
> 
> 2nd Circuit Marriage decision (Windsor), Baker is discussed beginning on PDF PDF Page 15 -->> http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141167.P.pdf
> 
> 4th Circuit Marriage decision, Baker is discussed beginning on PDF PDF Page 33 -->> http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141167.P.pdf
> 
> 5th Circuit Marriage decision, Baker is discussed beginning on PDF Page 12 -->> http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0275p-06.pdf
> 
> 7th Circuit Marriage decision, Baker is discussed beginning on PDF page 14 -->> http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...4/C:14-2526:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1412339:S:0
> 
> 9th Circuit Marriage decision, Baker is discussed beginning on PDF 9 -->> http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/10/07/14-35420 opinion.pdf​
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


your link for the 5th is actually against the glossing over of Baker...it says among other things..

"But this reading of “doctrinal developments” would be a groundbreaking development of its own."

you should read your own link on that one, it puts the lie to the other courts ignorance.


----------



## dcraelin

Debra K said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> precedent is there to keep the court in line.......perhaps in the future other courts will ignore obergefell like the lower courts ignored Baker the last few years. ...the courts attitude toward Baker shows what a joke the federal judiciary is.
> 
> my initial post here had to do with the hypocrisy of the judicial system, you led us down this "pointless discussion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous! They can't ignore Obergefell like they ignored Baker. Baker was not actually reviewed It was dismissed for "lack of a substantial federal question" That procedusre is not even used anymore
> 
> While it was considered a binding precedent at the time , when dealing with precedents like _Baker,_ lower courts may have to guess at the meaning of these unexplained decisions.[18] The Supreme Court has laid out rules, however, to guide lower courts in narrowly applying these summary dispositions:[19]
> 
> 
> The facts in the potentially binding case must not bear any legally significant differences to the case under consideration.[20]
> The binding precedent encompasses only the issues presented to the Court, not the reasoning found in the lower court's decision.[21]
> Of the issues presented, only those necessarily decided by the Court in dismissing the case control.[22]
> Subsequent developments by the Court on the relevant doctrines may cast doubt on the continuing validity of a summary judgment.[23]
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not sure what all the above lawyer speak means.....................but I suggest it is just a fancy way of giving an excuse for court laziness and desire for a different outcome.
> 
> the failure even to mention it in numerous lower court opinions shows however that the above guidelines weren't even considered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In many cases it was mentioned and the reasons why it was considered to be not controlling were spelled out. Give it a rest already. It is OVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the arguments will never be over......as the obergefell decision and those leading to it are a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .... meaning, you simply disagree that people you dislike should have the same rights and protection under the law that you enjoy.
Click to expand...


wrong...........see my numerous posts in other threads on this


----------



## WorldWatcher

dcraelin said:


> your link for the 2nd circuit is the same link for the 4th......so one of these links, at least, is a lie..........regardless they did not have the right to avoid that precedent



A mistake in copying a link incorrectly is not a lie.  Here is the corrected link -->>
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisio...6-98fa59ffb645/1/doc/12-2335_complete_opn.pdf

They didn't "avoid" the precedent.  Avoiding the precedent would have been not mentioning it.  *But they did mention it.*

Precedent's are not inviolate such when the conditions under which the precedent are not the same or when the SCOTUS indicates that the previous conditions no longer apply.  Which of course exactly what happened with Roamer v. Evans, Lawrence overturned Bowers and when they issued the Windsor decision, all showing that homosexual have due process and equal protection rights.

If the SCOTUS had thought that Baker was still applicable, then they would have slapped down the first appeal that reached them concerning SSCM.  But they didn't.  In the end the District and Circuit Court Judges got the *correct* read from the SCOTUS as they specifically overturned Baker as part of Obergefell.


>>>>


----------



## dcraelin

WorldWatcher said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> your link for the 2nd circuit is the same link for the 4th......so one of these links, at least, is a lie..........regardless they did not have the right to avoid that precedent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A mistake in copying a link incorrectly is not a lie.  Here is the corrected link -->>
> http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisio...6-98fa59ffb645/1/doc/12-2335_complete_opn.pdf
> 
> They didn't "avoid" the precedent.  Avoiding the precedent would have been not mentioning it.  *But they did mention it.*
> 
> Precedent's are not inviolate such when the conditions under which the precedent are not the same or when the SCOTUS indicates that the previous conditions no longer apply.  Which of course exactly what happened with Roamer v. Evans, Lawrence overturned Bowers and when they issued the Windsor decision, all showing that homosexual have due process and equal protection rights.
> 
> If the SCOTUS had thought that Baker was still applicable, then they would have slapped down the first appeal that reached them concerning SSCM.  But they didn't.  In the end the District and Circuit Court Judges got the *correct* read from the SCOTUS as they specifically overturned Baker as part of Obergefell.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


saying that the SCOTUS would have done the right thing in slapping down the appeal.........when of course their mind was already made up ...........is kind of a circular argument. ...............

but as your 3rd link shows.............the other courts, when they did mention it......................got it wrong.


----------



## asaratis

Vandalshandle said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you Serious,...you all think this person "Speaks for God" and that her opinions should Over Rule the US Constitution..*.are you all crazy on drugs or drunk ?*
> *Kim Davis' Marriage History In One Handy Flowchart*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You show little understanding of Christianity as it relates to forgiveness.  I suspect that liberals are more likely to forgive hedonistic Hollywood celebrities for multiple failed marriages than to forgive a homely Christian 'church lady' for the same.
> 
> Small minded people do not often make intelligent conversation. You, my friend, have no chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does Kim need our forgiveness? To put it in her words, "Then she is going to have a long day".
Click to expand...

I see you missed the point too.  God forgives all sin.  Kim doesn't need YOUR forgiveness at all.  I doubt she expects it.  So your lack of forgiveness is meaningless.


----------



## WorldWatcher

dcraelin said:


> saying that the SCOTUS would have done the right thing in slapping down the appeal.........when of course their mind was already made up ...........is kind of a circular argument. ...............
> 
> but as your 3rd link shows.............the other courts, when they did mention it......................got it wrong.



You said the lower courts didn't address Baker - I showed they did address Baker.

You said they were bound by Baker - I showed where there were developmental caused Baker not to apply.

You say the lower courts got it wrong - yet the SCOTUS upheld the lower courts and specifically declared Baker overturned.

And they "got it wrong".

Well at that point there is only one thing to say.

...................................


----------



## Vandalshandle

asaratis said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you Serious,...you all think this person "Speaks for God" and that her opinions should Over Rule the US Constitution..*.are you all crazy on drugs or drunk ?*
> *Kim Davis' Marriage History In One Handy Flowchart*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You show little understanding of Christianity as it relates to forgiveness. * I suspect that liberals are more likely to forgive hedonistic Hollywood celebrities for multiple failed marriages than to forgive a homely Christian 'church lady' for the same.*
> 
> Small minded people do not often make intelligent conversation. You, my friend, have no chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does Kim need our forgiveness? To put it in her words, "Then she is going to have a long day".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you missed the point too.  God forgives all sin.  Kim doesn't need YOUR forgiveness at all.  I doubt she expects it.  So your lack of forgiveness is meaningless.
Click to expand...


..and yet, you posted the above words in bold.....


----------



## asaratis

TyroneSlothrop said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Small minded people do not often make intelligent conversation. You, my friend, have no chance.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you on drugs ? I am not your friend by the way...small minded is denying gays constitutional Rights because Kim Davis "feels like it" based on "God's authority" by her own words. God does not sign the woman's paycheck ...Caesar signs her paychecks and she needs to "govern herself accordingly"...
Click to expand...

Yes.  I take a line up of tablets...one batch in the morning and another at night.  I use quite a few drugs.

I didn't mean 'friend' literally. Were you not so small minded, you'd have realized that.

No rights were denied gays because of her refusal to issue licenses with her name on them.  Licenses can be had in Kentucky.  She was actually upholding Kentucky law in her refusal.

Those that continue to protest against her are simply seeking the comfort of being accepted as normal people.  Got news for you.....you're abnormal.


----------



## asaratis

Vandalshandle said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you Serious,...you all think this person "Speaks for God" and that her opinions should Over Rule the US Constitution..*.are you all crazy on drugs or drunk ?*
> *Kim Davis' Marriage History In One Handy Flowchart*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You show little understanding of Christianity as it relates to forgiveness. * I suspect that liberals are more likely to forgive hedonistic Hollywood celebrities for multiple failed marriages than to forgive a homely Christian 'church lady' for the same.*
> 
> Small minded people do not often make intelligent conversation. You, my friend, have no chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does Kim need our forgiveness? To put it in her words, "Then she is going to have a long day".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you missed the point too.  God forgives all sin.  Kim doesn't need YOUR forgiveness at all.  I doubt she expects it.  So your lack of forgiveness is meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ..and yet, you posted the above words in bold.....
Click to expand...

Yes, I did.  And that does not mean that I don't forgive hedonist Hollywood celebrities for multiple marriages.  What is your point?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> the failure even to mention it in numerous lower court opinions shows however that the above guidelines weren't even considered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a previous post shows, "precedent" can be overcome by events as the legal landscape changes.  In the early 1970's there was no Federal question for the Federal government to address because there were (a) no states that recognized SSCM and (b) no SSCM recognition at the federal level.  Over the years that landscape changed.  States passed SSCM, the Federal governemnt enacted DOMA to prevent federal recognition of SSCM and that was found to be unconstitutional.
> 
> Yes the guidelines were considered and found to be lacking.
> 
> If the United States Supreme Court held precedence and the lower courts were wrong, then would have remained the cases back to the lower court with instructions to apply backer but they didn't. In fact the SCOTUS said: (Obergerfell v. Hodges)  "Baker v. Nelson must be and now is overruled, and the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite sex couples."  http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
> 
> Below is where the lower courts DID address Baker in their rulings:
> 
> 2nd Circuit Marriage decision (Windsor), Baker is discussed beginning on PDF PDF Page 15 -->> http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141167.P.pdf
> 
> 4th Circuit Marriage decision, Baker is discussed beginning on PDF PDF Page 33 -->> http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141167.P.pdf
> 
> 5th Circuit Marriage decision, Baker is discussed beginning on PDF Page 12 -->> http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0275p-06.pdf
> 
> 7th Circuit Marriage decision, Baker is discussed beginning on PDF page 14 -->> http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...4/C:14-2526:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1412339:S:0
> 
> 9th Circuit Marriage decision, Baker is discussed beginning on PDF 9 -->> http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/10/07/14-35420 opinion.pdf​
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your link for the 2nd circuit is the same link for the 4th......so one of these links, at least, is a lie..........regardless they did not have the right to avoid that precedent[/QUOTE
> 
> A lie? Really? Such pathetic desperation! I almost feel sorry for you....almost....well not realy
Click to expand...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

asaratis said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Small minded people do not often make intelligent conversation. You, my friend, have no chance.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you on drugs ? I am not your friend by the way...small minded is denying gays constitutional Rights because Kim Davis "feels like it" based on "God's authority" by her own words. God does not sign the woman's paycheck ...Caesar signs her paychecks and she needs to "govern herself accordingly"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  I take a line up of tablets...one batch in the morning and another at night.  I use quite a few drugs.
> 
> I didn't mean 'friend' literally. Were you not so small minded, you'd have realized that.
> 
> No rights were denied gays because of her refusal to issue licenses with her name on them.  Licenses can be had in Kentucky.  She was actually upholding Kentucky law in her refusal.
> 
> Those that continue to protest against her are simply seeking the comfort of being accepted as normal people.  Got news for you.....you're abnormal.
Click to expand...

*That is what you say I say different.*

Left handed people are not normal...Right handed people are more the norm...so effing what*...No you do not get to define someone as "abnormal" or "sinful" or any other label in order to deprive them of Constitutional Rights... NO...*

..I am not lining up in support of the Bible over the Constitution...you are ...she went to jail for law breaking ...I see you as the small minded person not me... I define you as small minded from the word squat...*Hey Kim Davis based on the authority granted to me by God I am suspending you from the Office of Clerk..........Yours in God Tyrone
Kim Davis -- Violence in Relationship with Baby Daddy*


----------



## Vandalshandle

asaratis said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you Serious,...you all think this person "Speaks for God" and that her opinions should Over Rule the US Constitution..*.are you all crazy on drugs or drunk ?*
> *Kim Davis' Marriage History In One Handy Flowchart*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You show little understanding of Christianity as it relates to forgiveness. * I suspect that liberals are more likely to forgive hedonistic Hollywood celebrities for multiple failed marriages than to forgive a homely Christian 'church lady' for the same.*
> 
> Small minded people do not often make intelligent conversation. You, my friend, have no chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does Kim need our forgiveness? To put it in her words, "Then she is going to have a long day".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you missed the point too.  God forgives all sin.  Kim doesn't need YOUR forgiveness at all.  I doubt she expects it.  So your lack of forgiveness is meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ..and yet, you posted the above words in bold.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I did.  And that does not mean that I don't forgive hedonist Hollywood celebrities for multiple marriages.  What is your point?
Click to expand...


Nothing in particular, other than to point out that, like so many other RW folks, you see no irony in posting one thing, and doing a 180 degree turn on the next post, which is exactly what you did. I find it amusing. Kind of like screaming that something Obama did is unconstitutional, while maintaining that the SC has acted unconstitutionally, when outlawing gay marriage prohibitions.


----------



## asaratis

TyroneSlothrop said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Small minded people do not often make intelligent conversation. You, my friend, have no chance.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you on drugs ? I am not your friend by the way...small minded is denying gays constitutional Rights because Kim Davis "feels like it" based on "God's authority" by her own words. God does not sign the woman's paycheck ...Caesar signs her paychecks and she needs to "govern herself accordingly"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  I take a line up of tablets...one batch in the morning and another at night.  I use quite a few drugs.
> 
> I didn't mean 'friend' literally. Were you not so small minded, you'd have realized that.
> 
> No rights were denied gays because of her refusal to issue licenses with her name on them.  Licenses can be had in Kentucky.  She was actually upholding Kentucky law in her refusal.
> 
> Those that continue to protest against her are simply seeking the comfort of being accepted as normal people.  Got news for you.....you're abnormal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That is what you say I say different.*
> 
> Left handed people are not normal...Right handed people are more the norm...so effing what*...No you do not get to define someone as "abnormal" or "sinful" or any other label in order to deprive them of Constitutional Rights... NO...*
> 
> ..I am not lining up in support of the Bible over the Constitution...you are ...she went to jail for law breaking ...I see you as the small minded person not me... I define you as small minded from the word squat...*Hey Kim Davis based on the authority granted to me by God I am suspending you from the Office of Clerk..........Yours in God Tyrone
> Kim Davis -- Violence in Relationship with Baby Daddy*
Click to expand...

I did not equate 'sinful' to 'abnormal'.  You did that.

I am not supporting the Bible over the Constitution.  I'm not really supporting Kim Davis.  I'm saying the hoopla over her refusal to provide licenses with her name on them is nothing but political theatrics...and that criticism of her past (and her 'Jerry Springer' experiences) is childish.


----------



## asaratis

Vandalshandle said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> You show little understanding of Christianity as it relates to forgiveness. * I suspect that liberals are more likely to forgive hedonistic Hollywood celebrities for multiple failed marriages than to forgive a homely Christian 'church lady' for the same.*
> 
> Small minded people do not often make intelligent conversation. You, my friend, have no chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does Kim need our forgiveness? To put it in her words, "Then she is going to have a long day".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you missed the point too.  God forgives all sin.  Kim doesn't need YOUR forgiveness at all.  I doubt she expects it.  So your lack of forgiveness is meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ..and yet, you posted the above words in bold.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I did.  And that does not mean that I don't forgive hedonist Hollywood celebrities for multiple marriages.  What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing in particular, other than to point out that, like so many other RW folks, you see no irony in posting one thing, and doing a 180 degree turn on the next post, which is exactly what you did. I find it amusing. Kind of like screaming that something Obama did is unconstitutional, while maintaining that the SC has acted unconstitutionally, when outlawing gay marriage prohibitions.
Click to expand...

Please describe the '180 degree turn' you say I made.  At least give the two post numbers between which you claim it occurred.

I'll be waiting....in the wings.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Luke 16:18? Here it is. _“Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”_


Jesus has paid for her sins. You will pay for your own.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

asaratis said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Small minded people do not often make intelligent conversation. You, my friend, have no chance.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you on drugs ? I am not your friend by the way...small minded is denying gays constitutional Rights because Kim Davis "feels like it" based on "God's authority" by her own words. God does not sign the woman's paycheck ...Caesar signs her paychecks and she needs to "govern herself accordingly"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  I take a line up of tablets...one batch in the morning and another at night.  I use quite a few drugs.
> 
> I didn't mean 'friend' literally. Were you not so small minded, you'd have realized that.
> 
> No rights were denied gays because of her refusal to issue licenses with her name on them.  Licenses can be had in Kentucky.  She was actually upholding Kentucky law in her refusal.
> 
> Those that continue to protest against her are simply seeking the comfort of being accepted as normal people.  Got news for you.....you're abnormal.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

In _Obergefell_ the Supreme Court held that for states and local jurisdictions to refuse same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment, denying same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law.

Davis in fact violated the rights of gay Americans by refusing to issue them marriage licenses to access state marriage law same-sex couples are eligible to participate in, she violated her oath of office to obey and defend the Constitution of the United States, and she was held in contempt as a consequence.

What is inane, ridiculous, and unwarranted is to seek to contrive and propagate the lie that Davis is some sort of 'victim,' or 'defender' of her faith – when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## Vandalshandle

asaratis said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does Kim need our forgiveness? To put it in her words, "Then she is going to have a long day".
> 
> 
> 
> I see you missed the point too.  God forgives all sin.  Kim doesn't need YOUR forgiveness at all.  I doubt she expects it.  So your lack of forgiveness is meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ..and yet, you posted the above words in bold.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I did.  And that does not mean that I don't forgive hedonist Hollywood celebrities for multiple marriages.  What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing in particular, other than to point out that, like so many other RW folks, you see no irony in posting one thing, and doing a 180 degree turn on the next post, which is exactly what you did. I find it amusing. Kind of like screaming that something Obama did is unconstitutional, while maintaining that the SC has acted unconstitutionally, when outlawing gay marriage prohibitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please describe the '180 degree turn' you say I made.  At least give the two post numbers between which you claim it occurred.
> 
> I'll be waiting....in the wings.
Click to expand...


There is really no point. you are blind to your own hypocrisy, and there is nothing I can do about it.


----------



## Skylar

dcraelin said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> your link for the 2nd circuit is the same link for the 4th......so one of these links, at least, is a lie..........regardless they did not have the right to avoid that precedent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A mistake in copying a link incorrectly is not a lie.  Here is the corrected link -->>
> http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisio...6-98fa59ffb645/1/doc/12-2335_complete_opn.pdf
> 
> They didn't "avoid" the precedent.  Avoiding the precedent would have been not mentioning it.  *But they did mention it.*
> 
> Precedent's are not inviolate such when the conditions under which the precedent are not the same or when the SCOTUS indicates that the previous conditions no longer apply.  Which of course exactly what happened with Roamer v. Evans, Lawrence overturned Bowers and when they issued the Windsor decision, all showing that homosexual have due process and equal protection rights.
> 
> If the SCOTUS had thought that Baker was still applicable, then they would have slapped down the first appeal that reached them concerning SSCM.  But they didn't.  In the end the District and Circuit Court Judges got the *correct* read from the SCOTUS as they specifically overturned Baker as part of Obergefell.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> saying that the SCOTUS would have done the right thing in slapping down the appeal.........when of course their mind was already made up ...........is kind of a circular argument. ...............
Click to expand...


No, its a clear demonstration that you don't know what you're talking about. You're insisting that the lower courts were bound to Baker, when they weren't.

The lower court rulings overwhelmingly relied on more recent precedent, most relevantly tghe the precedent of Windsor. With its communication of the court's position on same sex marriage so clearly that even Scalia said it was 'beyond mistaking' and  that the State same sex marriage bans being overturned using the logic of Windsor was 'inevitable.'

Scalia and the lower courts were right on how to interpret the Windsor ruling: the USSC did affirm same sex marriage and did overturn state marriage bans. The lower courts got it right. With the exception of the 6th which the USSC reviewed and overturned.

Your position that the lower courts should have ignored Windsor, Lawrence and Romer in favor of Baker was wrong. As the USSC demonstrated so elegantly in Obergefell.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Lakhota said:


>




I just gotta say it. That woman is as fugly as fugly gets. What man would ever want her?  

Damn!


----------



## Statistikhengst

WorldWatcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Her name is not off the licenses.
> 
> She is the Clerk of the Court... The Clerk's office issues the licenses... therefore everything that the Clerks office does, bears her name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is one of the licenses issued while she was in custody.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...



Both of those gentlemen are listed as "disabled"?!?!? At 45 and 42 years old, respectively?


----------



## Statistikhengst

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kim Davis is an idiotic Religionist  mental midget ...God laughs at her outlandish claims to know what God's views are...God rejects Dixie flag  Right wing slags ...
> 
> 
> 
> Brazenly speaking for the Almighty. Judgment day will be truly dreadful for you.
Click to expand...



Only, it's not your job to be speaking for H-shem. No one is entitled to speak for G-d. G-d has made that ABUNDANTLY clear. To do so is to commit sacriledge. So, enjoy your crispy critters...


----------



## Statistikhengst

koshergrl said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> They actually think threats from their Gods are believable...OHHH I am scared the Christian God is going to torture me....aint no Christian God going to do Jack shit to me...
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares what scares you? Not me. Lefties are senseless, and totally irrelevant.
Click to expand...


You, with your ugliness and a soul a dirty as soot, also have no place speaking in judgement of anyone or speaking for the Almighty. G-d is much, much, much bigger than either of us. Get over it and get over yourself.

In other words, go fuck yourself, witch.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kim Davis is an idiotic Religionist  mental midget ...God laughs at her outlandish claims to know what God's views are...God rejects Dixie flag  Right wing slags ...
> 
> 
> 
> Brazenly speaking for the Almighty. Judgment day will be truly dreadful for you.
Click to expand...


Here is someone who you can relate to....just as fucking bat shit crazy as you!

*Kevin Swanson: All 50 Governors Are Going To Hell For Obeying Marriage Equality Ruling* Submitted by Isabel on Wednesday, 9/9/2015 11:43 am

 On his “Generations Radio” program yesterday, far-right Colorado pastor Kevin Swanson praised anti-gay Kentucky clerk Kim Davis for her “courage” in standing up to “the forces of darkness.” Swanson said he is thankful that Davis is upholding “the laws of God” by refusing to issue marriage licenses in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling on marriage equality. “Anybody that tries to approve of the absolute worst possible abomination on planet Earth and give a marriage license to homosexuals is violating the laws of God,” Swanson said. - See more at: Kevin Swanson: All 50 Governors Are Going To Hell For Obeying Marriage Equality Ruling


----------



## Statistikhengst

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> *GOD FEARING DEMOCRATS: THIS MESSAGE IS FOR YOU, ABOUT YOU AND SAYS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW, TO KNOW WHAT YOUR PARTY HAS TO SAY ABOUT YOU:*
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No some ignorant freak from Podunk Kentucky does not speak for God...are you all so crazed you believe the mental midget Kim Davis speaks for God ...have you all been drinking...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To everything turn turn turn [Ecclesiastes]
Click to expand...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kim Davis is an idiotic Religionist  mental midget ...God laughs at her outlandish claims to know what God's views are...God rejects Dixie flag  Right wing slags ...
> 
> 
> 
> Brazenly speaking for the Almighty. Judgment day will be truly dreadful for you.
Click to expand...

Is that not what "Kimbo" is doing nut boy....speaking for the "Almighty"......... get real...only little children are scared by Judgement day.... I am being stalked [as you are and everyone] by personal death...Judgement day is nothing for me cause I am already facing certain death.  I know I am going to die when it comes time for me to die.....grow up and stop the"Judgement day" ninny show....


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> The lower court rulings overwhelmingly relied on more recent precedent, most relevantly tghe the precedent of Windsor. With its communication of the court's position on same sex marriage so clearly that even Scalia said it was 'beyond mistaking' and  that the State same sex marriage bans being overturned using the logic of Windsor was 'inevitable.'
> 
> Scalia and the lower courts were right on how to interpret the Windsor ruling: the USSC did affirm same sex marriage and did overturn state marriage bans.


 
1. Scalia voted against gay marriage being a mandate on the 50 states.

2. Windsor was a correct ruling in that it said that whatever states say, the fed has to abide by on the question of marriage.  Not the other way around dear.  In fact if you want quotes to that effect and intent directly from the text of the Windsor Opinion, read here: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lower court rulings overwhelmingly relied on more recent precedent, most relevantly tghe the precedent of Windsor. With its communication of the court's position on same sex marriage so clearly that even Scalia said it was 'beyond mistaking' and  that the State same sex marriage bans being overturned using the logic of Windsor was 'inevitable.'
> 
> Scalia and the lower courts were right on how to interpret the Windsor ruling: the USSC did affirm same sex marriage and did overturn state marriage bans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Scalia voted against gay marriage being a mandate on the 50 states.
Click to expand...


Read Scalia's dissent in Windsor. Keep special attention out for the words 'beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable'. 



> 2. Windsor was a correct ruling in that it said that whatever states say, the fed has to abide by on the question of marriage.  Not the other way around dear.  In fact if you want quotes to that effect and intent directly from the text of the Windsor Opinion, read here: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



Hun, the states don't get to violate constitutional guarantees. The passage from Windsor that I cited to you again and again was the core of the Obergefell ruling. You know, the passage including the phrase 'subject to constitutional guarantees' that you always omitted from your every citation of Windsor? 

Scalia knew it was coming, as the logic of the Windsor decision invalidated state same sex marriage laws as well. The Lower courts almost universally recognized this. And the USSC affirmed it in Obergefell. 

You said otherwise. As the Obergefell decision so elegantly demonstrated, you didn't know what you were talking about.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*The Flag of the Slave Mongers flies in support of Kim Davis...question: why would God's people support Slavery....*


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

TyroneSlothrop said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kim Davis is an idiotic Religionist  mental midget ...God laughs at her outlandish claims to know what God's views are...God rejects Dixie flag  Right wing slags ...
> 
> 
> 
> Brazenly speaking for the Almighty. Judgment day will be truly dreadful for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that not what "Kimbo" is doing nut boy....speaking for the "Almighty"......... get real...only little children are scared by Judgement day.... I am being stalked [as you are and everyone] by personal death...Judgement day is nothing for me cause I am already facing certain death.  I know I am going to die when it comes time for me to die.....grow up and stop the"Judgement day" ninny show....
Click to expand...

No that's not what Kim is doing. You going on and on about who God hates makes you exactly like someone holding a "God hates fags" sign. If you can't see the difference between your presumptuous words and Kim simply saying she feels it would be wrong, then you're an idiot. 

Someday you are going to stand before a holy God and give an account for your own life. Even the righteous dread the day and humble themselves in the sight of the Lord.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kim Davis is an idiotic Religionist  mental midget ...God laughs at her outlandish claims to know what God's views are...God rejects Dixie flag  Right wing slags ...
> 
> 
> 
> Brazenly speaking for the Almighty. Judgment day will be truly dreadful for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is someone who you can relate to....just as fucking bat shit crazy as you!
> 
> *Kevin Swanson: All 50 Governors Are Going To Hell For Obeying Marriage Equality Ruling* Submitted by Isabel on Wednesday, 9/9/2015 11:43 am
> 
> On his “Generations Radio” program yesterday, far-right Colorado pastor Kevin Swanson praised anti-gay Kentucky clerk Kim Davis for her “courage” in standing up to “the forces of darkness.” Swanson said he is thankful that Davis is upholding “the laws of God” by refusing to issue marriage licenses in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling on marriage equality. “Anybody that tries to approve of the absolute worst possible abomination on planet Earth and give a marriage license to homosexuals is violating the laws of God,” Swanson said. - See more at: Kevin Swanson: All 50 Governors Are Going To Hell For Obeying Marriage Equality Ruling
Click to expand...

Huh.  It didn't say what you claim it said. Did you just tell a lie?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Statistikhengst said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kim Davis is an idiotic Religionist  mental midget ...God laughs at her outlandish claims to know what God's views are...God rejects Dixie flag  Right wing slags ...
> 
> 
> 
> Brazenly speaking for the Almighty. Judgment day will be truly dreadful for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Only, it's not your job to be speaking for H-shem. No one is entitled to speak for G-d. G-d has made that ABUNDANTLY clear. To do so is to commit sacriledge. So, enjoy your crispy critters...
Click to expand...

You quoted the wrong person, silly. You should be preaching this to Tyrone


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Someday you are going to stand before a holy God and give an account for your own life. Even the righteous dread the day and humble themselves in the sight of the Lord.


I am standing Right now in front of God and the Universe and saying you are a scared rabbit on the run and I am a man... I am not scared or intimidated by promises of a meet up with God....I think you and Kimbo Davis are both full of Holy Excrement and what you want is Bible based Laqws ...it is not gonna happen...not on my watch


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

In case you all forgot..*.there is video in which "Kimbo" is proclaiming she is acting under God's authority..*.well in the Government offices its Caesar that rules and Jesus has already made it clear that one renders to Caesar what is his and to God what is God...its not complicated...


----------



## Statistikhengst

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kim Davis is an idiotic Religionist  mental midget ...God laughs at her outlandish claims to know what God's views are...God rejects Dixie flag  Right wing slags ...
> 
> 
> 
> Brazenly speaking for the Almighty. Judgment day will be truly dreadful for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Only, it's not your job to be speaking for H-shem. No one is entitled to speak for G-d. G-d has made that ABUNDANTLY clear. To do so is to commit sacriledge. So, enjoy your crispy critters...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You quoted the wrong person, silly. You should be preaching this to Tyrone
Click to expand...



Uhm, no. I quoted the right person, in this case.


----------



## dcraelin

WorldWatcher said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> saying that the SCOTUS would have done the right thing in slapping down the appeal.........when of course their mind was already made up ...........is kind of a circular argument. ...............
> 
> but as your 3rd link shows.............the other courts, when they did mention it......................got it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said the lower courts didn't address Baker - I showed they did address Baker.
> 
> You said they were bound by Baker - I showed where there were developmental caused Baker not to apply.
> 
> You say the lower courts got it wrong - yet the SCOTUS upheld the lower courts and specifically declared Baker overturned.
> 
> And they "got it wrong".
> 
> Well at that point there is only one thing to say.
> 
> ...................................
Click to expand...


you showed some of them addressed baker.....at least one  in opposition to the other courts....

5 of 9 of SC agree with you, hardly a slam dunk.......and 2 of the 5 in majority signaled their impervious-ness to logic and legal precedent when they presided over gay weddings. 

The Valentines Day ruling is emblematic of the majority of lower courts


----------



## MisterBeale




----------



## Skylar

dcraelin said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> saying that the SCOTUS would have done the right thing in slapping down the appeal.........when of course their mind was already made up ...........is kind of a circular argument. ...............
> 
> but as your 3rd link shows.............the other courts, when they did mention it......................got it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said the lower courts didn't address Baker - I showed they did address Baker.
> 
> You said they were bound by Baker - I showed where there were developmental caused Baker not to apply.
> 
> You say the lower courts got it wrong - yet the SCOTUS upheld the lower courts and specifically declared Baker overturned.
> 
> And they "got it wrong".
> 
> Well at that point there is only one thing to say.
> 
> ...................................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you showed some of them addressed baker.....at least one  in opposition to the other courts....
> 
> 5 of 9 of SC agree with you, hardly a slam dunk.......and 2 of the 5 in majority signaled their impervious-ness to logic and legal precedent when they presided over gay weddings.
Click to expand...


Why is officiating a gay marriage 'signalling their impervious-ness to logic and legal precedent?

Remember, these marriages were conducted in Maryland and DC respectively. Both of which had voted in same sex marriage. And as the _Windsor _decision made ludicrously clear, this something that both states have the authority to do.  Making their actions explicitly consistent with legal precedent.

Perhaps you can explain it to us.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Statistikhengst said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kim Davis is an idiotic Religionist  mental midget ...God laughs at her outlandish claims to know what God's views are...God rejects Dixie flag  Right wing slags ...
> 
> 
> 
> Brazenly speaking for the Almighty. Judgment day will be truly dreadful for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Only, it's not your job to be speaking for H-shem. No one is entitled to speak for G-d. G-d has made that ABUNDANTLY clear. To do so is to commit sacriledge. So, enjoy your crispy critters...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You quoted the wrong person, silly. You should be preaching this to Tyrone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm, no. I quoted the right person, in this case.
Click to expand...

No you didn't. If you think he wasn't speaking for God then you're an idiot or a liar.


----------



## dcraelin

Skylar said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> your link for the 2nd circuit is the same link for the 4th......so one of these links, at least, is a lie..........regardless they did not have the right to avoid that precedent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A mistake in copying a link incorrectly is not a lie.  Here is the corrected link -->>
> http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisio...6-98fa59ffb645/1/doc/12-2335_complete_opn.pdf
> 
> They didn't "avoid" the precedent.  Avoiding the precedent would have been not mentioning it.  *But they did mention it.*
> 
> Precedent's are not inviolate such when the conditions under which the precedent are not the same or when the SCOTUS indicates that the previous conditions no longer apply.  Which of course exactly what happened with Roamer v. Evans, Lawrence overturned Bowers and when they issued the Windsor decision, all showing that homosexual have due process and equal protection rights.
> 
> If the SCOTUS had thought that Baker was still applicable, then they would have slapped down the first appeal that reached them concerning SSCM.  But they didn't.  In the end the District and Circuit Court Judges got the *correct* read from the SCOTUS as they specifically overturned Baker as part of Obergefell.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> saying that the SCOTUS would have done the right thing in slapping down the appeal.........when of course their mind was already made up ...........is kind of a circular argument. ...............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, its a clear demonstration that you don't know what you're talking about. You're insisting that the lower courts were bound to Baker, when they weren't.
> 
> The lower court rulings overwhelmingly relied on more recent precedent, most relevantly tghe the precedent of Windsor. With its communication of the court's position on same sex marriage so clearly that even Scalia said it was 'beyond mistaking' and  that the State same sex marriage bans being overturned using the logic of Windsor was 'inevitable.'
> 
> Scalia and the lower courts were right on how to interpret the Windsor ruling: the USSC did affirm same sex marriage and did overturn state marriage bans. The lower courts got it right. With the exception of the 6th which the USSC reviewed and overturned.
> 
> Your position that the lower courts should have ignored Windsor, Lawrence and Romer in favor of Baker was wrong. As the USSC demonstrated so elegantly in Obergefell.
Click to expand...


I dont believe Windsor itself said it overruled Baker....so why should the lower courts assume it did?
It dealt with a side issue...............who had the power on wedding policy...and really in a way affirmed Baker by saying it was the states.....i.e. want of federal question.   I am sure you are misreading Scalia.....


----------



## dcraelin

Skylar said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> saying that the SCOTUS would have done the right thing in slapping down the appeal.........when of course their mind was already made up ...........is kind of a circular argument. ...............
> 
> but as your 3rd link shows.............the other courts, when they did mention it......................got it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said the lower courts didn't address Baker - I showed they did address Baker.
> 
> You said they were bound by Baker - I showed where there were developmental caused Baker not to apply.
> 
> You say the lower courts got it wrong - yet the SCOTUS upheld the lower courts and specifically declared Baker overturned.
> 
> And they "got it wrong".
> 
> Well at that point there is only one thing to say.
> 
> ...................................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you showed some of them addressed baker.....at least one  in opposition to the other courts....
> 
> 5 of 9 of SC agree with you, hardly a slam dunk.......and 2 of the 5 in majority signaled their impervious-ness to logic and legal precedent when they presided over gay weddings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is officiating a gay marriage 'signalling their impervious-ness to logic and legal precedent?
> 
> Remember, these marriages were conducted in Maryland and DC respectively. Both of which had voted in same sex marriage. And as the _Windsor _decision made ludicrously clear, this something that both states have the authority to do.  Making their actions explicitly consistent with legal precedent.
> 
> Perhaps you can explain it to us.
Click to expand...


oh please,......anybody with an ounce of common sense sees what I said to be true...............your law degree has apparently removed the common sense region of your brain.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> saying that the SCOTUS would have done the right thing in slapping down the appeal.........when of course their mind was already made up ...........is kind of a circular argument. ...............
> 
> but as your 3rd link shows.............the other courts, when they did mention it......................got it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said the lower courts didn't address Baker - I showed they did address Baker.
> 
> You said they were bound by Baker - I showed where there were developmental caused Baker not to apply.
> 
> You say the lower courts got it wrong - yet the SCOTUS upheld the lower courts and specifically declared Baker overturned.
> 
> And they "got it wrong".
> 
> Well at that point there is only one thing to say.
> 
> ...................................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you showed some of them addressed baker.....at least one  in opposition to the other courts....
> 
> 5 of 9 of SC agree with you, hardly a slam dunk.......and 2 of the 5 in majority signaled their impervious-ness to logic and legal precedent when they presided over gay weddings.
> 
> The Valentines Day ruling is emblematic of the majority of lower courts
Click to expand...

    How much longer are you going to beat that dead horse. You're like a 2 year old in a supermarket check out line having a temper tantrum because mom wont buy you a  Mars Bar


----------



## Asclepias

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kim Davis is an idiotic Religionist  mental midget ...God laughs at her outlandish claims to know what God's views are...God rejects Dixie flag  Right wing slags ...
> 
> 
> 
> Brazenly speaking for the Almighty. Judgment day will be truly dreadful for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that not what "Kimbo" is doing nut boy....speaking for the "Almighty"......... get real...only little children are scared by Judgement day.... I am being stalked [as you are and everyone] by personal death...Judgement day is nothing for me cause I am already facing certain death.  I know I am going to die when it comes time for me to die.....grow up and stop the"Judgement day" ninny show....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No that's not what Kim is doing. You going on and on about who God hates makes you exactly like someone holding a "God hates fags" sign. If you can't see the difference between your presumptuous words and Kim simply saying she feels it would be wrong, then you're an idiot.
> 
> Someday you are going to stand before a holy God and give an account for your own life. Even the righteous dread the day and humble themselves in the sight of the Lord.
Click to expand...

Its hard to remember you are a NA. Your brain washer did an amazing job.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

MisterBeale said:


>


Nice...


----------



## Skylar

dcraelin said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> your link for the 2nd circuit is the same link for the 4th......so one of these links, at least, is a lie..........regardless they did not have the right to avoid that precedent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A mistake in copying a link incorrectly is not a lie.  Here is the corrected link -->>
> http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisio...6-98fa59ffb645/1/doc/12-2335_complete_opn.pdf
> 
> They didn't "avoid" the precedent.  Avoiding the precedent would have been not mentioning it.  *But they did mention it.*
> 
> Precedent's are not inviolate such when the conditions under which the precedent are not the same or when the SCOTUS indicates that the previous conditions no longer apply.  Which of course exactly what happened with Roamer v. Evans, Lawrence overturned Bowers and when they issued the Windsor decision, all showing that homosexual have due process and equal protection rights.
> 
> If the SCOTUS had thought that Baker was still applicable, then they would have slapped down the first appeal that reached them concerning SSCM.  But they didn't.  In the end the District and Circuit Court Judges got the *correct* read from the SCOTUS as they specifically overturned Baker as part of Obergefell.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> saying that the SCOTUS would have done the right thing in slapping down the appeal.........when of course their mind was already made up ...........is kind of a circular argument. ...............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, its a clear demonstration that you don't know what you're talking about. You're insisting that the lower courts were bound to Baker, when they weren't.
> 
> The lower court rulings overwhelmingly relied on more recent precedent, most relevantly tghe the precedent of Windsor. With its communication of the court's position on same sex marriage so clearly that even Scalia said it was 'beyond mistaking' and  that the State same sex marriage bans being overturned using the logic of Windsor was 'inevitable.'
> 
> Scalia and the lower courts were right on how to interpret the Windsor ruling: the USSC did affirm same sex marriage and did overturn state marriage bans. The lower courts got it right. With the exception of the 6th which the USSC reviewed and overturned.
> 
> Your position that the lower courts should have ignored Windsor, Lawrence and Romer in favor of Baker was wrong. As the USSC demonstrated so elegantly in Obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont believe Windsor itself said it overruled Baker....so why should the lower courts assume it did?
Click to expand...


Because 'what you believe'has no relevance to case law, precedent or any ruling.

And of course, because there was far more relevant, immediate precedent that actually had specific findings to guide decisions. Romer, Lawrence and Windsor collectively representing over a hundred pages of binding precedent. Baker was a single sentence formalizing a denial of writ of cert in accordance with federal law at the time. The USSC does this a hundred times a session now with no particular legal relevance.

Actual rulings provide orders of magnitude more guidance for lower court rulings than a formal denial of cert. And with each of the rulings being more relevant as they are more recent. And thus establish a legal foundation that didn't exist at the time of Baker.

And because Windsor utterly telegraphed the court's interpretation of the right to same sex marriage. Even those in dissent recognized the clarity of Windsor in communicating the court's views and intentions. With Scalia calling the court's view on same sex marriage bans 'beyond mistaking'. And concluding that the application of the logic of Windsor to overturn state same sex marriage bans 'inevitable'.

The lower court found Windsor equally compelling with almost universal consensus. Something like 46 of 49 rulings aligned with this interpretation of Windsor. An interpretation which was affirmed as the correct one by the high court in Obergefell.

You ignore the impact of Romer and Lawerence and discount the clarity of Windsor. The lower courts didn't. Even those in dissent of Windsor didn't. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you were wrong to do so.



> It dealt with a side issue...............who had the power on wedding policy...and really in a way affirmed Baker by saying it was the states.....i.e. want of federal question.   I am sure you are misreading Scalia.....



I'm sure you haven't read Scalia's dissent in Windsor and have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Asclepias said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kim Davis is an idiotic Religionist  mental midget ...God laughs at her outlandish claims to know what God's views are...God rejects Dixie flag  Right wing slags ...
> 
> 
> 
> Brazenly speaking for the Almighty. Judgment day will be truly dreadful for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that not what "Kimbo" is doing nut boy....speaking for the "Almighty"......... get real...only little children are scared by Judgement day.... I am being stalked [as you are and everyone] by personal death...Judgement day is nothing for me cause I am already facing certain death.  I know I am going to die when it comes time for me to die.....grow up and stop the"Judgement day" ninny show....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No that's not what Kim is doing. You going on and on about who God hates makes you exactly like someone holding a "God hates fags" sign. If you can't see the difference between your presumptuous words and Kim simply saying she feels it would be wrong, then you're an idiot.
> 
> Someday you are going to stand before a holy God and give an account for your own life. Even the righteous dread the day and humble themselves in the sight of the Lord.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its hard to remember you are a NA. Your brain washer did an amazing job.
Click to expand...

You wound me! I'm retreating to my happy song. It kinda reminds me of you.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

I have as much of God's authority as Kimbo............


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

TyroneSlothrop said:


> I have as much of God's authority as Kimbo............



Yeah, but your ego is like...


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> saying that the SCOTUS would have done the right thing in slapping down the appeal.........when of course their mind was already made up ...........is kind of a circular argument. ...............
> 
> but as your 3rd link shows.............the other courts, when they did mention it......................got it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said the lower courts didn't address Baker - I showed they did address Baker.
> 
> You said they were bound by Baker - I showed where there were developmental caused Baker not to apply.
> 
> You say the lower courts got it wrong - yet the SCOTUS upheld the lower courts and specifically declared Baker overturned.
> 
> And they "got it wrong".
> 
> Well at that point there is only one thing to say.
> 
> ...................................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you showed some of them addressed baker.....at least one  in opposition to the other courts....
> 
> 5 of 9 of SC agree with you, hardly a slam dunk.......and 2 of the 5 in majority signaled their impervious-ness to logic and legal precedent when they presided over gay weddings.
> 
> The Valentines Day ruling is emblematic of the majority of lower courts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much longer are you going to beat that dead horse. You're like a 2 year old in a supermarket check out line having a temper tantrum because mom wont buy you a  Mars Bar
Click to expand...

A two year old would just grab it.

THANK GOD you never had any kids. That much is clear.

Perhaps if you kidnapped more 2 year olds at gunpoint, you would know this.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Hell yes I am a child of the Universe no less than the Moon and the Stars I have a right to be here .... Me a singularity that has developed on a vast field of consciousness occupying space/time bandwidth and doing a wiz bang job of it .... I was born born born born to be alive...born to be alive


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Hell yes I am a child of the Universe no less than the Moon and the Stars I have a right to be here .... Me a singularity that has developed on a vast field of consciousness occupying space/time bandwidth and doing a wiz bang job of it .... I was born born born born to be alive...born to be alive


Life's a cosmic plane and then you die?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hell yes I am a child of the Universe no less than the Moon and the Stars I have a right to be here .... Me a singularity that has developed on a vast field of consciousness occupying space/time bandwidth and doing a wiz bang job of it .... I was born born born born to be alive...born to be alive
> 
> 
> 
> Life's a cosmic plane and then you die?
Click to expand...

  You think your ego identity remains forever.....................?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

TyroneSlothrop said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hell yes I am a child of the Universe no less than the Moon and the Stars I have a right to be here .... Me a singularity that has developed on a vast field of consciousness occupying space/time bandwidth and doing a wiz bang job of it .... I was born born born born to be alive...born to be alive
> 
> 
> 
> Life's a cosmic plane and then you die?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think your ego identity remains forever.....................?
Click to expand...

And your.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Debra K said:


> Provide the link to the modified court order.
> 
> Linking to the shit that comes out of your ass doesn't count.



Is being a dumbass part of the KOS sheet on "how to defeat a conservative."

What EXACTLY did you think this thread was about?


----------



## Uncensored2008

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I'm not even going to attempt to deal with all of your inane ranting.  Just one thing. What about the destruction of nuclear family ? Are you saying that two people of the same sex who are loving parents-who have children who love them and regard them as their parents are not a nuclear family. That is just fucking stupid!



You are a faker of reality, not even in the same galaxy with rational. Homosexuality does not produce offspring. Homosexuals raising the offspring of heterosexual couples do no propagate their DNA. Reality is - you can force others to claim that the Emperor is grandly dressed, but reality remains. Homosexuality confers no benefit to the survival of the species, it is a genetic dead end. The cultural impetus of humans to establish marriage is to ensure the survival of the species, not ensure that a special interest votes for their party.


----------



## Asclepias

Uncensored2008 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not even going to attempt to deal with all of your inane ranting.  Just one thing. What about the destruction of nuclear family ? Are you saying that two people of the same sex who are loving parents-who have children who love them and regard them as their parents are not a nuclear family. That is just fucking stupid!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a faker of reality, not even in the same galaxy with rational. Homosexuality does not produce offspring. Homosexuals raising the offspring of heterosexual couples do no propagate their DNA. Reality is - you can force others to claim that the Emperor is grandly dressed, but reality remains. Homosexuality confers no benefit to the survival of the species, it is a genetic dead end. The cultural impetus of humans to establish marriage is to ensure the survival of the species, not ensure that a special interest votes for their party.
Click to expand...

Says the guy that is the epitome of a genetic dead end.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Debra K said:


> Your words prove that you're intolerant about the emancipation of homosexual persons from the chains of oppression.   You wish you could have them executed.



ROFL

You are a fucking retard.

That is seriously the nicest thing I could come up with to say to you...


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Uncensored2008 said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Provide the link to the modified court order.
> 
> Linking to the shit that comes out of your ass doesn't count.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is being a dumbass part of the KOS sheet on "how to defeat a conservative."
> 
> What EXACTLY did you think this thread was about?
Click to expand...

Oh Christ are you back? !! There was no "modified court order" The was no big compromise. The only think that changed is that she accepted the same compromise that was available to her before this ever got into court and was offered to her  before she got locked up---she will allow the deputies to issue the licenses and not interfere.



> _GRAYSON, Kentucky_ - After five days behind bars, county clerk Kim Davis was ordered released from jail Tuesday by the judge who locked her up for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.
> 
> U.S. District Judge David Bunning lifted the contempt order against Davis, saying he was satisfied that her deputies are fulfilling their obligation to grant licenses to same-sex couples in her absence. But he warned Davis not to interfere with them. Judge orders Ky. clerk Kim Davis released from jail


----------



## Uncensored2008

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Oh Christ are you back? !! There was no "modified court order" The was no big compromise.



Well you know that isn't true. Bunning modified the order so that Davis does NOT have to issue licenses but will not interfere with her staff issuing them.

{The court previously offered something similar to the release order as a compromise: Davis could be freed from jail as long as she didn't stop her deputy clerks from giving out marriage licenses. It's unclear whether Davis agreed to the compromise, but the court is now enforcing it in her release order — with a warning that Davis will be punished again if she doesn't cooperate.}

Kentucky clerk Kim Davis to be released from jail — on one condition

What is it you think you gain by lying?




> The only think that changed is that she accepted the same compromise that was available to her before this ever got into court and was offered to her  before she got locked up---she will allow the deputies to issue the licenses and not interfere.



It's similar, but not the same. Bunning scrambled to get the political prisoner out of his jail.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Uncensored2008 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not even going to attempt to deal with all of your inane ranting.  Just one thing. What about the destruction of nuclear family ? Are you saying that two people of the same sex who are loving parents-who have children who love them and regard them as their parents are not a nuclear family. That is just fucking stupid!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a faker of reality, not even in the same galaxy with rational. Homosexuality does not produce offspring. Homosexuals raising the offspring of heterosexual couples do no propagate their DNA. Reality is - you can force others to claim that the Emperor is grandly dressed, but reality remains. Homosexuality confers no benefit to the survival of the species, it is a genetic dead end. The cultural impetus of humans to establish marriage is to ensure the survival of the species, not ensure that a special interest votes for their party.
Click to expand...

Complete and utter horseshit!


That is wrong and idiotic for so many reasons, I don’t know where to begin. Do you really believe that same sex marriage is a threat to the survival of our species? Just a few thoughts:



Homosexuality has existed in societies for as long as we have been human and probably longer. Yet we have thrived as a species.


Gay people represent a very small percentage of the population and probably smaller than the percentage of heterosexuals who, for whatever reasons, do not have children


Gay people do in fact have children. A lesbian can get pregnant and carry a child. A gay man can produce sperm and fertilize an ovum.


While gay people do often utilize surrogates and sperm donors and  rely on medical technology to reproduce……SO DO A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES


Marriage has NOTHING to do with reproduction. People have always had children in and out of marriage


Restricting marriage to heterosexuals will in no way increase the number of children born, as though we need more children.  If you think that it will, please explain how


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Uncensored2008 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Christ are you back? !! There was no "modified court order" The was no big compromise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you know that isn't true. Bunning modified the order so that Davis does NOT have to issue licenses but will not interfere with her staff issuing them.
> 
> {The court previously offered something similar to the release order as a compromise: Davis could be freed from jail as long as she didn't stop her deputy clerks from giving out marriage licenses. It's unclear whether Davis agreed to the compromise, but the court is now enforcing it in her release order — with a warning that Davis will be punished again if she doesn't cooperate.}
> 
> Kentucky clerk Kim Davis to be released from jail — on one condition
> 
> What is it you think you gain by lying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only think that changed is that she accepted the same compromise that was available to her before this ever got into court and was offered to her  before she got locked up---she will allow the deputies to issue the licenses and not interfere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's similar, but not the same. Bunning scrambled to get the political prisoner out of his jail.
Click to expand...


You are the one being dishonest by trying to make it sound like the judge caved in to her in some way. She did not win this.


----------



## Debra K

Uncensored2008 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Christ are you back? !! There was no "modified court order" The was no big compromise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you know that isn't true. Bunning modified the order so that Davis does NOT have to issue licenses but will not interfere with her staff issuing them.
> 
> {The court previously offered something similar to the release order as a compromise: Davis could be freed from jail as long as she didn't stop her deputy clerks from giving out marriage licenses. It's unclear whether Davis agreed to the compromise, but the court is now enforcing it in her release order — with a warning that Davis will be punished again if she doesn't cooperate.}
> 
> Kentucky clerk Kim Davis to be released from jail — on one condition
> 
> What is it you think you gain by lying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only think that changed is that she accepted the same compromise that was available to her before this ever got into court and was offered to her  before she got locked up---she will allow the deputies to issue the licenses and not interfere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's similar, but not the same. Bunning scrambled to get the political prisoner out of his jail.
Click to expand...


The shit you pull out of your butt doesn't count as facts or law.  But go ahead and celebrate the alleged victory with all the other revisionists.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*Legal Counsel Firm For Kim Davis Is On The Southern Poverty Law Centers Hate Group Watch List*
*Things You Should Know About Kim Davis' Legal Counsel*
The legal counsel representing Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis has been a longtime anti-LBGT law firm. The Liberty Counsel has a history of making bizarre and mean-spirited comments about the gay community.


At this point, it’s unclear if Davis requested the firm’s legal counsel or if the Liberty legal counsel law firm sought Davis out. Turns out the Davis case has become the Liberty Counsel highest profile case to date. The firm has represented Alabama probate judges who refused to grant same-sex marriages, as well as Scott Lively, the Massachusetts preacher who was involved in the”_crimes against humanity_“case in Uganda against that countries gay citizens.
Legal Counsel for Kim Davis, Mathew Staver, and his wife, founded Liberty Counsel in 1989. Here is where this side show we now know as the “Kim Davis Affair” gets real slimy. The Liberty Counsel is affiliated with the Liberty University Law School in Lynchburg Virginia. The pet project and strong arm of the late Jerry Falwell, Mr. Extreme Radical Christian Right himself.

 
Mathew Staver, the legal counsel for Kim Davis, still serves as the director of the Liberty Center for Law and Policy at Liberty University and provides legal assistance concerning religious liberty, abortion, and the family. The organization has incorporated a broad range of radical right dogmas. They’re the organization that accused the Obama Administration of spreading a “_Liberal Socialist Agenda_.”


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Uncensored2008 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not even going to attempt to deal with all of your inane ranting.  Just one thing. What about the destruction of nuclear family ? Are you saying that two people of the same sex who are loving parents-who have children who love them and regard them as their parents are not a nuclear family. That is just fucking stupid!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a faker of reality, not even in the same galaxy with rational. Homosexuality does not produce offspring. Homosexuals raising the offspring of heterosexual couples do no propagate their DNA. Reality is - you can force others to claim that the Emperor is grandly dressed, but reality remains. Homosexuality confers no benefit to the survival of the species, it is a genetic dead end. The cultural impetus of humans to establish marriage is to ensure the survival of the species, not ensure that a special interest votes for their party.
Click to expand...


The procreation angle as an argument against same sex marriage is a pathetic loser as is anyone who tries to use it. It was kicked out of court so many times that I lost count. It is nothing but hateful horseshit. I have more respect for people who are honest and just admit that they hate homosexuals, or use some religious idiocy, than someone like you who tries to foist this sort of dishonest garbage on us, claiming that you are concerned about the species.

Marriage is now about much more than having children. It is much more about a status, about economics and about security. If the inability to reproduce is valid reason to deny marriage, should we allow ANYONE who cannot or chooses not to have children to marry? What about heterosexual couples who are past child barring age? What about a younger couple who may not be able to have children? Perhaps marriages should be automatically void after a certain time if no children are produced. If reproduction was the driving force, the compelling government interest in promoting traditional marriage, why are such policies not in place now? 

 Yet another question that I can’t get an answer to is: Given the fact that gay people do in fact have children in their care, and knowing that children have more legal and financial security when they have married parents, how do you justify denying marriage to those parents on the basis of their not having “reproduced” those children in a manner consistent with your sensibilities? They will argue that children need a “mommy and a daddy, but-putting aside the question of whether or not that is even true-the fact is that there will always be children who, for whatever reason do not live in a traditional mommy-daddy family and some will have gay parent.

Failing to allow gay marriage will in no way ensure that more children will have a mom and a dad. It will only serve to ensure that fewer children will have two legal parents. To deny those children the benefits of married parents is to say that those children are less worthy, or you might say, worth less than other children. To deny them that security shows that any expressed concern for children is disingenuous at best. Not one of these people who claim to care so much about children has been able to answer that. 

 I will also point out that many heterosexual couples have children in their care with one or both parents not being biologically related. How is that different from gay couples who have a child where only one is the biological parent? *Those two parents did not procreate together any more than that gay couple did* So how is it different? It is not, yet I continually hear rumblings about how gay couples do not .reproduce and therefor are of no benefit to society( The many benefits-beyond procreation- will be reserved for another time) At the same time, the anti-equality people are silent when it comes to straight couples in the exact same situation. *It is a non sequitur because the conclusion-that gay couples should be denied benefits of marriage because they cannot reproduce - does not follow from its premises- that gay couples are fundamentally different in the way that they acquire children.  The premis itself is flawed and argument  as a whole is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. *

Lastly , I keep hearing about “responsible procreation” Opponents of marriage equality have long argued that reserving marriage for opposite-sex couples is important for promoting “responsible procreation” in society. However the “responsible procreation” argument is not only flawed on its own merits, it is also used to sugarcoat prejudice against homosexuality. It is wrought with logical fallacies, and bizarre assumptions. One of it’s strangest assumptions is that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then different-sex couples will have more children out of wedlock. I’m still waiting for an explanation as to how that will actually work. “Another strange variation of the responsible procreation claim is that if a heterosexual couple cannot conceive, marriage still somehow discourages them from cheating on one another. As the proponents of California’s Proposition 8 argued to the U.S. Supreme Court, marriage “decreases the likelihood that a fertile spouse will engage in sexual activity with a third party.” What I’m getting from this is not so much opposition to same sex marriage, but the view that it is just not necessary for gays to marry because there is no chance of having an unintended child. Alternately, I hear it said that same sex marriage will result in fewer heterosexuals having children thus endangering the perpetuation of the species. Quite frankly, I’m confused. Will gay marriage result in more or fewer children and why? I fail to see how what gay folks do can influence what others do with respect to marriage and children, and I have to doubt whether those promoting these ideas really do either. 

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/1...gay-prejudice/


----------



## Uncensored2008

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Complete and utter horseshit!
> 
> 
> That is wrong and idiotic for so many reasons, I don’t know where to begin. Do you really believe that same sex marriage is a threat to the survival of our species? Just a few thoughts:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality has existed in societies for as long as we have been human and probably longer. Yet we have thrived as a species.



 So what? How does this affect the fact that homosexuality provides no advantage to survival. Cancer has existed as well, yet is hardly a means of improving the species.  





> [*]Gay people represent a very small percentage of the population and probably smaller than the percentage of heterosexuals who, for whatever reasons, do not have children
> 
> 
> [*]Gay people do in fact have children. A lesbian can get pregnant and carry a child. A gay man can produce sperm and fertilize an ovum.
> 
> 
> [*]While gay people do often utilize surrogates and sperm donors and  rely on medical technology to reproduce……SO DO A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES
> 
> 
> [*]Marriage has NOTHING to do with reproduction. People have always had children in and out of marriage
> 
> 
> [*]Restricting marriage to heterosexuals will in no way increase the number of children born, as though we need more children.  If you think that it will, please explain how




None of which is relevant to anything.

The left believes that evolution is something which is used to bash their hated foe, the Christians with. The concept that evolution is real, that a process bigger than the desire to tear down society is at work, is completely lost on you. You have a political agenda - which is in fact at odds with the scientific process that has resulted in the human species as we know it. 

We have developed as we have in order to promote the survival of the species. Homosexuality is a genetic flaw which under natural conditions removes unwanted genes from the gene pool. The development of marriage in virtually every culture is precisely driven by the need of a community to protect procreation.  There is no question that homosexuality is a genetic kill switch, but perhaps leftism is as well? The programs that you promote are tantamount to suicide of a species. You kill your own offspring and promote the union of those who cannot biologically reproduce.


----------



## Uncensored2008

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You are the one being dishonest by trying to make it sound like the judge caved in to her in some way. She did not win this.



Bunning wanted her out of his jail. He is smart enough to grasp the implications of holding political prisoners - even if you are not.


----------



## Uncensored2008

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Legal Counsel Firm For Kim Davis Is On The Southern Poverty Law Centers Hate Group Watch List*
> *Things You Should Know About Kim Davis' Legal Counsel*
> The legal counsel representing Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis has been a longtime anti-LBGT law firm. The Liberty Counsel has a history of making bizarre and mean-spirited comments about the gay community.
> 
> 
> At this point, it’s unclear if Davis requested the firm’s legal counsel or if the Liberty legal counsel law firm sought Davis out. Turns out the Davis case has become the Liberty Counsel highest profile case to date. The firm has represented Alabama probate judges who refused to grant same-sex marriages, as well as Scott Lively, the Massachusetts preacher who was involved in the”_crimes against humanity_“case in Uganda against that countries gay citizens.
> Legal Counsel for Kim Davis, Mathew Staver, and his wife, founded Liberty Counsel in 1989. Here is where this side show we now know as the “Kim Davis Affair” gets real slimy. The Liberty Counsel is affiliated with the Liberty University Law School in Lynchburg Virginia. The pet project and strong arm of the late Jerry Falwell, Mr. Extreme Radical Christian Right himself.
> 
> 
> Mathew Staver, the legal counsel for Kim Davis, still serves as the director of the Liberty Center for Law and Policy at Liberty University and provides legal assistance concerning religious liberty, abortion, and the family. The organization has incorporated a broad range of radical right dogmas. They’re the organization that accused the Obama Administration of spreading a “_Liberal Socialist Agenda_.”




Wow, the KLAN has her law team on it's hate list?

Well, perhaps you can burn a cross on her lawn?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Debra K said:


> [
> 
> 
> The shit you pull out of your butt doesn't count as facts or law.  But go ahead and celebrate the alleged victory with all the other revisionists.



In the eyes of a law, are you considered mentally retarded? Do you require a guardian to sign legal documents for you?


----------



## Asclepias

Uncensored2008 said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> The shit you pull out of your butt doesn't count as facts or law.  But go ahead and celebrate the alleged victory with all the other revisionists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the eyes of a law, are you considered mentally retarded? Do you require a guardian to sign legal documents for you?
Click to expand...

Not everyone is in the same situation you are. Stop asking everyone if they are retarded like you.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Uncensored2008 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Complete and utter horseshit!
> 
> 
> That is wrong and idiotic for so many reasons, I don’t know where to begin. Do you really believe that same sex marriage is a threat to the survival of our species? Just a few thoughts:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality has existed in societies for as long as we have been human and probably longer. Yet we have thrived as a species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what? How does this affect the fact that homosexuality provides no advantage to survival. Cancer has existed as well, yet is hardly a means of improving the species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [*]Gay people represent a very small percentage of the population and probably smaller than the percentage of heterosexuals who, for whatever reasons, do not have children
> 
> 
> [*]Gay people do in fact have children. A lesbian can get pregnant and carry a child. A gay man can produce sperm and fertilize an ovum.
> 
> 
> [*]While gay people do often utilize surrogates and sperm donors and  rely on medical technology to reproduce……SO DO A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES
> 
> 
> [*]Marriage has NOTHING to do with reproduction. People have always had children in and out of marriage
> 
> 
> [*]Restricting marriage to heterosexuals will in no way increase the number of children born, as though we need more children.  If you think that it will, please explain how
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> None of which is relevant to anything.
> 
> The left believes that evolution is something which is used to bash their hated foe, the Christians with. The concept that evolution is real, that a process bigger than the desire to tear down society is at work, is completely lost on you. You have a political agenda - which is in fact at odds with the scientific process that has resulted in the human species as we know it.
> 
> We have developed as we have in order to promote the survival of the species. Homosexuality is a genetic flaw which under natural conditions removes unwanted genes from the gene pool. The development of marriage in virtually every culture is precisely driven by the need of a community to protect procreation.  There is no question that homosexuality is a genetic kill switch, but perhaps leftism is as well? The programs that you promote are tantamount to suicide of a species. You kill your own offspring and promote the union of those who cannot biologically reproduce.
Click to expand...


Simple question old sport: How do hetero sexuals who do not reproduce, or do not reproduce in "the usual way" contribute to the survival of the spices. By your standards they clearly do not any more so than a gay couple. That then begs the question, why should that straight couple be allowed to marry, or not be required to have children for the privilege of being allowed to stay married. This isn't a trick quest. It is  the type of question that has tripped up numerous lawyers defending states ban on same sex marriage.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Uncensored2008 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one being dishonest by trying to make it sound like the judge caved in to her in some way. She did not win this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bunning wanted her out of his jail. He is smart enough to grasp the implications of holding political prisoners - even if you are not.
Click to expand...

He wanted her out of jail, I'll give you that much. Hell, everyone wanted her out of jail. I wanted her out of jail . It was not a good situation.


----------



## Seawytch

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Christ are you back? !! There was no "modified court order" The was no big compromise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you know that isn't true. Bunning modified the order so that Davis does NOT have to issue licenses but will not interfere with her staff issuing them.
> 
> {The court previously offered something similar to the release order as a compromise: Davis could be freed from jail as long as she didn't stop her deputy clerks from giving out marriage licenses. It's unclear whether Davis agreed to the compromise, but the court is now enforcing it in her release order — with a warning that Davis will be punished again if she doesn't cooperate.}
> 
> Kentucky clerk Kim Davis to be released from jail — on one condition
> 
> What is it you think you gain by lying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only think that changed is that she accepted the same compromise that was available to her before this ever got into court and was offered to her  before she got locked up---she will allow the deputies to issue the licenses and not interfere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's similar, but not the same. Bunning scrambled to get the political prisoner out of his jail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one being dishonest by trying to make it sound like the judge caved in to her in some way. She did not win this.
Click to expand...


Let them think they won. Licenses are being issued and she doesn't have to do it. Win-win


----------



## Vigilante

Many more to come....


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

This is getting insane!   Does anybody here think that this is a good idea?

The Oathkeepers organization are apparently trying to one-up the Westboro Baptist Church in the department of crazy attention-seeking. In a statement and recorded phone call featuring Oathkeeper's founder Stewart Rhodes, Jackson County (Kentucky) Sheriff Denny Peyman, Missouri Oathkeeper Jon Karriman and West Virginia Oathkeeper Allen Lardieri, the men outlined their plans to head to Kentucky to provide "round-the-clock" protection for Kim Davis to ensure Federal Marshals are not able to take her into custody again if U.S. District Judge David Bunning orders her to be held again on contempt of court charges. The group had previously planned to protest in front of Judge Bunning's home. 

Oathkeepers vow to 'intercede' if U.S. Marshals try to take Kim Davis into custody again


----------



## Uncensored2008

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Simple question old sport: How do hetero sexuals who do not reproduce, or do not reproduce in "the usual way" contribute to the survival of the spices.



Ah, talking points - never seen those before.. 

Marriage developed to protect females during pregnancy and child rearing. This is fact, irrespective of your political agenda.

Reality is.



> By your standards they clearly do not any more so than a gay couple. That then begs the question, why should that straight couple be allowed to marry, or not be required to have children for the privilege of being allowed to stay married. This isn't a trick quest. It is  the type of question that has tripped up numerous lawyers defending states ban on same sex marriage.



I'm pointing out physical reality, not my standards.

The major gulf between leftists and Libertarians is the simple fact that reality is. Things are what they are, not what you wish them to be.


----------



## Uncensored2008

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> This is getting insane!   Does anybody here think that this is a good idea?
> 
> The Oathkeepers organization are apparently trying to one-up the Westboro Baptist Church in the department of crazy attention-seeking. In a statement and recorded phone call featuring Oathkeeper's founder Stewart Rhodes, Jackson County (Kentucky) Sheriff Denny Peyman, Missouri Oathkeeper Jon Karriman and West Virginia Oathkeeper Allen Lardieri, the men outlined their plans to head to Kentucky to provide "round-the-clock" protection for Kim Davis to ensure Federal Marshals are not able to take her into custody again if U.S. District Judge David Bunning orders her to be held again on contempt of court charges. The group had previously planned to protest in front of Judge Bunning's home.
> 
> Oathkeepers vow to 'intercede' if U.S. Marshals try to take Kim Davis into custody again



You grasp that Westboro is satire, they exist to defame Christians, right?

Those damned Christians would never do the things the left accused them of, so the left created their own "special Krischuns" Thus was born the Westboro Baptist church - with 7 members - under life long democrat Fred Phelps who ran for Congress as a "liberal democrat" twice.

Here is another shocker, Communist Norman Lear's Archie Bunker was meant to mock conservatives.


----------



## Faun

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> This is getting insane!   Does anybody here think that this is a good idea?
> 
> The Oathkeepers organization are apparently trying to one-up the Westboro Baptist Church in the department of crazy attention-seeking. In a statement and recorded phone call featuring Oathkeeper's founder Stewart Rhodes, Jackson County (Kentucky) Sheriff Denny Peyman, Missouri Oathkeeper Jon Karriman and West Virginia Oathkeeper Allen Lardieri, the men outlined their plans to head to Kentucky to provide "round-the-clock" protection for Kim Davis to ensure Federal Marshals are not able to take her into custody again if U.S. District Judge David Bunning orders her to be held again on contempt of court charges. The group had previously planned to protest in front of Judge Bunning's home.
> 
> Oathkeepers vow to 'intercede' if U.S. Marshals try to take Kim Davis into custody again


I recall a bunch of crazy people in Miami once tried that to prevent authorities from getting custody of Elian Gonzalez. The law prevailed and the crazies got bitch slapped. Not sure why this bunch of crazies _think_ they'll fare any better?


----------



## Vigilante

Faun said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is getting insane!   Does anybody here think that this is a good idea?
> 
> The Oathkeepers organization are apparently trying to one-up the Westboro Baptist Church in the department of crazy attention-seeking. In a statement and recorded phone call featuring Oathkeeper's founder Stewart Rhodes, Jackson County (Kentucky) Sheriff Denny Peyman, Missouri Oathkeeper Jon Karriman and West Virginia Oathkeeper Allen Lardieri, the men outlined their plans to head to Kentucky to provide "round-the-clock" protection for Kim Davis to ensure Federal Marshals are not able to take her into custody again if U.S. District Judge David Bunning orders her to be held again on contempt of court charges. The group had previously planned to protest in front of Judge Bunning's home.
> 
> Oathkeepers vow to 'intercede' if U.S. Marshals try to take Kim Davis into custody again
> 
> 
> 
> I recall a bunch of crazy people in Miami once tried that to prevent authorities from getting custody of Elian Gonzalez. The law prevailed and the crazies got bitch slapped. Not sure why this bunch of crazies _think_ they'll fare any better?
Click to expand...


Does the name Cliven Bundy, and the fact that PC liberals are a dying breed ring a bell?


----------



## Faun

Vigilante said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is getting insane!   Does anybody here think that this is a good idea?
> 
> The Oathkeepers organization are apparently trying to one-up the Westboro Baptist Church in the department of crazy attention-seeking. In a statement and recorded phone call featuring Oathkeeper's founder Stewart Rhodes, Jackson County (Kentucky) Sheriff Denny Peyman, Missouri Oathkeeper Jon Karriman and West Virginia Oathkeeper Allen Lardieri, the men outlined their plans to head to Kentucky to provide "round-the-clock" protection for Kim Davis to ensure Federal Marshals are not able to take her into custody again if U.S. District Judge David Bunning orders her to be held again on contempt of court charges. The group had previously planned to protest in front of Judge Bunning's home.
> 
> Oathkeepers vow to 'intercede' if U.S. Marshals try to take Kim Davis into custody again
> 
> 
> 
> I recall a bunch of crazy people in Miami once tried that to prevent authorities from getting custody of Elian Gonzalez. The law prevailed and the crazies got bitch slapped. Not sure why this bunch of crazies _think_ they'll fare any better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the name Cliven Bundy, and the fact that PC liberals are a dying breed ring a bell?
Click to expand...

Ya mean the rightard who was forced to move his herd off of public property? Yeah... another case where the law prevailed over the crazies.


----------



## Vigilante

Faun said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is getting insane!   Does anybody here think that this is a good idea?
> 
> The Oathkeepers organization are apparently trying to one-up the Westboro Baptist Church in the department of crazy attention-seeking. In a statement and recorded phone call featuring Oathkeeper's founder Stewart Rhodes, Jackson County (Kentucky) Sheriff Denny Peyman, Missouri Oathkeeper Jon Karriman and West Virginia Oathkeeper Allen Lardieri, the men outlined their plans to head to Kentucky to provide "round-the-clock" protection for Kim Davis to ensure Federal Marshals are not able to take her into custody again if U.S. District Judge David Bunning orders her to be held again on contempt of court charges. The group had previously planned to protest in front of Judge Bunning's home.
> 
> Oathkeepers vow to 'intercede' if U.S. Marshals try to take Kim Davis into custody again
> 
> 
> 
> I recall a bunch of crazy people in Miami once tried that to prevent authorities from getting custody of Elian Gonzalez. The law prevailed and the crazies got bitch slapped. Not sure why this bunch of crazies _think_ they'll fare any better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the name Cliven Bundy, and the fact that PC liberals are a dying breed ring a bell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya mean the rightard who was forced to move his herd off of public property? Yeah... another case where the law prevailed over the crazies.
Click to expand...


What law was that, the BLM fades away and the herd stays?

*Lawbreaking Rancher Cliven Bundy Wins Victory That Will ...*
*www.politicususa.com*/2014/.../lawbreaking-*rancher*-*cliven-bundy-wins*...
The BLM has decided to halt rounding up *Cliven Bundy's* cattle due to fear that violent resistance might pose a threat to public safety.

*Nevada Cattle Rancher Wins 'Range War' With Federal ...*
*abcnews.go.com*/US/nevada-cattle-*rancher*-*wins*-*range*-war-federal...
Apr 12, 2014 · Nevada Cattle *Rancher Wins* '*Range* War' With ... *Cliven Bundy* went head to head with the Bureau of Land Management over the removal of hundreds of …


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Uncensored2008 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple question old sport: How do hetero sexuals who do not reproduce, or do not reproduce in "the usual way" contribute to the survival of the spices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, talking points - never seen those before..
> 
> Marriage developed to protect females during pregnancy and child rearing. This is fact, irrespective of your political agenda.
> 
> Reality is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By your standards they clearly do not any more so than a gay couple. That then begs the question, why should that straight couple be allowed to marry, or not be required to have children for the privilege of being allowed to stay married. This isn't a trick quest. It is  the type of question that has tripped up numerous lawyers defending states ban on same sex marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pointing out physical reality, not my standards.
> 
> The major gulf between leftists and Libertarians is the simple fact that reality is. Things are what they are, not what you wish them to be.
Click to expand...


Holy shit! that's your entire response to my extensive posts ??!! You failed to address a single point that I made. All that you seem to be able to do is to speak in generalizations and attack my "political agenda"> My agenda is a humanitarian agenda, something that seems to be alien to you.

You either are to out of touch with reality to know the you have lost this argument, or you are to dishonest to admit that you are out  of ammunition. It comes down to this and it's really very simple. Gays are human beings. They deserve equal rights. All of your rationalizing and twisted logical fallacies does not change that.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## ABikerSailor

Hey..................I think that gays should have the right to be just as miserable as straight couples and get married.

And.................I'm also betting that this woman ends up in jail again within 3 days of returning to work.

If she stops another gay marriage, she should be thrown in jail until she agrees to resign.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## ABikerSailor

The Supreme Court didn't make a law, they reviewed the lawsuits according to their Constitutionality, and found that discrimination was against the Constitution.


----------



## Vigilante

ABikerSailor said:


> The Supreme Court didn't make a law, they reviewed the lawsuits according to their Constitutionality, and found that discrimination was against the Constitution.



Yet Oboma gets away with ACTUALLY breaking the immigration law! ...Which is Constitutional!


----------



## ABikerSailor

Vigilante said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court didn't make a law, they reviewed the lawsuits according to their Constitutionality, and found that discrimination was against the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet Oboma gets away with ACTUALLY breaking the immigration law! ...Which is Constitutional!
Click to expand...


Exactly HOW is Obama breaking immigration law?  Got any links to actual news sites?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Uncensored2008 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is getting insane!   Does anybody here think that this is a good idea?
> 
> The Oathkeepers organization are apparently trying to one-up the Westboro Baptist Church in the department of crazy attention-seeking. In a statement and recorded phone call featuring Oathkeeper's founder Stewart Rhodes, Jackson County (Kentucky) Sheriff Denny Peyman, Missouri Oathkeeper Jon Karriman and West Virginia Oathkeeper Allen Lardieri, the men outlined their plans to head to Kentucky to provide "round-the-clock" protection for Kim Davis to ensure Federal Marshals are not able to take her into custody again if U.S. District Judge David Bunning orders her to be held again on contempt of court charges. The group had previously planned to protest in front of Judge Bunning's home.
> 
> Oathkeepers vow to 'intercede' if U.S. Marshals try to take Kim Davis into custody again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You grasp that Westboro is satire, they exist to defame Christians, right?
> 
> Those damned Christians would never do the things the left accused them of, so the left created their own "special Krischuns" Thus was born the Westboro Baptist church - with 7 members - under life long democrat Fred Phelps who ran for Congress as a "liberal democrat" twice.
> 
> Here is another shocker, Communist Norman Lear's Archie Bunker was meant to mock conservatives.
Click to expand...

And what about that makes the Oathkeepers less crazy and dangerous?


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> saying that the SCOTUS would have done the right thing in slapping down the appeal.........when of course their mind was already made up ...........is kind of a circular argument. ...............
> 
> but as your 3rd link shows.............the other courts, when they did mention it......................got it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said the lower courts didn't address Baker - I showed they did address Baker.
> 
> You said they were bound by Baker - I showed where there were developmental caused Baker not to apply.
> 
> You say the lower courts got it wrong - yet the SCOTUS upheld the lower courts and specifically declared Baker overturned.
> 
> And they "got it wrong".
> 
> Well at that point there is only one thing to say.
> 
> ...................................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you showed some of them addressed baker.....at least one  in opposition to the other courts....
> 
> 5 of 9 of SC agree with you, hardly a slam dunk.......and 2 of the 5 in majority signaled their impervious-ness to logic and legal precedent when they presided over gay weddings.
> 
> The Valentines Day ruling is emblematic of the majority of lower courts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much longer are you going to beat that dead horse. You're like a 2 year old in a supermarket check out line having a temper tantrum because mom wont buy you a  Mars Bar
Click to expand...



Like I said earlier, you and apparently your tedious obsession with bashing anyone who disagrees with you on this subject, have led us down this path.


----------



## dcraelin

Skylar said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> your link for the 2nd circuit is the same link for the 4th......so one of these links, at least, is a lie..........regardless they did not have the right to avoid that precedent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A mistake in copying a link incorrectly is not a lie.  Here is the corrected link -->>
> http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisio...6-98fa59ffb645/1/doc/12-2335_complete_opn.pdf
> 
> They didn't "avoid" the precedent.  Avoiding the precedent would have been not mentioning it.  *But they did mention it.*
> 
> Precedent's are not inviolate such when the conditions under which the precedent are not the same or when the SCOTUS indicates that the previous conditions no longer apply.  Which of course exactly what happened with Roamer v. Evans, Lawrence overturned Bowers and when they issued the Windsor decision, all showing that homosexual have due process and equal protection rights.
> 
> If the SCOTUS had thought that Baker was still applicable, then they would have slapped down the first appeal that reached them concerning SSCM.  But they didn't.  In the end the District and Circuit Court Judges got the *correct* read from the SCOTUS as they specifically overturned Baker as part of Obergefell.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> saying that the SCOTUS would have done the right thing in slapping down the appeal.........when of course their mind was already made up ...........is kind of a circular argument. ...............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, its a clear demonstration that you don't know what you're talking about. You're insisting that the lower courts were bound to Baker, when they weren't.
> 
> The lower court rulings overwhelmingly relied on more recent precedent, most relevantly tghe the precedent of Windsor. With its communication of the court's position on same sex marriage so clearly that even Scalia said it was 'beyond mistaking' and  that the State same sex marriage bans being overturned using the logic of Windsor was 'inevitable.'
> 
> Scalia and the lower courts were right on how to interpret the Windsor ruling: the USSC did affirm same sex marriage and did overturn state marriage bans. The lower courts got it right. With the exception of the 6th which the USSC reviewed and overturned.
> 
> Your position that the lower courts should have ignored Windsor, Lawrence and Romer in favor of Baker was wrong. As the USSC demonstrated so elegantly in Obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont believe Windsor itself said it overruled Baker....so why should the lower courts assume it did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because 'what you believe'has no relevance to case law, precedent or any ruling.
> 
> And of course, because there was far more relevant, immediate precedent that actually had specific findings to guide decisions. Romer, Lawrence and Windsor collectively representing over a hundred pages of binding precedent. Baker was a single sentence formalizing a denial of writ of cert in accordance with federal law at the time. The USSC does this a hundred times a session now with no particular legal relevance.
> 
> Actual rulings provide orders of magnitude more guidance for lower court rulings than a formal denial of cert. And with each of the rulings being more relevant as they are more recent. And thus establish a legal foundation that didn't exist at the time of Baker.
> 
> And because Windsor utterly telegraphed the court's interpretation of the right to same sex marriage. Even those in dissent recognized the clarity of Windsor in communicating the court's views and intentions. With Scalia calling the court's view on same sex marriage bans 'beyond mistaking'. And concluding that the application of the logic of Windsor to overturn state same sex marriage bans 'inevitable'.
> 
> The lower court found Windsor equally compelling with almost universal consensus. Something like 46 of 49 rulings aligned with this interpretation of Windsor. An interpretation which was affirmed as the correct one by the high court in Obergefell.
> 
> You ignore the impact of Romer and Lawerence and discount the clarity of Windsor. The lower courts didn't. Even those in dissent of Windsor didn't. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you were wrong to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It dealt with a side issue...............who had the power on wedding policy...and really in a way affirmed Baker by saying it was the states.....i.e. want of federal question.   I am sure you are misreading Scalia.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you haven't read Scalia's dissent in Windsor and have no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...


"Baker was a single sentence"

Man, could you learn from Baker

all the tortured rationalization since has not changed what that simple single sentence implied.....no substantial federal question.


----------



## Silhouette

ABikerSailor said:


> The Supreme Court didn't make a law, they reviewed the lawsuits according to their Constitutionality, and found that discrimination was against the Constitution.


 Where in the Constitution does it say that behaviors are protected classes?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court didn't make a law, they reviewed the lawsuits according to their Constitutionality, and found that discrimination was against the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Constitution does it say that behaviors are protected classes?
Click to expand...

Religion is a behavior, a choice in nearly all cases, dumbass...


----------



## Faun

Silhouette said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court didn't make a law, they reviewed the lawsuits according to their Constitutionality, and found that discrimination was against the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Constitution does it say that behaviors are protected classes?
Click to expand...

The protected class is .... *"any person"* in the U.S. ....

*....nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*​


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Silhouette said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court didn't make a law, they reviewed the lawsuits according to their Constitutionality, and found that discrimination was against the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Constitution does it say that behaviors are protected classes?
Click to expand...

Lawrence v. Texas

Obergefell v. Hodges

Case law = Constitutional law = Constitutional

So simple even a bigot can do it


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> A mistake in copying a link incorrectly is not a lie.  Here is the corrected link -->>
> http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisio...6-98fa59ffb645/1/doc/12-2335_complete_opn.pdf
> 
> They didn't "avoid" the precedent.  Avoiding the precedent would have been not mentioning it.  *But they did mention it.*
> 
> Precedent's are not inviolate such when the conditions under which the precedent are not the same or when the SCOTUS indicates that the previous conditions no longer apply.  Which of course exactly what happened with Roamer v. Evans, Lawrence overturned Bowers and when they issued the Windsor decision, all showing that homosexual have due process and equal protection rights.
> 
> If the SCOTUS had thought that Baker was still applicable, then they would have slapped down the first appeal that reached them concerning SSCM.  But they didn't.  In the end the District and Circuit Court Judges got the *correct* read from the SCOTUS as they specifically overturned Baker as part of Obergefell.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saying that the SCOTUS would have done the right thing in slapping down the appeal.........when of course their mind was already made up ...........is kind of a circular argument. ...............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, its a clear demonstration that you don't know what you're talking about. You're insisting that the lower courts were bound to Baker, when they weren't.
> 
> The lower court rulings overwhelmingly relied on more recent precedent, most relevantly tghe the precedent of Windsor. With its communication of the court's position on same sex marriage so clearly that even Scalia said it was 'beyond mistaking' and  that the State same sex marriage bans being overturned using the logic of Windsor was 'inevitable.'
> 
> Scalia and the lower courts were right on how to interpret the Windsor ruling: the USSC did affirm same sex marriage and did overturn state marriage bans. The lower courts got it right. With the exception of the 6th which the USSC reviewed and overturned.
> 
> Your position that the lower courts should have ignored Windsor, Lawrence and Romer in favor of Baker was wrong. As the USSC demonstrated so elegantly in Obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont believe Windsor itself said it overruled Baker....so why should the lower courts assume it did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because 'what you believe'has no relevance to case law, precedent or any ruling.
> 
> And of course, because there was far more relevant, immediate precedent that actually had specific findings to guide decisions. Romer, Lawrence and Windsor collectively representing over a hundred pages of binding precedent. Baker was a single sentence formalizing a denial of writ of cert in accordance with federal law at the time. The USSC does this a hundred times a session now with no particular legal relevance.
> 
> Actual rulings provide orders of magnitude more guidance for lower court rulings than a formal denial of cert. And with each of the rulings being more relevant as they are more recent. And thus establish a legal foundation that didn't exist at the time of Baker.
> 
> And because Windsor utterly telegraphed the court's interpretation of the right to same sex marriage. Even those in dissent recognized the clarity of Windsor in communicating the court's views and intentions. With Scalia calling the court's view on same sex marriage bans 'beyond mistaking'. And concluding that the application of the logic of Windsor to overturn state same sex marriage bans 'inevitable'.
> 
> The lower court found Windsor equally compelling with almost universal consensus. Something like 46 of 49 rulings aligned with this interpretation of Windsor. An interpretation which was affirmed as the correct one by the high court in Obergefell.
> 
> You ignore the impact of Romer and Lawerence and discount the clarity of Windsor. The lower courts didn't. Even those in dissent of Windsor didn't. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you were wrong to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It dealt with a side issue...............who had the power on wedding policy...and really in a way affirmed Baker by saying it was the states.....i.e. want of federal question.   I am sure you are misreading Scalia.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you haven't read Scalia's dissent in Windsor and have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Baker was a single sentence"
> 
> Man, could you learn from Baker
> 
> all the tortured rationalization since has not changed what that simple single sentence implied.....no substantial federal question.
Click to expand...


That was 1972!! Only the most desperate bigot are still talking about it. Oberegfell overturned Baker. It was the last nail in the coffin of a case that was all but dead already. To cling to Baker at this late date is as pathetic as it gets

Get the fuck over it.


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> saying that the SCOTUS would have done the right thing in slapping down the appeal.........when of course their mind was already made up ...........is kind of a circular argument. ...............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, its a clear demonstration that you don't know what you're talking about. You're insisting that the lower courts were bound to Baker, when they weren't.
> 
> The lower court rulings overwhelmingly relied on more recent precedent, most relevantly tghe the precedent of Windsor. With its communication of the court's position on same sex marriage so clearly that even Scalia said it was 'beyond mistaking' and  that the State same sex marriage bans being overturned using the logic of Windsor was 'inevitable.'
> 
> Scalia and the lower courts were right on how to interpret the Windsor ruling: the USSC did affirm same sex marriage and did overturn state marriage bans. The lower courts got it right. With the exception of the 6th which the USSC reviewed and overturned.
> 
> Your position that the lower courts should have ignored Windsor, Lawrence and Romer in favor of Baker was wrong. As the USSC demonstrated so elegantly in Obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont believe Windsor itself said it overruled Baker....so why should the lower courts assume it did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because 'what you believe'has no relevance to case law, precedent or any ruling.
> 
> And of course, because there was far more relevant, immediate precedent that actually had specific findings to guide decisions. Romer, Lawrence and Windsor collectively representing over a hundred pages of binding precedent. Baker was a single sentence formalizing a denial of writ of cert in accordance with federal law at the time. The USSC does this a hundred times a session now with no particular legal relevance.
> 
> Actual rulings provide orders of magnitude more guidance for lower court rulings than a formal denial of cert. And with each of the rulings being more relevant as they are more recent. And thus establish a legal foundation that didn't exist at the time of Baker.
> 
> And because Windsor utterly telegraphed the court's interpretation of the right to same sex marriage. Even those in dissent recognized the clarity of Windsor in communicating the court's views and intentions. With Scalia calling the court's view on same sex marriage bans 'beyond mistaking'. And concluding that the application of the logic of Windsor to overturn state same sex marriage bans 'inevitable'.
> 
> The lower court found Windsor equally compelling with almost universal consensus. Something like 46 of 49 rulings aligned with this interpretation of Windsor. An interpretation which was affirmed as the correct one by the high court in Obergefell.
> 
> You ignore the impact of Romer and Lawerence and discount the clarity of Windsor. The lower courts didn't. Even those in dissent of Windsor didn't. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you were wrong to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It dealt with a side issue...............who had the power on wedding policy...and really in a way affirmed Baker by saying it was the states.....i.e. want of federal question.   I am sure you are misreading Scalia.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you haven't read Scalia's dissent in Windsor and have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Baker was a single sentence"
> 
> Man, could you learn from Baker
> 
> all the tortured rationalization since has not changed what that simple single sentence implied.....no substantial federal question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was 1972!! Only the most desperate bigot are still talking about it. Oberegfell overturned Baker. It was the last nail in the coffin of a case that was all but dead already. To cling to Baker at this late date is as pathetic as it gets
> 
> Get the fuck over it.
Click to expand...


oh fuck off, I'm not a bigot  

you know,  most winners are content to let the loser fume in silence.....

I suspect you now realize that there really are no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, its a clear demonstration that you don't know what you're talking about. You're insisting that the lower courts were bound to Baker, when they weren't.
> 
> The lower court rulings overwhelmingly relied on more recent precedent, most relevantly tghe the precedent of Windsor. With its communication of the court's position on same sex marriage so clearly that even Scalia said it was 'beyond mistaking' and  that the State same sex marriage bans being overturned using the logic of Windsor was 'inevitable.'
> 
> Scalia and the lower courts were right on how to interpret the Windsor ruling: the USSC did affirm same sex marriage and did overturn state marriage bans. The lower courts got it right. With the exception of the 6th which the USSC reviewed and overturned.
> 
> Your position that the lower courts should have ignored Windsor, Lawrence and Romer in favor of Baker was wrong. As the USSC demonstrated so elegantly in Obergefell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont believe Windsor itself said it overruled Baker....so why should the lower courts assume it did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because 'what you believe'has no relevance to case law, precedent or any ruling.
> 
> And of course, because there was far more relevant, immediate precedent that actually had specific findings to guide decisions. Romer, Lawrence and Windsor collectively representing over a hundred pages of binding precedent. Baker was a single sentence formalizing a denial of writ of cert in accordance with federal law at the time. The USSC does this a hundred times a session now with no particular legal relevance.
> 
> Actual rulings provide orders of magnitude more guidance for lower court rulings than a formal denial of cert. And with each of the rulings being more relevant as they are more recent. And thus establish a legal foundation that didn't exist at the time of Baker.
> 
> And because Windsor utterly telegraphed the court's interpretation of the right to same sex marriage. Even those in dissent recognized the clarity of Windsor in communicating the court's views and intentions. With Scalia calling the court's view on same sex marriage bans 'beyond mistaking'. And concluding that the application of the logic of Windsor to overturn state same sex marriage bans 'inevitable'.
> 
> The lower court found Windsor equally compelling with almost universal consensus. Something like 46 of 49 rulings aligned with this interpretation of Windsor. An interpretation which was affirmed as the correct one by the high court in Obergefell.
> 
> You ignore the impact of Romer and Lawerence and discount the clarity of Windsor. The lower courts didn't. Even those in dissent of Windsor didn't. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you were wrong to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It dealt with a side issue...............who had the power on wedding policy...and really in a way affirmed Baker by saying it was the states.....i.e. want of federal question.   I am sure you are misreading Scalia.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you haven't read Scalia's dissent in Windsor and have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Baker was a single sentence"
> 
> Man, could you learn from Baker
> 
> all the tortured rationalization since has not changed what that simple single sentence implied.....no substantial federal question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was 1972!! Only the most desperate bigot are still talking about it. Oberegfell overturned Baker. It was the last nail in the coffin of a case that was all but dead already. To cling to Baker at this late date is as pathetic as it gets
> 
> Get the fuck over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh fuck off, I'm not a bigot
> 
> you know,  most winners are content to let the loser fume in silence.....
> 
> I suspect you now realize that there really are no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell.
Click to expand...


So you admit that you haven't read it. If you did, you  would know how ridiculous that statement is.


----------



## Skylar

dcraelin said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> A mistake in copying a link incorrectly is not a lie.  Here is the corrected link -->>
> http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisio...6-98fa59ffb645/1/doc/12-2335_complete_opn.pdf
> 
> They didn't "avoid" the precedent.  Avoiding the precedent would have been not mentioning it.  *But they did mention it.*
> 
> Precedent's are not inviolate such when the conditions under which the precedent are not the same or when the SCOTUS indicates that the previous conditions no longer apply.  Which of course exactly what happened with Roamer v. Evans, Lawrence overturned Bowers and when they issued the Windsor decision, all showing that homosexual have due process and equal protection rights.
> 
> If the SCOTUS had thought that Baker was still applicable, then they would have slapped down the first appeal that reached them concerning SSCM.  But they didn't.  In the end the District and Circuit Court Judges got the *correct* read from the SCOTUS as they specifically overturned Baker as part of Obergefell.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saying that the SCOTUS would have done the right thing in slapping down the appeal.........when of course their mind was already made up ...........is kind of a circular argument. ...............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, its a clear demonstration that you don't know what you're talking about. You're insisting that the lower courts were bound to Baker, when they weren't.
> 
> The lower court rulings overwhelmingly relied on more recent precedent, most relevantly tghe the precedent of Windsor. With its communication of the court's position on same sex marriage so clearly that even Scalia said it was 'beyond mistaking' and  that the State same sex marriage bans being overturned using the logic of Windsor was 'inevitable.'
> 
> Scalia and the lower courts were right on how to interpret the Windsor ruling: the USSC did affirm same sex marriage and did overturn state marriage bans. The lower courts got it right. With the exception of the 6th which the USSC reviewed and overturned.
> 
> Your position that the lower courts should have ignored Windsor, Lawrence and Romer in favor of Baker was wrong. As the USSC demonstrated so elegantly in Obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont believe Windsor itself said it overruled Baker....so why should the lower courts assume it did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because 'what you believe'has no relevance to case law, precedent or any ruling.
> 
> And of course, because there was far more relevant, immediate precedent that actually had specific findings to guide decisions. Romer, Lawrence and Windsor collectively representing over a hundred pages of binding precedent. Baker was a single sentence formalizing a denial of writ of cert in accordance with federal law at the time. The USSC does this a hundred times a session now with no particular legal relevance.
> 
> Actual rulings provide orders of magnitude more guidance for lower court rulings than a formal denial of cert. And with each of the rulings being more relevant as they are more recent. And thus establish a legal foundation that didn't exist at the time of Baker.
> 
> And because Windsor utterly telegraphed the court's interpretation of the right to same sex marriage. Even those in dissent recognized the clarity of Windsor in communicating the court's views and intentions. With Scalia calling the court's view on same sex marriage bans 'beyond mistaking'. And concluding that the application of the logic of Windsor to overturn state same sex marriage bans 'inevitable'.
> 
> The lower court found Windsor equally compelling with almost universal consensus. Something like 46 of 49 rulings aligned with this interpretation of Windsor. An interpretation which was affirmed as the correct one by the high court in Obergefell.
> 
> You ignore the impact of Romer and Lawerence and discount the clarity of Windsor. The lower courts didn't. Even those in dissent of Windsor didn't. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you were wrong to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It dealt with a side issue...............who had the power on wedding policy...and really in a way affirmed Baker by saying it was the states.....i.e. want of federal question.   I am sure you are misreading Scalia.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you haven't read Scalia's dissent in Windsor and have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Baker was a single sentence"
> 
> Man, could you learn from Baker
> 
> all the tortured rationalization since has not changed what that simple single sentence implied.....no substantial federal question.
Click to expand...


And by 'tortured rationalizations', you mean simply NOT ignoring Lawerence v. Texas, Romer v. Evans and Windsor v US as you have done?

Remember, you haven't actually presented any rational reason why to ignore any of these rulings. They are all relevant. They are all binding precedent. They are all much more recent than the one sentence denial of cert that the USSC offered in 1972.

Just because you ignore these rulings doesn't mean that the lower courts are obligated to do so as well.


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont believe Windsor itself said it overruled Baker....so why should the lower courts assume it did?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because 'what you believe'has no relevance to case law, precedent or any ruling.
> 
> And of course, because there was far more relevant, immediate precedent that actually had specific findings to guide decisions. Romer, Lawrence and Windsor collectively representing over a hundred pages of binding precedent. Baker was a single sentence formalizing a denial of writ of cert in accordance with federal law at the time. The USSC does this a hundred times a session now with no particular legal relevance.
> 
> Actual rulings provide orders of magnitude more guidance for lower court rulings than a formal denial of cert. And with each of the rulings being more relevant as they are more recent. And thus establish a legal foundation that didn't exist at the time of Baker.
> 
> And because Windsor utterly telegraphed the court's interpretation of the right to same sex marriage. Even those in dissent recognized the clarity of Windsor in communicating the court's views and intentions. With Scalia calling the court's view on same sex marriage bans 'beyond mistaking'. And concluding that the application of the logic of Windsor to overturn state same sex marriage bans 'inevitable'.
> 
> The lower court found Windsor equally compelling with almost universal consensus. Something like 46 of 49 rulings aligned with this interpretation of Windsor. An interpretation which was affirmed as the correct one by the high court in Obergefell.
> 
> You ignore the impact of Romer and Lawerence and discount the clarity of Windsor. The lower courts didn't. Even those in dissent of Windsor didn't. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you were wrong to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It dealt with a side issue...............who had the power on wedding policy...and really in a way affirmed Baker by saying it was the states.....i.e. want of federal question.   I am sure you are misreading Scalia.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you haven't read Scalia's dissent in Windsor and have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Baker was a single sentence"
> 
> Man, could you learn from Baker
> 
> all the tortured rationalization since has not changed what that simple single sentence implied.....no substantial federal question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was 1972!! Only the most desperate bigot are still talking about it. Oberegfell overturned Baker. It was the last nail in the coffin of a case that was all but dead already. To cling to Baker at this late date is as pathetic as it gets
> 
> Get the fuck over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh fuck off, I'm not a bigot
> 
> you know,  most winners are content to let the loser fume in silence.....
> 
> I suspect you now realize that there really are no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that you haven't read it. If you did, you  would know how ridiculous that statement is.
Click to expand...


What a stupid, childish reply.    I have read most of it


----------



## dcraelin

Skylar said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> saying that the SCOTUS would have done the right thing in slapping down the appeal.........when of course their mind was already made up ...........is kind of a circular argument. ...............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, its a clear demonstration that you don't know what you're talking about. You're insisting that the lower courts were bound to Baker, when they weren't.
> 
> The lower court rulings overwhelmingly relied on more recent precedent, most relevantly tghe the precedent of Windsor. With its communication of the court's position on same sex marriage so clearly that even Scalia said it was 'beyond mistaking' and  that the State same sex marriage bans being overturned using the logic of Windsor was 'inevitable.'
> 
> Scalia and the lower courts were right on how to interpret the Windsor ruling: the USSC did affirm same sex marriage and did overturn state marriage bans. The lower courts got it right. With the exception of the 6th which the USSC reviewed and overturned.
> 
> Your position that the lower courts should have ignored Windsor, Lawrence and Romer in favor of Baker was wrong. As the USSC demonstrated so elegantly in Obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont believe Windsor itself said it overruled Baker....so why should the lower courts assume it did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because 'what you believe'has no relevance to case law, precedent or any ruling.
> 
> And of course, because there was far more relevant, immediate precedent that actually had specific findings to guide decisions. Romer, Lawrence and Windsor collectively representing over a hundred pages of binding precedent. Baker was a single sentence formalizing a denial of writ of cert in accordance with federal law at the time. The USSC does this a hundred times a session now with no particular legal relevance.
> 
> Actual rulings provide orders of magnitude more guidance for lower court rulings than a formal denial of cert. And with each of the rulings being more relevant as they are more recent. And thus establish a legal foundation that didn't exist at the time of Baker.
> 
> And because Windsor utterly telegraphed the court's interpretation of the right to same sex marriage. Even those in dissent recognized the clarity of Windsor in communicating the court's views and intentions. With Scalia calling the court's view on same sex marriage bans 'beyond mistaking'. And concluding that the application of the logic of Windsor to overturn state same sex marriage bans 'inevitable'.
> 
> The lower court found Windsor equally compelling with almost universal consensus. Something like 46 of 49 rulings aligned with this interpretation of Windsor. An interpretation which was affirmed as the correct one by the high court in Obergefell.
> 
> You ignore the impact of Romer and Lawerence and discount the clarity of Windsor. The lower courts didn't. Even those in dissent of Windsor didn't. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you were wrong to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It dealt with a side issue...............who had the power on wedding policy...and really in a way affirmed Baker by saying it was the states.....i.e. want of federal question.   I am sure you are misreading Scalia.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you haven't read Scalia's dissent in Windsor and have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Baker was a single sentence"
> 
> Man, could you learn from Baker
> 
> all the tortured rationalization since has not changed what that simple single sentence implied.....no substantial federal question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by 'tortured rationalizations', you mean simply NOT ignoring Lawerence v. Texas, Romer v. Evans and Windsor v US as you have done?
> 
> Remember, you haven't actually presented any rational reason why to ignore any of these rulings. They are all relevant. They are all binding precedent. They are all much more recent than the one sentence denial of cert that the USSC offered in 1972.
> 
> Just because you ignore these rulings doesn't mean that the lower courts are obligated to do so as well.
Click to expand...


read the 6ths opinion on Baker and you will see you are wrong. 

As I have said before, I believe Lawrence is more to do with issue of privacy, so irrelevant to the argument.

Romer is indecipherable,,,just a garbled collection of words.   It opens with a quote that should be more applicable to the dissents.....it is garbage. 

Windsor actually in a way agrees with Baker.    no substantial federal question. 

I must say my worries about further legal ramifications from the idiocies of Obergefell, Windsor, and the prop8 ruling, have been somewhat mollified by the results of Arizona leg v. Arizona independent commission.   That however is only due to the hypocrisy of the majority in both...the same 5 I believe. 

Thomas outlines this well in his dissent in Arizona.  He gets standing wrong again, but is right on the hypocrisy.

Sotomayer gets standing right in her partial, prop 8 case dissent.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because 'what you believe'has no relevance to case law, precedent or any ruling.
> 
> And of course, because there was far more relevant, immediate precedent that actually had specific findings to guide decisions. Romer, Lawrence and Windsor collectively representing over a hundred pages of binding precedent. Baker was a single sentence formalizing a denial of writ of cert in accordance with federal law at the time. The USSC does this a hundred times a session now with no particular legal relevance.
> 
> Actual rulings provide orders of magnitude more guidance for lower court rulings than a formal denial of cert. And with each of the rulings being more relevant as they are more recent. And thus establish a legal foundation that didn't exist at the time of Baker.
> 
> And because Windsor utterly telegraphed the court's interpretation of the right to same sex marriage. Even those in dissent recognized the clarity of Windsor in communicating the court's views and intentions. With Scalia calling the court's view on same sex marriage bans 'beyond mistaking'. And concluding that the application of the logic of Windsor to overturn state same sex marriage bans 'inevitable'.
> 
> The lower court found Windsor equally compelling with almost universal consensus. Something like 46 of 49 rulings aligned with this interpretation of Windsor. An interpretation which was affirmed as the correct one by the high court in Obergefell.
> 
> You ignore the impact of Romer and Lawerence and discount the clarity of Windsor. The lower courts didn't. Even those in dissent of Windsor didn't. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you were wrong to do so.
> 
> I'm sure you haven't read Scalia's dissent in Windsor and have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Baker was a single sentence"
> 
> Man, could you learn from Baker
> 
> all the tortured rationalization since has not changed what that simple single sentence implied.....no substantial federal question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was 1972!! Only the most desperate bigot are still talking about it. Oberegfell overturned Baker. It was the last nail in the coffin of a case that was all but dead already. To cling to Baker at this late date is as pathetic as it gets
> 
> Get the fuck over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh fuck off, I'm not a bigot
> 
> you know,  most winners are content to let the loser fume in silence.....
> 
> I suspect you now realize that there really are no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that you haven't read it. If you did, you  would know how ridiculous that statement is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a stupid, childish reply.    I have read most of it
Click to expand...


A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true"  type of juvenile horseshit,


----------



## koshergrl

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Baker was a single sentence"
> 
> Man, could you learn from Baker
> 
> all the tortured rationalization since has not changed what that simple single sentence implied.....no substantial federal question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was 1972!! Only the most desperate bigot are still talking about it. Oberegfell overturned Baker. It was the last nail in the coffin of a case that was all but dead already. To cling to Baker at this late date is as pathetic as it gets
> 
> Get the fuck over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh fuck off, I'm not a bigot
> 
> you know,  most winners are content to let the loser fume in silence.....
> 
> I suspect you now realize that there really are no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that you haven't read it. If you did, you  would know how ridiculous that statement is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a stupid, childish reply.    I have read most of it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true"  type of juvenile horseshit,
Click to expand...

He did back it up. You are incapable of understanding, but that's not a reflection on him.


----------



## ABikerSailor

I predict she's gonna be back in jail within 3 days of returning to work.

And.................if she goes back, she should be held there until she steps down from her position.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

koshergrl said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was 1972!! Only the most desperate bigot are still talking about it. Oberegfell overturned Baker. It was the last nail in the coffin of a case that was all but dead already. To cling to Baker at this late date is as pathetic as it gets
> 
> Get the fuck over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh fuck off, I'm not a bigot
> 
> you know,  most winners are content to let the loser fume in silence.....
> 
> I suspect you now realize that there really are no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that you haven't read it. If you did, you  would know how ridiculous that statement is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a stupid, childish reply.    I have read most of it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true"  type of juvenile horseshit,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He did back it up. You are incapable of understanding, but that's not a reflection on him.
Click to expand...


care to show us where??


----------



## asaratis

Vandalshandle said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you missed the point too.  God forgives all sin.  Kim doesn't need YOUR forgiveness at all.  I doubt she expects it.  So your lack of forgiveness is meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..and yet, you posted the above words in bold.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I did.  And that does not mean that I don't forgive hedonist Hollywood celebrities for multiple marriages.  What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing in particular, other than to point out that, like so many other RW folks, you see no irony in posting one thing, and doing a 180 degree turn on the next post, which is exactly what you did. I find it amusing. Kind of like screaming that something Obama did is unconstitutional, while maintaining that the SC has acted unconstitutionally, when outlawing gay marriage prohibitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please describe the '180 degree turn' you say I made.  At least give the two post numbers between which you claim it occurred.
> 
> I'll be waiting....in the wings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is really no point. you are blind to your own hypocrisy, and there is nothing I can do about it.
Click to expand...

So you lied to the readers when you said I did  180.

You should stick to using facts regarding what I said or didn't say in a post.

A good debater doesn't have to lie to win a point.  I know it's very comforting for you bed-wetters to compliment each other after misrepresenting what someone else said that may have been construed as being against your cause.  It is expected.  After all, small minded people gotta stick together.

BTW, what do you want to be when you grow fucking up?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

> The Kim Davis ordeal reveals a frightening truth about a desperate, radicalized Christian right   The Kim Davis ordeal reveals a frightening truth about a desperate, radicalized Christian right
> 
> The saga of Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who went to jail for a weekend rather than sign off on same-sex marriage certificates, might seem like it’s a last gasp for the anti-gay right; an attempt to eke out some kind of victory after having lost their two-decade fight against same-sex marriage.





> Unfortunately, though, Davis’s behavior isn’t just a bratty tantrum. *This whole incident is also a sign of a troubling development in the religious right: As their cultural power declines in the face of growing diversity and liberalism, religious conservatives are embracing scary levels of radicalism*. They don’t have the numbers anymore, so they are turning to scarier and more radical demands to seize power in any way that they can.





> ......she’s being used by her legal team and other religious right leaders to spread the idea that *religious conservatives are entitled to ignore — or even overthrow* — democracy and seize power just because they feel like it.





> Some supporters, like *Ryan Anderson of the New York Times, are claiming that Davis wants an “accommodation” for her religious beliefs. This is, to put it bluntly, a lie.* Davis was offered just such an accommodation and told that she doesn’t have to personally issue the licenses so long as her deputies were allowed to do so. She declined that compromise, insisting that she be able to actually prevent same-sex couples from getting licenses in her county altogether.





> It’s not just her, either. Rena Lindevaldsen, who works for the Liberty Counsel that is handling Davis’s case, has taken to boldly arguing that *Christians have the right to overthrow the democratically elected government and simply impose their will by fiat.* “Whether it’s zoning or taxes or marriage or abortion, in those issues, government doesn’t have authority to say that these things are appropriate because they’re contrary to Scripture,” Lindevaldsen recently argued in front of Liberty University.





> Some religious right leaders are, in fact, making noises that sound very much like justifying the use of violent force in order to overturn the social progress brought upon the U.S. from the democratic system. “No one should want it and no one, myself included, does want it,” conservative pundit Erick Erickson argued in an op-ed about the Davis case. *“But how much longer until we have another civil war*?”


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Baker was a single sentence"
> 
> Man, could you learn from Baker
> 
> all the tortured rationalization since has not changed what that simple single sentence implied.....no substantial federal question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was 1972!! Only the most desperate bigot are still talking about it. Oberegfell overturned Baker. It was the last nail in the coffin of a case that was all but dead already. To cling to Baker at this late date is as pathetic as it gets
> 
> Get the fuck over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh fuck off, I'm not a bigot
> 
> you know,  most winners are content to let the loser fume in silence.....
> 
> I suspect you now realize that there really are no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that you haven't read it. If you did, you  would know how ridiculous that statement is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a stupid, childish reply.    I have read most of it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true"  type of juvenile horseshit,
Click to expand...


gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.

now, you have added nothing to the argument for quite a while....I dont suspect I'll reply to further postings by you.


----------



## Seawytch

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was 1972!! Only the most desperate bigot are still talking about it. Oberegfell overturned Baker. It was the last nail in the coffin of a case that was all but dead already. To cling to Baker at this late date is as pathetic as it gets
> 
> Get the fuck over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh fuck off, I'm not a bigot
> 
> you know,  most winners are content to let the loser fume in silence.....
> 
> I suspect you now realize that there really are no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that you haven't read it. If you did, you  would know how ridiculous that statement is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a stupid, childish reply.    I have read most of it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true"  type of juvenile horseshit,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.
> 
> now, you have added nothing to the argument for quite a while....I dont suspect I'll reply to further postings by you.
Click to expand...


The majority cited both the "legal and logical underpinnings" in their majority decision.

_Holding
The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Baker v. Nelson overturned._

The 14th Amendment is your "legal and logical underpinnings"


----------



## Vandalshandle

asaratis said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..and yet, you posted the above words in bold.....
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I did.  And that does not mean that I don't forgive hedonist Hollywood celebrities for multiple marriages.  What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing in particular, other than to point out that, like so many other RW folks, you see no irony in posting one thing, and doing a 180 degree turn on the next post, which is exactly what you did. I find it amusing. Kind of like screaming that something Obama did is unconstitutional, while maintaining that the SC has acted unconstitutionally, when outlawing gay marriage prohibitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please describe the '180 degree turn' you say I made.  At least give the two post numbers between which you claim it occurred.
> 
> I'll be waiting....in the wings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is really no point. you are blind to your own hypocrisy, and there is nothing I can do about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you lied to the readers when you said I did  180.
> 
> You should stick to using facts regarding what I said or didn't say in a post.
> 
> A good debater doesn't have to lie to win a point.  I know it's very comforting for you bed-wetters to compliment each other after misrepresenting what someone else said that may have been construed as being against your cause.  It is expected.  After all, small minded people gotta stick together.
> 
> BTW, what do you want to be when you grow fucking up?
Click to expand...


Look, Asarat. First you whined that liberals would forgive hollywood celebrities for multiple marriages before we would forgive a homely woman of god. Then I asked you if Kim needs liberals' forgiveness. Then you replied that I missed the point. She doesn't need our forgiveness. Then, I said, that you are now doing a 180 turn by saying that your previous whining about liberals not forgiving Kim doesn't even matter, since only god's forgiveness. matters.

So, Asarat, THAT is your 180 degree turn. First, we are terrible for not forgiving her, and then we don't understand that it doesn't matter if we don't forgive her. Now, Please try to stay up. There may be a pop quiz at any time. Also, there are many conservatives in the remedial logic classes, here, and I can not spend all my time tutoring only you.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was 1972!! Only the most desperate bigot are still talking about it. Oberegfell overturned Baker. It was the last nail in the coffin of a case that was all but dead already. To cling to Baker at this late date is as pathetic as it gets
> 
> Get the fuck over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh fuck off, I'm not a bigot
> 
> you know,  most winners are content to let the loser fume in silence.....
> 
> I suspect you now realize that there really are no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that you haven't read it. If you did, you  would know how ridiculous that statement is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a stupid, childish reply.    I have read most of it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true"  type of juvenile horseshit,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.
> 
> now, you have added nothing to the argument for quite a while....I dont suspect I'll reply to further postings by you.
Click to expand...


First of all, the fact that Kegan and Ginsberg presided over same sex wedding in no way proves that they disregarded the law. That is just a logical fallacy in the form of a false and unwarranted assumption.

Second of all, listen to the ranting of Scalia:



> Scalia's dissent in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, which officially made marriage equality the law of the land, runs for eight pages, but amounts largely to a big, arms-crossed "harumph." Antonin Scalia Dissent In Marriage Equality Case Is Even More Unhinged Than You'd Think
> 
> "I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy," he begins.



He does not believe in the authority of the Supreme Court



> Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best."



And...



> No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its 'reasoned judgment,' thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect."



Where are his "legal underpinnings? He is just ranting .......and this....



> Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie."



I have to wonder what his marriage is  like. Thomas' dissent was even more bizarre:




> Clarence Thomas invokes comparison to slavery in raging gay-marriage dissent
> Clarence Thomas dissent in gay-marriage case - Business Insider
> 
> The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government.* Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved.* Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.



Roberts dissent was more measured and less hysterical but  focused on the "democratic process" as  though an issue of civil rights should be left to the people and as though nation wide same sex marriage would have ever come about in most of our lifetimes had it been left to the people.


----------



## Skylar

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was 1972!! Only the most desperate bigot are still talking about it. Oberegfell overturned Baker. It was the last nail in the coffin of a case that was all but dead already. To cling to Baker at this late date is as pathetic as it gets
> 
> Get the fuck over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh fuck off, I'm not a bigot
> 
> you know,  most winners are content to let the loser fume in silence.....
> 
> I suspect you now realize that there really are no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that you haven't read it. If you did, you  would know how ridiculous that statement is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a stupid, childish reply.    I have read most of it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true"  type of juvenile horseshit,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.
Click to expand...


Who says that the 2 justices 'could care less what the law said'? Both Ginsberg and Kagan performed same sex marriages where same sex marriage had been voted in legislatively. Something that the Windsor decision found that the States had every power to do. 

If they'd performed same sex marriages where same sex marriage was NOT legal, you might have a point. But performing a same sex marriage where it WAS legal is perfectly in accordance with existing precedent at the time. And acting in accordance with precedent isn't telegraphing that they 'could care less what the law said'.

Their actions were in perfect accordance with the law.


----------



## dcraelin

Skylar said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh fuck off, I'm not a bigot
> 
> you know,  most winners are content to let the loser fume in silence.....
> 
> I suspect you now realize that there really are no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that you haven't read it. If you did, you  would know how ridiculous that statement is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a stupid, childish reply.    I have read most of it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true"  type of juvenile horseshit,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who says that the 2 justices 'could care less what the law said'? Both Ginsberg and Kagan performed same sex marriages where same sex marriage had been voted in legislatively. Something that the Windsor decision found that the States had every power to do.
> 
> If they'd performed same sex marriages where same sex marriage was NOT legal, you might have a point. But performing a same sex marriage where it WAS legal is perfectly in accordance with existing precedent at the time. And acting in accordance with precedent isn't telegraphing that they 'could care less what the law said'.
> 
> Their actions were in perfect accordance with the law.
Click to expand...


was it or was it not, a federal question?,....a substantial federal question? ....you cant have it both ways...... I _can however....because I say regardless it was an issue before the court.............no it probably wasnt illegal.......but it showed poor form, unbecoming of a judge. _


----------



## Skylar

dcraelin said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, its a clear demonstration that you don't know what you're talking about. You're insisting that the lower courts were bound to Baker, when they weren't.
> 
> The lower court rulings overwhelmingly relied on more recent precedent, most relevantly tghe the precedent of Windsor. With its communication of the court's position on same sex marriage so clearly that even Scalia said it was 'beyond mistaking' and  that the State same sex marriage bans being overturned using the logic of Windsor was 'inevitable.'
> 
> Scalia and the lower courts were right on how to interpret the Windsor ruling: the USSC did affirm same sex marriage and did overturn state marriage bans. The lower courts got it right. With the exception of the 6th which the USSC reviewed and overturned.
> 
> Your position that the lower courts should have ignored Windsor, Lawrence and Romer in favor of Baker was wrong. As the USSC demonstrated so elegantly in Obergefell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont believe Windsor itself said it overruled Baker....so why should the lower courts assume it did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because 'what you believe'has no relevance to case law, precedent or any ruling.
> 
> And of course, because there was far more relevant, immediate precedent that actually had specific findings to guide decisions. Romer, Lawrence and Windsor collectively representing over a hundred pages of binding precedent. Baker was a single sentence formalizing a denial of writ of cert in accordance with federal law at the time. The USSC does this a hundred times a session now with no particular legal relevance.
> 
> Actual rulings provide orders of magnitude more guidance for lower court rulings than a formal denial of cert. And with each of the rulings being more relevant as they are more recent. And thus establish a legal foundation that didn't exist at the time of Baker.
> 
> And because Windsor utterly telegraphed the court's interpretation of the right to same sex marriage. Even those in dissent recognized the clarity of Windsor in communicating the court's views and intentions. With Scalia calling the court's view on same sex marriage bans 'beyond mistaking'. And concluding that the application of the logic of Windsor to overturn state same sex marriage bans 'inevitable'.
> 
> The lower court found Windsor equally compelling with almost universal consensus. Something like 46 of 49 rulings aligned with this interpretation of Windsor. An interpretation which was affirmed as the correct one by the high court in Obergefell.
> 
> You ignore the impact of Romer and Lawerence and discount the clarity of Windsor. The lower courts didn't. Even those in dissent of Windsor didn't. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you were wrong to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It dealt with a side issue...............who had the power on wedding policy...and really in a way affirmed Baker by saying it was the states.....i.e. want of federal question.   I am sure you are misreading Scalia.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you haven't read Scalia's dissent in Windsor and have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Baker was a single sentence"
> 
> Man, could you learn from Baker
> 
> all the tortured rationalization since has not changed what that simple single sentence implied.....no substantial federal question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by 'tortured rationalizations', you mean simply NOT ignoring Lawerence v. Texas, Romer v. Evans and Windsor v US as you have done?
> 
> Remember, you haven't actually presented any rational reason why to ignore any of these rulings. They are all relevant. They are all binding precedent. They are all much more recent than the one sentence denial of cert that the USSC offered in 1972.
> 
> Just because you ignore these rulings doesn't mean that the lower courts are obligated to do so as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> read the 6ths opinion on Baker and you will see you are wrong.
Click to expand...


The opinion of the 6th was overturned by the Supreme Court. Read their ruling to see why you were wrong.

And of course,_ every other _Circuit Court district to rule on the matter contradicted the 6th. Demonstrating that the overwhelming majority of lower court rulings contradict you and that the Supreme Court contradicts you. And as Scalia's dissent (which you still haven't read) as well as almost all lower court rulings within the Circuit Court Districts demonstrate, the court clearly communicated its stance on state same sex marriage marriage bans in Windsor. With Obergefell confirming the same after these rulings.

Its not that they are all wrong. Its that you are.



> As I have said before, I believe Lawrence is more to do with issue of privacy, so irrelevant to the argument.



I get that you believe that. But your belief neither defines the ruling nor any lower court ruling that uses it. None of the lower courts based their rulings on you belief nor were aware of it at the time of their rulings. Making your belief pristintely irrelevant to any discussion of any ruling.

Second, Lawrence was about more than merely privacy. It was about constitutional protections for personal decisions. Which the court explicitly indicated included marriage:



> "The _Casey_ decision again confirmed
> 
> [574]
> 
> that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. _Id._, at 851. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:
> 
> "These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State." Ibid.
> 
> Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do. The decision in_Bowers_ would deny them this right."
> 
> Lawrence  v. Texas



Lawrence laid the constitutional framework for the protection of homosexuals in choices central to personal dignity and autonomy. Including marriage. Which is far more than merely 'privacy'. You simply ignore the portions of Lawrence that don't conform to your opinion.

Neither we nor any lower court is similarly obligated to ignore what you do.



> Romer is indecipherable,,,just a garbled collection of words.   It opens with a quote that should be more applicable to the dissents.....it is garbage.



Nope. Romer is quite clear:



> We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.
> 
> Romer v. Evans



That you can neither decipher nor comprehend such statements doesn't change the fact that pretty much every lower court could. As can almost every native speaker of English.

You summarily ignoring Romer because you didn't like the opening quote or didn't understand the ruling doesn't change a thing about its status as binding precedent. Or its relevance in any court ruling involving the rights of gays and lesbians that came after it.



> Windsor actually in a way agrees with Baker.    no substantial federal question.



Windsor doesn't agree with Baker. As it indicates that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. It also established, in elaborate detail, the very real harms that same sex couples and their children were subject to by denial of marriage rights. And how the denial of marriage rights infringes upon the dignity of same sex couples. Windsor never finds that there is 'no substantial federal question'. But in fact finds that DOMA violates the federal constitution.

And of course the court communicates its position on same sex marriage so clearly in the Windsor decision that virtually every lower court to rule on same sex marriage after Windsor ruled against same sex marriage bans. Even Scalia found the court's communication of its opinion on the topic 'beyond mistaking':



> In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.
> 
> Justice Scalia in dissent of Windsor v. US.



'Beyond Mistaking' and 'Inevitable' aren't subtle interpretations of the clarity of Windsor's take on state same sex marriage bans. You insist that any judge who similarly came to this conclusion after reading Windsor was 'lazy'. I (and Scalia) argue that Windsor communicated its message on state same sex marriage bans clearly. A position that almost all lower court rulings came to. An argument that the Obergefell decision obviously affirms.

Yet bizarrely, and in defiance of all reason......you insist that every lower court should have discounted Romer, Lawrence and Windsor, and instead based their rulings solely on a once sentence denial of a cert from 1972?

Um, no. That's simple nonsense. As the Obergefell ruling demonstrates elegantly.


----------



## dcraelin

Seawytch said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh fuck off, I'm not a bigot
> 
> you know,  most winners are content to let the loser fume in silence.....
> 
> I suspect you now realize that there really are no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that you haven't read it. If you did, you  would know how ridiculous that statement is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a stupid, childish reply.    I have read most of it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true"  type of juvenile horseshit,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.
> 
> now, you have added nothing to the argument for quite a while....I dont suspect I'll reply to further postings by you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The majority cited both the "legal and logical underpinnings" in their majority decision.
> 
> _Holding
> The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Baker v. Nelson overturned._
> 
> The 14th Amendment is your "legal and logical underpinnings"
Click to expand...


I have argued this to death.............but to begin with the 14th wasnt legally passed, it was coerced., second it dealt with race and former slaves, as evidenced by common sense and the fact that women couldnt use it to get the right to vote. 3rd some of these cases have come to the courts through ex parti Young...a corrupt bit of federal court BS in itself. and on and on


----------



## Skylar

dcraelin said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that you haven't read it. If you did, you  would know how ridiculous that statement is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid, childish reply.    I have read most of it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true"  type of juvenile horseshit,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who says that the 2 justices 'could care less what the law said'? Both Ginsberg and Kagan performed same sex marriages where same sex marriage had been voted in legislatively. Something that the Windsor decision found that the States had every power to do.
> 
> If they'd performed same sex marriages where same sex marriage was NOT legal, you might have a point. But performing a same sex marriage where it WAS legal is perfectly in accordance with existing precedent at the time. And acting in accordance with precedent isn't telegraphing that they 'could care less what the law said'.
> 
> Their actions were in perfect accordance with the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> was it or was it not, a federal question?
Click to expand...


That same sex marriages could be performed in states that voted in same sex marriage? That wasn't a question before the court in Obergefell. Windsor had already ruled that the States could include same sex marriage if they wished.

Making Kagan and Ginsberg's actions in accordance with both legal precedent and local laws. And flushing your argument that performing such marriages telegraphed that they 'could care less what the law said'.


----------



## Skylar

dcraelin said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that you haven't read it. If you did, you  would know how ridiculous that statement is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid, childish reply.    I have read most of it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true"  type of juvenile horseshit,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.
> 
> now, you have added nothing to the argument for quite a while....I dont suspect I'll reply to further postings by you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The majority cited both the "legal and logical underpinnings" in their majority decision.
> 
> _Holding
> The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Baker v. Nelson overturned._
> 
> The 14th Amendment is your "legal and logical underpinnings"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have argued this to death.............but to begin with the 14th wasnt legally passed, it was coerced.
Click to expand...


Says you. Our systems of laws says otherwise. Again, we don't base the validity of an amendment's passage on your personal opinion. Making your opinion on the matter legally irrelevant.

Worse, the 14th amendment was passed in the same manner as the 13th. Does that mean you that you don't believe slavery was forbidden in the US? And since the children of slaves were the property of the owners of their parents, are you arguing that most black folks in the US are still owned property?

If not, why not?



> , second it dealt with race and former slaves, as evidenced by common sense and the fact that women couldnt use it to get the right to vote. 3rd some of these cases have come to the courts through ex parti Young...a corrupt bit of federal court BS in itself. and on and on



The 14th amendment never limits itself to race. But instead applies to 'all people'. And applied to 'citizens of the United States'.  The word 'race' never even appears in the 14th amendment. With the only mention of slaves being in reference to the public debt.

We're clear on your opinion. Its simply poorly founded.


----------



## dcraelin

Skylar said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont believe Windsor itself said it overruled Baker....so why should the lower courts assume it did?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because 'what you believe'has no relevance to case law, precedent or any ruling.
> 
> And of course, because there was far more relevant, immediate precedent that actually had specific findings to guide decisions. Romer, Lawrence and Windsor collectively representing over a hundred pages of binding precedent. Baker was a single sentence formalizing a denial of writ of cert in accordance with federal law at the time. The USSC does this a hundred times a session now with no particular legal relevance.
> 
> Actual rulings provide orders of magnitude more guidance for lower court rulings than a formal denial of cert. And with each of the rulings being more relevant as they are more recent. And thus establish a legal foundation that didn't exist at the time of Baker.
> 
> And because Windsor utterly telegraphed the court's interpretation of the right to same sex marriage. Even those in dissent recognized the clarity of Windsor in communicating the court's views and intentions. With Scalia calling the court's view on same sex marriage bans 'beyond mistaking'. And concluding that the application of the logic of Windsor to overturn state same sex marriage bans 'inevitable'.
> 
> The lower court found Windsor equally compelling with almost universal consensus. Something like 46 of 49 rulings aligned with this interpretation of Windsor. An interpretation which was affirmed as the correct one by the high court in Obergefell.
> 
> You ignore the impact of Romer and Lawerence and discount the clarity of Windsor. The lower courts didn't. Even those in dissent of Windsor didn't. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you were wrong to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It dealt with a side issue...............who had the power on wedding policy...and really in a way affirmed Baker by saying it was the states.....i.e. want of federal question.   I am sure you are misreading Scalia.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you haven't read Scalia's dissent in Windsor and have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Baker was a single sentence"
> 
> Man, could you learn from Baker
> 
> all the tortured rationalization since has not changed what that simple single sentence implied.....no substantial federal question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by 'tortured rationalizations', you mean simply NOT ignoring Lawerence v. Texas, Romer v. Evans and Windsor v US as you have done?
> 
> Remember, you haven't actually presented any rational reason why to ignore any of these rulings. They are all relevant. They are all binding precedent. They are all much more recent than the one sentence denial of cert that the USSC offered in 1972.
> 
> Just because you ignore these rulings doesn't mean that the lower courts are obligated to do so as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> read the 6ths opinion on Baker and you will see you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The opinion of the 6th was overturned by the Supreme Court. Read their ruling to see why you were wrong.
> 
> And of course,_ every other _Circuit Court district to rule on the matter contradicted the 6th. Demonstrating that the overwhelming majority of lower court rulings contradict you and that the Supreme Court contradicts you. And as Scalia's dissent (which you still haven't read) as well as almost all lower court rulings within the Circuit Court Districts demonstrate, the court clearly communicated its stance on state same sex marriage marriage bans in Windsor. With Obergefell confirming the same after these rulings.
> 
> Its not that they are all wrong. Its that you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have said before, I believe Lawrence is more to do with issue of privacy, so irrelevant to the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get that you believe that. But your belief neither defines the ruling nor any lower court ruling that uses it. None of the lower courts based their rulings on you belief nor were aware of it at the time of their rulings. Making your belief pristintely irrelevant to any discussion of any ruling.
> 
> Second, Lawrence was about more than merely privacy. It was about constitutional protections for personal decisions. Which the court explicitly indicated included marriage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The _Casey_ decision again confirmed
> 
> [574]
> 
> that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. _Id._, at 851. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:
> 
> "These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State." Ibid.
> 
> Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do. The decision in_Bowers_ would deny them this right."
> 
> Lawrence  v. Texas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lawrence laid the constitutional framework for the protection of homosexuals in choices central to personal dignity and autonomy. Including marriage. Which is far more than merely 'privacy'. You simply ignore the portions of Lawrence that don't conform to your opinion.
> 
> Neither we nor any lower court is similarly obligated to ignore what you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romer is indecipherable,,,just a garbled collection of words.   It opens with a quote that should be more applicable to the dissents.....it is garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Romer is quite clear:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.
> 
> Romer v. Evans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you can neither decipher nor comprehend such statements doesn't change the fact that pretty much every lower court could. As can almost every native speaker of English.
> 
> You summarily ignoring Romer because you didn't like the opening quote or didn't understand the ruling doesn't change a thing about its status as binding precedent. Or its relevance in any court ruling involving the rights of gays and lesbians that came after it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windsor actually in a way agrees with Baker.    no substantial federal question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Windsor doesn't agree with Baker. As it indicates that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. It also established, in elaborate detail, the very real harms that same sex couples and their children were subject to by denial of marriage rights. And how the denial of marriage rights infringes upon the dignity of same sex couples. Windsor never finds that there is 'no substantial federal question'. But in fact finds that DOMA violates the federal constitution.
> 
> And of course the court communicates its position on same sex marriage so clearly in the Windsor decision that virtually every lower court to rule on same sex marriage after Windsor ruled against same sex marriage bans. Even Scalia found the court's communication of its opinion on the topic 'beyond mistaking':
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.
> 
> Justice Scalia in dissent of Windsor v. US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Beyond Mistaking' and 'Inevitable' aren't subtle interpretations of the clarity of Windsor's take on state same sex marriage bans. You insist that any judge who similarly came to this conclusion after reading Windsor was 'lazy'. I (and Scalia) argue that Windsor communicated its message on state same sex marriage bans clearly. A position that almost all lower court rulings came to. An argument that the Obergefell decision obviously affirms.
> 
> Yet bizarrely, and in defiance of all reason......you insist that every lower court should have discounted Romer, Lawrence and Windsor, and instead based their rulings solely on a once sentence denial of a cert from 1972?
> 
> Um, no. That's simple nonsense. As the Obergefell ruling demonstrates elegantly.
Click to expand...


like I said before...you could use a lesson in clarity and BREVITY from Baker!!!

you said "And of course the court communicates its position on same sex marriage so clearly in the Windsor decision that virtually every lower court to rule on same sex marriage after Windsor ruled against same sex marriage bans."

NO one really believes it was Windsors clarity or logic etc. that was the reason lower courts ruled as they did ( except Sutton's opinion in the 6th which was well reasoned) It was merely the emotional position of the lower courts, as shown by the Valentine's Day opinion......They may have been given some clarity on the SCs positon though by the gay-wedding presiding of Ginsberg and Kagan.


----------



## dcraelin

Skylar said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid, childish reply.    I have read most of it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true"  type of juvenile horseshit,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.
> 
> now, you have added nothing to the argument for quite a while....I dont suspect I'll reply to further postings by you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The majority cited both the "legal and logical underpinnings" in their majority decision.
> 
> _Holding
> The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Baker v. Nelson overturned._
> 
> The 14th Amendment is your "legal and logical underpinnings"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have argued this to death.............but to begin with the 14th wasnt legally passed, it was coerced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you. Our systems of laws says otherwise. Again, we don't base the validity of an amendment's passage on your personal opinion. Making your opinion on the matter legally irrelevant.
> 
> Worse, the 14th amendment was passed in the same manner as the 13th. Does that mean you that you don't believe slavery was forbidden in the US? And since the children of slaves were the property of the owners of their parents, are you arguing that most black folks in the US are still owned property?
> 
> If not, why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , second it dealt with race and former slaves, as evidenced by common sense and the fact that women couldnt use it to get the right to vote. 3rd some of these cases have come to the courts through ex parti Young...a corrupt bit of federal court BS in itself. and on and on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment never limits itself to race. But instead applies to 'all people'. And applied to 'citizens of the United States'.  The word 'race' never even appears in the 14th amendment. With the only mention of slaves being in reference to the public debt.
> 
> We're clear on your opinion. Its simply poorly founded.
Click to expand...


the 14th was not passed in the same manner as the 13th...the 14th was voted against initially and some states had to "reconsider"

It is common sense who the 14th applied to.  Why werent women included then???? if you are right.

I've argued all this with you before......it is apparent you have enough doubts yourself that you feel you have to keep making the same old points again and again....

I urge others who may not have their minds made up by a bias on the question to read Sutton's opinion out of the 6th circuit...he covers far more ground than the other lower court opinions.

read Thomas''s dissent in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission to see the hypocrisy of the 5 justices who ruled in obergefell and then turned around and affirmed democracy (thankfully) in Arizona.

and then I have some good to say for Sotomayer, her partial dissent in the prop 8 case (name?) shows her to be partially on the right path and the dignity she showed in not presiding over a gay wedding in the run-up to these cases shows the proper decorum for a judge.


----------



## Skylar

dcraelin said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because 'what you believe'has no relevance to case law, precedent or any ruling.
> 
> And of course, because there was far more relevant, immediate precedent that actually had specific findings to guide decisions. Romer, Lawrence and Windsor collectively representing over a hundred pages of binding precedent. Baker was a single sentence formalizing a denial of writ of cert in accordance with federal law at the time. The USSC does this a hundred times a session now with no particular legal relevance.
> 
> Actual rulings provide orders of magnitude more guidance for lower court rulings than a formal denial of cert. And with each of the rulings being more relevant as they are more recent. And thus establish a legal foundation that didn't exist at the time of Baker.
> 
> And because Windsor utterly telegraphed the court's interpretation of the right to same sex marriage. Even those in dissent recognized the clarity of Windsor in communicating the court's views and intentions. With Scalia calling the court's view on same sex marriage bans 'beyond mistaking'. And concluding that the application of the logic of Windsor to overturn state same sex marriage bans 'inevitable'.
> 
> The lower court found Windsor equally compelling with almost universal consensus. Something like 46 of 49 rulings aligned with this interpretation of Windsor. An interpretation which was affirmed as the correct one by the high court in Obergefell.
> 
> You ignore the impact of Romer and Lawerence and discount the clarity of Windsor. The lower courts didn't. Even those in dissent of Windsor didn't. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you were wrong to do so.
> 
> I'm sure you haven't read Scalia's dissent in Windsor and have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Baker was a single sentence"
> 
> Man, could you learn from Baker
> 
> all the tortured rationalization since has not changed what that simple single sentence implied.....no substantial federal question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by 'tortured rationalizations', you mean simply NOT ignoring Lawerence v. Texas, Romer v. Evans and Windsor v US as you have done?
> 
> Remember, you haven't actually presented any rational reason why to ignore any of these rulings. They are all relevant. They are all binding precedent. They are all much more recent than the one sentence denial of cert that the USSC offered in 1972.
> 
> Just because you ignore these rulings doesn't mean that the lower courts are obligated to do so as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> read the 6ths opinion on Baker and you will see you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The opinion of the 6th was overturned by the Supreme Court. Read their ruling to see why you were wrong.
> 
> And of course,_ every other _Circuit Court district to rule on the matter contradicted the 6th. Demonstrating that the overwhelming majority of lower court rulings contradict you and that the Supreme Court contradicts you. And as Scalia's dissent (which you still haven't read) as well as almost all lower court rulings within the Circuit Court Districts demonstrate, the court clearly communicated its stance on state same sex marriage marriage bans in Windsor. With Obergefell confirming the same after these rulings.
> 
> Its not that they are all wrong. Its that you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have said before, I believe Lawrence is more to do with issue of privacy, so irrelevant to the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get that you believe that. But your belief neither defines the ruling nor any lower court ruling that uses it. None of the lower courts based their rulings on you belief nor were aware of it at the time of their rulings. Making your belief pristintely irrelevant to any discussion of any ruling.
> 
> Second, Lawrence was about more than merely privacy. It was about constitutional protections for personal decisions. Which the court explicitly indicated included marriage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The _Casey_ decision again confirmed
> 
> [574]
> 
> that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. _Id._, at 851. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:
> 
> "These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State." Ibid.
> 
> Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do. The decision in_Bowers_ would deny them this right."
> 
> Lawrence  v. Texas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lawrence laid the constitutional framework for the protection of homosexuals in choices central to personal dignity and autonomy. Including marriage. Which is far more than merely 'privacy'. You simply ignore the portions of Lawrence that don't conform to your opinion.
> 
> Neither we nor any lower court is similarly obligated to ignore what you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romer is indecipherable,,,just a garbled collection of words.   It opens with a quote that should be more applicable to the dissents.....it is garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Romer is quite clear:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.
> 
> Romer v. Evans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you can neither decipher nor comprehend such statements doesn't change the fact that pretty much every lower court could. As can almost every native speaker of English.
> 
> You summarily ignoring Romer because you didn't like the opening quote or didn't understand the ruling doesn't change a thing about its status as binding precedent. Or its relevance in any court ruling involving the rights of gays and lesbians that came after it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windsor actually in a way agrees with Baker.    no substantial federal question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Windsor doesn't agree with Baker. As it indicates that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. It also established, in elaborate detail, the very real harms that same sex couples and their children were subject to by denial of marriage rights. And how the denial of marriage rights infringes upon the dignity of same sex couples. Windsor never finds that there is 'no substantial federal question'. But in fact finds that DOMA violates the federal constitution.
> 
> And of course the court communicates its position on same sex marriage so clearly in the Windsor decision that virtually every lower court to rule on same sex marriage after Windsor ruled against same sex marriage bans. Even Scalia found the court's communication of its opinion on the topic 'beyond mistaking':
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.
> 
> Justice Scalia in dissent of Windsor v. US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Beyond Mistaking' and 'Inevitable' aren't subtle interpretations of the clarity of Windsor's take on state same sex marriage bans. You insist that any judge who similarly came to this conclusion after reading Windsor was 'lazy'. I (and Scalia) argue that Windsor communicated its message on state same sex marriage bans clearly. A position that almost all lower court rulings came to. An argument that the Obergefell decision obviously affirms.
> 
> Yet bizarrely, and in defiance of all reason......you insist that every lower court should have discounted Romer, Lawrence and Windsor, and instead based their rulings solely on a once sentence denial of a cert from 1972?
> 
> Um, no. That's simple nonsense. As the Obergefell ruling demonstrates elegantly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> like I said before...you could use a lesson in clarity and BREVITY from Baker!!!
Click to expand...


Or.....you could just stop ignoring the overwhelming binding precedent that contradicts you. Remember, just because your understanding of the issue is one sentence long and 40 years old doesn't mean that Lawrence, Romer and Windsor disappear.

You've been contradicted on Lawrence. It was about far  more than merely privacy but includes protection of homosexuals in choices central to personal dignity and autonomy. Which included marriage. You've been contradicted on Romer. It was quite clear, and explicitly forbids laws targeting homosexuals in the denial of rights. And you've been contradicted on Windsor. It holds that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional protections and lays out the harm caused to same sex couples and their children in denying them marriage.

Given that you won't discuss any of these points, I'll accept that as concession on each.



> you said "And of course the court communicates its position on same sex marriage so clearly in the Windsor decision that virtually every lower court to rule on same sex marriage after Windsor ruled against same sex marriage bans."
> 
> NO one really believes it was Windsors clarity or logic etc. t



Says you, claiming to speak for 'no one'. Which is objectively meaningless.

Windsor's take on state same sex marriage bans was clear. As demonstrated by virtually every lower court ruling on the topic, Scalia's dissent and by the Obergefell ruling itself.

You are simply wrong.



> hat was the reason lower courts ruled as they did ( except Sutton's opinion in the 6th which was well reasoned) It was merely the emotional position of the lower courts, as shown by the Valentine's Day opinion......



Again, your standard of 'well reasoned' is merely agreement with your personal opinion. That's a circular argument. As you base your opinion on only those rulings that agree with your opinion. The obvious problem being....your opinion is legally meaningless. And doesn't form the basis of any ruling, nor establish any legal validity.

Meanwhile, virtually every lower court to rule on the topic contradicted you. As did the Supreme Court itself with the Obergefell ruling. Its not that they are all wrong. Its that you are.



> They may have been given some clarity on the SCs positon though by the gay-wedding presiding of Ginsberg and Kagan.



Or.....by actually reading the ruling. Remember, Ginsberg and Kagan acted in perfect accordance with both precedent and local laws when presiding over legal same sex marriages.

You're insinuating that they did something improper or ignored some law. But you can't actually articulate anything wrong that that they did or show us any law they ignored or violated. You're arguing by insinuation. Which, like basing legal validity on your personal opinion, is meaningless


----------



## Skylar

dcraelin said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true"  type of juvenile horseshit,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.
> 
> now, you have added nothing to the argument for quite a while....I dont suspect I'll reply to further postings by you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The majority cited both the "legal and logical underpinnings" in their majority decision.
> 
> _Holding
> The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Baker v. Nelson overturned._
> 
> The 14th Amendment is your "legal and logical underpinnings"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have argued this to death.............but to begin with the 14th wasnt legally passed, it was coerced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you. Our systems of laws says otherwise. Again, we don't base the validity of an amendment's passage on your personal opinion. Making your opinion on the matter legally irrelevant.
> 
> Worse, the 14th amendment was passed in the same manner as the 13th. Does that mean you that you don't believe slavery was forbidden in the US? And since the children of slaves were the property of the owners of their parents, are you arguing that most black folks in the US are still owned property?
> 
> If not, why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , second it dealt with race and former slaves, as evidenced by common sense and the fact that women couldnt use it to get the right to vote. 3rd some of these cases have come to the courts through ex parti Young...a corrupt bit of federal court BS in itself. and on and on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment never limits itself to race. But instead applies to 'all people'. And applied to 'citizens of the United States'.  The word 'race' never even appears in the 14th amendment. With the only mention of slaves being in reference to the public debt.
> 
> We're clear on your opinion. Its simply poorly founded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the 14th was not passed in the same manner as the 13th...the 14th was voted against initially and some states had to "reconsider"
> 
> It is common sense who the 14th applied to.
Click to expand...


Its 'common sense' that its limited to a group that it doesn't even mention? I don't think common sense means what you think it means.

Your entire argument is again based on uselessly subjective self defined terms. Again, the 14th amendment doesn't even mention the criteria of exclusion you insist it is bound to.



> I've argued all this with you before......it is apparent you have enough doubts yourself that you feel you have to keep making the same old points again and again...



You argued that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to subject the States to the Bill of Rights. You were obviously wrong.

I've quoted Bingham introducing the 14th amendment on the floor of the House explicitly stating that it was to apply the BIll of Rights to the States. I've quoted Howard to you on the Senate Floor introducing the 14th amendment, reading the Bill of Rights amendment by amendment, stating that the applying the Bill or Rights to the States is the purpose of the 14th amendment.

*You ignored them both in favor of what you 'believe'.* And your 'belief' is still just as objectively meaningless now as it was then. On the 14th amendment, Lawrence, Romer, Windsor and Obergefell.

Your entire argument is circular. Where you believe what you believe because you believe it. Enjoy your circle. Its not persuasive.



> I urge others who may not have their minds made up by a bias on the question to read Sutton's opinion out of the 6th circuit...he covers far more ground than the other lower court opinions.



Sutton never argues that the 14th amendment only applies to race. I urge you to come up with a cohesive argument rather than this rambling, self contradictory mess. Where your own sources don't affirm  your claims. And you have to ignore virtually every USSC ruling on the topic for the last 20 years.

Randomly ignoring the Supreme Court isn't a legal argument. Its an excuse for one.


----------



## Debra K

Ms. Davis's counsel has been busy ... filed emergency motion with the 6th Circuit to stay the District Court's "September 3, 2015, Injunction Order" pending appeal (244 pages).

https://assets.documentcloud.org/do...-motion-stay090315injunctionpendingappeal.pdf

See also:  Kentucky Clerk Asks For Order Allowing All Couples To Marry To Be Put On Hold



> In a new request to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Davis’s lawyers took aim Friday at a Sept. 3 ruling from Bunning that expanded the Aug. 12 ruling to include “other individuals who are legally eligible to marry in Kentucky.”


----------



## Skylar

Debra K said:


> Ms. Davis's counsel has been busy ... filed emergency motion with the 6th Circuit to stay the District Court's "September 3, 2015, Injunction Order" pending appeal (244 pages).
> 
> https://assets.documentcloud.org/do...-motion-stay090315injunctionpendingappeal.pdf
> 
> See also:  Kentucky Clerk Asks For Order Allowing All Couples To Marry To Be Put On Hold
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a new request to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Davis’s lawyers took aim Friday at a Sept. 3 ruling from Bunning that expanded the Aug. 12 ruling to include “other individuals who are legally eligible to marry in Kentucky.”
Click to expand...


She's using Dcrealin's legal logic. That she 'feels' that the something wasn't precise. So it should be ignored. 

Lets see how works for her.


----------



## dcraelin

Skylar said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Baker was a single sentence"
> 
> Man, could you learn from Baker
> 
> all the tortured rationalization since has not changed what that simple single sentence implied.....no substantial federal question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And by 'tortured rationalizations', you mean simply NOT ignoring Lawerence v. Texas, Romer v. Evans and Windsor v US as you have done?
> 
> Remember, you haven't actually presented any rational reason why to ignore any of these rulings. They are all relevant. They are all binding precedent. They are all much more recent than the one sentence denial of cert that the USSC offered in 1972.
> 
> Just because you ignore these rulings doesn't mean that the lower courts are obligated to do so as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> read the 6ths opinion on Baker and you will see you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The opinion of the 6th was overturned by the Supreme Court. Read their ruling to see why you were wrong.
> 
> And of course,_ every other _Circuit Court district to rule on the matter contradicted the 6th. Demonstrating that the overwhelming majority of lower court rulings contradict you and that the Supreme Court contradicts you. And as Scalia's dissent (which you still haven't read) as well as almost all lower court rulings within the Circuit Court Districts demonstrate, the court clearly communicated its stance on state same sex marriage marriage bans in Windsor. With Obergefell confirming the same after these rulings.
> 
> Its not that they are all wrong. Its that you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have said before, I believe Lawrence is more to do with issue of privacy, so irrelevant to the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get that you believe that. But your belief neither defines the ruling nor any lower court ruling that uses it. None of the lower courts based their rulings on you belief nor were aware of it at the time of their rulings. Making your belief pristintely irrelevant to any discussion of any ruling.
> 
> Second, Lawrence was about more than merely privacy. It was about constitutional protections for personal decisions. Which the court explicitly indicated included marriage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The _Casey_ decision again confirmed
> 
> [574]
> 
> that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. _Id._, at 851. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:
> 
> "These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State." Ibid.
> 
> Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do. The decision in_Bowers_ would deny them this right."
> 
> Lawrence  v. Texas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lawrence laid the constitutional framework for the protection of homosexuals in choices central to personal dignity and autonomy. Including marriage. Which is far more than merely 'privacy'. You simply ignore the portions of Lawrence that don't conform to your opinion.
> 
> Neither we nor any lower court is similarly obligated to ignore what you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romer is indecipherable,,,just a garbled collection of words.   It opens with a quote that should be more applicable to the dissents.....it is garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Romer is quite clear:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.
> 
> Romer v. Evans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you can neither decipher nor comprehend such statements doesn't change the fact that pretty much every lower court could. As can almost every native speaker of English.
> 
> You summarily ignoring Romer because you didn't like the opening quote or didn't understand the ruling doesn't change a thing about its status as binding precedent. Or its relevance in any court ruling involving the rights of gays and lesbians that came after it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windsor actually in a way agrees with Baker.    no substantial federal question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Windsor doesn't agree with Baker. As it indicates that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. It also established, in elaborate detail, the very real harms that same sex couples and their children were subject to by denial of marriage rights. And how the denial of marriage rights infringes upon the dignity of same sex couples. Windsor never finds that there is 'no substantial federal question'. But in fact finds that DOMA violates the federal constitution.
> 
> And of course the court communicates its position on same sex marriage so clearly in the Windsor decision that virtually every lower court to rule on same sex marriage after Windsor ruled against same sex marriage bans. Even Scalia found the court's communication of its opinion on the topic 'beyond mistaking':
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.
> 
> Justice Scalia in dissent of Windsor v. US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Beyond Mistaking' and 'Inevitable' aren't subtle interpretations of the clarity of Windsor's take on state same sex marriage bans. You insist that any judge who similarly came to this conclusion after reading Windsor was 'lazy'. I (and Scalia) argue that Windsor communicated its message on state same sex marriage bans clearly. A position that almost all lower court rulings came to. An argument that the Obergefell decision obviously affirms.
> 
> Yet bizarrely, and in defiance of all reason......you insist that every lower court should have discounted Romer, Lawrence and Windsor, and instead based their rulings solely on a once sentence denial of a cert from 1972?
> 
> Um, no. That's simple nonsense. As the Obergefell ruling demonstrates elegantly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> like I said before...you could use a lesson in clarity and BREVITY from Baker!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or.....you could just stop ignoring the overwhelming binding precedent that contradicts you. Remember, just because your understanding of the issue is one sentence long and 40 years old doesn't mean that Lawrence, Romer and Windsor disappear.
> 
> You've been contradicted on Lawrence. It was about far  more than merely privacy but includes protection of homosexuals in choices central to personal dignity and autonomy. Which included marriage. You've been contradicted on Romer. It was quite clear, and explicitly forbids laws targeting homosexuals in the denial of rights. And you've been contradicted on Windsor. It holds that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional protections and lays out the harm caused to same sex couples and their children in denying them marriage.
> 
> Given that you won't discuss any of these points, I'll accept that as concession on each.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you said "And of course the court communicates its position on same sex marriage so clearly in the Windsor decision that virtually every lower court to rule on same sex marriage after Windsor ruled against same sex marriage bans."
> 
> NO one really believes it was Windsors clarity or logic etc. t
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you, claiming to speak for 'no one'. Which is objectively meaningless.
> 
> Windsor's take on state same sex marriage bans was clear. As demonstrated by virtually every lower court ruling on the topic, Scalia's dissent and by the Obergefell ruling itself.
> 
> You are simply wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hat was the reason lower courts ruled as they did ( except Sutton's opinion in the 6th which was well reasoned) It was merely the emotional position of the lower courts, as shown by the Valentine's Day opinion......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your standard of 'well reasoned' is merely agreement with your personal opinion. That's a circular argument. As you base your opinion on only those rulings that agree with your opinion. The obvious problem being....your opinion is legally meaningless. And doesn't form the basis of any ruling, nor establish any legal validity.
> 
> Meanwhile, virtually every lower court to rule on the topic contradicted you. As did the Supreme Court itself with the Obergefell ruling. Its not that they are all wrong. Its that you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They may have been given some clarity on the SCs positon though by the gay-wedding presiding of Ginsberg and Kagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or.....by actually reading the ruling. Remember, Ginsberg and Kagan acted in perfect accordance with both precedent and local laws when presiding over legal same sex marriages.
> 
> You're insinuating that they did something improper or ignored some law. But you can't actually articulate anything wrong that that they did or show us any law they ignored or violated. You're arguing by insinuation. Which, like basing legal validity on your personal opinion, is meaningless
Click to expand...


this is a discussion board.....we are meant to discuss and argue on it....... to say such inane things as"The obvious problem being....your opinion is legally meaningless. And doesn't form the basis of any ruling, nor establish any legal validity." which you do over and over again is just stupid.......

of course kagan and Ginsberg didnt do anything technically illegal, never said they did.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

*Kim Davis Is About To Get A BIG Surprise In Her Hometown*
Non-profit organization Planting Peace just erected the above billboard in Davis' hometown of Morehead, Kentucky. The message is plain and simple -- if Davis is going to use Biblical rhetoric to justify her opposition to same-sex marriage, she might want to take a closer look at how else marriage has been redefined in relation to the book's sacred teachings.Kim Davis Is About To Get A BIG Surprise In Her Hometown


"The intent of this billboard is to expose how the anti-LGBT movement is selective in what rules to follow and how they choose to define 'traditional' institutions or values," Aaron Jackson, president of Planting Peace, told The Huffington Post.


----------



## Seawytch

dcraelin said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that you haven't read it. If you did, you  would know how ridiculous that statement is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid, childish reply.    I have read most of it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true"  type of juvenile horseshit,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.
> 
> now, you have added nothing to the argument for quite a while....I dont suspect I'll reply to further postings by you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The majority cited both the "legal and logical underpinnings" in their majority decision.
> 
> _Holding
> The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Baker v. Nelson overturned._
> 
> The 14th Amendment is your "legal and logical underpinnings"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have argued this to death.............but to begin with the 14th wasnt legally passed, it was coerced., second it dealt with race and former slaves, as evidenced by common sense and the fact that women couldnt use it to get the right to vote. 3rd some of these cases have come to the courts through ex parti Young...a corrupt bit of federal court BS in itself. and on and on
Click to expand...



Well golly...if I'd realized you were starting from a ludicrous premise, I wouldn't have wasted my time responding. 

Fanfic is for a different board.


----------



## Skylar

dcraelin said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And by 'tortured rationalizations', you mean simply NOT ignoring Lawerence v. Texas, Romer v. Evans and Windsor v US as you have done?
> 
> Remember, you haven't actually presented any rational reason why to ignore any of these rulings. They are all relevant. They are all binding precedent. They are all much more recent than the one sentence denial of cert that the USSC offered in 1972.
> 
> Just because you ignore these rulings doesn't mean that the lower courts are obligated to do so as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> read the 6ths opinion on Baker and you will see you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The opinion of the 6th was overturned by the Supreme Court. Read their ruling to see why you were wrong.
> 
> And of course,_ every other _Circuit Court district to rule on the matter contradicted the 6th. Demonstrating that the overwhelming majority of lower court rulings contradict you and that the Supreme Court contradicts you. And as Scalia's dissent (which you still haven't read) as well as almost all lower court rulings within the Circuit Court Districts demonstrate, the court clearly communicated its stance on state same sex marriage marriage bans in Windsor. With Obergefell confirming the same after these rulings.
> 
> Its not that they are all wrong. Its that you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have said before, I believe Lawrence is more to do with issue of privacy, so irrelevant to the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get that you believe that. But your belief neither defines the ruling nor any lower court ruling that uses it. None of the lower courts based their rulings on you belief nor were aware of it at the time of their rulings. Making your belief pristintely irrelevant to any discussion of any ruling.
> 
> Second, Lawrence was about more than merely privacy. It was about constitutional protections for personal decisions. Which the court explicitly indicated included marriage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The _Casey_ decision again confirmed
> 
> [574]
> 
> that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. _Id._, at 851. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:
> 
> "These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State." Ibid.
> 
> Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do. The decision in_Bowers_ would deny them this right."
> 
> Lawrence  v. Texas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lawrence laid the constitutional framework for the protection of homosexuals in choices central to personal dignity and autonomy. Including marriage. Which is far more than merely 'privacy'. You simply ignore the portions of Lawrence that don't conform to your opinion.
> 
> Neither we nor any lower court is similarly obligated to ignore what you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romer is indecipherable,,,just a garbled collection of words.   It opens with a quote that should be more applicable to the dissents.....it is garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Romer is quite clear:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.
> 
> Romer v. Evans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you can neither decipher nor comprehend such statements doesn't change the fact that pretty much every lower court could. As can almost every native speaker of English.
> 
> You summarily ignoring Romer because you didn't like the opening quote or didn't understand the ruling doesn't change a thing about its status as binding precedent. Or its relevance in any court ruling involving the rights of gays and lesbians that came after it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windsor actually in a way agrees with Baker.    no substantial federal question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Windsor doesn't agree with Baker. As it indicates that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. It also established, in elaborate detail, the very real harms that same sex couples and their children were subject to by denial of marriage rights. And how the denial of marriage rights infringes upon the dignity of same sex couples. Windsor never finds that there is 'no substantial federal question'. But in fact finds that DOMA violates the federal constitution.
> 
> And of course the court communicates its position on same sex marriage so clearly in the Windsor decision that virtually every lower court to rule on same sex marriage after Windsor ruled against same sex marriage bans. Even Scalia found the court's communication of its opinion on the topic 'beyond mistaking':
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.
> 
> Justice Scalia in dissent of Windsor v. US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Beyond Mistaking' and 'Inevitable' aren't subtle interpretations of the clarity of Windsor's take on state same sex marriage bans. You insist that any judge who similarly came to this conclusion after reading Windsor was 'lazy'. I (and Scalia) argue that Windsor communicated its message on state same sex marriage bans clearly. A position that almost all lower court rulings came to. An argument that the Obergefell decision obviously affirms.
> 
> Yet bizarrely, and in defiance of all reason......you insist that every lower court should have discounted Romer, Lawrence and Windsor, and instead based their rulings solely on a once sentence denial of a cert from 1972?
> 
> Um, no. That's simple nonsense. As the Obergefell ruling demonstrates elegantly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> like I said before...you could use a lesson in clarity and BREVITY from Baker!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or.....you could just stop ignoring the overwhelming binding precedent that contradicts you. Remember, just because your understanding of the issue is one sentence long and 40 years old doesn't mean that Lawrence, Romer and Windsor disappear.
> 
> You've been contradicted on Lawrence. It was about far  more than merely privacy but includes protection of homosexuals in choices central to personal dignity and autonomy. Which included marriage. You've been contradicted on Romer. It was quite clear, and explicitly forbids laws targeting homosexuals in the denial of rights. And you've been contradicted on Windsor. It holds that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional protections and lays out the harm caused to same sex couples and their children in denying them marriage.
> 
> Given that you won't discuss any of these points, I'll accept that as concession on each.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you said "And of course the court communicates its position on same sex marriage so clearly in the Windsor decision that virtually every lower court to rule on same sex marriage after Windsor ruled against same sex marriage bans."
> 
> NO one really believes it was Windsors clarity or logic etc. t
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you, claiming to speak for 'no one'. Which is objectively meaningless.
> 
> Windsor's take on state same sex marriage bans was clear. As demonstrated by virtually every lower court ruling on the topic, Scalia's dissent and by the Obergefell ruling itself.
> 
> You are simply wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hat was the reason lower courts ruled as they did ( except Sutton's opinion in the 6th which was well reasoned) It was merely the emotional position of the lower courts, as shown by the Valentine's Day opinion......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your standard of 'well reasoned' is merely agreement with your personal opinion. That's a circular argument. As you base your opinion on only those rulings that agree with your opinion. The obvious problem being....your opinion is legally meaningless. And doesn't form the basis of any ruling, nor establish any legal validity.
> 
> Meanwhile, virtually every lower court to rule on the topic contradicted you. As did the Supreme Court itself with the Obergefell ruling. Its not that they are all wrong. Its that you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They may have been given some clarity on the SCs positon though by the gay-wedding presiding of Ginsberg and Kagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or.....by actually reading the ruling. Remember, Ginsberg and Kagan acted in perfect accordance with both precedent and local laws when presiding over legal same sex marriages.
> 
> You're insinuating that they did something improper or ignored some law. But you can't actually articulate anything wrong that that they did or show us any law they ignored or violated. You're arguing by insinuation. Which, like basing legal validity on your personal opinion, is meaningless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this is a discussion board.....we are meant to discuss and argue on it....... to say such inane things as"The obvious problem being....your opinion is legally meaningless. And doesn't form the basis of any ruling, nor establish any legal validity." which you do over and over again is just stupid.......
Click to expand...


A belief isn't a legal argument. That you don't like the opening quote of a ruling doesn't mean that the ruling magically disappears. Especially when you're dealing with the the findings made by the lower courts. As they don't know which binding precedent rulings you've arbitrarily decided should never be followed, nor care.

Thus to declare that a lower court was 'wrong' because they cited a ruling that you don't like....has no relevance to a discussion of the law. Nor is it a rational argument.

The evidence of a legal argument is caselaw. Your approach would be the equivilant of deciding that you don't like several letters in the English language. Thus any ruling that uses words with those letters is 'invalid'.

Um, no. Such arbitrary declarations aren't any rational basis of validity.



> of course kagan and Ginsberg didnt do anything technically illegal, never said they did.


You said that Kagan and Ginsberg telegraphed that they didn't care what the law said.

Which is obvious nonsense. Their actions were in perfect accordance with both existing caselaw (Windsor) and local laws. Acting in perfect accordance with both caselaw and local laws doesn't 'telegraph that you didn't care what the law said'. 

Once again, you're simply wrong.


----------



## dcraelin

Skylar said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> read the 6ths opinion on Baker and you will see you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The opinion of the 6th was overturned by the Supreme Court. Read their ruling to see why you were wrong.
> 
> And of course,_ every other _Circuit Court district to rule on the matter contradicted the 6th. Demonstrating that the overwhelming majority of lower court rulings contradict you and that the Supreme Court contradicts you. And as Scalia's dissent (which you still haven't read) as well as almost all lower court rulings within the Circuit Court Districts demonstrate, the court clearly communicated its stance on state same sex marriage marriage bans in Windsor. With Obergefell confirming the same after these rulings.
> 
> Its not that they are all wrong. Its that you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have said before, I believe Lawrence is more to do with issue of privacy, so irrelevant to the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get that you believe that. But your belief neither defines the ruling nor any lower court ruling that uses it. None of the lower courts based their rulings on you belief nor were aware of it at the time of their rulings. Making your belief pristintely irrelevant to any discussion of any ruling.
> 
> Second, Lawrence was about more than merely privacy. It was about constitutional protections for personal decisions. Which the court explicitly indicated included marriage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The _Casey_ decision again confirmed
> 
> [574]
> 
> that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. _Id._, at 851. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:
> 
> "These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State." Ibid.
> 
> Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do. The decision in_Bowers_ would deny them this right."
> 
> Lawrence  v. Texas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lawrence laid the constitutional framework for the protection of homosexuals in choices central to personal dignity and autonomy. Including marriage. Which is far more than merely 'privacy'. You simply ignore the portions of Lawrence that don't conform to your opinion.
> 
> Neither we nor any lower court is similarly obligated to ignore what you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romer is indecipherable,,,just a garbled collection of words.   It opens with a quote that should be more applicable to the dissents.....it is garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Romer is quite clear:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.
> 
> Romer v. Evans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you can neither decipher nor comprehend such statements doesn't change the fact that pretty much every lower court could. As can almost every native speaker of English.
> 
> You summarily ignoring Romer because you didn't like the opening quote or didn't understand the ruling doesn't change a thing about its status as binding precedent. Or its relevance in any court ruling involving the rights of gays and lesbians that came after it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windsor actually in a way agrees with Baker.    no substantial federal question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Windsor doesn't agree with Baker. As it indicates that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. It also established, in elaborate detail, the very real harms that same sex couples and their children were subject to by denial of marriage rights. And how the denial of marriage rights infringes upon the dignity of same sex couples. Windsor never finds that there is 'no substantial federal question'. But in fact finds that DOMA violates the federal constitution.
> 
> And of course the court communicates its position on same sex marriage so clearly in the Windsor decision that virtually every lower court to rule on same sex marriage after Windsor ruled against same sex marriage bans. Even Scalia found the court's communication of its opinion on the topic 'beyond mistaking':
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.
> 
> Justice Scalia in dissent of Windsor v. US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Beyond Mistaking' and 'Inevitable' aren't subtle interpretations of the clarity of Windsor's take on state same sex marriage bans. You insist that any judge who similarly came to this conclusion after reading Windsor was 'lazy'. I (and Scalia) argue that Windsor communicated its message on state same sex marriage bans clearly. A position that almost all lower court rulings came to. An argument that the Obergefell decision obviously affirms.
> 
> Yet bizarrely, and in defiance of all reason......you insist that every lower court should have discounted Romer, Lawrence and Windsor, and instead based their rulings solely on a once sentence denial of a cert from 1972?
> 
> Um, no. That's simple nonsense. As the Obergefell ruling demonstrates elegantly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> like I said before...you could use a lesson in clarity and BREVITY from Baker!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or.....you could just stop ignoring the overwhelming binding precedent that contradicts you. Remember, just because your understanding of the issue is one sentence long and 40 years old doesn't mean that Lawrence, Romer and Windsor disappear.
> 
> You've been contradicted on Lawrence. It was about far  more than merely privacy but includes protection of homosexuals in choices central to personal dignity and autonomy. Which included marriage. You've been contradicted on Romer. It was quite clear, and explicitly forbids laws targeting homosexuals in the denial of rights. And you've been contradicted on Windsor. It holds that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional protections and lays out the harm caused to same sex couples and their children in denying them marriage.
> 
> Given that you won't discuss any of these points, I'll accept that as concession on each.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you said "And of course the court communicates its position on same sex marriage so clearly in the Windsor decision that virtually every lower court to rule on same sex marriage after Windsor ruled against same sex marriage bans."
> 
> NO one really believes it was Windsors clarity or logic etc. t
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you, claiming to speak for 'no one'. Which is objectively meaningless.
> 
> Windsor's take on state same sex marriage bans was clear. As demonstrated by virtually every lower court ruling on the topic, Scalia's dissent and by the Obergefell ruling itself.
> 
> You are simply wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hat was the reason lower courts ruled as they did ( except Sutton's opinion in the 6th which was well reasoned) It was merely the emotional position of the lower courts, as shown by the Valentine's Day opinion......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your standard of 'well reasoned' is merely agreement with your personal opinion. That's a circular argument. As you base your opinion on only those rulings that agree with your opinion. The obvious problem being....your opinion is legally meaningless. And doesn't form the basis of any ruling, nor establish any legal validity.
> 
> Meanwhile, virtually every lower court to rule on the topic contradicted you. As did the Supreme Court itself with the Obergefell ruling. Its not that they are all wrong. Its that you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They may have been given some clarity on the SCs positon though by the gay-wedding presiding of Ginsberg and Kagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or.....by actually reading the ruling. Remember, Ginsberg and Kagan acted in perfect accordance with both precedent and local laws when presiding over legal same sex marriages.
> 
> You're insinuating that they did something improper or ignored some law. But you can't actually articulate anything wrong that that they did or show us any law they ignored or violated. You're arguing by insinuation. Which, like basing legal validity on your personal opinion, is meaningless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this is a discussion board.....we are meant to discuss and argue on it....... to say such inane things as"The obvious problem being....your opinion is legally meaningless. And doesn't form the basis of any ruling, nor establish any legal validity." which you do over and over again is just stupid.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A belief isn't a legal argument. That you don't like the opening quote of a ruling doesn't mean that the ruling magically disappears. Especially when you're dealing with the the findings made by the lower courts. As they don't know which binding precedent rulings you've arbitrarily decided should never be followed, nor care.
> 
> Thus to declare that a lower court was 'wrong' because they cited a ruling that you don't like....has no relevance to a discussion of the law. Nor is it a rational argument.
> 
> The evidence of a legal argument is caselaw. Your approach would be the equivilant of deciding that you don't like several letters in the English language. Thus any ruling that uses words with those letters is 'invalid'.
> 
> Um, no. Such arbitrary declarations aren't any rational basis of validity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course kagan and Ginsberg didnt do anything technically illegal, never said they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said that Kagan and Ginsberg telegraphed that they didn't care what the law said.
> 
> Which is obvious nonsense. Their actions were in perfect accordance with both existing caselaw (Windsor) and local laws. Acting in perfect accordance with both caselaw and local laws doesn't 'telegraph that you didn't care what the law said'.
> 
> Once again, you're simply wrong.
Click to expand...


Got to hand it to you...you keep coming up with more verbose ways to say the same damn thing you've said before.


----------



## Skylar

dcraelin said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The opinion of the 6th was overturned by the Supreme Court. Read their ruling to see why you were wrong.
> 
> And of course,_ every other _Circuit Court district to rule on the matter contradicted the 6th. Demonstrating that the overwhelming majority of lower court rulings contradict you and that the Supreme Court contradicts you. And as Scalia's dissent (which you still haven't read) as well as almost all lower court rulings within the Circuit Court Districts demonstrate, the court clearly communicated its stance on state same sex marriage marriage bans in Windsor. With Obergefell confirming the same after these rulings.
> 
> Its not that they are all wrong. Its that you are.
> 
> I get that you believe that. But your belief neither defines the ruling nor any lower court ruling that uses it. None of the lower courts based their rulings on you belief nor were aware of it at the time of their rulings. Making your belief pristintely irrelevant to any discussion of any ruling.
> 
> Second, Lawrence was about more than merely privacy. It was about constitutional protections for personal decisions. Which the court explicitly indicated included marriage:
> 
> Lawrence laid the constitutional framework for the protection of homosexuals in choices central to personal dignity and autonomy. Including marriage. Which is far more than merely 'privacy'. You simply ignore the portions of Lawrence that don't conform to your opinion.
> 
> Neither we nor any lower court is similarly obligated to ignore what you do.
> 
> Nope. Romer is quite clear:
> 
> That you can neither decipher nor comprehend such statements doesn't change the fact that pretty much every lower court could. As can almost every native speaker of English.
> 
> You summarily ignoring Romer because you didn't like the opening quote or didn't understand the ruling doesn't change a thing about its status as binding precedent. Or its relevance in any court ruling involving the rights of gays and lesbians that came after it.
> 
> Windsor doesn't agree with Baker. As it indicates that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. It also established, in elaborate detail, the very real harms that same sex couples and their children were subject to by denial of marriage rights. And how the denial of marriage rights infringes upon the dignity of same sex couples. Windsor never finds that there is 'no substantial federal question'. But in fact finds that DOMA violates the federal constitution.
> 
> And of course the court communicates its position on same sex marriage so clearly in the Windsor decision that virtually every lower court to rule on same sex marriage after Windsor ruled against same sex marriage bans. Even Scalia found the court's communication of its opinion on the topic 'beyond mistaking':
> 
> 'Beyond Mistaking' and 'Inevitable' aren't subtle interpretations of the clarity of Windsor's take on state same sex marriage bans. You insist that any judge who similarly came to this conclusion after reading Windsor was 'lazy'. I (and Scalia) argue that Windsor communicated its message on state same sex marriage bans clearly. A position that almost all lower court rulings came to. An argument that the Obergefell decision obviously affirms.
> 
> Yet bizarrely, and in defiance of all reason......you insist that every lower court should have discounted Romer, Lawrence and Windsor, and instead based their rulings solely on a once sentence denial of a cert from 1972?
> 
> Um, no. That's simple nonsense. As the Obergefell ruling demonstrates elegantly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> like I said before...you could use a lesson in clarity and BREVITY from Baker!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or.....you could just stop ignoring the overwhelming binding precedent that contradicts you. Remember, just because your understanding of the issue is one sentence long and 40 years old doesn't mean that Lawrence, Romer and Windsor disappear.
> 
> You've been contradicted on Lawrence. It was about far  more than merely privacy but includes protection of homosexuals in choices central to personal dignity and autonomy. Which included marriage. You've been contradicted on Romer. It was quite clear, and explicitly forbids laws targeting homosexuals in the denial of rights. And you've been contradicted on Windsor. It holds that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional protections and lays out the harm caused to same sex couples and their children in denying them marriage.
> 
> Given that you won't discuss any of these points, I'll accept that as concession on each.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you said "And of course the court communicates its position on same sex marriage so clearly in the Windsor decision that virtually every lower court to rule on same sex marriage after Windsor ruled against same sex marriage bans."
> 
> NO one really believes it was Windsors clarity or logic etc. t
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you, claiming to speak for 'no one'. Which is objectively meaningless.
> 
> Windsor's take on state same sex marriage bans was clear. As demonstrated by virtually every lower court ruling on the topic, Scalia's dissent and by the Obergefell ruling itself.
> 
> You are simply wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hat was the reason lower courts ruled as they did ( except Sutton's opinion in the 6th which was well reasoned) It was merely the emotional position of the lower courts, as shown by the Valentine's Day opinion......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your standard of 'well reasoned' is merely agreement with your personal opinion. That's a circular argument. As you base your opinion on only those rulings that agree with your opinion. The obvious problem being....your opinion is legally meaningless. And doesn't form the basis of any ruling, nor establish any legal validity.
> 
> Meanwhile, virtually every lower court to rule on the topic contradicted you. As did the Supreme Court itself with the Obergefell ruling. Its not that they are all wrong. Its that you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They may have been given some clarity on the SCs positon though by the gay-wedding presiding of Ginsberg and Kagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or.....by actually reading the ruling. Remember, Ginsberg and Kagan acted in perfect accordance with both precedent and local laws when presiding over legal same sex marriages.
> 
> You're insinuating that they did something improper or ignored some law. But you can't actually articulate anything wrong that that they did or show us any law they ignored or violated. You're arguing by insinuation. Which, like basing legal validity on your personal opinion, is meaningless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this is a discussion board.....we are meant to discuss and argue on it....... to say such inane things as"The obvious problem being....your opinion is legally meaningless. And doesn't form the basis of any ruling, nor establish any legal validity." which you do over and over again is just stupid.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A belief isn't a legal argument. That you don't like the opening quote of a ruling doesn't mean that the ruling magically disappears. Especially when you're dealing with the the findings made by the lower courts. As they don't know which binding precedent rulings you've arbitrarily decided should never be followed, nor care.
> 
> Thus to declare that a lower court was 'wrong' because they cited a ruling that you don't like....has no relevance to a discussion of the law. Nor is it a rational argument.
> 
> The evidence of a legal argument is caselaw. Your approach would be the equivilant of deciding that you don't like several letters in the English language. Thus any ruling that uses words with those letters is 'invalid'.
> 
> Um, no. Such arbitrary declarations aren't any rational basis of validity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course kagan and Ginsberg didnt do anything technically illegal, never said they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said that Kagan and Ginsberg telegraphed that they didn't care what the law said.
> 
> Which is obvious nonsense. Their actions were in perfect accordance with both existing caselaw (Windsor) and local laws. Acting in perfect accordance with both caselaw and local laws doesn't 'telegraph that you didn't care what the law said'.
> 
> Once again, you're simply wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got to hand it to you...you keep coming up with more verbose ways to say the same damn thing you've said before.
Click to expand...


And you can't refute or even address the points I've made. You and I aren't using the same standards. I'm using caselaw as evidence. You're using your belief as evidence. I don't accept your belief as having any particular relevance. You ignore any case that doesn't conform to your beliefs.

So we're at an impasse. There's no case or citation I can present you with that you won't ignore. As your sole basis of credibility and validity is that a case agree with you.


----------



## Silhouette

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> *Kim Davis Is About To Get A BIG Surprise In Her Hometown*
> Non-profit organization Planting Peace just erected the above billboard in Davis' hometown of Morehead, Kentucky. The message is plain and simple -- if Davis is going to use Biblical rhetoric to justify her opposition to same-sex marriage, she might want to take a closer look at how else marriage has been redefined in relation to the book's sacred teachings.Kim Davis Is About To Get A BIG Surprise In Her Hometown
> 
> 
> "The intent of this billboard is to expose how the anti-LGBT movement is selective in what rules to follow and how they choose to define 'traditional' institutions or values," Aaron Jackson, president of Planting Peace, told The Huffington Post.


 
The tit for tat will boil down to extreme violations of faith.  There isn't a mandate in the Bible's New Testament that says "Thou shalt sell thy daughter for three goats and a cow or you will go to hell for eternity."  There is however a mandate in the Bible's New Testament of Jesus that says "Thou shalt NOT abet the spread of homosexuality throughout any culture, under pains of eternal soul death in the pit of fire" [paraphrased].

The intensity of the sin and the gravity of the punishment will weigh heavily in this question.  For Kim Davis to assist "gay marriages" is a mortal sin, the gravest and most dire of all.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Silhouette said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Kim Davis Is About To Get A BIG Surprise In Her Hometown*
> Non-profit organization Planting Peace just erected the above billboard in Davis' hometown of Morehead, Kentucky. The message is plain and simple -- if Davis is going to use Biblical rhetoric to justify her opposition to same-sex marriage, she might want to take a closer look at how else marriage has been redefined in relation to the book's sacred teachings.Kim Davis Is About To Get A BIG Surprise In Her Hometown
> 
> 
> "The intent of this billboard is to expose how the anti-LGBT movement is selective in what rules to follow and how they choose to define 'traditional' institutions or values," Aaron Jackson, president of Planting Peace, told The Huffington Post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tit for tat will boil down to extreme violations of faith.  There isn't a mandate in the Bible's New Testament that says "Thou shalt sell thy daughter for three goats and a cow or you will go to hell for eternity."  There is however a mandate in the Bible's New Testament of Jesus that says "Thou shalt NOT abet the spread of homosexuality throughout any culture, under pains of eternal soul death in the pit of fire" [paraphrased].
> 
> The intensity of the sin and the gravity of the punishment will weigh heavily in this question.  For Kim Davis to assist "gay marriages" is a mortal sin, the gravest and most dire of all.
Click to expand...


I think that god is telling Kim that she is needed to spread the gospel in Nigeria.....


----------



## dcraelin

Skylar said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> like I said before...you could use a lesson in clarity and BREVITY from Baker!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or.....you could just stop ignoring the overwhelming binding precedent that contradicts you. Remember, just because your understanding of the issue is one sentence long and 40 years old doesn't mean that Lawrence, Romer and Windsor disappear.
> 
> You've been contradicted on Lawrence. It was about far  more than merely privacy but includes protection of homosexuals in choices central to personal dignity and autonomy. Which included marriage. You've been contradicted on Romer. It was quite clear, and explicitly forbids laws targeting homosexuals in the denial of rights. And you've been contradicted on Windsor. It holds that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional protections and lays out the harm caused to same sex couples and their children in denying them marriage.
> 
> Given that you won't discuss any of these points, I'll accept that as concession on each.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you said "And of course the court communicates its position on same sex marriage so clearly in the Windsor decision that virtually every lower court to rule on same sex marriage after Windsor ruled against same sex marriage bans."
> 
> NO one really believes it was Windsors clarity or logic etc. t
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you, claiming to speak for 'no one'. Which is objectively meaningless.
> 
> Windsor's take on state same sex marriage bans was clear. As demonstrated by virtually every lower court ruling on the topic, Scalia's dissent and by the Obergefell ruling itself.
> 
> You are simply wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hat was the reason lower courts ruled as they did ( except Sutton's opinion in the 6th which was well reasoned) It was merely the emotional position of the lower courts, as shown by the Valentine's Day opinion......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your standard of 'well reasoned' is merely agreement with your personal opinion. That's a circular argument. As you base your opinion on only those rulings that agree with your opinion. The obvious problem being....your opinion is legally meaningless. And doesn't form the basis of any ruling, nor establish any legal validity.
> 
> Meanwhile, virtually every lower court to rule on the topic contradicted you. As did the Supreme Court itself with the Obergefell ruling. Its not that they are all wrong. Its that you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They may have been given some clarity on the SCs positon though by the gay-wedding presiding of Ginsberg and Kagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or.....by actually reading the ruling. Remember, Ginsberg and Kagan acted in perfect accordance with both precedent and local laws when presiding over legal same sex marriages.
> 
> You're insinuating that they did something improper or ignored some law. But you can't actually articulate anything wrong that that they did or show us any law they ignored or violated. You're arguing by insinuation. Which, like basing legal validity on your personal opinion, is meaningless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this is a discussion board.....we are meant to discuss and argue on it....... to say such inane things as"The obvious problem being....your opinion is legally meaningless. And doesn't form the basis of any ruling, nor establish any legal validity." which you do over and over again is just stupid.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A belief isn't a legal argument. That you don't like the opening quote of a ruling doesn't mean that the ruling magically disappears. Especially when you're dealing with the the findings made by the lower courts. As they don't know which binding precedent rulings you've arbitrarily decided should never be followed, nor care.
> 
> Thus to declare that a lower court was 'wrong' because they cited a ruling that you don't like....has no relevance to a discussion of the law. Nor is it a rational argument.
> 
> The evidence of a legal argument is caselaw. Your approach would be the equivilant of deciding that you don't like several letters in the English language. Thus any ruling that uses words with those letters is 'invalid'.
> 
> Um, no. Such arbitrary declarations aren't any rational basis of validity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course kagan and Ginsberg didnt do anything technically illegal, never said they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said that Kagan and Ginsberg telegraphed that they didn't care what the law said.
> 
> Which is obvious nonsense. Their actions were in perfect accordance with both existing caselaw (Windsor) and local laws. Acting in perfect accordance with both caselaw and local laws doesn't 'telegraph that you didn't care what the law said'.
> 
> Once again, you're simply wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got to hand it to you...you keep coming up with more verbose ways to say the same damn thing you've said before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you can't refute or even address the points I've made. You and I aren't using the same standards. I'm using caselaw as evidence. You're using your belief as evidence. I don't accept your belief as having any particular relevance. You ignore any case that doesn't conform to your beliefs.
> 
> So we're at an impasse. There's no case or citation I can present you with that you won't ignore. As your sole basis of credibility and validity is that a case agree with you.
Click to expand...


I can see myself accepting many cases in other areas.....I have shown how I accept portions of cases with this area too. .That I happen to disagree with the courts decision here means I disagree with their supposed basis for making the decision.....and that surprises you?...I mean you make no damn sense.....of course I disagree...thats what this is about.


here is something for you to chew on and respond to from Suttons opinion ..................
“If a precedent of
this Court has direct application
in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected
in some other line of decisions, the Court of
Appeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of
overruling its own decisions.”
Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc.
, 490 U.S. 477,
484 (1989);
see Agostini v. Felton
, 521 U.S. 203, 237 (1997)


----------



## dcraelin

Seawytch said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid, childish reply.    I have read most of it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true"  type of juvenile horseshit,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.
> 
> now, you have added nothing to the argument for quite a while....I dont suspect I'll reply to further postings by you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The majority cited both the "legal and logical underpinnings" in their majority decision.
> 
> _Holding
> The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Baker v. Nelson overturned._
> 
> The 14th Amendment is your "legal and logical underpinnings"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have argued this to death.............but to begin with the 14th wasnt legally passed, it was coerced., second it dealt with race and former slaves, as evidenced by common sense and the fact that women couldnt use it to get the right to vote. 3rd some of these cases have come to the courts through ex parti Young...a corrupt bit of federal court BS in itself. and on and on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well golly...if I'd realized you were starting from a ludicrous premise, I wouldn't have wasted my time responding.
> 
> Fanfic is for a different board.
Click to expand...


you'd have wasted your time and my time regardless......you've proven that.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

DCRAELIN SAID: 

"I have argued this to death."

Yes you have.

And your 'argument' fails, the consequence of your ignorance of the law and contempt for Constitutional jurisprudence.


----------



## dcraelin

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> DCRAELIN SAID:
> 
> "I have argued this to death."
> 
> Yes you have.
> 
> And your 'argument' fails, the consequence of your ignorance of the law and contempt for Constitutional jurisprudence.



that is arguable. 

I show utmost respect for the Constitution however.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true"  type of juvenile horseshit,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.
> 
> now, you have added nothing to the argument for quite a while....I dont suspect I'll reply to further postings by you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The majority cited both the "legal and logical underpinnings" in their majority decision.
> 
> _Holding
> The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Baker v. Nelson overturned._
> 
> The 14th Amendment is your "legal and logical underpinnings"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have argued this to death.............but to begin with the 14th wasnt legally passed, it was coerced., second it dealt with race and former slaves, as evidenced by common sense and the fact that women couldnt use it to get the right to vote. 3rd some of these cases have come to the courts through ex parti Young...a corrupt bit of federal court BS in itself. and on and on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well golly...if I'd realized you were starting from a ludicrous premise, I wouldn't have wasted my time responding.
> 
> Fanfic is for a different board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you'd have wasted your time and my time regardless......you've proven that.
Click to expand...


I have to wonder why none of the learned barristers defending  the states ban od same sex marriage thought of that argument. (At least not as far as I know)


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that you haven't read it. If you did, you  would know how ridiculous that statement is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid, childish reply.    I have read most of it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true"  type of juvenile horseshit,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.
> 
> now, you have added nothing to the argument for quite a while....I dont suspect I'll reply to further postings by you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The majority cited both the "legal and logical underpinnings" in their majority decision.
> 
> _Holding
> The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Baker v. Nelson overturned._
> 
> The 14th Amendment is your "legal and logical underpinnings"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have argued this to death.............but to begin with the 14th wasnt legally passed, it was coerced., second it dealt with race and former slaves, as evidenced by common sense and the fact that women couldnt use it to get the right to vote. 3rd some of these cases have come to the courts through ex parti Young...a corrupt bit of federal court BS in itself. and on and on
Click to expand...


In the women's suffrage case that your are referring to, *Minor v. Happersett*, only the Missouri supreme court took the position that  the Fourteenth Amendment was to give the rights of citizenship to the former slaves, and not to force other changes in state laws.  Minor v. Happersett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The SCOTUS held that citizenship did not automatically entitle someone to vote, but never said that the 14th only applied to former slaves. The 14th did not give those former slaves the right to vote either.  That was the 15th, so this is just more proof that your position, that  women did not win the right to vote under  the 14th because it was only intended for former slaves, still fails


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid, childish reply.    I have read most of it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true"  type of juvenile horseshit,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.
> 
> now, you have added nothing to the argument for quite a while....I dont suspect I'll reply to further postings by you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The majority cited both the "legal and logical underpinnings" in their majority decision.
> 
> _Holding
> The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Baker v. Nelson overturned._
> 
> The 14th Amendment is your "legal and logical underpinnings"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have argued this to death.............but to begin with the 14th wasnt legally passed, it was coerced., second it dealt with race and former slaves, as evidenced by common sense and the fact that women couldnt use it to get the right to vote. 3rd some of these cases have come to the courts through ex parti Young...a corrupt bit of federal court BS in itself. and on and on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the women's suffrage case that your are referring to, *Minor v. Happersett*, only the Missouri supreme court took the position that  the Fourteenth Amendment was to give the rights of citizenship to the former slaves, and not to force other changes in state laws.  Minor v. Happersett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The SCOTUS held that citizenship did not automatically entitle someone to vote, but never said that the 14th only applied to former slaves. The 14th did not give those former slaves the right to vote either.  That was the 15th, so this is just more proof that your position, that  women did not win the right to vote under  the 14th because it was only intended for former slaves, still fails
Click to expand...


from wikipedia which proves you wrong 


"The Missouri Supreme Court ruled in favor of the registrar and against Minor. The state court observed that the "almost universal practice of all of the States ... from the adoption of the Constitution to the present time" was to restrict voting rights to men only;[7] and, additionally, that the clear intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to give the rights of citizenship to the former slaves, and not to force other changes in state laws. The court noted, in particular, that the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment (penalizing states which denied the right to vote to any of its citizens) referred specifically to male citizens, and concluded that "this clearly recognizes the right, and seems to anticipate the exercise of the right, on the part of the States to restrict the right of suffrage to the male inhabitants."[8]"


----------



## Vandalshandle

Honey! Call Chief justice Roberts of the Supreme Court, and tell him my diploma has arrived from Devry University! Tell him that I am on my way to D.C., so go ahead and put another chair behind the bench!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true"  type of juvenile horseshit,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.
> 
> now, you have added nothing to the argument for quite a while....I dont suspect I'll reply to further postings by you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The majority cited both the "legal and logical underpinnings" in their majority decision.
> 
> _Holding
> The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Baker v. Nelson overturned._
> 
> The 14th Amendment is your "legal and logical underpinnings"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have argued this to death.............but to begin with the 14th wasnt legally passed, it was coerced., second it dealt with race and former slaves, as evidenced by common sense and the fact that women couldnt use it to get the right to vote. 3rd some of these cases have come to the courts through ex parti Young...a corrupt bit of federal court BS in itself. and on and on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the women's suffrage case that your are referring to, *Minor v. Happersett*, only the Missouri supreme court took the position that  the Fourteenth Amendment was to give the rights of citizenship to the former slaves, and not to force other changes in state laws.  Minor v. Happersett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The SCOTUS held that citizenship did not automatically entitle someone to vote, but never said that the 14th only applied to former slaves. The 14th did not give those former slaves the right to vote either.  That was the 15th, so this is just more proof that your position, that  women did not win the right to vote under  the 14th because it was only intended for former slaves, still fails
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> from wikipedia which proves you wrong
> 
> 
> "The Missouri Supreme Court ruled in favor of the registrar and against Minor. The state court observed that the "almost universal practice of all of the States ... from the adoption of the Constitution to the present time" was to restrict voting rights to men only;[7] and, additionally, that the clear intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to give the rights of citizenship to the former slaves, and not to force other changes in state laws. The court noted, in particular, that the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment (penalizing states which denied the right to vote to any of its citizens) referred specifically to male citizens, and concluded that "this clearly recognizes the right, and seems to anticipate the exercise of the right, on the part of the States to restrict the right of suffrage to the male inhabitants."[8]"
Click to expand...


Oh Christ! What the hell is wrong with you?  I SAID THE SAME THING! I acknowledged that the Missouri court did in fact say- as you are saying-that the 14th  was for former slaves. However, we are now talking about the US supreme court! In that case they said no such thing. The case turned on the question of whether or not all citizens automatically have the right to vote.

Is it possible that you really don't get that? Do you think that I'm stupid? Are you playing some sick, fucked up game here?


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.
> 
> now, you have added nothing to the argument for quite a while....I dont suspect I'll reply to further postings by you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority cited both the "legal and logical underpinnings" in their majority decision.
> 
> _Holding
> The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Baker v. Nelson overturned._
> 
> The 14th Amendment is your "legal and logical underpinnings"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have argued this to death.............but to begin with the 14th wasnt legally passed, it was coerced., second it dealt with race and former slaves, as evidenced by common sense and the fact that women couldnt use it to get the right to vote. 3rd some of these cases have come to the courts through ex parti Young...a corrupt bit of federal court BS in itself. and on and on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the women's suffrage case that your are referring to, *Minor v. Happersett*, only the Missouri supreme court took the position that  the Fourteenth Amendment was to give the rights of citizenship to the former slaves, and not to force other changes in state laws.  Minor v. Happersett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The SCOTUS held that citizenship did not automatically entitle someone to vote, but never said that the 14th only applied to former slaves. The 14th did not give those former slaves the right to vote either.  That was the 15th, so this is just more proof that your position, that  women did not win the right to vote under  the 14th because it was only intended for former slaves, still fails
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> from wikipedia which proves you wrong
> 
> 
> "The Missouri Supreme Court ruled in favor of the registrar and against Minor. The state court observed that the "almost universal practice of all of the States ... from the adoption of the Constitution to the present time" was to restrict voting rights to men only;[7] and, additionally, that the clear intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to give the rights of citizenship to the former slaves, and not to force other changes in state laws. The court noted, in particular, that the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment (penalizing states which denied the right to vote to any of its citizens) referred specifically to male citizens, and concluded that "this clearly recognizes the right, and seems to anticipate the exercise of the right, on the part of the States to restrict the right of suffrage to the male inhabitants."[8]"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Christ! What the hell is wrong with you?  I SAID THE SAME THING! The Missouri court did in fact say- as you are saying-that the 14th  was for former slaves. However, we are now talking about the US supreme court! In this case they said no such thing. The case turned on the question of whether or not all citizens automatically have the right to vote.
> 
> Is it possible that you really don't get that? Do you think that I'm stupid? Are you playing some sick, fucked up game here?
Click to expand...


You said it wasnt the 14th that granted the right to vote at all but the 15th.

further.....the SC centered their opinion on the rights of citizens to vote....they did NOT say the 14th wasnt addressing just former slaves. 

And yes I really think you are stupid.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The majority cited both the "legal and logical underpinnings" in their majority decision.
> 
> _Holding
> The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Baker v. Nelson overturned._
> 
> The 14th Amendment is your "legal and logical underpinnings"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have argued this to death.............but to begin with the 14th wasnt legally passed, it was coerced., second it dealt with race and former slaves, as evidenced by common sense and the fact that women couldnt use it to get the right to vote. 3rd some of these cases have come to the courts through ex parti Young...a corrupt bit of federal court BS in itself. and on and on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the women's suffrage case that your are referring to, *Minor v. Happersett*, only the Missouri supreme court took the position that  the Fourteenth Amendment was to give the rights of citizenship to the former slaves, and not to force other changes in state laws.  Minor v. Happersett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The SCOTUS held that citizenship did not automatically entitle someone to vote, but never said that the 14th only applied to former slaves. The 14th did not give those former slaves the right to vote either.  That was the 15th, so this is just more proof that your position, that  women did not win the right to vote under  the 14th because it was only intended for former slaves, still fails
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> from wikipedia which proves you wrong
> 
> 
> "The Missouri Supreme Court ruled in favor of the registrar and against Minor. The state court observed that the "almost universal practice of all of the States ... from the adoption of the Constitution to the present time" was to restrict voting rights to men only;[7] and, additionally, that the clear intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to give the rights of citizenship to the former slaves, and not to force other changes in state laws. The court noted, in particular, that the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment (penalizing states which denied the right to vote to any of its citizens) referred specifically to male citizens, and concluded that "this clearly recognizes the right, and seems to anticipate the exercise of the right, on the part of the States to restrict the right of suffrage to the male inhabitants."[8]"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Christ! What the hell is wrong with you?  I SAID THE SAME THING! The Missouri court did in fact say- as you are saying-that the 14th  was for former slaves. However, we are now talking about the US supreme court! In this case they said no such thing. The case turned on the question of whether or not all citizens automatically have the right to vote.
> 
> Is it possible that you really don't get that? Do you think that I'm stupid? Are you playing some sick, fucked up game here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said it wasnt the 14th that granted the right to vote at all but the 15th.
> 
> further.....the SC centered their opinion on the rights of citizens to vote....they did NOT say the 14th wasnt addressing just former slaves.
> 
> And yes I really think you are stupid.
Click to expand...


"......they did NOT say the 14th wasnt addressing just former slaves".???? They did not say that it was dude. Your argument is still a pathetic fail.


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have argued this to death.............but to begin with the 14th wasnt legally passed, it was coerced., second it dealt with race and former slaves, as evidenced by common sense and the fact that women couldnt use it to get the right to vote. 3rd some of these cases have come to the courts through ex parti Young...a corrupt bit of federal court BS in itself. and on and on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the women's suffrage case that your are referring to, *Minor v. Happersett*, only the Missouri supreme court took the position that  the Fourteenth Amendment was to give the rights of citizenship to the former slaves, and not to force other changes in state laws.  Minor v. Happersett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The SCOTUS held that citizenship did not automatically entitle someone to vote, but never said that the 14th only applied to former slaves. The 14th did not give those former slaves the right to vote either.  That was the 15th, so this is just more proof that your position, that  women did not win the right to vote under  the 14th because it was only intended for former slaves, still fails
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> from wikipedia which proves you wrong
> 
> 
> "The Missouri Supreme Court ruled in favor of the registrar and against Minor. The state court observed that the "almost universal practice of all of the States ... from the adoption of the Constitution to the present time" was to restrict voting rights to men only;[7] and, additionally, that the clear intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to give the rights of citizenship to the former slaves, and not to force other changes in state laws. The court noted, in particular, that the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment (penalizing states which denied the right to vote to any of its citizens) referred specifically to male citizens, and concluded that "this clearly recognizes the right, and seems to anticipate the exercise of the right, on the part of the States to restrict the right of suffrage to the male inhabitants."[8]"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Christ! What the hell is wrong with you?  I SAID THE SAME THING! The Missouri court did in fact say- as you are saying-that the 14th  was for former slaves. However, we are now talking about the US supreme court! In this case they said no such thing. The case turned on the question of whether or not all citizens automatically have the right to vote.
> 
> Is it possible that you really don't get that? Do you think that I'm stupid? Are you playing some sick, fucked up game here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said it wasnt the 14th that granted the right to vote at all but the 15th.
> 
> further.....the SC centered their opinion on the rights of citizens to vote....they did NOT say the 14th wasnt addressing just former slaves.
> 
> And yes I really think you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "......they did NOT say the 14th wasnt addressing just former slaves".???? They did not say that it was dude. Your argument is still a pathetic fail.
Click to expand...


no my argument is not...in fact reading the wiki page reconfirms my opinion.......reread the second part of the wiki and I think you'll have to agree.  It does show perhaps tho the poor wording of the 14th which legalistically could be said to have allowed penalties if states didnt allow 12 year-olds to vote. 

I have read before however that the 14th was unnecessary for granting voting rights,  and that it was in-part written as a favor for Railroad corporations..... perhaps your mistake over the amendment shows that

you do admit that was a mistake on your part right?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the women's suffrage case that your are referring to, *Minor v. Happersett*, only the Missouri supreme court took the position that  the Fourteenth Amendment was to give the rights of citizenship to the former slaves, and not to force other changes in state laws.  Minor v. Happersett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The SCOTUS held that citizenship did not automatically entitle someone to vote, but never said that the 14th only applied to former slaves. The 14th did not give those former slaves the right to vote either.  That was the 15th, so this is just more proof that your position, that  women did not win the right to vote under  the 14th because it was only intended for former slaves, still fails
> 
> 
> 
> 
> from wikipedia which proves you wrong
> 
> 
> "The Missouri Supreme Court ruled in favor of the registrar and against Minor. The state court observed that the "almost universal practice of all of the States ... from the adoption of the Constitution to the present time" was to restrict voting rights to men only;[7] and, additionally, that the clear intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to give the rights of citizenship to the former slaves, and not to force other changes in state laws. The court noted, in particular, that the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment (penalizing states which denied the right to vote to any of its citizens) referred specifically to male citizens, and concluded that "this clearly recognizes the right, and seems to anticipate the exercise of the right, on the part of the States to restrict the right of suffrage to the male inhabitants."[8]"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Christ! What the hell is wrong with you?  I SAID THE SAME THING! The Missouri court did in fact say- as you are saying-that the 14th  was for former slaves. However, we are now talking about the US supreme court! In this case they said no such thing. The case turned on the question of whether or not all citizens automatically have the right to vote.
> 
> Is it possible that you really don't get that? Do you think that I'm stupid? Are you playing some sick, fucked up game here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said it wasnt the 14th that granted the right to vote at all but the 15th.
> 
> further.....the SC centered their opinion on the rights of citizens to vote....they did NOT say the 14th wasnt addressing just former slaves.
> 
> And yes I really think you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "......they did NOT say the 14th wasnt addressing just former slaves".???? They did not say that it was dude. Your argument is still a pathetic fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no my argument is not...in fact reading the wiki page reconfirms my opinion.......reread the second part of the wiki and I think you'll have to agree.  It does show perhaps tho the poor wording of the 14th which legalistically could be said to have allowed penalties if states didnt allow 12 year-olds to vote.
> 
> I have read before however that the 14th was unnecessary for granting voting rights,  and that it was in-part written as a favor for Railroad corporations..... perhaps your mistake over the amendment shows that
> 
> you do admit that was a mistake on your part right?
Click to expand...


What are you smoking? Straighten up and get back to me.


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> from wikipedia which proves you wrong
> 
> 
> "The Missouri Supreme Court ruled in favor of the registrar and against Minor. The state court observed that the "almost universal practice of all of the States ... from the adoption of the Constitution to the present time" was to restrict voting rights to men only;[7] and, additionally, that the clear intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to give the rights of citizenship to the former slaves, and not to force other changes in state laws. The court noted, in particular, that the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment (penalizing states which denied the right to vote to any of its citizens) referred specifically to male citizens, and concluded that "this clearly recognizes the right, and seems to anticipate the exercise of the right, on the part of the States to restrict the right of suffrage to the male inhabitants."[8]"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Christ! What the hell is wrong with you?  I SAID THE SAME THING! The Missouri court did in fact say- as you are saying-that the 14th  was for former slaves. However, we are now talking about the US supreme court! In this case they said no such thing. The case turned on the question of whether or not all citizens automatically have the right to vote.
> 
> Is it possible that you really don't get that? Do you think that I'm stupid? Are you playing some sick, fucked up game here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said it wasnt the 14th that granted the right to vote at all but the 15th.
> 
> further.....the SC centered their opinion on the rights of citizens to vote....they did NOT say the 14th wasnt addressing just former slaves.
> 
> And yes I really think you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "......they did NOT say the 14th wasnt addressing just former slaves".???? They did not say that it was dude. Your argument is still a pathetic fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no my argument is not...in fact reading the wiki page reconfirms my opinion.......reread the second part of the wiki and I think you'll have to agree.  It does show perhaps tho the poor wording of the 14th which legalistically could be said to have allowed penalties if states didnt allow 12 year-olds to vote.
> 
> I have read before however that the 14th was unnecessary for granting voting rights,  and that it was in-part written as a favor for Railroad corporations..... perhaps your mistake over the amendment shows that
> 
> you do admit that was a mistake on your part right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you smoking? Straighten up and get back to me.
Click to expand...


lol, you cant even admit making that little mistake can you


----------



## DigitalDrifter

1800 posts for such a big fucking deal story. Fucking amazing.

It's unfortunate as hell that members of this board don't get a tenth as upset when elected officials refuse to enforce federal laws regarding illegal sanctuary cities.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Christ! What the hell is wrong with you?  I SAID THE SAME THING! The Missouri court did in fact say- as you are saying-that the 14th  was for former slaves. However, we are now talking about the US supreme court! In this case they said no such thing. The case turned on the question of whether or not all citizens automatically have the right to vote.
> 
> Is it possible that you really don't get that? Do you think that I'm stupid? Are you playing some sick, fucked up game here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said it wasnt the 14th that granted the right to vote at all but the 15th.
> 
> further.....the SC centered their opinion on the rights of citizens to vote....they did NOT say the 14th wasnt addressing just former slaves.
> 
> And yes I really think you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "......they did NOT say the 14th wasnt addressing just former slaves".???? They did not say that it was dude. Your argument is still a pathetic fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no my argument is not...in fact reading the wiki page reconfirms my opinion.......reread the second part of the wiki and I think you'll have to agree.  It does show perhaps tho the poor wording of the 14th which legalistically could be said to have allowed penalties if states didnt allow 12 year-olds to vote.
> 
> I have read before however that the 14th was unnecessary for granting voting rights,  and that it was in-part written as a favor for Railroad corporations..... perhaps your mistake over the amendment shows that
> 
> you do admit that was a mistake on your part right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you smoking? Straighten up and get back to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you cant even admit making that little mistake can you
Click to expand...


Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said it wasnt the 14th that granted the right to vote at all but the 15th.
> 
> further.....the SC centered their opinion on the rights of citizens to vote....they did NOT say the 14th wasnt addressing just former slaves.
> 
> And yes I really think you are stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "......they did NOT say the 14th wasnt addressing just former slaves".???? They did not say that it was dude. Your argument is still a pathetic fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no my argument is not...in fact reading the wiki page reconfirms my opinion.......reread the second part of the wiki and I think you'll have to agree.  It does show perhaps tho the poor wording of the 14th which legalistically could be said to have allowed penalties if states didnt allow 12 year-olds to vote.
> 
> I have read before however that the 14th was unnecessary for granting voting rights,  and that it was in-part written as a favor for Railroad corporations..... perhaps your mistake over the amendment shows that
> 
> you do admit that was a mistake on your part right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you smoking? Straighten up and get back to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you cant even admit making that little mistake can you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away
Click to expand...


try to follow your own arguments.

you said "The 14th did not give those former slaves the right to vote either. That was the 15th,"    was that a mistake on your part?

they implied it in the very case you mention, by acknowledging that the right to vote was extended to former slaves within the amendment. I dont know if I restricted it to just former slaves tho...but also those who, like the slaves, may be singled out due to their race.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> "......they did NOT say the 14th wasnt addressing just former slaves".???? They did not say that it was dude. Your argument is still a pathetic fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no my argument is not...in fact reading the wiki page reconfirms my opinion.......reread the second part of the wiki and I think you'll have to agree.  It does show perhaps tho the poor wording of the 14th which legalistically could be said to have allowed penalties if states didnt allow 12 year-olds to vote.
> 
> I have read before however that the 14th was unnecessary for granting voting rights,  and that it was in-part written as a favor for Railroad corporations..... perhaps your mistake over the amendment shows that
> 
> you do admit that was a mistake on your part right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you smoking? Straighten up and get back to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you cant even admit making that little mistake can you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> try to follow your own arguments.
> 
> you said "The 14th did not give those former slaves the right to vote either. That was the 15th,"    was that a mistake on your part?
> 
> they implied it in the very case you mention, by acknowledging that the right to vote was extended to former slaves within the amendment. I dont know if I restricted it to just former slaves tho...but also those who, like the slaves, may be singled out due to their race.
Click to expand...


I am now convinced more than ever that you are insane, that you are living in a bizarre fantasy world that you created out of desperation in order to avoid the reality that frightens you so much.

There is no mistake in anything that I said. The 14th did not give the vote to former slaves. If it did , the 15th would not have been necessary. The women's suffrage case turned on the issue of whether or not all citizens have the right to vote.

You vacillate between  claiming that the 14th was never ratified, and claiming that it only applies to former slaves, two positions that have been thoroughly debunked. I asked you before, and I'll ask you again now.....If either of those theories were viable, why were they never used by any of the geniuses  that were defending the states bans on same sex marriage?


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> no my argument is not...in fact reading the wiki page reconfirms my opinion.......reread the second part of the wiki and I think you'll have to agree.  It does show perhaps tho the poor wording of the 14th which legalistically could be said to have allowed penalties if states didnt allow 12 year-olds to vote.
> 
> I have read before however that the 14th was unnecessary for granting voting rights,  and that it was in-part written as a favor for Railroad corporations..... perhaps your mistake over the amendment shows that
> 
> you do admit that was a mistake on your part right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you smoking? Straighten up and get back to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you cant even admit making that little mistake can you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> try to follow your own arguments.
> 
> you said "The 14th did not give those former slaves the right to vote either. That was the 15th,"    was that a mistake on your part?
> 
> they implied it in the very case you mention, by acknowledging that the right to vote was extended to former slaves within the amendment. I dont know if I restricted it to just former slaves tho...but also those who, like the slaves, may be singled out due to their race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am now convinced more than ever that you are insane, that you are living in a bizarre fantasy world that you created out of desperation in order to avoid the reality that frightens you so much.
> 
> There is no mistake in anything that I said. The 14th did not give the vote to former slaves. If it did , the 15th would not have been necessary. The women's suffrage case turned on the issue of whether or not all citizens have the right to vote.
> 
> You vacillate between  claiming that the 14th was never ratified, and claiming that it only applies to former slaves, two positions that have been thoroughly debunked. I asked you before, and I'll ask you again now.....If either of those theories were viable, why were they never used by any of the geniuses  that were defending the states bans on same sex marriage?
Click to expand...


you are morphing what you originally said on the 14th... it technically gave states a loophole but essentially gave the right to vote to slaves.   so it goes to show that you cannot admit when you are wrong....so your other assertions are suspect. 

no one argues the illegality of the 14th because it has become accepted...it shouldnt be.  Some do argue against some of the assertions deriving from the 14th like "substantive due process".

you are changing what I said about the 14...I do think it applies beyond just former slaves.....not as far as you want to take it though. I said that just in the last post I believe...but you conveniently ignore it. And I think that basic argument was used.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you smoking? Straighten up and get back to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol, you cant even admit making that little mistake can you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> try to follow your own arguments.
> 
> you said "The 14th did not give those former slaves the right to vote either. That was the 15th,"    was that a mistake on your part?
> 
> they implied it in the very case you mention, by acknowledging that the right to vote was extended to former slaves within the amendment. I dont know if I restricted it to just former slaves tho...but also those who, like the slaves, may be singled out due to their race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am now convinced more than ever that you are insane, that you are living in a bizarre fantasy world that you created out of desperation in order to avoid the reality that frightens you so much.
> 
> There is no mistake in anything that I said. The 14th did not give the vote to former slaves. If it did , the 15th would not have been necessary. The women's suffrage case turned on the issue of whether or not all citizens have the right to vote.
> 
> You vacillate between  claiming that the 14th was never ratified, and claiming that it only applies to former slaves, two positions that have been thoroughly debunked. I asked you before, and I'll ask you again now.....If either of those theories were viable, why were they never used by any of the geniuses  that were defending the states bans on same sex marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are morphing what you originally said on the 14th... it technically gave states a loophole but essentially gave the right to vote to slaves.   so it goes to show that you cannot admit when you are wrong....so your other assertions are suspect.
> 
> no one argues the illegality of the 14th because it has become accepted...it shouldnt be.  Some do argue against some of the assertions deriving from the 14th like "substantive due process".
> 
> you are changing what I said about the 14...I do think it applies beyond just former slaves.....not as far as you want to take it though. I said that just in the last post I believe...but you conveniently ignore it. And I think that basic argument was used.
Click to expand...


Look Old Sport, you have changed your story so many times that I'm not sure what you believe anymore. You may not even be sure. Now it seems that you will try to make me believe that you never took the position that the 14th only applies to former slaves, and alternately, that it was not even ratified. Fell free to continue to believe that it extended to right to vote to former slaves as well. You also laughably said that women were unable to win the right to vote under the 14th, again,  and offered that as proof that  it only pertained to slaves. Did you forget that or are  you knowingly sweeping that under the rug?

The bottom line is this, Obergefell was properly decided on the basis of the 14th amendment. Neither you or anyone else has been able to present a coherent argument to the contrary. We're done here.


----------



## Silhouette

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away


 
Got one better for you.  Please cite in the 14th Amendment where it says "just some deviant sex behaviors are now a special class".

I'll wait.  

But meanwhile I can point you to part of the Constitution that says Kim Davis had a right to not participate or put her name on any "gay marriage" license under her control.  And I can point to another part of the Constitution that says your Johnny-come-lately PA laws cannot water down the 1st Amendment.

Get back to me with that "the 14th says just some deviant sex behaviors are a new special class" thing when you find it, OK?  And if you CAN find such a clause in the 14th, let me know who put it there because it sure as hell can't have been SCOTUS.  They don't have the power to amend the US Constitution.  Only Congress can.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Silhouette said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got one better for you.  Please cite in the 14th Amendment where it says "just some deviant sex behaviors are now a special class".
> 
> I'll wait.
> 
> But meanwhile I can point you to part of the Constitution that says Kim Davis had a right to not participate or put her name on any "gay marriage" license under her control.  And I can point to another part of the Constitution that says your Johnny-come-lately PA laws cannot water down the 1st Amendment.
> 
> Get back to me with that "the 14th says just some deviant sex behaviors are a new special class" thing when you find it, OK?  And if you CAN find such a clause in the 14th, let me know who put it there because it sure as hell can't have been SCOTUS.  They don't have the power to amend the US Constitution.  Only Congress can.
Click to expand...


Move over, Justice Roberts! You are taking up space that apparently belongs to Silhouette!


----------



## Debra K

Silhouette said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got one better for you.  Please cite in the 14th Amendment where it says "just some deviant sex behaviors are now a special class".
> 
> I'll wait.
> 
> But meanwhile I can point you to part of the Constitution that says Kim Davis had a right to not participate or put her name on any "gay marriage" license under her control.  And I can point to another part of the Constitution that says your Johnny-come-lately PA laws cannot water down the 1st Amendment.
> 
> Get back to me with that "the 14th says just some deviant sex behaviors are a new special class" thing when you find it, OK?  And if you CAN find such a clause in the 14th, let me know who put it there because it sure as hell can't have been SCOTUS.  They don't have the power to amend the US Constitution.  Only Congress can.
Click to expand...


Silhouette.  The Fourteenth Amendment is not a catalog of individual rights.  It's a prohibition on the conduct of STATE government.   No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor deny any person equal protection under the law.   In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment secures the entire universe of individual rights against arbitrary government deprivations.   Your opinion that private sexual conduct between two consenting adults is "deviant" is insufficient as a matter of law for imposing your opinion on everyone else in society through state laws.   People who are similarly situated to other people have the right to be treated equally in the eyes of the law.   It is that simple.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Silhouette said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got one better for you.  Please cite in the 14th Amendment where it says "just some deviant sex behaviors are now a special class".
> 
> I'll wait.
> 
> But meanwhile I can point you to part of the Constitution that says Kim Davis had a right to not participate or put her name on any "gay marriage" license under her control.  And I can point to another part of the Constitution that says your Johnny-come-lately PA laws cannot water down the 1st Amendment.
> 
> Get back to me with that "the 14th says just some deviant sex behaviors are a new special class" thing when you find it, OK?  And if you CAN find such a clause in the 14th, let me know who put it there because it sure as hell can't have been SCOTUS.  They don't have the power to amend the US Constitution.  Only Congress can.
Click to expand...


First of all, you might be perceived as having some level of credibility if you didn’t find it necessary to present your question wrapped in hateful vitriol

Secondly, it’s apparent that you either never bothered to read the Obergefell decision, and if you did, you are obviously lacking the intellectual and analytical acumen to have understood it. Otherwise, you would understand that the court did not create a new protected class. While they could have gone that route, the majority, instead applied  heightened scrutiny to the bans on same sex marriage and found that the rights of gays to marry was being violated as a matter of equal protection under the law.

It’s apparent that you have a piss poor and abysmal understanding of the constitution and of the case in question. What is worse is that you either do not have the ability to learn anything more, or have no desire to do so. Rather, you choose to wallow in your ignorance and bigotry- a disease of the mind that clouds your judgment and precludes any chance of rational thought.

As for Kim Davis, she goes back to work on Monday morning and it looks like she will be back in the grey-bar hotel by afternoon. Your understanding of the first amendment is quite in keeping with your level of emotional and intellectual functioning in general.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> First of all, you might be perceived as having some level of credibility if you didn’t find it necessary to present your question wrapped in hateful vitriol
> 
> Secondly, it’s apparent that you either never bothered to read the Obergefell decision, and if you did, you are obviously lacking the intellectual and analytical acumen to have understood it. Otherwise, you would understand that *the court did not create a new protected class*. While they could have gone that route, *the majority, instead applied  heightened scrutiny to the bans on same sex marriage and found that the rights of gays to marry was being violated as a matter of equal protection under the law.*
> 
> It’s apparent that you have a piss poor and abysmal understanding of the constitution and of the case in question. What is worse is that you either do not have the ability to learn anything more, or have no desire to do so. Rather, you choose to wallow in your ignorance and bigotry- a disease of the mind that clouds your judgment and precludes any chance of rational thought.
> 
> As for Kim Davis, she goes back to work on Monday morning and it looks like she will be back in the grey-bar hotel by afternoon. Your understanding of the first amendment is quite in keeping with your level of emotional and intellectual functioning in general.




ROFLMNAO!

Delusion:* PERSONIFIED!
*
How cool is that in one breath it claims that the newly formed Supreme Legislature did not establish degenerates as a Protected Class, *then, in the next breath it defines the PROTECTIONS THE SUPREME ESTABLISHED FOR DEGENERATES.*

LOL!
_
You can *NOT* make this crap up!_


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got one better for you.  Please cite in the 14th Amendment where it says "just some deviant sex behaviors are now a special class".
> 
> I'll wait.
> 
> But meanwhile I can point you to part of the Constitution that says Kim Davis had a right to not participate or put her name on any "gay marriage" license under her control.  And I can point to another part of the Constitution that says your Johnny-come-lately PA laws cannot water down the 1st Amendment.
> 
> Get back to me with that "the 14th says just some deviant sex behaviors are a new special class" thing when you find it, OK?  And if you CAN find such a clause in the 14th, let me know who put it there because it sure as hell can't have been SCOTUS.  They don't have the power to amend the US Constitution.  Only Congress can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you might be perceived as having some level of credibility if you didn’t find it necessary to present your question wrapped in hateful vitriol
> 
> Secondly, it’s apparent that you either never bothered to read the Obergefell decision, and if you did, you are obviously lacking the intellectual and analytical acumen to have understood it. Otherwise, you would understand that the court did not create a new protected class. While they could have gone that route, the majority, instead applied  heightened scrutiny to the bans on same sex marriage and found that the rights of gays to marry was being violated as a matter of equal protection under the law.
> 
> It’s apparent that you have a piss poor and abysmal understanding of the constitution and of the case in question. What is worse is that you either do not have the ability to learn anything more, or have no desire to do so. Rather, you choose to wallow in your ignorance and bigotry- a disease of the mind that clouds your judgment and precludes any chance of rational thought.
> 
> As for Kim Davis, she goes back to work on Monday morning and it looks like she will be back in the grey-bar hotel by afternoon. Your understanding of the first amendment is quite in keeping with your level of emotional and intellectual functioning in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Delusion:* PERSONIFIED!*
Click to expand...

I told you...your keys are in the refrigerator behind the half eaten bowl  of pabulum that you spit up in.

If they are not there, you might want to check your garbage to see if they got thrown out with your soiled  Depends


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I told you...your keys are in the refrigerator behind the half eaten bowl  of pabulum that you spit up in.
> 
> If they are not there, you might want to check your garbage to see if they got thrown out with your soiled  Depends



ROFLMNAO!

I guess I'll never tire of watching the Intellectually Less Fortunate fail to comprehend simple questions... .
_
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Debra K said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got one better for you.  Please cite in the 14th Amendment where it says "just some deviant sex behaviors are now a special class".
> 
> I'll wait.
> 
> But meanwhile I can point you to part of the Constitution that says Kim Davis had a right to not participate or put her name on any "gay marriage" license under her control.  And I can point to another part of the Constitution that says your Johnny-come-lately PA laws cannot water down the 1st Amendment.
> 
> Get back to me with that "the 14th says just some deviant sex behaviors are a new special class" thing when you find it, OK?  And if you CAN find such a clause in the 14th, let me know who put it there because it sure as hell can't have been SCOTUS.  They don't have the power to amend the US Constitution.  Only Congress can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silhouette.  The Fourteenth Amendment is not a catalog of individual rights.  It's a prohibition on the conduct of STATE government.   No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor deny any person equal protection under the law.   In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment secures the entire universe of individual rights against arbitrary government deprivations.   Your opinion that private sexual conduct between two consenting adults is "deviant" is insufficient as a matter of law for imposing your opinion on everyone else in society through state laws.   People who are similarly situated to other people have the right to be treated equally in the eyes of the law.   It is that simple.
Click to expand...

Correct.

And the original intent and fundamental principle codified by the 14th Amendment is that the states may not engage in class legislation, where government is prohibited from seeking to disadvantage a class of persons predicated solely on who they are – and as a fact of law gay Americans constitute such a class of persons entitled to 14th Amendment protections, settled and accepted since _Romer_.

Consequently, state measures which seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law simply because they're gay fails to pass Constitutional muster, as such measures deny gay Americans their liberty to marry absent due process, and deny them equal protection of marriage laws absent a rational basis or proper legislative end.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Correct.
> 
> *And the original intent and fundamental principle codified by the 14th Amendment is that the states may not engage in class legislation... .*
> 
> Consequently, ...



The State figures that it must establish* CLASS LEGISLATION!*

ROFL!  Now THAT is _hysterical._.. and _in every sense of the word._


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told you...your keys are in the refrigerator behind the half eaten bowl  of pabulum that you spit up in.
> 
> If they are not there, you might want to check your garbage to see if they got thrown out with your soiled  Depends
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> I guess I'll never tire of watching the Intellectually Less Fortunate fail to comprehend simple questions... .
> _
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
Click to expand...

It was a simple question all right. I'll give you that much.......simple as in simpleton. STUPID


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told you...your keys are in the refrigerator behind the half eaten bowl  of pabulum that you spit up in.
> 
> If they are not there, you might want to check your garbage to see if they got thrown out with your soiled  Depends
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> I guess I'll never tire of watching the Intellectually Less Fortunate fail to comprehend simple questions... .
> _
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
Click to expand...

It was a simple question all right. I'll give you that much.......simple as in simpleton. IN OTHER WORDS STUPID


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told you...your keys are in the refrigerator behind the half eaten bowl  of pabulum that you spit up in.
> 
> If they are not there, you might want to check your garbage to see if they got thrown out with your soiled  Depends
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> I guess I'll never tire of watching the Intellectually Less Fortunate fail to comprehend simple questions... .
> _
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a simple question all right. I'll give you that much.......simple as in simpleton. IN OTHER WORDS STUPID
Click to expand...


OH!  A Re-Concession?

Sweet!
_
Your Re-Concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
_
(Reader, this is typical when an argument advanced by the _Intellectually Less Fortunate_ is refuted...  they run to change the subject.  But hey...  as Relativists, they lack the objectivity to admit that they are wrong.)


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told you...your keys are in the refrigerator behind the half eaten bowl  of pabulum that you spit up in.
> 
> If they are not there, you might want to check your garbage to see if they got thrown out with your soiled  Depends
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> I guess I'll never tire of watching the Intellectually Less Fortunate fail to comprehend simple questions... .
> _
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a simple question all right. I'll give you that much.......simple as in simpleton. IN OTHER WORDS STUPID
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  A Re-Concession?
> 
> Sweet!
> _
> Your Re-Concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> _
> (Reader, this is typical when an argument advanced by the _Intellectually Less Fortunate_ is refuted...  they run to change the subject.  But hey...  as Relativists, they lack the objectivity to admit that they are wrong.)
Click to expand...


Really? Now what argument was that? I haven't even seen a coherent argument coming from any of the bigots, including you. You don't even know what an argument is or how it's constructed. Give it a try. Start with a stated position such as "same sex marriage should be illegal" or " the constitution does not support a right to same sex marriage. Next, construct a premise that logically and factually supports your position.

Please do so without resorting to logical fallacies, hatful rhetoric, or lies. But you can't.


----------



## Silhouette

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away


 


Silhouette said:


> Got one better for you.  Please cite in the 14th Amendment where it says "just some deviant sex behaviors are now a special class".....But meanwhile I can point you to part of the Constitution that says Kim Davis had a right to not participate or put her name on any "gay marriage" license under her control.  And I can point to another part of the Constitution that says your Johnny-come-lately PA laws cannot water down the 1st Amendment....Get back to me with that "the 14th says just some deviant sex behaviors are a new special class" thing when you find it, OK?  And if you CAN find such a clause in the 14th, let me know who put it there because it sure as hell can't have been SCOTUS.  They don't have the power to amend the US Constitution.  Only Congress can.


 


TheProgressivePatriot said:


> you either never bothered to read the Obergefell decision, and if you did, you are obviously lacking the intellectual and analytical acumen to have understood it. Otherwise, *you would understand that the court did not create a new protected class.* While they could have gone that route, the majority, instead applied  heightened scrutiny to the bans on same sex marriage and *found that the rights of gays to marry was being violated as a matter of equal protection under the law.*
> .


 
There is no "right to marry" in the US Constitution.  Just as there is no "right to drive" in the US Constitution.  Both are priveleges extended to qualified persons by each state.  And each state has the jurisdiction over who qualifies.

Blind people cannot drive.  They lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for other people on the road.  People who want to marry the same gender cannot operate a marriage.  By that I mean they lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for childen who share the marriage contract by implication.  "Gay marriage" cannot provide both a mother and father vital to children...which is the reason states are involved in incentivizing marriage at all.  Otherwise it's a net loss for the states.

Children, completely left out of the conversation illegally by the SCOTUS, grow up psychologically stunted and become burdens upon the state statistically when they lack either a mother or father in their home: Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum  So, because of the findings of that very large and comprehensive survey, states have a material and valid interest in regulating who may marry within their boundaries...


----------



## DigitalDrifter

Lol ! 183 pages !


----------



## Silhouette

Things got quiet all of a sudden.  Was it something I said?..


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Silhouette said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got one better for you.  Please cite in the 14th Amendment where it says "just some deviant sex behaviors are now a special class".....But meanwhile I can point you to part of the Constitution that says Kim Davis had a right to not participate or put her name on any "gay marriage" license under her control.  And I can point to another part of the Constitution that says your Johnny-come-lately PA laws cannot water down the 1st Amendment....Get back to me with that "the 14th says just some deviant sex behaviors are a new special class" thing when you find it, OK?  And if you CAN find such a clause in the 14th, let me know who put it there because it sure as hell can't have been SCOTUS.  They don't have the power to amend the US Constitution.  Only Congress can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> you either never bothered to read the Obergefell decision, and if you did, you are obviously lacking the intellectual and analytical acumen to have understood it. Otherwise, *you would understand that the court did not create a new protected class.* While they could have gone that route, the majority, instead applied  heightened scrutiny to the bans on same sex marriage and *found that the rights of gays to marry was being violated as a matter of equal protection under the law.*
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no "right to marry" in the US Constitution.  Just as there is no "right to drive" in the US Constitution.  Both are priveleges extended to qualified persons by each state.  And each state has the jurisdiction over who qualifies.
> 
> Blind people cannot drive.  They lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for other people on the road.  People who want to marry the same gender cannot operate a marriage.  By that I mean they lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for childen who share the marriage contract by implication.  "Gay marriage" cannot provide both a mother and father vital to children...which is the reason states are involved in incentivizing marriage at all.  Otherwise it's a net loss for the states.
> 
> Children, completely left out of the conversation illegally by the SCOTUS, grow up psychologically stunted and become burdens upon the state statistically when they lack either a mother or father in their home: Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum  So, because of the findings of that very large and comprehensive survey, states have a material and valid interest in regulating who may marry within their boundaries...
Click to expand...



Protection of children as a valid legal argument against marriage equality. That is about as stupid as stupid gets:




> Overview of Lesbian and Gay Parenting, Adoption and Foster Care
> 
> https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights_hiv-aids/overview-lesbian-and-gay-parenting-adoption-and-foster-care





You continue to demonstrate a pathetic and profound ignorance of the constitution. It’s apparent that you don’t understand that case law- binding precedents are equal to and build on the rights that are enumerated in the text, as well as those contained in the amendments:




> *Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals.*  In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
> 
> http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/




Obergefell makes that 15 times. Furthermore:




> The Legal Information Institute states”Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment.  These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process.  Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional.  Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel”  http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fundamental_right



Most rights that people enjoy and take for granted in this country, are not specified in the constitution but are *legal rights *and presumed to be constitutional unless challenged. The right to gay marriage has in fact been challenged and the challengers have have lost

Let me ask this….If it’s not a right, what is it? The only possible answer is “privilege” What is a privilege? It’s something that you have to earn. Driving is a privilege. You have to study the rules and take a road test. You do not have to study and take a test to qualify for a marriage license. While both rights and privileges can be forfeited under certain circumstances-commit a crime and lose right to freedom/drive badly and lose your driving privileges-they are by no means the same thing, because the bar, for taking away a right, is set much higher. In addition, as we established above, rights.


Getting back to children and their needing a mother and a father:




> *Marriage Equality…The Right Thing to do For The Children  by  Progressive Ratriot  9.26.13  (updated 9.13.15)*
> 
> Many opponents  of same sex marriage and adoption by gay people  assert that” children have a fundamental right to a mother and a father” and” that when gay couples adopt or use a surrogate, they are denying that child that fundamental right” However, public policy in New Jersey states that children have a right to a stable, nurturing and permanent home and it is well established that that goal can be realized in a variety of family structures. The NJ Department of Families and Children-the public agency charged with the responsibility of finding adoptive homes for children –states, in part, on their web site that no one will be denied the opportunity to adopt based on sexual orientation. In fact, the Department’s Division of Child Protection and Permanency (formerly DYFS) has been placing children for adoption with gay and lesbian people- those who are single and those who are in a relationship- for decades with good outcomes for the children.
> 
> And there are many, many more who still need homes while there is a dearth of people willing and able to adopt them. I know this because I worked in the foster care and adoption field in New Jersey for 26 years. I might add that children who are placed for adoption are already in a situation where they have neither a mother nor a father available to them. To imply that that a child would better off languishing in the foster care system as a ward of the state, than to be adopted into a nontraditional family is beyond absurd.
> 
> Furthermore, the vast majority of child psychologists will tell you that there are far more important factors that impact a child’s development than the gender or sexual orientation of the parents. No doubt that one could dredge up research studies that claim to prove that gay parenting is harmful. However, well established organizations like the American Psychological Association take the position that gay and lesbian parents are just as capable of rearing emotionally healthy children as anyone else.
> 
> Yet even if family composition was, as some purport, a critical factor in children’s development, the fact is that there are and will always be children in non-traditional living situations where they do not have a mother and a father. Like it or not, it is also a fact that gay and lesbian people have children, be it from a prior relationship, adoption, or surrogacy. Denying gay and lesbians the opportunity to marry does nothing to ensure that any significantly greater number of children will have a home with a mother and a father. Of course, some gay and lesbian couples will employ  various means to have children, but those are children who would not have otherwise been born. The most significant effect by far will be to deny numerous children the legal rights, protections, status and stability that comes with having married parents.
> 
> And, to deny gays the ability to adopt will only ensure that more children will have neither a mother nor a father. Everyone is entitled to their moral views and religious beliefs but it is disingenuous and outright shameful to use children as pawns in the lost fight against equality by bloviating about how they would be harmed by it. While single people can be great parents, the benefits to children of allowing two people who are in a committed relationship to be  married  are obvious for anyone willing to look at the issue objectively. Those who truly care about children should be willing to open all of the possible pathways for them to be adopted and to have married parents when possible. Those who still oppose same sex marriage but claim to care about the children are liars and hypocrites.



Everything that you have to say……your entire so called argument is a pathetic and ridiculous fail


----------



## Silhouette

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Everything that you have to say……your entire so called argument is a pathetic and ridiculous fail


 
Typically when people say that, they have no rebuttal and so they resort to a complete annihilation of the person they're debating instead of talking to their points.

So, thanks for the compliment.  And for letting us know how worried you are that kids didn't get a voice in the "gay marriage" debate...and that soon they will....


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Silhouette said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything that you have to say……your entire so called argument is a pathetic and ridiculous fail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typically when people say that, they have no rebuttal and so they resort to a complete annihilation of the person they're debating instead of talking to their points.
> 
> So, thanks for the compliment.  And for letting us know how worried you are that kids didn't get a voice in the "gay marriage" debate...and that soon they will....
Click to expand...

I did address your idiotic points you fuckin moron!!


----------



## dcraelin

Sutton's opinion  from the 6th circuit rips apart other lower courts excuses for ignoring precedent in Baker

he then goes on to rip apart these same courts reasoning on rational basis revue...(so that even if you think you can get by the binding precedent of Baker you hit this wall) (some courts stupidly even claim more"heightened" standards of revue)

Sutton's opinion in the face of overwhelming group-think on the part of the federal judiciary will go down as the most reasoned (majority) one in the debate and was not answered in the SC's majority Obergefell decision.

Thomas's dissent in Arizona legislature v Arizona independent commission will forever catalog the hypocrisy of the majority 5 in Obergefell. 

and the Valentine's Day decision will forever be emblematic of the emotional basis of the courts regarding gay marriage.


----------



## asaratis

Vandalshandle said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I did.  And that does not mean that I don't forgive hedonist Hollywood celebrities for multiple marriages.  What is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in particular, other than to point out that, like so many other RW folks, you see no irony in posting one thing, and doing a 180 degree turn on the next post, which is exactly what you did. I find it amusing. Kind of like screaming that something Obama did is unconstitutional, while maintaining that the SC has acted unconstitutionally, when outlawing gay marriage prohibitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please describe the '180 degree turn' you say I made.  At least give the two post numbers between which you claim it occurred.
> 
> I'll be waiting....in the wings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is really no point. you are blind to your own hypocrisy, and there is nothing I can do about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you lied to the readers when you said I did  180.
> 
> You should stick to using facts regarding what I said or didn't say in a post.
> 
> A good debater doesn't have to lie to win a point.  I know it's very comforting for you bed-wetters to compliment each other after misrepresenting what someone else said that may have been construed as being against your cause.  It is expected.  After all, small minded people gotta stick together.
> 
> BTW, what do you want to be when you grow fucking up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, Asarat. First you whined that liberals would forgive hollywood celebrities for multiple marriages before we would forgive a homely woman of god. Then I asked you if Kim needs liberals' forgiveness. Then you replied that I missed the point. She doesn't need our forgiveness. Then, I said, that you are now doing a 180 turn by saying that your previous whining about liberals not forgiving Kim doesn't even matter, since only god's forgiveness. matters.
> 
> So, Asarat, THAT is your 180 degree turn. First, we are terrible for not forgiving her, and then we don't understand that it doesn't matter if we don't forgive her. Now, Please try to stay up. There may be a pop quiz at any time. Also, there are many conservatives in the remedial logic classes, here, and I can not spend all my time tutoring only you.
Click to expand...

I am not shocked by your lack of comprehension of what I actually said.

First, I was not 'whining' about liberals.  I was pointing out the hypocrisy of using the Church Lady's history regarding frequency of marriage and living through spousal misfits as evidence of bad character while on the other hand worshiping the Hollywood Celebrity Key Club as they legally swap mates and fuck like rabbits.  That's the first point you missed.

Then you asked if the Church Lady needed your forgiveness.  I said she did not.  

Your second question had no seed in my statement that liberals are being hypocritical in character judgement.  My answer that she did not need your forgiveness relates to a separate issue.

I merely made two points in two consecutive posts.

1. You are a hypocritical liberal.

2. Church Lady's do not need your forgiveness.



Your snide remarks at the ends of your failed attempts to use logic in argument may win you accolades from among your ilk, but will get you nowhere in a real logic class.

Your score here is ZERO!


----------



## Vandalshandle

If you say so, Asarat. Your backpedaling is pretty good. Did you learn that on a unicycle?


----------



## Silhouette

Oh goody, another flame war...


----------



## Silhouette

dcraelin said:


> Sutton's opinion from the 6th circuit rips apart other lower courts excuses for ignoring precedent in Baker...he then goes on to rip apart these same courts reasoning on rational basis revue...(so that even if you think you can get by the binding precedent of Baker you hit this wall) (some courts stupidly even claim more"heightened" standards of revue)...Sutton's opinion in the face of overwhelming group-think on the part of the federal judiciary will go down as the most reasoned (majority) one in the debate and was not answered in the SC's majority Obergefell decision....Thomas's dissent in Arizona legislature v Arizona independent commission will forever catalog the hypocrisy of the majority 5 in Obergefell....and the Valentine's Day decision will forever be emblematic of the emotional basis of the courts regarding gay marriage.


Which is scary. The 9 most-wise and most unbiased people in America are supposed to be the members of the USSC. Two of them were required by their own law to recuse themselves from the Obergefell case. That alone may be the hinge for overturning. But there are many others marching right up there as we speak.

As usual dcraelin, you're spot on and informative.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> Sutton's opinion  from the 6th circuit rips apart other lower courts excuses for ignoring precedent in Baker
> 
> he then goes on to rip apart these same courts reasoning on rational basis revue...(so that even if you think you can get by the binding precedent of Baker you hit this wall) (some courts stupidly even claim more"heightened" standards of revue)
> 
> Sutton's opinion in the face of overwhelming group-think on the part of the federal judiciary will go down as the most reasoned (majority) one in the debate and was not answered in the SC's majority Obergefell decision.
> 
> Thomas's dissent in Arizona legislature v Arizona independent commission will forever catalog the hypocrisy of the majority 5 in Obergefell.
> 
> and the Valentine's Day decision will forever be emblematic of the emotional basis of the courts regarding gay marriage.



So because Sutton said that Baker still controls, and because he said that only a rational basis review is required, and because you like what he said, that constitutes "ripping apart" the opinions  of all those other courts?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sutton's opinion from the 6th circuit rips apart other lower courts excuses for ignoring precedent in Baker...he then goes on to rip apart these same courts reasoning on rational basis revue...(so that even if you think you can get by the binding precedent of Baker you hit this wall) (some courts stupidly even claim more"heightened" standards of revue)...Sutton's opinion in the face of overwhelming group-think on the part of the federal judiciary will go down as the most reasoned (majority) one in the debate and was not answered in the SC's majority Obergefell decision....Thomas's dissent in Arizona legislature v Arizona independent commission will forever catalog the hypocrisy of the majority 5 in Obergefell....and the Valentine's Day decision will forever be emblematic of the emotional basis of the courts regarding gay marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is scary. The 9 most-wise and most unbiased people in America are supposed to be the members of the USSC. Two of them were required by their own law to recuse themselves from the Obergefell case.
Click to expand...


Nope. Neither were required to recuse themselves. You don't know what you're talking about.



> That alone may be the hinge for overturning. But there are many others marching right up there as we speak.
> 
> As usual dcraelin, you're spot on and informative.



As usual Dcraelin is ignores caselaw and just imagines what he likes. His argument requires him to ignore Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.....for no particuilar reason. None of the lower courts were similarly obligated. And almost all of the lower courts came to the same conclusion: that precedent required them to overturn state sex sex marriage bans.

Sutton was among the few exceptions. And obvious Sutton was wrong, as demonstrated by the USSC that overturned his decision.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got one better for you.  Please cite in the 14th Amendment where it says "just some deviant sex behaviors are now a special class".....But meanwhile I can point you to part of the Constitution that says Kim Davis had a right to not participate or put her name on any "gay marriage" license under her control.  And I can point to another part of the Constitution that says your Johnny-come-lately PA laws cannot water down the 1st Amendment....Get back to me with that "the 14th says just some deviant sex behaviors are a new special class" thing when you find it, OK?  And if you CAN find such a clause in the 14th, let me know who put it there because it sure as hell can't have been SCOTUS.  They don't have the power to amend the US Constitution.  Only Congress can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> you either never bothered to read the Obergefell decision, and if you did, you are obviously lacking the intellectual and analytical acumen to have understood it. Otherwise, *you would understand that the court did not create a new protected class.* While they could have gone that route, the majority, instead applied  heightened scrutiny to the bans on same sex marriage and *found that the rights of gays to marry was being violated as a matter of equal protection under the law.*
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no "right to marry" in the US Constitution.
Click to expand...


The constitution doesn't list all rights, as the 9th amendment makes ludicriously clear. Rememeber, just because you ignore the 9th amendment, the 5th and the 14th....doesn't mean they disappear.



> Just as there is no "right to drive" in the US Constitution.  Both are priveleges extended to qualified persons by each state.  And each state has the jurisdiction over who qualifies.



The State marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. As Obergefell and Windsor made clear. You simply ignore those portions of the ruling, ignore those constitutional guarantees and then conclude that because you ignored them, they don't apply.

If only reality worked that way.



> Blind people cannot drive.  They lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for other people on the road.  People who want to marry the same gender cannot operate a marriage.  By that I mean they lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for childen who share the marriage contract by implication.  "Gay marriage" cannot provide both a mother and father vital to children...which is the reason states are involved in incentivizing marriage at all.  Otherwise it's a net loss for the states.



No one is required to have children or be able to have them in order to get married. Nixing your analogy.



> Children, completely left out of the conversation illegally by the SCOTUS, grow up psychologically stunted and become burdens upon the state statistically when they lack either a mother or father in their home: Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum  So, because of the findings of that very large and comprehensive survey, states have a material and valid interest in regulating who may marry within their boundaries...



Obvious nosnense. The court went into elaborate detail of all the harms caused to the children of same sex parents by denying their parents marriage. They went on for paragraphs of the humiliation, the loss of financial resources, and how the denial of marriage damaged their family.

You merely ignored it all. And is your habit, concluded that if you ignored it, it doesn't exist.

Which is obviously meaningless.


----------



## dcraelin

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sutton's opinion from the 6th circuit rips apart other lower courts excuses for ignoring precedent in Baker...he then goes on to rip apart these same courts reasoning on rational basis revue...(so that even if you think you can get by the binding precedent of Baker you hit this wall) (some courts stupidly even claim more"heightened" standards of revue)...Sutton's opinion in the face of overwhelming group-think on the part of the federal judiciary will go down as the most reasoned (majority) one in the debate and was not answered in the SC's majority Obergefell decision....Thomas's dissent in Arizona legislature v Arizona independent commission will forever catalog the hypocrisy of the majority 5 in Obergefell....and the Valentine's Day decision will forever be emblematic of the emotional basis of the courts regarding gay marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is scary. The 9 most-wise and most unbiased people in America are supposed to be the members of the USSC. Two of them were required by their own law to recuse themselves from the Obergefell case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Neither were required to recuse themselves. You don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That alone may be the hinge for overturning. But there are many others marching right up there as we speak.
> 
> As usual dcraelin, you're spot on and informative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual Dcraelin is ignores caselaw and just imagines what he likes. His argument requires him to ignore Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.....for no particuilar reason. None of the lower courts were similarly obligated. And almost all of the lower courts came to the same conclusion: that precedent required them to overturn state sex sex marriage bans.
> 
> Sutton was among the few exceptions. And obvious Sutton was wrong, as demonstrated by the USSC that overturned his decision.
Click to expand...


Sutton answers this argument about "ignor[ing] Romer, Lawrence and Windsor"....its obvious that the USSC overturned Sutton's decision.......it is certainly NOT obvious he was wrong, because he wasn't.


----------



## Skylar

dcraelin said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sutton's opinion from the 6th circuit rips apart other lower courts excuses for ignoring precedent in Baker...he then goes on to rip apart these same courts reasoning on rational basis revue...(so that even if you think you can get by the binding precedent of Baker you hit this wall) (some courts stupidly even claim more"heightened" standards of revue)...Sutton's opinion in the face of overwhelming group-think on the part of the federal judiciary will go down as the most reasoned (majority) one in the debate and was not answered in the SC's majority Obergefell decision....Thomas's dissent in Arizona legislature v Arizona independent commission will forever catalog the hypocrisy of the majority 5 in Obergefell....and the Valentine's Day decision will forever be emblematic of the emotional basis of the courts regarding gay marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is scary. The 9 most-wise and most unbiased people in America are supposed to be the members of the USSC. Two of them were required by their own law to recuse themselves from the Obergefell case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Neither were required to recuse themselves. You don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That alone may be the hinge for overturning. But there are many others marching right up there as we speak.
> 
> As usual dcraelin, you're spot on and informative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual Dcraelin is ignores caselaw and just imagines what he likes. His argument requires him to ignore Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.....for no particuilar reason. None of the lower courts were similarly obligated. And almost all of the lower courts came to the same conclusion: that precedent required them to overturn state sex sex marriage bans.
> 
> Sutton was among the few exceptions. And obvious Sutton was wrong, as demonstrated by the USSC that overturned his decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sutton answers this argument about "ignor[ing] Romer, Lawrence and Windsor"....its obvious that the USSC overturned Sutton's decision.......it is certainly NOT obvious he was wrong, because he wasn't.
Click to expand...


Sutton was obviously wrong. As demonstrated by both the USSC's ruling overturning his ruling and virtually every other lower court to rule on the topic contradicting him.  And you did arbitrarily and utterly ignore Romer, Lawrence and Windsor. There's no reason the lower courts would do the same.

Lawrence established protections for gays in making personal decisions.....which include marriage. Romer explicitly forbid laws targeted against gays. And Windsor clearly found that state marriage laws were subject to constitutional guarantees.

Windsor was so clear and communicated the court's position so clearly that even Scalia recognized that the court's position was 'beyond mistaking' and the application of the logic of Windsor to overturn state same sex marriage bans was 'inevitable'.

You ignore it all. As I told Silo......your argument is based solely in replacing binding legal precedent with your emotions. And that's an argument that's gloriously  irrelevant to the law.


----------



## dcraelin

Skylar said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sutton's opinion from the 6th circuit rips apart other lower courts excuses for ignoring precedent in Baker...he then goes on to rip apart these same courts reasoning on rational basis revue...(so that even if you think you can get by the binding precedent of Baker you hit this wall) (some courts stupidly even claim more"heightened" standards of revue)...Sutton's opinion in the face of overwhelming group-think on the part of the federal judiciary will go down as the most reasoned (majority) one in the debate and was not answered in the SC's majority Obergefell decision....Thomas's dissent in Arizona legislature v Arizona independent commission will forever catalog the hypocrisy of the majority 5 in Obergefell....and the Valentine's Day decision will forever be emblematic of the emotional basis of the courts regarding gay marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is scary. The 9 most-wise and most unbiased people in America are supposed to be the members of the USSC. Two of them were required by their own law to recuse themselves from the Obergefell case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Neither were required to recuse themselves. You don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That alone may be the hinge for overturning. But there are many others marching right up there as we speak.
> 
> As usual dcraelin, you're spot on and informative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual Dcraelin is ignores caselaw and just imagines what he likes. His argument requires him to ignore Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.....for no particuilar reason. None of the lower courts were similarly obligated. And almost all of the lower courts came to the same conclusion: that precedent required them to overturn state sex sex marriage bans.
> 
> Sutton was among the few exceptions. And obvious Sutton was wrong, as demonstrated by the USSC that overturned his decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sutton answers this argument about "ignor[ing] Romer, Lawrence and Windsor"....its obvious that the USSC overturned Sutton's decision.......it is certainly NOT obvious he was wrong, because he wasn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sutton was obviously wrong. As demonstrated by both the USSC's ruling overturning his ruling and virtually every other lower court to rule on the topic contradicting him.  And you did arbitrarily and utterly ignore Romer, Lawrence and Windsor. There's no reason the lower courts would do the same.
> 
> Lawrence established protections for gays in making personal decisions.....which include marriage. Romer explicitly forbid laws targeted against gays. And Windsor clearly found that state marriage laws were subject to constitutional guarantees.
> 
> Windsor was so clear and communicated the court's position so clearly that even Scalia recognized that the court's position was 'beyond mistaking' and the application of the logic of Windsor to overturn state same sex marriage bans was 'inevitable'.
> 
> You ignore it all. As I told Silo......your argument is based solely in replacing binding legal precedent with your emotions. And that's an argument that's gloriously  irrelevant to the law.
Click to expand...



I personally have spoken to Romer, Lawrence and Windsor ad nauseam.......I was speaking of Sutton who answers all arguments that these could somehow be used as excuses to ignore (by the lower courts) the binding precedent of Baker.

saying that Scalia recognized that the die was set due to the majorities willful blindness to logic......is not the same thing as saying Scalia approved of ignoring the precedent set in Baker. Yet, that is what you repeatedly imply, as if repetition makes it true.


----------



## ABikerSailor

If the main reason for marriage is to have kids to keep the human race marching along, then why isn't one of the requirements to get a marriage license a fertility test?

If your swimmers don't swim, or if your eggs are all cracked, does that mean a denial of marriage is appropriate in this case as well?


----------



## koshergrl

ABikerSailor said:


> If the main reason for marriage is to have kids to keep the human race marching along, then why isn't one of the requirements to get a marriage license a fertility test?
> 
> If your swimmers don't swim, or if your eggs are all cracked, does that mean a denial of marriage is appropriate in this case as well?


 One of the requirements to get a license used to be taking, and passing, a full physical.


----------



## ABikerSailor

koshergrl said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the main reason for marriage is to have kids to keep the human race marching along, then why isn't one of the requirements to get a marriage license a fertility test?
> 
> If your swimmers don't swim, or if your eggs are all cracked, does that mean a denial of marriage is appropriate in this case as well?
> 
> 
> 
> One of the requirements to get a license used to be taking, and passing, a full physical.
Click to expand...


When I got married in Norfolk VA in 1985, the only requirement was a blood test to make sure we were both healthy.  Nothing else. 

Can you provide a link showing states that require a full physical, or, if it's your state that does that, can you provide a link showing a full physical is required?


----------



## koshergrl

ABikerSailor said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the main reason for marriage is to have kids to keep the human race marching along, then why isn't one of the requirements to get a marriage license a fertility test?
> 
> If your swimmers don't swim, or if your eggs are all cracked, does that mean a denial of marriage is appropriate in this case as well?
> 
> 
> 
> One of the requirements to get a license used to be taking, and passing, a full physical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I got married in Norfolk VA in 1985, the only requirement was a blood test to make sure we were both healthy.  Nothing else.
> 
> Can you provide a link showing states that require a full physical, or, if it's your state that does that, can you provide a link showing a full physical is required?
Click to expand...

 I don't think any of them do it anymore. This was an old requirement...a friend of my mother's had a huge tumor in her uterus discovered at her pre-marital physical. You used to have to show the clerk the doctor's statement when you applied for the license.


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the main reason for marriage is to have kids to keep the human race marching along, then why isn't one of the requirements to get a marriage license a fertility test?
> 
> If your swimmers don't swim, or if your eggs are all cracked, does that mean a denial of marriage is appropriate in this case as well?
> 
> 
> 
> One of the requirements to get a license used to be taking, and passing, a full physical.
Click to expand...


And for some couples in a few states, they must prove an INABILITY to procreate before a marriage license will be issued...completely blowing the "it's about kids" argument.


----------



## Skylar

dcraelin said:


> I personally have spoken to Romer, Lawrence and Windsor ad nauseam.......I was speaking of Sutton who answers all arguments that these could somehow be used as excuses to ignore (by the lower courts) the binding precedent of Baker.



And when you speak of Romer, Lawrence and Windsor....its to tell us why you're ignoring them. Feel free. But that's not a legal argument. That's an emotional one. One that I'm sure Silo responds to. But one that has no relevance to the law.



> saying that Scalia recognized that the die was set due to the majorities willful blindness to logic....is not the same thing as saying Scalia approved of ignoring the precedent set in Baker. Yet, that is what you repeatedly imply, as if repetition makes it true.



I never said that Scalia agreed with the majority. I said that Windsor was crystal clear and that even Scalia could see that. The lower courts are to interpret the law in accordance with existing precedent. Sutton largely dismissed Windsor, misinterpreted the clear message the court was sending, and came to faulty conclusions that were ultimately unconstitutional.

Making your reliance on his argument all the more nonsensical. As he was obviously wrong.


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the main reason for marriage is to have kids to keep the human race marching along, then why isn't one of the requirements to get a marriage license a fertility test?
> 
> If your swimmers don't swim, or if your eggs are all cracked, does that mean a denial of marriage is appropriate in this case as well?
> 
> 
> 
> One of the requirements to get a license used to be taking, and passing, a full physical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I got married in Norfolk VA in 1985, the only requirement was a blood test to make sure we were both healthy.  Nothing else.
> 
> Can you provide a link showing states that require a full physical, or, if it's your state that does that, can you provide a link showing a full physical is required?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think any of them do it anymore. This was an old requirement...a friend of my mother's had a huge tumor in her uterus discovered at her pre-marital physical. You used to have to show the clerk the doctor's statement when you applied for the license.
Click to expand...


Not one. No one in any state is required to have kids or be able to have them in order to get married. Making procreation a non-starter as a requirement for gays and lesbians.

Marriage has already evolved from the past. Marriage was an explicitly unequal relationship for most of history, ours included. Women  were lesser partners. There was no uniform expectation of child support, no real alimony, no equal division of assets. In some states, women couldn't even petition for divorce. 

In such a circumstance same sex marriage was incompatible with the concept of marriage. As same sex marriage would be a union of equals. And marriage was an inherently unequal relationship. 

However, marriage has long since changed. Women are now equal partners in marriage. In property. In children. In everything. A heterosexual marriage now has the same characteristics as a same sex marriage.....a meeting of equals. And with that fundamental change to marriage there was no longer any valid reason to prevent same sex couples from joining.


----------



## dcraelin

Skylar said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally have spoken to Romer, Lawrence and Windsor ad nauseam.......I was speaking of Sutton who answers all arguments that these could somehow be used as excuses to ignore (by the lower courts) the binding precedent of Baker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And when you speak of Romer, Lawrence and Windsor....its to tell us why you're ignoring them. Feel free. But that's not a legal argument. That's an emotional one. One that I'm sure Silo responds to. But one that has no relevance to the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saying that Scalia recognized that the die was set due to the majorities willful blindness to logic....is not the same thing as saying Scalia approved of ignoring the precedent set in Baker. Yet, that is what you repeatedly imply, as if repetition makes it true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that Scalia agreed with the majority. I said that Windsor was crystal clear and that even Scalia could see that. The lower courts are to interpret the law in accordance with existing precedent. Sutton largely dismissed Windsor, misinterpreted the clear message the court was sending, and came to faulty conclusions that were ultimately unconstitutional.
> 
> Making your reliance on his argument all the more nonsensical. As he was obviously wrong.
Click to expand...


I did not ignore them per se, but showed how they are irrelevant to the argument at hand...especially as the lower courts used them as an excuse for striking down existing law, and binding precedent.  Well I do I guess, ignore Romer as it is unintelligible garbage. And that is not an emotional argument...thats just what most people who dont have a dog-in-the-fight so-to-speak would say.

Scalia would not say Windsor was crystal clear either...and least not it legal arguments.....its emotion based outcome, that was crystal clear. Sutton too did not "misinterpret the clear message the court was sending" he correctly interpreted what little legal argument there was within the opinion, (basically Baker, i.e. no substantial federal question) , and showed how it did not permit Baker to be ignored, by lower courts especially.


----------



## Skylar

dcraelin said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally have spoken to Romer, Lawrence and Windsor ad nauseam.......I was speaking of Sutton who answers all arguments that these could somehow be used as excuses to ignore (by the lower courts) the binding precedent of Baker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And when you speak of Romer, Lawrence and Windsor....its to tell us why you're ignoring them. Feel free. But that's not a legal argument. That's an emotional one. One that I'm sure Silo responds to. But one that has no relevance to the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saying that Scalia recognized that the die was set due to the majorities willful blindness to logic....is not the same thing as saying Scalia approved of ignoring the precedent set in Baker. Yet, that is what you repeatedly imply, as if repetition makes it true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that Scalia agreed with the majority. I said that Windsor was crystal clear and that even Scalia could see that. The lower courts are to interpret the law in accordance with existing precedent. Sutton largely dismissed Windsor, misinterpreted the clear message the court was sending, and came to faulty conclusions that were ultimately unconstitutional.
> 
> Making your reliance on his argument all the more nonsensical. As he was obviously wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not ignore them per se, but showed how they are irrelevant to the argument at hand...especially as the lower courts used them as an excuse for striking down existing law, and binding precedent.
Click to expand...


Oh, you ignored each and every one of them. One because you didn't like the opening quote. And you didn't 'show' anything. You merely typed a claim. Which I refuted with actual quotes from the rulings. When faced with the actual quotes, the actual ruling......you complained about how long my post was.

You're not offering a legal argument. 

The lower courts aren't supposed to ignore precedent, they're supposed to follow it. And Romer, Lawrence and Windsor pointing at a pretty obvious conclusion. One so obvious that virtually every court to rule on the topic came to the same conclusion: that same sex marriage bans were unconstitutional.

I think the final count was something like *48 to 3 *in favor of overturning same sex marriage bans. *And the overwhelming majority of lower court rulings were right. *As Obergefell demonstrated. 



> Scalia would not say Windsor was crystal clear either...and least not it legal arguments



The exact words he used were 'beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable'. There's no real wiggle room here. 

Your argument is so void of merit that *you even have to ignore Scalia* on how obvious and clear Windsor was. In addition to ignoring Windsor itself, Romer, Lawrence, and virtually every lower court ruling to rule on the topic.

No rational person would. Sutton tried....and the USSC slapped him down because he was obviously wrong.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> And for some couples in a few states, they must prove an INABILITY to procreate before a marriage license will be issued...completely blowing the "it's about kids" argument.



LOL!  Not even close.

I have a hammer holding down some paperwork on my bench.  That use of the hammer being distinct from its purpose, does not alter the purpose of the hammer, dumbass.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Not one. No one in any state is required to have kids ...



So what?


----------



## dcraelin

Skylar said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally have spoken to Romer, Lawrence and Windsor ad nauseam.......I was speaking of Sutton who answers all arguments that these could somehow be used as excuses to ignore (by the lower courts) the binding precedent of Baker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And when you speak of Romer, Lawrence and Windsor....its to tell us why you're ignoring them. Feel free. But that's not a legal argument. That's an emotional one. One that I'm sure Silo responds to. But one that has no relevance to the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saying that Scalia recognized that the die was set due to the majorities willful blindness to logic....is not the same thing as saying Scalia approved of ignoring the precedent set in Baker. Yet, that is what you repeatedly imply, as if repetition makes it true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that Scalia agreed with the majority. I said that Windsor was crystal clear and that even Scalia could see that. The lower courts are to interpret the law in accordance with existing precedent. Sutton largely dismissed Windsor, misinterpreted the clear message the court was sending, and came to faulty conclusions that were ultimately unconstitutional.
> 
> Making your reliance on his argument all the more nonsensical. As he was obviously wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not ignore them per se, but showed how they are irrelevant to the argument at hand...especially as the lower courts used them as an excuse for striking down existing law, and binding precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you ignored each and every one of them. One because you didn't like the opening quote. And you didn't 'show' anything. You merely typed a claim. Which I refuted with actual quotes from the rulings. When faced with the actual quotes, the actual ruling......you complained about how long my post was.
> 
> You're not offering a legal argument.
> 
> The lower courts aren't supposed to ignore precedent, they're supposed to follow it. And Romer, Lawrence and Windsor pointing at a pretty obvious conclusion. One so obvious that virtually every court to rule on the topic came to the same conclusion: that same sex marriage bans were unconstitutional.
> 
> I think the final count was something like *48 to 3 *in favor of overturning same sex marriage bans. *And the overwhelming majority of lower court rulings were right. *As Obergefell demonstrated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scalia would not say Windsor was crystal clear either...and least not it legal arguments
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The exact words he used were 'beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable'. There's no real wiggle room here.
> 
> Your argument is so void of merit that *you even have to ignore Scalia* on how obvious and clear Windsor was. In addition to ignoring Windsor itself, Romer, Lawrence, and virtually every lower court ruling to rule on the topic.
> 
> No rational person would. Sutton tried....and the USSC slapped him down because he was obviously wrong.
Click to expand...


I didnt say I disliked the opening quote, I said it didn't fit with the majority opinion.In fact it fit better with the minority arguments.  

from Wikipedia 
Akhil Amar , a prominent law professor at  Yale on Romer 
The Constitution does not require that "special" antidiscrimination rights, once extended, irrevocably vest via some magic and antidemocratic one-way ratchet. And if Denver, Aspen, and Boulder can repeal these ordinances, presumably the Colorado legislature can repeal them by statute; and so too the people of Colorado can repeal them by state constitutional amendment (via initiative or referendum). To think otherwise is terminally silly.

also
The case, says law professor Evan Gerstmann, "has left the law of equal protection even murkier than before."

You are deliberately ...or perhaps incredibly stupidly, miss-characterizing what Scalia meant. 

look here too  "Roberts Donated Help to Gay Rights Case". _Los Angeles Times_. ..which perhaps given his other idiotic opinions helps explain the garbled mess that Romer is.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

b





dcraelin said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally have spoken to Romer, Lawrence and Windsor ad nauseam.......I was speaking of Sutton who answers all arguments that these could somehow be used as excuses to ignore (by the lower courts) the binding precedent of Baker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And when you speak of Romer, Lawrence and Windsor....its to tell us why you're ignoring them. Feel free. But that's not a legal argument. That's an emotional one. One that I'm sure Silo responds to. But one that has no relevance to the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saying that Scalia recognized that the die was set due to the majorities willful blindness to logic....is not the same thing as saying Scalia approved of ignoring the precedent set in Baker. Yet, that is what you repeatedly imply, as if repetition makes it true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that Scalia agreed with the majority. I said that Windsor was crystal clear and that even Scalia could see that. The lower courts are to interpret the law in accordance with existing precedent. Sutton largely dismissed Windsor, misinterpreted the clear message the court was sending, and came to faulty conclusions that were ultimately unconstitutional.
> 
> Making your reliance on his argument all the more nonsensical. As he was obviously wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not ignore them per se, but showed how they are irrelevant to the argument at hand...especially as the lower courts used them as an excuse for striking down existing law, and binding precedent.  Well I do I guess, ignore Romer as it is unintelligible garbage. And that is not an emotional argument...thats just what most people who dont have a dog-in-the-fight so-to-speak would say.
> 
> Scalia would not say Windsor was crystal clear either...and least not it legal arguments.....its emotion based outcome, that was crystal clear. Sutton too did not "misinterpret the clear message the court was sending" he correctly interpreted what little legal argument there was within the opinion, (basically Baker, i.e. no substantial federal question) , and showed how it did not permit Baker to be ignored, by lower courts especially.
Click to expand...



It would appear that there will be no end to the wrangling about who is right with respect to constitutional law and issues such as the relevance of Baker. Let’s face these facts, while many of us have a better than average knowledge of the constitution, none of us here are constitutional scholars. (If I’m mistaken and someone actually is, please make that known) Secondly, we all have our biases and our interpretation of the constitution is shaped by those biases. Of course, that is no less true of the judges and the justices, although they are better disguising those biases through more sophisticated legal jargon and their knowledge of case law.

Therefore, I want to try a slightly different approach. My intention here is to expose Judge Sutton for the biased bigot that he is, not by attacking his legal theories, but by taking a long hard look at his illogical and nonsensical remarks about marriage and children. While there are other inane, subjective, and biased remarks such as his fear mongering about polygamy, I will just focus on the children for now.

As you read through these excerpts from the opinion, and my comments, be cognizant of Sutton’s underlying premise that bans on same sex marriage is not worthy of heightened scrutiny.

A link to the full text of the opinion is contained in this article:



> *Sixth Circuit: Now, a split on same-sex marriage*
> 
> Posted Thu, November 6th, 2014 4:50 pm by Lyle Denniston
> 
> *The American Civil Liberties Union, one of the legal advocacy groups involved in the case, said “we will be filing for Supreme Court review right away.”  Presumably, the other attorneys involved will coordinate their filings, although each case is likely to be appealed separately.*
> 
> Breaking ranks with a wide array of other federal courts, and coming close to setting up almost certain review by the Supreme Court, a divided federal appeals court in Cincinnati on Thursday upheld bans on same-sex marriage in four states.  Dividing two to one, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overturned lower-court rulings in cases from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. Sixth Circuit:  Now, a split on same-sex marriage





The discussion of marriage and children begins on pg. 29





> ……….One starts from the premise that governments got into the business of defining marriage, and remain in the business of defining marriage, not to regulate love but to regulate sex, most especially the intended and unintended effects of male-female intercourse.
> 
> *Imagine a society without marriage. It does not take long to envision problems that might result from an absence of rules about how to handle the natural effects of male-female intercourse: children.*



Yes just imagine a world without marriage. And while you’re at it judge, try to imagine a world in which same sex couples cannot get married , many of whom have children in their care, who in the absence of marriage, may not be able to  provide two legal parents to those children through third party adoption. Please explain why, when the government puts children at a disadvantage in such a way, that doing so is not worthy of heightened scrutiny. He goes on.....



> *May men and women follow their procreative urges wherever they take them? Who is
> responsible for the children that result? How many mates may an individual have? How does
> one decide which set of mates is responsible for which set of children? *



Do gay man and lesbians not have “procreative urges”? Do they not desire to be parents and to have the opportunity to nurture and raise  children?  Is parental responsibility no also an issue among heterosexual individuals and couples? Judge, are you alluding to the well-worn and bigoted view that  only heterosexual couples need to get married because they are the only ones who have children “spontaneously” ? Are heterosexuals the only people who encounter custody and parental rights issues-that –by the way-are often exacerbated by not being married. What exactly are you talking about judge? He also states....



> *Once one accepts a need to establish such ground rules, and most especially a need to create stable family units for the planned and unplanned creation of children, one can wellappreciate why the citizenry would think that a reasonable first concern of any society is the need to regulate male-female relationships and the unique procreative possibilities of them*.
> 
> One way to pursue this objective is to encourage couples to enter lasting relationships through subsidiesand other benefits and to discourage them from ending such relationships through these and other means. People may not need the government’s encouragement to have sex. And they may not need the government’s encouragement to propagate the species. *But they may well need the* *government’s encouragement to create and maintain stable relationships within which children may flourish.* *It is not society’s laws or for that matter any one religion’s laws, but nature’s laws (that men and women complement each other biologically), that created the policy imperative. *




Yes, the need to create stable families. That’s right judge. And we need those stable families to provide stability and security for all children, including the children of gay people whose existence you seem to be unable to acknowledge.

And you say that the way to pursue the creation of stable families is “to encourage couples to enter lasting relationships through subsidiesand other benefits and to discourage them from ending such relationships through these and other means.”  Again judge, gay people have children in their care, gay people will persist in acquiring children, even in the absence of their ability to marry, and those children are deserving of those “stable families” that you refer to. How the hell do laws that deprive children-any children of that stability not deserving of heightened scrutiny?

There is more



> Gay couples, no less than straight couples, are capable of sharing such relationships. And gay couples, no less than straight couples, are capable of raising children and providing stable families for them. The quality of such relationships, and the capacity to raise children within them, turns not on sexual orientation but on individual choices and individual commitment.



Here judge, you are acknowledging the fact that same sex couples are *capable of raising children and providing stable families for them.  However, you are willing to undermine their ability to provide that stable family by denying them the ability to marry. That does not make any sense, either morally, logically or legally. 
*
Then, on rational basis review:




> *But rational basis review does not permit courts to invalidate laws every time a new and allegedly better way of addressing a policy emerges, even a better way supported by evidence and, in the Michigan case, by judicial fact finding. *
> 
> *If legislative choices may rest on “rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data,” What we are left with is this: By creating a status (marriage) and by subsidizing it (e.g.,with tax-filing privileges and deductions), the States created an incentive for two people whoprocreate together to stay together for purposes of rearing offspring. *
> 
> *That does not convict theStates of irrationality, only of awareness of the biological reality that couples of the same sex do not have children in the same way as couples of opposite sexes and that couples of the same sex do not run the risk of unintended offspring*. That explanation, still relevant today, suffices toallow the States to retain authority over an issue they have regulated from the beginning.



Judge, we are not talking about just any policy issue here. We are talking about a policy, about a law, that has a real material impact on human lives that is measurable and observable. Laws that the states have not been able to defend by articulating a rational basis for and it is doubtful that they could articulate a compelling interest either.


Now, judge, you refer to the Michigan case and “judicial fact finding” but you fail to go into much detail about that. Could it be that you want to avoid the reality that the “judicial fact finding” engaged in by the Michigan District court exposed the State of Michigan’s  biased, dishonest and unethical attempt to convince the court that same sex marriage should be banned in order to protect children? For those who don’t know, the state of Michigan, out of desperation to protect the gay marriage ban, hired a fraud and a charlatan who presented a bogus study on gay parenting, that was discredited in court.


Judge, is that why you decry “judicial fact finding.”  I will add that the “empirical evidence that you refer to overwhelmingly supports the validity of parenting by gay couples and the values of marriage to those couples and families, you the legislature, that you prefer as the “policy maker” failed to act on that data. ( I have ample documentation of all of this-much of which I have already posted and will be happy to do so again)


Lastly, in this passage, you again refer to “procreation” and talk about how gay people do not procreate in the same way as heterosexuals. Except judge, many heterosexuals-where one or both cannot have a child in the” usual way” do in fact procreate or otherwise have children EXACTLY like gay couples to.  And why, may I ask, should the state not be providing the same incentives for gay couples as for straight couples to procreate and maintain a family? Because only straight couples may have “unintended offspring”? What sense does that make? The issue is not why we should encourage anyone to marry buy why we should prohibit certain people from marrying. Do you not understand that when it comes to the denial of a right, that the burden of proof is on the state to justify it ? Do you not know those seeking rights need not  prove that they deserve the same rights as others?


And from Pg 34



> The debate over marriage of course has another side, and we cannot deny the costs to the
> plaintiffs of allowing the States to work through this profound policy debate. The traditional
> definition of marriage denies gay couples the opportunity to publicly solemnize, to say nothing
> of subsidize, their relationships under state law. In addition to depriving them of this status, it
> deprives them of benefits that range from the profound (the right to visit someone in a hospital as
> a spouse or parent) to the mundane (the right to file joint tax returns). *These harms affect not
> only gay couples but also their children. Do the benefits of standing by the traditional definition  of marriage make up for these costs? The question demands an answer—but from elected legislators, not life-tenured judges.*





Here again Judge, you are acknowledging that fact that children are harmed  by discrimination against the parents. However, you fall back on the well worn tact of those who really want to maintain the status quo, who  really want same sex marriage to not happen at all, but don’t want to admit that. Hence the mantra “leave it to the states” and “leave it to the law makers”

Judge, Michigan and far too many other states are decades away from bringing social justice to those children who you purport to care about. As proof, even as we speak, Michigan and a number of other states are attempting to enact legislation to circumvent Obergefell by removing marriage from the government purview altogether, despite the many thorny legal issues that it raises, including the unknown effect that it would have on recognition by the federal government and other states.

Judge, do you not understand that when the state does not uphold the constitution, that it is a basic tenant of our Constitutional Republic, that the Federal Judiciary has a responsibility to step in and ensure the rights of all people?


This all amounts to nothing more than an emotional rant, wrought with logical fallacies and bizarre assumptions about gays , parenting, and family life. If he is capable of going off the rails to that extent just on the subject of parenting, we should anyone believe or expect that his legal analysis of Baker’s applicability, or anything else is more rational  and objective. It is quite clear that Sutton’s agenda was to find ways of justifying his siding with the states and that he began with the conclusion that the bans on gay marriage must be upheld, and proceeded to construct his argument around that preconceived idea.


----------



## dcraelin

your pompous need to climb on your high horse and prove yourself morally superior is tedious, sad and pathetic.  What you have set out to show is un-proveable by its very nature.   I am glad to see tho that you are half-acknowledging that you have lost the legal argument.  

I will start tho to wade through your arguments. 



TheProgressivePatriot said:


> may not be able to provide two legal parents to those children through third party adoption. Please explain why, when the government puts children at a disadvantage in such a way, that doing so is not worthy of heightened scrutiny. He goes on.....



 this is a quasi legal argument ...using an emotional tug to play to heightened scrutiny.  It certainly doesn't point to  a necessary way to accommodate....a required way to accommodate. Many children in our society have disadvantages, some may think being raised by gay parents is a disadvantage.   



TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Do gay man and lesbians not have “procreative urges”? Do they not desire to be parents and to have the opportunity to nurture and rise children? Is parental responsibility no also an issue among heterosexual individuals and couples? Judge, are you alluding to the well-worn and bigoted view that only heterosexual couples need to get married because they are the only ones who have children “spontaneously” ? Are heterosexuals the only people who encounter custody and parental rights issues-that –by the way-are often exacerbated by not being married. What exactly are you talking about judge? He also states....



Maybe some do have "procreative urges" tho this puts the lie I think to the idea of"born that way" ...the government is under no obligation to provide outlets to all who have urges.  You are jumping to pompous arrogant conclusions about this being a bigoted view. 



TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Now, judge, you refer to the Michigan case and “judicial fact finding” but you fail to go into much detail about that. Could it be that you want to avoid the reality that the “judicial fact finding” engaged in by the Michigan District court exposed the State of Michigan’s biased, dishonest and unethical attempt to convince the court that same sex marriage should be banned in order to protect children?



Sutton quotes a basis to rational revue "* legislative choices may rest on “rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data,”    
*
Studies can be and often are these days proven wrong. This isnt a criminal proceeding.  It is a question of constitutional law. The contract between the government and the people, who should decide these matters.   You may have some good arguments as to desirability,....but it is up to the people to decide.  



TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Do you not understand that when it comes to the denial of a right, that the burden of proof is on the state to justify it



Marriage is not a right, it is a license from the government. .....the case we recently argued about said voting is not a right....if THAT is not a right.....surely something with the name license is not a right....that even implies it could be a local decision...lower than the state level.    



TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Michigan and a number of other states are attempting to enact legislation to circumvent Obergefell by removing marriage from the government purview altogether



Good,  I lean towards the idea that government should not have been involved in this area to begin with.  It is really a relic of the church-state of England, where taxes went to the church. 

  Why married couples get a tax break based solely on their being married when single people do not is beyond me.....I had hoped that if the SC ruled as they did on gay marriage they would at least see this unfairness and strike it down...of course they did not.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one. No one in any state is required to have kids ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
Click to expand...


So any talk about 'procreation' as a standard of marriage has no legal leg to stand on. The requirement doesn't exist.


----------



## Skylar

dcraelin said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally have spoken to Romer, Lawrence and Windsor ad nauseam.......I was speaking of Sutton who answers all arguments that these could somehow be used as excuses to ignore (by the lower courts) the binding precedent of Baker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And when you speak of Romer, Lawrence and Windsor....its to tell us why you're ignoring them. Feel free. But that's not a legal argument. That's an emotional one. One that I'm sure Silo responds to. But one that has no relevance to the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saying that Scalia recognized that the die was set due to the majorities willful blindness to logic....is not the same thing as saying Scalia approved of ignoring the precedent set in Baker. Yet, that is what you repeatedly imply, as if repetition makes it true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that Scalia agreed with the majority. I said that Windsor was crystal clear and that even Scalia could see that. The lower courts are to interpret the law in accordance with existing precedent. Sutton largely dismissed Windsor, misinterpreted the clear message the court was sending, and came to faulty conclusions that were ultimately unconstitutional.
> 
> Making your reliance on his argument all the more nonsensical. As he was obviously wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not ignore them per se, but showed how they are irrelevant to the argument at hand...especially as the lower courts used them as an excuse for striking down existing law, and binding precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you ignored each and every one of them. One because you didn't like the opening quote. And you didn't 'show' anything. You merely typed a claim. Which I refuted with actual quotes from the rulings. When faced with the actual quotes, the actual ruling......you complained about how long my post was.
> 
> You're not offering a legal argument.
> 
> The lower courts aren't supposed to ignore precedent, they're supposed to follow it. And Romer, Lawrence and Windsor pointing at a pretty obvious conclusion. One so obvious that virtually every court to rule on the topic came to the same conclusion: that same sex marriage bans were unconstitutional.
> 
> I think the final count was something like *48 to 3 *in favor of overturning same sex marriage bans. *And the overwhelming majority of lower court rulings were right. *As Obergefell demonstrated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scalia would not say Windsor was crystal clear either...and least not it legal arguments
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The exact words he used were 'beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable'. There's no real wiggle room here.
> 
> Your argument is so void of merit that *you even have to ignore Scalia* on how obvious and clear Windsor was. In addition to ignoring Windsor itself, Romer, Lawrence, and virtually every lower court ruling to rule on the topic.
> 
> No rational person would. Sutton tried....and the USSC slapped him down because he was obviously wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didnt say I disliked the opening quote, I said it didn't fit with the majority opinion.In fact it fit better with the minority arguments.
Click to expand...


You gave the opening sentence as your justification for ignoring the ruling. Just as you ignored Lawrence. Just as you ignored Windsor. And you ignoring binding legal precedent isn't a legal argument. 

Nor does your ignoring these rulings have any relevance to a lower court citing them. Romer still exists and still applies. Its still binding precedent. And while you're utterly confounded by the ruling, incapable of understanding it......the rest of us aren't similarly hampered. 



> We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.
> 
> Romer v. Evans



*Because you can't comprehend any of that doesn't mean that the lower courts are obligated to ignore such binding precedent. *

Your personal opinion has no bearing on the validity of their rulings. They're REQUIRED to abide Romer. And Lawrence. And Windsor. That you don't like the rulings or don't understand them is gloriously irrelevant to that requirement. 

Citing binding precedent of Romer, Lawrence and Windsor when they they are required to follow isn't 'lazy'. Ignoring all binding precedent in favor of a 1 sentence denial of cert from 1972? 

That's lazy.


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one. No one in any state is required to have kids ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
Click to expand...

Exactly.  So anyone making a claim that marriage is about procreation ergo gays can't legally marry because we cannot "naturally" procreate is a meaningless argument.


----------



## dcraelin

Skylar said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally have spoken to Romer, Lawrence and Windsor ad nauseam.......I was speaking of Sutton who answers all arguments that these could somehow be used as excuses to ignore (by the lower courts) the binding precedent of Baker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And when you speak of Romer, Lawrence and Windsor....its to tell us why you're ignoring them. Feel free. But that's not a legal argument. That's an emotional one. One that I'm sure Silo responds to. But one that has no relevance to the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saying that Scalia recognized that the die was set due to the majorities willful blindness to logic....is not the same thing as saying Scalia approved of ignoring the precedent set in Baker. Yet, that is what you repeatedly imply, as if repetition makes it true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that Scalia agreed with the majority. I said that Windsor was crystal clear and that even Scalia could see that. The lower courts are to interpret the law in accordance with existing precedent. Sutton largely dismissed Windsor, misinterpreted the clear message the court was sending, and came to faulty conclusions that were ultimately unconstitutional.
> 
> Making your reliance on his argument all the more nonsensical. As he was obviously wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not ignore them per se, but showed how they are irrelevant to the argument at hand...especially as the lower courts used them as an excuse for striking down existing law, and binding precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you ignored each and every one of them. One because you didn't like the opening quote. And you didn't 'show' anything. You merely typed a claim. Which I refuted with actual quotes from the rulings. When faced with the actual quotes, the actual ruling......you complained about how long my post was.
> 
> You're not offering a legal argument.
> 
> The lower courts aren't supposed to ignore precedent, they're supposed to follow it. And Romer, Lawrence and Windsor pointing at a pretty obvious conclusion. One so obvious that virtually every court to rule on the topic came to the same conclusion: that same sex marriage bans were unconstitutional.
> 
> I think the final count was something like *48 to 3 *in favor of overturning same sex marriage bans. *And the overwhelming majority of lower court rulings were right. *As Obergefell demonstrated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scalia would not say Windsor was crystal clear either...and least not it legal arguments
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The exact words he used were 'beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable'. There's no real wiggle room here.
> 
> Your argument is so void of merit that *you even have to ignore Scalia* on how obvious and clear Windsor was. In addition to ignoring Windsor itself, Romer, Lawrence, and virtually every lower court ruling to rule on the topic.
> 
> No rational person would. Sutton tried....and the USSC slapped him down because he was obviously wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didnt say I disliked the opening quote, I said it didn't fit with the majority opinion.In fact it fit better with the minority arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You gave the opening sentence as your justification for ignoring the ruling. Just as you ignored Lawrence. Just as you ignored Windsor. And you ignoring binding legal precedent isn't a legal argument.
> 
> Nor does your ignoring these rulings have any relevance to a lower court citing them. Romer still exists and still applies. Its still binding precedent. And while you're utterly confounded by the ruling, incapable of understanding it......the rest of us aren't similarly hampered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.
> 
> Romer v. Evans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Because you can't comprehend any of that doesn't mean that the lower courts are obligated to ignore such binding precedent. *
> 
> Your personal opinion has no bearing on the validity of their rulings. They're REQUIRED to abide Romer. And Lawrence. And Windsor. That you don't like the rulings or don't understand them is gloriously irrelevant to that requirement.
> 
> Citing binding precedent of Romer, Lawrence and Windsor when they they are required to follow isn't 'lazy'. Ignoring all binding precedent in favor of a 1 sentence denial of cert from 1972?
> 
> That's lazy.
Click to expand...





Skylar said:


> You gave the opening sentence as your justification for ignoring the ruling.


 well in a way, It is a quote from a justice who I am convinced would disagree with the opinion, and which fits closer to the reasoning of the dissents.....so it's use shows lack of logic on the part of the writer. Which is in part why I can bash the opinion as absurd.  



Skylar said:


> And while you're utterly confounded by the ruling, incapable of understanding it......the rest of us aren't similarly hampered.


 I showed you other prominent law professors who disagree and are also confounded by the opinion...but you are so so much smarter then them on legal stuff.



Skylar said:


> hey're REQUIRED to abide Romer. And Lawrence. And Windsor. That you don't like the rulings or don't understand them is gloriously irrelevant to that requirement.



They ARE required to abide by Romer, and Lawrence, and Windsor, I agree .....which does not conflict with abiding by Baker,......which dealt directly with the question at hand in these cases that led to obergefell.


----------



## Silhouette

dcraelin said:


> *Why married couples get a tax break based solely on their being married when single people do not is beyond *me.....I had hoped that if the SC ruled as they did on gay marriage they would at least see this unfairness and strike it down...of course they did not.


 
THIS is why > States Have a Valid Legal Argument to Defy Gay Marriage | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Skylar

dcraelin said:


> Well in a way, It is a quote from a justice who I am convinced would disagree with the opinion, and which fits closer to the reasoning of the dissents.....so it's use shows lack of logic on the part of the writer. Which is in part why I can bash the opinion as absurd.



Not 'in a way'. You straight up ignored Romer and its very clear language on discrimination against gays. 

Ignoring binding legal precedent isn't a legal argument. Especially when we're talking about lower court rulings that neither know of your arbitrary dismissal of all binding precedent that you don't like.......and care even less.

The lower courts are required to use precedent of the Supreme Court. And the court made its position on same sex marriage bans ludicrously clear in Windsor. With the foundation for those findings in Romer and Lawrence. 

That you ignore all such rulings changes nothing.



> I showed you other prominent law professors who disagree and are also confounded by the opinion...but you are so so much smarter then them on legal stuff.



And I showed you numerous lower court rulings who found Romer to be immediately relevant. Including the Supreme Court itself which cited Romer in the Windsor decision. Emphasizing its importance and its findings.

Which makes your abitrary dismissal of all lower court rulings citing it, all USSC rulings citing it, and the ruling itself all the more useless. 

As your dismissal has no relevance to its legal validity. That you don't like Romer is meaningless in terms of it being binding precedent. And is even more meaningless in the lower court's citation of it. 

Your personal opinion v. binding legal precedent has the same winner every time. Not you.



> They ARE required to abide by Romer, and Lawrence, and Windsor, I agree .....which does not conflict with abiding by Baker,......which dealt directly with the question at hand in these cases that led to obergefell.



Baker was a one sentence denial of cert from 40 years ago. None of the legal precedent laid out in Romer, Lawrence or Windsor existed when that one sentence was written. And the precedent on the matter that has come since changed the legal landscape dramatically. 
*
You ignored them all in favor of a denial of cert. You were just plain wrong.* But even Scalia makes it clear that the court's position was beyond mistaking. Virtually every court to rule on the matter affirms as much. And the Obergefell ruling is the cherry on the top of you not knowing what you're talking about.

Its not Scalia, almost all lower courts and the Supreme Court that was wrong on Windsor. Its just you.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why married couples get a tax break based solely on their being married when single people do not is beyond *me.....I had hoped that if the SC ruled as they did on gay marriage they would at least see this unfairness and strike it down...of course they did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THIS is why > States Have a Valid Legal Argument to Defy Gay Marriage | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...


Your proposal helps no child. And hurts 10s of thousands. Nixing your argument yet again.


----------



## dcraelin

Silhouette said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why married couples get a tax break based solely on their being married when single people do not is beyond *me.....I had hoped that if the SC ruled as they did on gay marriage they would at least see this unfairness and strike it down...of course they did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THIS is why > States Have a Valid Legal Argument to Defy Gay Marriage | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...


Not sure what your getting at here, ? you link me to a whole discussion thread?


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why married couples get a tax break based solely on their being married when single people do not is beyond *me.....I had hoped that if the SC ruled as they did on gay marriage they would at least see this unfairness and strike it down...of course they did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THIS is why > States Have a Valid Legal Argument to Defy Gay Marriage | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...

 


dcraelin said:


> Not sure what your getting at here, ? you link me to a whole discussion thread?


 No, to the OP.  Read it.  It answers your question perfectly and should clear up any confusion you had about why states give tax breaks to married men and women.


----------



## dcraelin

Skylar said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well in a way, It is a quote from a justice who I am convinced would disagree with the opinion, and which fits closer to the reasoning of the dissents.....so it's use shows lack of logic on the part of the writer. Which is in part why I can bash the opinion as absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not 'in a way'. You straight up ignored Romer and its very clear language on discrimination against gays.
> 
> Ignoring binding legal precedent isn't a legal argument. Especially when we're talking about lower court rulings that neither know of your arbitrary dismissal of all binding precedent that you don't like.......and care even less.
> 
> The lower courts are required to use precedent of the Supreme Court. And the court made its position on same sex marriage bans ludicrously clear in Windsor. With the foundation for those findings in Romer and Lawrence.
> 
> That you ignore all such rulings changes nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I showed you other prominent law professors who disagree and are also confounded by the opinion...but you are so so much smarter then them on legal stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I showed you numerous lower court rulings who found Romer to be immediately relevant. Including the Supreme Court itself which cited Romer in the Windsor decision. Emphasizing its importance and its findings.
> 
> Which makes your abitrary dismissal of all lower court rulings citing it, all USSC rulings citing it, and the ruling itself all the more useless.
> 
> As your dismissal has no relevance to its legal validity. That you don't like Romer is meaningless in terms of it being binding precedent. And is even more meaningless in the lower court's citation of it.
> 
> Your personal opinion v. binding legal precedent has the same winner every time. Not you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They ARE required to abide by Romer, and Lawrence, and Windsor, I agree .....which does not conflict with abiding by Baker,......which dealt directly with the question at hand in these cases that led to obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baker was a one sentence denial of cert from 40 years ago. None of the legal precedent laid out in Romer, Lawrence or Windsor existed when that one sentence was written. And the precedent on the matter that has come since changed the legal landscape dramatically.
> *
> You ignored them all in favor of a denial of cert. You were just plain wrong.* But even Scalia makes it clear that the court's position was beyond mistaking. Virtually every court to rule on the matter affirms as much. And the Obergefell ruling is the cherry on the top of you not knowing what you're talking about.
> 
> Its not Scalia, almost all lower courts and the Supreme Court that was wrong on Windsor. Its just you.
Click to expand...


absolutely nothing above you haven't  (wrongfully) said in the past.....including the IDIOTIC argument that it is my opinion and that, surprise surprise? the courts have ruled differently....................congratulations on finding yet another verbose way to reword it. 

IT is YOU who haven't addressed arguments., you keep regurgitating that what I say is my opinion......no fucking duh.


----------



## dcraelin

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why married couples get a tax break based solely on their being married when single people do not is beyond *me.....I had hoped that if the SC ruled as they did on gay marriage they would at least see this unfairness and strike it down...of course they did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THIS is why > States Have a Valid Legal Argument to Defy Gay Marriage | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what your getting at here, ? you link me to a whole discussion thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, to the OP.  Read it.  It answers your question perfectly and should clear up any confusion you had about why states give tax breaks to married men and women.
Click to expand...


Well,I am referring to those tax breaks to married folks, NOT based on children, but solely on marriage.....in other words tax breaks despite not having children...

This is where I think the SC in order to have a little consistency, should have said, (IF it was to rule on gay marriage as it did,) that there can be no discrimination against single people in the area of taxation due solely to marriage.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> your pompous need to climb on your high horse and prove yourself morally superior is tedious, sad and pathetic.  What you have set out to show is un-proveable by its very nature.   I am glad to see tho that you are half-acknowledging that you have lost the legal argument.
> 
> I will start tho to wade through your arguments.




*More rantings from the dark world according to DCraelin ?  Of course you will attack the truth that you are threatened by and It’s apparent that you are threatened because of your need to insult me. Now hear this, I did not concede the legal argument. I acknowledged that fact that I have my biases, something that  you do not seem to have the integrity to do. What I said was that I will never convince you of the fallacy of your legal argument as you will never prove me wrong. All that you can do is to choose  to ignore the majority opinion of the SC  as well, the vast majority of the lower court’s rulings, and an extensive body of case law.*






dcraelin said:


> this is a quasi legal argument ...using an emotional tug to play to heightened scrutiny.  It certainly doesn't point to  a necessary way to accommodate....a required way to accommodate. Many children in our society have disadvantages, some may think being raised by gay parents is a disadvantage.




*That’s right, it is emotional. This is an emotional matter. Children are an emotional issue. If you don’t think so there is something wrong with you. But heighted scrutiny was applied as a matter of law. the welfare of our children is a legitimate state interest. However, limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples fails to further this interest. Instead, needlessly stigmatizing and humiliating children who are being raised by the loving couples targeted by Virginia’s Marriage Laws betrays that interest. [Schall and Townley's daughter], like the thousands of children being raised by same-sex couples, is needless deprived of the protection, the stability, the recognition and the legitimacy that marriage conveys.*

Federal Judge: Virginia’s Ban On Same-Sex Marriage Needlessly Stigmatizes And Humiliates Children





dcraelin said:


> Maybe some do have "procreative urges" tho this puts the lie I think to the idea of"born that way" ...the government is under no obligation to provide outlets to all who have urges.  You are jumping to pompous arrogant conclusions about this being a bigoted view.




*I’m not jumping to anything. Here your profound ignorance and bigotry is front and center!  What the fuck does parental instincts and the issue of “ born that way”  have to do with each other. Please give me a sign that you are not so fucking stupid as to think that if someone is “really gay” that they do not want children. PLEASE!*

*And how the hell is the government providing an outlet for anything? This just ignores everything that has been said about the benefits of marriage to children. If you want to call me pompous and arrogant (again) because I advocate for children be my guest. You are the one looking pompous and arrogant as well as callous and stupid. *





dcraelin said:


> Sutton quotes a basis to rational revue "* legislative choices may rest on “rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data,”
> *
> Studies can be and often are these days proven wrong. This isnt a criminal proceeding.  It is a question of constitutional law. The contract between the government and the people, who should decide these matters.   You may have some good arguments as to desirability,....but it is up to the people to decide.




*More horseshit. As I said before. The overwhelming body of evidence shows clearly that gay parenting is equal to straight parenting and that the respective genders of the parents is of little consequence. EVERY study that contradicts that-including the one that Michigan used-has been discredited. I have them all as was as about 70 peer reviewed studies that support gay parenting. I would share but I don’t think that you are actually interested*

*If there was a credible body of evidence that showed that having same sex parents was somehow harmful –why did Michigan stupidly commission a highly biased and flawed study to try to prove that? And the really insane thing is that whether or not gays make good or adequate parents was not even the right question to be asking because at that point the case was about marriage, not adoption. And as you know, gay people will have kids married or not.*



dcraelin said:


> Marriage is not a right, it is a license from the government. .....the case we recently argued about said voting is not a right....if THAT is not a right.....surely something with the name license is not a right....that even implies it could be a local decision...lower than the state level.



*Really old sport ? You can’t compare marriage to voting. It’s another of your false equivalencies. Voting has in fact not been established as a right. However, fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right  |  American Foundation for Equal Rights  Make that 15 with Obegefell.*

*Furthermore The Legal Information Institute states”Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment.  These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process.  Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional.  Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel”  Fundamental Right | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute*

*Most rights that people enjoy and take for granted in this country, are not specified in the constitution but are legal rights and presumed to be constitutional unless challanged. The time is not far off when the right to same sex marriage will be established by SCOTUS and gay marriage as a legal right will soon follow*

*Still not convinced? Let me ask this….If it’s not a right, what is it? The only possible answer is “privilege” What is a privilege? It’s something that you have to earn. Driving is a privilege. You have to study the rules and take a road test. You do not have to study and take a test to qualify for a marriage license. While both rights and privileges can be forfeited under certain circumstances-commit a crime and lose right to freedom/drive badly and lose your driving privileges-they are by no means the same thing, because the bar, for taking away a right, is set much higher. In addition, as we established above, rights emanate from the fact of being born a human. Privileges do not. We can only conclude that marriage is not a privilege and therefore is a right. When a ten your old asks if she can get married someday, her parent can say “sure” ….unless she means her girlfriend, and then, if she lives in the wrong place she will have to be told “maybe” and it will hurt*





dcraelin said:


> Good,  I lean towards the idea that government should not have been involved in this area to begin with.  It is really a relic of the church-state of England, where taxes went to the church.
> 
> Why married couples get a tax break based solely on their being married when single people do not is beyond me.....I had hoped that if the SC ruled as they did on gay marriage they would at least see this unfairness and strike it down...of course they did not.




*That “government out of marriage” nonsense is just another undoable pipe dream. Get over it. And this thing about single people is just another logical fallacy, this time a red herring, and yes, another false equivalency. First of all there was no question before court concerning taxes and marital status so  you hoping for a ruling on that just shows once again how little you understand In addition, I have to ask, what are these tax breaks that you refer to? Married people get to file joint returns but that doesn’t  mean that they pay less taxes. Some do and some don’t. Every situation is different. Now will you please get out of here?!*


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Vandalshandle said:


> I am amused that what the anti-gay people label "perversion", and "degradation", not to mention "morally bankrupt" when objecting to sex practiced by gays, is also practiced by most heteralsexual couples. That, however, is not objectionable, I guess, since nobody talks about it. Of course, what people do in their own bedrooms is their own business, but somehow, what gays do in their own bedrooms is every conservative's business.
> 
> The whole thing leads me to believe that the objections are coming from people with extremely suppressed personal sex lives....



More likely it comes out of the self loathing they feel as a result of their latent homosexual yearnings.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> *What I said was that I will never convince you of the fallacy of your legal argument as you will never prove me wrong.*



You've been proven wrong by no less an authority than nature itself. 

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.  This as a result of the human physiological design; wherein Nature designed the human species with two distinct, but complementing genders, each designed SPECIFICALLY... the join with the other, forming one sustainable body, from two. 

What's more, there is not now, nor has there ever been a law in the US which precludes homosexuals from marriage... they need only do as EVERY OTHER CITIZEN IS REQUIRED and that is to apply for such with a person of the distinct gender... . 

In THAT we find that there is not now, nor has there ever been a legal discrimination against homosexuals with regard to marriage.

Your argument; along with the argument of the other degenerates who join your argument: is specious NONSENSE...

And that you found a judge who was predisposed to agree with your specious claptrap in NO WAY alters reality, wherein:​*MARRIAGE: Is the joining of One Man and One Woman.

Thus: homosexuals seeking to "marry" individuals of the same gender, are NOT QUALIFIED CANDIDATE FOR MARRIAGE!

This being precisely the same for the Blind who we discriminate against by denying the 'right to drive'.

And the Felons who we deny the 'right to bear arms'.

Ya see... these people do not possess the qualities suitable for the exercise of the right at issue.

This is the same reason that responsible people never leave a child alone with a homosexual of either gender (Especially the Lesbians...).*​


----------



## Faun

Where_r_my_Gay_Keys said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What I said was that I will never convince you of the fallacy of your legal argument as you will never prove me wrong.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've been proven wrong by no less an authority than nature itself.
> 
> Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.  This as a result of the human physiological design; wherein Nature designed the human species with two distinct, but complementing genders, each designed SPECIFICALLY... the join with the other, forming one sustainable body, from two.
> 
> What's more, there is not now, nor has there ever been a law in the US which precludes homosexuals from marriage... they need only do as EVERY OTHER CITIZEN IS REQUIRED and that is to apply for such with a person of the distinct gender... .
> 
> In THAT we find that there is not now, nor has there ever been a legal discrimination against homosexuals with regard to marriage.
> 
> Your argument; along with the argument of the other degenerates who join your argument: is specious NONSENSE...
> 
> And that you found a judge who was predisposed to agree with your specious claptrap in NO WAY alters reality, wherein:​*MARRIAGE: Is the joining of One Man and One Woman.
> 
> Thus: homosexuals seeking to "marry" individuals of the same gender, are NOT QUALIFIED CANDIDATE FOR MARRIAGE!*​
Click to expand...

Oh, cool, the butthurt continues.


----------



## ABikerSailor

You people DO realize that King David had a LEGALLY RECOGNIZED UNION with his best friend Jonathan, right?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ABikerSailor said:


> You people DO realize that King David had a LEGALLY RECOGNIZED UNION with his best friend Jonathan, right?



I realize that you're clearly out of your mind... but setting aside your psychosis... to what would that be relevant?


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> your pompous need to climb on your high horse and prove yourself morally superior is tedious, sad and pathetic.  What you have set out to show is un-proveable by its very nature.   I am glad to see tho that you are half-acknowledging that you have lost the legal argument.
> 
> I will start tho to wade through your arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *More rantings from the dark world according to DCraelin ?  Of course you will attack the truth that you are threatened by and It’s apparent that you are threatened because of your need to insult me. Now hear this, I did not concede the legal argument. I acknowledged that fact that I have my biases, something that  you do not seem to have the integrity to do. What I said was that I will never convince you of the fallacy of your legal argument as you will never prove me wrong. All that you can do is to choose  to ignore the majority opinion of the SC  as well, the vast majority of the lower court’s rulings, and an extensive body of case law.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is a quasi legal argument ...using an emotional tug to play to heightened scrutiny.  It certainly doesn't point to  a necessary way to accommodate....a required way to accommodate. Many children in our society have disadvantages, some may think being raised by gay parents is a disadvantage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *That’s right, it is emotional. This is an emotional matter. Children are an emotional issue. If you don’t think so there is something wrong with you. But heighted scrutiny was applied as a matter of law. the welfare of our children is a legitimate state interest. However, limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples fails to further this interest. Instead, needlessly stigmatizing and humiliating children who are being raised by the loving couples targeted by Virginia’s Marriage Laws betrays that interest. [Schall and Townley's daughter], like the thousands of children being raised by same-sex couples, is needless deprived of the protection, the stability, the recognition and the legitimacy that marriage conveys.*
> 
> Federal Judge: Virginia’s Ban On Same-Sex Marriage Needlessly Stigmatizes And Humiliates Children
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe some do have "procreative urges" tho this puts the lie I think to the idea of"born that way" ...the government is under no obligation to provide outlets to all who have urges.  You are jumping to pompous arrogant conclusions about this being a bigoted view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *I’m not jumping to anything. Here your profound ignorance and bigotry is front and center!  What the fuck does parental instincts and the issue of “ born that way”  have to do with each other. Please give me a sign that you are not so fucking stupid as to think that if someone is “really gay” that they do not want children. PLEASE!*
> 
> *And how the hell is the government providing an outlet for anything? This just ignores everything that has been said about the benefits of marriage to children. If you want to call me pompous and arrogant (again) because I advocate for children be my guest. You are the one looking pompous and arrogant as well as callous and stupid. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sutton quotes a basis to rational revue "* legislative choices may rest on “rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data,”
> *
> Studies can be and often are these days proven wrong. This isnt a criminal proceeding.  It is a question of constitutional law. The contract between the government and the people, who should decide these matters.   You may have some good arguments as to desirability,....but it is up to the people to decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *More horseshit. As I said before. The overwhelming body of evidence shows clearly that gay parenting is equal to straight parenting and that the respective genders of the parents is of little consequence. EVERY study that contradicts that-including the one that Michigan used-has been discredited. I have them all as was as about 70 peer reviewed studies that support gay parenting. I would share but I don’t think that you are actually interested*
> 
> *If there was a credible body of evidence that showed that having same sex parents was somehow harmful –why did Michigan stupidly commission a highly biased and flawed study to try to prove that? And the really insane thing is that whether or not gays make good or adequate parents was not even the right question to be asking because at that point the case was about marriage, not adoption. And as you know, gay people will have kids married or not.*
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is not a right, it is a license from the government. .....the case we recently argued about said voting is not a right....if THAT is not a right.....surely something with the name license is not a right....that even implies it could be a local decision...lower than the state level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Really old sport ? You can’t compare marriage to voting. It’s another of your false equivalencies. Voting has in fact not been established as a right. However, fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right  |  American Foundation for Equal Rights  Make that 15 with Obegefell.*
> 
> *Furthermore The Legal Information Institute states”Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment.  These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process.  Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional.  Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel”  Fundamental Right | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute*
> 
> *Most rights that people enjoy and take for granted in this country, are not specified in the constitution but are legal rights and presumed to be constitutional unless challanged. The time is not far off when the right to same sex marriage will be established by SCOTUS and gay marriage as a legal right will soon follow*
> 
> *Still not convinced? Let me ask this….If it’s not a right, what is it? The only possible answer is “privilege” What is a privilege? It’s something that you have to earn. Driving is a privilege. You have to study the rules and take a road test. You do not have to study and take a test to qualify for a marriage license. While both rights and privileges can be forfeited under certain circumstances-commit a crime and lose right to freedom/drive badly and lose your driving privileges-they are by no means the same thing, because the bar, for taking away a right, is set much higher. In addition, as we established above, rights emanate from the fact of being born a human. Privileges do not. We can only conclude that marriage is not a privilege and therefore is a right. When a ten your old asks if she can get married someday, her parent can say “sure” ….unless she means her girlfriend, and then, if she lives in the wrong place she will have to be told “maybe” and it will hurt*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good,  I lean towards the idea that government should not have been involved in this area to begin with.  It is really a relic of the church-state of England, where taxes went to the church.
> 
> Why married couples get a tax break based solely on their being married when single people do not is beyond me.....I had hoped that if the SC ruled as they did on gay marriage they would at least see this unfairness and strike it down...of course they did not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *That “government out of marriage” nonsense is just another undoable pipe dream. Get over it. And this thing about single people is just another logical fallacy, this time a red herring, and yes, another false equivalency. First of all there was no question before court concerning taxes and marital status so  you hoping for a ruling on that just shows once again how little you understand In addition, I have to ask, what are these tax breaks that you refer to? Married people get to file joint returns but that doesn’t  mean that they pay less taxes. Some do and some don’t. Every situation is different. Now will you please get out of here?!*
Click to expand...




TheProgressivePatriot said:


> needlessly stigmatizing and humiliating children



shear BS, perhaps some children are stigmatized and humiliated by having gay "parents" ...more likely ....but stigmatizing and humiliation cannot be cured by legal status, and should not be a consideration.



TheProgressivePatriot said:


> threatened because of your need to insult me.


 your arrogance in repeating calling opponents to gay marriage bigots is apparent. (see below) to turn around and complain abpout me insulting you is laughable.


TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Here your profound ignorance and bigotry is front and center





TheProgressivePatriot said:


> More horseshit.


  NO what you repeatedly say is horseshit...Sutton points out that rational basis revue requires no studies......These "studies" usually come off of socially liberal college campuses and are suspect regardless.   Sutton does accept "rational basis revue" which is itself I think somewhat irrational and turns normal court proof requirements on their head. I believe some justices have a problem with this also. 



TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Make that 15 with Obegefell.


 What do you care about numbers?....you reject the democratic process so what do you care?....and I think you overstate the case anyway. I dont think any really established as a right except obergefell



TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The time is not far off when the right to same sex marriage will be established by SCOTUS and gay marriage as a legal right will soon follow


  WHAT THE FUCK is this?.......  a paste from an old post you left in?   



TheProgressivePatriot said:


> he only possible answer is “privilege”


 no there are many possible answers



TheProgressivePatriot said:


> First of all there was no question before court concerning taxes and marital status so you hoping for a ruling on that just shows once again how little you understand



marriage is a package of various laws.....which points to another idiocy of these cases and the SCs approach...each state probably has slight differences in marriage laws...........so the court should have examined these all...it is really not their place to redefine a word. 

among those packages of laws..are tax laws...something gay marriage proponents raised as some of their litany of unfairness-es.  So the fairness of tax laws based on marriage should have been considered. ...their avoidance of that issue shows they werent really concerned with consistency and equality in law but were ruling on an emotional based argument alone.


----------



## koshergrl

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people DO realize that King David had a LEGALLY RECOGNIZED UNION with his best friend Jonathan, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that you're clearly out of your mind... but setting aside your psychosis... to what would that be relevant?
Click to expand...

 Gaybiker just likes to think about it a lot.


----------



## Faun

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> your pompous need to climb on your high horse and prove yourself morally superior is tedious, sad and pathetic.  What you have set out to show is un-proveable by its very nature.   I am glad to see tho that you are half-acknowledging that you have lost the legal argument.
> 
> I will start tho to wade through your arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *More rantings from the dark world according to DCraelin ?  Of course you will attack the truth that you are threatened by and It’s apparent that you are threatened because of your need to insult me. Now hear this, I did not concede the legal argument. I acknowledged that fact that I have my biases, something that  you do not seem to have the integrity to do. What I said was that I will never convince you of the fallacy of your legal argument as you will never prove me wrong. All that you can do is to choose  to ignore the majority opinion of the SC  as well, the vast majority of the lower court’s rulings, and an extensive body of case law.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is a quasi legal argument ...using an emotional tug to play to heightened scrutiny.  It certainly doesn't point to  a necessary way to accommodate....a required way to accommodate. Many children in our society have disadvantages, some may think being raised by gay parents is a disadvantage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *That’s right, it is emotional. This is an emotional matter. Children are an emotional issue. If you don’t think so there is something wrong with you. But heighted scrutiny was applied as a matter of law. the welfare of our children is a legitimate state interest. However, limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples fails to further this interest. Instead, needlessly stigmatizing and humiliating children who are being raised by the loving couples targeted by Virginia’s Marriage Laws betrays that interest. [Schall and Townley's daughter], like the thousands of children being raised by same-sex couples, is needless deprived of the protection, the stability, the recognition and the legitimacy that marriage conveys.*
> 
> Federal Judge: Virginia’s Ban On Same-Sex Marriage Needlessly Stigmatizes And Humiliates Children
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe some do have "procreative urges" tho this puts the lie I think to the idea of"born that way" ...the government is under no obligation to provide outlets to all who have urges.  You are jumping to pompous arrogant conclusions about this being a bigoted view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *I’m not jumping to anything. Here your profound ignorance and bigotry is front and center!  What the fuck does parental instincts and the issue of “ born that way”  have to do with each other. Please give me a sign that you are not so fucking stupid as to think that if someone is “really gay” that they do not want children. PLEASE!*
> 
> *And how the hell is the government providing an outlet for anything? This just ignores everything that has been said about the benefits of marriage to children. If you want to call me pompous and arrogant (again) because I advocate for children be my guest. You are the one looking pompous and arrogant as well as callous and stupid. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sutton quotes a basis to rational revue "* legislative choices may rest on “rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data,”
> *
> Studies can be and often are these days proven wrong. This isnt a criminal proceeding.  It is a question of constitutional law. The contract between the government and the people, who should decide these matters.   You may have some good arguments as to desirability,....but it is up to the people to decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *More horseshit. As I said before. The overwhelming body of evidence shows clearly that gay parenting is equal to straight parenting and that the respective genders of the parents is of little consequence. EVERY study that contradicts that-including the one that Michigan used-has been discredited. I have them all as was as about 70 peer reviewed studies that support gay parenting. I would share but I don’t think that you are actually interested*
> 
> *If there was a credible body of evidence that showed that having same sex parents was somehow harmful –why did Michigan stupidly commission a highly biased and flawed study to try to prove that? And the really insane thing is that whether or not gays make good or adequate parents was not even the right question to be asking because at that point the case was about marriage, not adoption. And as you know, gay people will have kids married or not.*
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is not a right, it is a license from the government. .....the case we recently argued about said voting is not a right....if THAT is not a right.....surely something with the name license is not a right....that even implies it could be a local decision...lower than the state level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Really old sport ? You can’t compare marriage to voting. It’s another of your false equivalencies. Voting has in fact not been established as a right. However, fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right  |  American Foundation for Equal Rights  Make that 15 with Obegefell.*
> 
> *Furthermore The Legal Information Institute states”Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment.  These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process.  Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional.  Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel”  Fundamental Right | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute*
> 
> *Most rights that people enjoy and take for granted in this country, are not specified in the constitution but are legal rights and presumed to be constitutional unless challanged. The time is not far off when the right to same sex marriage will be established by SCOTUS and gay marriage as a legal right will soon follow*
> 
> *Still not convinced? Let me ask this….If it’s not a right, what is it? The only possible answer is “privilege” What is a privilege? It’s something that you have to earn. Driving is a privilege. You have to study the rules and take a road test. You do not have to study and take a test to qualify for a marriage license. While both rights and privileges can be forfeited under certain circumstances-commit a crime and lose right to freedom/drive badly and lose your driving privileges-they are by no means the same thing, because the bar, for taking away a right, is set much higher. In addition, as we established above, rights emanate from the fact of being born a human. Privileges do not. We can only conclude that marriage is not a privilege and therefore is a right. When a ten your old asks if she can get married someday, her parent can say “sure” ….unless she means her girlfriend, and then, if she lives in the wrong place she will have to be told “maybe” and it will hurt*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good,  I lean towards the idea that government should not have been involved in this area to begin with.  It is really a relic of the church-state of England, where taxes went to the church.
> 
> Why married couples get a tax break based solely on their being married when single people do not is beyond me.....I had hoped that if the SC ruled as they did on gay marriage they would at least see this unfairness and strike it down...of course they did not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *That “government out of marriage” nonsense is just another undoable pipe dream. Get over it. And this thing about single people is just another logical fallacy, this time a red herring, and yes, another false equivalency. First of all there was no question before court concerning taxes and marital status so  you hoping for a ruling on that just shows once again how little you understand In addition, I have to ask, what are these tax breaks that you refer to? Married people get to file joint returns but that doesn’t  mean that they pay less taxes. Some do and some don’t. Every situation is different. Now will you please get out of here?!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> needlessly stigmatizing and humiliating children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> shear BS, perhaps some children are stigmatized and humiliated by having gay "parents" ...more likely ....but stigmatizing and humiliation cannot be cured by legal status, and should not be a consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> threatened because of your need to insult me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your arrogance in repeating calling opponents to gay marriage bigots is apparent. (see below) to turn around and complain abpout me insulting you is laughable.
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here your profound ignorance and bigotry is front and center
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> More horseshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO what you repeatedly say is horseshit...Sutton points out that rational basis revue requires no studies......These "studies" usually come off of socially liberal college campuses and are suspect regardless.   Sutton does accept "rational basis revue" which is itself I think somewhat irrational and turns normal court proof requirements on their head. I believe some justices have a problem with this also.
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make that 15 with Obegefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you care about numbers?....you reject the democratic process so what do you care?....and I think you overstate the case anyway. I dont think any really established as a right except obergefell
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The time is not far off when the right to same sex marriage will be established by SCOTUS and gay marriage as a legal right will soon follow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHAT THE FUCK is this?.......  a paste from an old post you left in?
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> he only possible answer is “privilege”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no there are many possible answers
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all there was no question before court concerning taxes and marital status so you hoping for a ruling on that just shows once again how little you understand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> marriage is a package of various laws.....which points to another idiocy of these cases and the SCs approach...each state probably has slight differences in marriage laws...........so the court should have examined these all...it is really not their place to redefine a word.
> 
> among those packages of laws..are tax laws...something gay marriage proponents raised as some of their litany of unfairness-es.  So the fairness of tax laws based on marriage should have been considered. ...their avoidance of that issue shows they werent really concerned with consistency and equality in law but were ruling on an emotional based argument alone.
Click to expand...

On what grounds could the government not allow you to get married?


----------



## ABikerSailor

koshergrl said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people DO realize that King David had a LEGALLY RECOGNIZED UNION with his best friend Jonathan, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that you're clearly out of your mind... but setting aside your psychosis... to what would that be relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gaybiker just likes to think about it a lot.
Click to expand...


Here ya go.............
*David and Jonathan*

There is an extensive and very sympathetic description of a same-sex relationship in the Bible, the story of David and Jonathan, e.g.: 1 Samuel 18:1-5, 1 Samuel 19:1-7, 1 Samuel 20:30-42, 2 Samuel 1:25-6. While their bond is described as non-sexual, it is difficult to characterize it as purely one of friendship.

Jonathan was the son of Saul, David's nemesis. Their souls are described as 'knit together'. David and Jonathan 'made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.' The word convenant is significant, because in the Tanach this word always implies a formal legal agreement. To mark this convenant, Jonathan literally gives David the clothes off of his back, as well as other gifts such as weapons.

Later in the narrative, Jonathan successfully intercedes with Saul to spare David's life. At their last meeing, 1 Samuel 20:41, they are described as kissing one another and weeping together. David's grief at Jonathan's death is profound and moving. In Davids lament for Jonathan he describes their friendship as '(sur)passing the love of women'. This elegy, 2 Samuel 1:18-27. known as 'the Bow,' is one of the most beloved passages in the Hebrew Bible. 

LGBT Texts

If King David could have a legally recognized union by the nation of Israel with a member of the same gender (Jonathan), why can't other people have legally recognized same sex unions?


----------



## koshergrl

ABikerSailor said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people DO realize that King David had a LEGALLY RECOGNIZED UNION with his best friend Jonathan, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that you're clearly out of your mind... but setting aside your psychosis... to what would that be relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gaybiker just likes to think about it a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here ya go.............
> *David and Jonathan*
> 
> There is an extensive and very sympathetic description of a same-sex relationship in the Bible, the story of David and Jonathan, e.g.: 1 Samuel 18:1-5, 1 Samuel 19:1-7, 1 Samuel 20:30-42, 2 Samuel 1:25-6. While their bond is described as non-sexual, it is difficult to characterize it as purely one of friendship.
> 
> Jonathan was the son of Saul, David's nemesis. Their souls are described as 'knit together'. David and Jonathan 'made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.' The word convenant is significant, because in the Tanach this word always implies a formal legal agreement. To mark this convenant, Jonathan literally gives David the clothes off of his back, as well as other gifts such as weapons.
> 
> Later in the narrative, Jonathan successfully intercedes with Saul to spare David's life. At their last meeing, 1 Samuel 20:41, they are described as kissing one another and weeping together. David's grief at Jonathan's death is profound and moving. In Davids lament for Jonathan he describes their friendship as '(sur)passing the love of women'. This elegy, 2 Samuel 1:18-27. known as 'the Bow,' is one of the most beloved passages in the Hebrew Bible.
> 
> LGBT Texts
> 
> If King David could have a legally recognized union by the nation of Israel with a member of the same gender (Jonathan), why can't other people have legally recognized same sex unions?
Click to expand...

 
That's the Bible, not whack off material there Gaybiker. Show a little respect.


----------



## ABikerSailor

koshergrl said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people DO realize that King David had a LEGALLY RECOGNIZED UNION with his best friend Jonathan, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that you're clearly out of your mind... but setting aside your psychosis... to what would that be relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gaybiker just likes to think about it a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here ya go.............
> *David and Jonathan*
> 
> There is an extensive and very sympathetic description of a same-sex relationship in the Bible, the story of David and Jonathan, e.g.: 1 Samuel 18:1-5, 1 Samuel 19:1-7, 1 Samuel 20:30-42, 2 Samuel 1:25-6. While their bond is described as non-sexual, it is difficult to characterize it as purely one of friendship.
> 
> Jonathan was the son of Saul, David's nemesis. Their souls are described as 'knit together'. David and Jonathan 'made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.' The word convenant is significant, because in the Tanach this word always implies a formal legal agreement. To mark this convenant, Jonathan literally gives David the clothes off of his back, as well as other gifts such as weapons.
> 
> Later in the narrative, Jonathan successfully intercedes with Saul to spare David's life. At their last meeing, 1 Samuel 20:41, they are described as kissing one another and weeping together. David's grief at Jonathan's death is profound and moving. In Davids lament for Jonathan he describes their friendship as '(sur)passing the love of women'. This elegy, 2 Samuel 1:18-27. known as 'the Bow,' is one of the most beloved passages in the Hebrew Bible.
> 
> LGBT Texts
> 
> If King David could have a legally recognized union by the nation of Israel with a member of the same gender (Jonathan), why can't other people have legally recognized same sex unions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the Bible, not whack off material there Gaybiker. Show a little respect.
Click to expand...


Yo..................Kaiser Twit....................how is it being disrespectful, when I give you actual Bible verses, as well as scholarly comment on it from an actual Bible scholar?

Sacred Texts Archive is a wonderful place to learn about almost any religion and belief system there is.

But.................I understand..................if you can't refute something, you insult the person, because you don't have enough brain cells to research something yourself.

I do.


----------



## koshergrl

ABikerSailor said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people DO realize that King David had a LEGALLY RECOGNIZED UNION with his best friend Jonathan, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that you're clearly out of your mind... but setting aside your psychosis... to what would that be relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gaybiker just likes to think about it a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here ya go.............
> *David and Jonathan*
> 
> There is an extensive and very sympathetic description of a same-sex relationship in the Bible, the story of David and Jonathan, e.g.: 1 Samuel 18:1-5, 1 Samuel 19:1-7, 1 Samuel 20:30-42, 2 Samuel 1:25-6. While their bond is described as non-sexual, it is difficult to characterize it as purely one of friendship.
> 
> Jonathan was the son of Saul, David's nemesis. Their souls are described as 'knit together'. David and Jonathan 'made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.' The word convenant is significant, because in the Tanach this word always implies a formal legal agreement. To mark this convenant, Jonathan literally gives David the clothes off of his back, as well as other gifts such as weapons.
> 
> Later in the narrative, Jonathan successfully intercedes with Saul to spare David's life. At their last meeing, 1 Samuel 20:41, they are described as kissing one another and weeping together. David's grief at Jonathan's death is profound and moving. In Davids lament for Jonathan he describes their friendship as '(sur)passing the love of women'. This elegy, 2 Samuel 1:18-27. known as 'the Bow,' is one of the most beloved passages in the Hebrew Bible.
> 
> LGBT Texts
> 
> If King David could have a legally recognized union by the nation of Israel with a member of the same gender (Jonathan), why can't other people have legally recognized same sex unions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the Bible, not whack off material there Gaybiker. Show a little respect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yo..................Kaiser Twit....................how is it being disrespectful, when I give you actual Bible verses, as well as scholarly comment on it from an actual Bible scholar?
> 
> Sacred Texts Archive is a wonderful place to learn about almost any religion and belief system there is.
> 
> But.................I understand..................if you can't refute something, you insult the person, because you don't have enough brain cells to research something yourself.
> 
> I do.
Click to expand...

 I'm really not interested in entering into your gay fantasy about Paul and David. Give it a rest. Maybe start a different thread? I bet Statist and dots would jump on that action.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ABikerSailor said:


> While their bond is described as non-sexual



Sweet fail... .

If it helps ya, I have legally recognized unions with dozens of other males... we share responsibilities, earnings, and when it inevitably comes along... we share the occasional losses, but above all else we share our common bond to exploit others in the pursuit of our mutual interests, which is generally centered around the accrual of our mutual and respective wealth.


----------



## ABikerSailor

koshergrl said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that you're clearly out of your mind... but setting aside your psychosis... to what would that be relevant?
> 
> 
> 
> Gaybiker just likes to think about it a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here ya go.............
> *David and Jonathan*
> 
> There is an extensive and very sympathetic description of a same-sex relationship in the Bible, the story of David and Jonathan, e.g.: 1 Samuel 18:1-5, 1 Samuel 19:1-7, 1 Samuel 20:30-42, 2 Samuel 1:25-6. While their bond is described as non-sexual, it is difficult to characterize it as purely one of friendship.
> 
> Jonathan was the son of Saul, David's nemesis. Their souls are described as 'knit together'. David and Jonathan 'made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.' The word convenant is significant, because in the Tanach this word always implies a formal legal agreement. To mark this convenant, Jonathan literally gives David the clothes off of his back, as well as other gifts such as weapons.
> 
> Later in the narrative, Jonathan successfully intercedes with Saul to spare David's life. At their last meeing, 1 Samuel 20:41, they are described as kissing one another and weeping together. David's grief at Jonathan's death is profound and moving. In Davids lament for Jonathan he describes their friendship as '(sur)passing the love of women'. This elegy, 2 Samuel 1:18-27. known as 'the Bow,' is one of the most beloved passages in the Hebrew Bible.
> 
> LGBT Texts
> 
> If King David could have a legally recognized union by the nation of Israel with a member of the same gender (Jonathan), why can't other people have legally recognized same sex unions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the Bible, not whack off material there Gaybiker. Show a little respect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yo..................Kaiser Twit....................how is it being disrespectful, when I give you actual Bible verses, as well as scholarly comment on it from an actual Bible scholar?
> 
> Sacred Texts Archive is a wonderful place to learn about almost any religion and belief system there is.
> 
> But.................I understand..................if you can't refute something, you insult the person, because you don't have enough brain cells to research something yourself.
> 
> I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm really not interested in entering into your gay fantasy about Paul and David. Give it a rest. Maybe start a different thread? I bet Statist and dots would jump on that action.
Click to expand...


It's not my fantasy, it's what is actually in the Bible.  Did you not see that the reference verses were provided?  I also provided a link to the Sacred Texts Archive.

"Ignorance is when you never had the chance to learn.  Stupidity is when you had the chance, but didn't bother.  It's quite okay to be ignorant, just don't be stupid".

Kaiser Twit..................you're about as stupid as they come, because you missed where the reference Bible verses were.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> While their bond is described as non-sexual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet fail... .
> 
> If it helps ya, I have legally recognized unions with dozens of other males... we share responsibilities, earnings, and when it inevitably comes along... we share the occasional losses, but above all else we share our common bond to exploit others in the pursuit of our mutual interests, which is generally centered around the accrual of our mutual and respective wealth.
Click to expand...


It also says that David loved Jonathan more than a man loves a woman in the referenced Bible verses.


----------



## koshergrl

ABikerSailor said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gaybiker just likes to think about it a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya go.............
> *David and Jonathan*
> 
> There is an extensive and very sympathetic description of a same-sex relationship in the Bible, the story of David and Jonathan, e.g.: 1 Samuel 18:1-5, 1 Samuel 19:1-7, 1 Samuel 20:30-42, 2 Samuel 1:25-6. While their bond is described as non-sexual, it is difficult to characterize it as purely one of friendship.
> 
> Jonathan was the son of Saul, David's nemesis. Their souls are described as 'knit together'. David and Jonathan 'made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.' The word convenant is significant, because in the Tanach this word always implies a formal legal agreement. To mark this convenant, Jonathan literally gives David the clothes off of his back, as well as other gifts such as weapons.
> 
> Later in the narrative, Jonathan successfully intercedes with Saul to spare David's life. At their last meeing, 1 Samuel 20:41, they are described as kissing one another and weeping together. David's grief at Jonathan's death is profound and moving. In Davids lament for Jonathan he describes their friendship as '(sur)passing the love of women'. This elegy, 2 Samuel 1:18-27. known as 'the Bow,' is one of the most beloved passages in the Hebrew Bible.
> 
> LGBT Texts
> 
> If King David could have a legally recognized union by the nation of Israel with a member of the same gender (Jonathan), why can't other people have legally recognized same sex unions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the Bible, not whack off material there Gaybiker. Show a little respect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yo..................Kaiser Twit....................how is it being disrespectful, when I give you actual Bible verses, as well as scholarly comment on it from an actual Bible scholar?
> 
> Sacred Texts Archive is a wonderful place to learn about almost any religion and belief system there is.
> 
> But.................I understand..................if you can't refute something, you insult the person, because you don't have enough brain cells to research something yourself.
> 
> I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm really not interested in entering into your gay fantasy about Paul and David. Give it a rest. Maybe start a different thread? I bet Statist and dots would jump on that action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my fantasy, it's what is actually in the Bible.  Did you not see that the reference verses were provided?  I also provided a link to the Sacred Texts Archive.
> 
> "Ignorance is when you never had the chance to learn.  Stupidity is when you had the chance, but didn't bother.  It's quite okay to be ignorant, just don't be stupid".
> 
> Kaiser Twit..................you're about as stupid as they come, because you missed where the reference Bible verses were.
Click to expand...

 I know them all quite well, thank you. You should start a thread about it, I'm sure every perv on the site (besides you) would flock to it.


----------



## ABikerSailor

koshergrl said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya go.............
> *David and Jonathan*
> 
> There is an extensive and very sympathetic description of a same-sex relationship in the Bible, the story of David and Jonathan, e.g.: 1 Samuel 18:1-5, 1 Samuel 19:1-7, 1 Samuel 20:30-42, 2 Samuel 1:25-6. While their bond is described as non-sexual, it is difficult to characterize it as purely one of friendship.
> 
> Jonathan was the son of Saul, David's nemesis. Their souls are described as 'knit together'. David and Jonathan 'made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.' The word convenant is significant, because in the Tanach this word always implies a formal legal agreement. To mark this convenant, Jonathan literally gives David the clothes off of his back, as well as other gifts such as weapons.
> 
> Later in the narrative, Jonathan successfully intercedes with Saul to spare David's life. At their last meeing, 1 Samuel 20:41, they are described as kissing one another and weeping together. David's grief at Jonathan's death is profound and moving. In Davids lament for Jonathan he describes their friendship as '(sur)passing the love of women'. This elegy, 2 Samuel 1:18-27. known as 'the Bow,' is one of the most beloved passages in the Hebrew Bible.
> 
> LGBT Texts
> 
> If King David could have a legally recognized union by the nation of Israel with a member of the same gender (Jonathan), why can't other people have legally recognized same sex unions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the Bible, not whack off material there Gaybiker. Show a little respect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yo..................Kaiser Twit....................how is it being disrespectful, when I give you actual Bible verses, as well as scholarly comment on it from an actual Bible scholar?
> 
> Sacred Texts Archive is a wonderful place to learn about almost any religion and belief system there is.
> 
> But.................I understand..................if you can't refute something, you insult the person, because you don't have enough brain cells to research something yourself.
> 
> I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm really not interested in entering into your gay fantasy about Paul and David. Give it a rest. Maybe start a different thread? I bet Statist and dots would jump on that action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my fantasy, it's what is actually in the Bible.  Did you not see that the reference verses were provided?  I also provided a link to the Sacred Texts Archive.
> 
> "Ignorance is when you never had the chance to learn.  Stupidity is when you had the chance, but didn't bother.  It's quite okay to be ignorant, just don't be stupid".
> 
> Kaiser Twit..................you're about as stupid as they come, because you missed where the reference Bible verses were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know them all quite well, thank you. You should start a thread about it, I'm sure every perv on the site (besides you) would flock to it.
Click to expand...


Are you following me and ragging on me just because you haven't fought with me for a while?

Sorry..............gonna ignore you now.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> your pompous need to climb on your high horse and prove yourself morally superior is tedious, sad and pathetic.  What you have set out to show is un-proveable by its very nature.   I am glad to see tho that you are half-acknowledging that you have lost the legal argument.
> 
> I will start tho to wade through your arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *More rantings from the dark world according to DCraelin ?  Of course you will attack the truth that you are threatened by and It’s apparent that you are threatened because of your need to insult me. Now hear this, I did not concede the legal argument. I acknowledged that fact that I have my biases, something that  you do not seem to have the integrity to do. What I said was that I will never convince you of the fallacy of your legal argument as you will never prove me wrong. All that you can do is to choose  to ignore the majority opinion of the SC  as well, the vast majority of the lower court’s rulings, and an extensive body of case law.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is a quasi legal argument ...using an emotional tug to play to heightened scrutiny.  It certainly doesn't point to  a necessary way to accommodate....a required way to accommodate. Many children in our society have disadvantages, some may think being raised by gay parents is a disadvantage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *That’s right, it is emotional. This is an emotional matter. Children are an emotional issue. If you don’t think so there is something wrong with you. But heighted scrutiny was applied as a matter of law. the welfare of our children is a legitimate state interest. However, limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples fails to further this interest. Instead, needlessly stigmatizing and humiliating children who are being raised by the loving couples targeted by Virginia’s Marriage Laws betrays that interest. [Schall and Townley's daughter], like the thousands of children being raised by same-sex couples, is needless deprived of the protection, the stability, the recognition and the legitimacy that marriage conveys.*
> 
> Federal Judge: Virginia’s Ban On Same-Sex Marriage Needlessly Stigmatizes And Humiliates Children
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe some do have "procreative urges" tho this puts the lie I think to the idea of"born that way" ...the government is under no obligation to provide outlets to all who have urges.  You are jumping to pompous arrogant conclusions about this being a bigoted view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *I’m not jumping to anything. Here your profound ignorance and bigotry is front and center!  What the fuck does parental instincts and the issue of “ born that way”  have to do with each other. Please give me a sign that you are not so fucking stupid as to think that if someone is “really gay” that they do not want children. PLEASE!*
> 
> *And how the hell is the government providing an outlet for anything? This just ignores everything that has been said about the benefits of marriage to children. If you want to call me pompous and arrogant (again) because I advocate for children be my guest. You are the one looking pompous and arrogant as well as callous and stupid. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sutton quotes a basis to rational revue "* legislative choices may rest on “rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data,”
> *
> Studies can be and often are these days proven wrong. This isnt a criminal proceeding.  It is a question of constitutional law. The contract between the government and the people, who should decide these matters.   You may have some good arguments as to desirability,....but it is up to the people to decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *More horseshit. As I said before. The overwhelming body of evidence shows clearly that gay parenting is equal to straight parenting and that the respective genders of the parents is of little consequence. EVERY study that contradicts that-including the one that Michigan used-has been discredited. I have them all as was as about 70 peer reviewed studies that support gay parenting. I would share but I don’t think that you are actually interested*
> 
> *If there was a credible body of evidence that showed that having same sex parents was somehow harmful –why did Michigan stupidly commission a highly biased and flawed study to try to prove that? And the really insane thing is that whether or not gays make good or adequate parents was not even the right question to be asking because at that point the case was about marriage, not adoption. And as you know, gay people will have kids married or not.*
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is not a right, it is a license from the government. .....the case we recently argued about said voting is not a right....if THAT is not a right.....surely something with the name license is not a right....that even implies it could be a local decision...lower than the state level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Really old sport ? You can’t compare marriage to voting. It’s another of your false equivalencies. Voting has in fact not been established as a right. However, fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right  |  American Foundation for Equal Rights  Make that 15 with Obegefell.*
> 
> *Furthermore The Legal Information Institute states”Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment.  These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process.  Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional.  Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel”  Fundamental Right | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute*
> 
> *Most rights that people enjoy and take for granted in this country, are not specified in the constitution but are legal rights and presumed to be constitutional unless challanged. The time is not far off when the right to same sex marriage will be established by SCOTUS and gay marriage as a legal right will soon follow*
> 
> *Still not convinced? Let me ask this….If it’s not a right, what is it? The only possible answer is “privilege” What is a privilege? It’s something that you have to earn. Driving is a privilege. You have to study the rules and take a road test. You do not have to study and take a test to qualify for a marriage license. While both rights and privileges can be forfeited under certain circumstances-commit a crime and lose right to freedom/drive badly and lose your driving privileges-they are by no means the same thing, because the bar, for taking away a right, is set much higher. In addition, as we established above, rights emanate from the fact of being born a human. Privileges do not. We can only conclude that marriage is not a privilege and therefore is a right. When a ten your old asks if she can get married someday, her parent can say “sure” ….unless she means her girlfriend, and then, if she lives in the wrong place she will have to be told “maybe” and it will hurt*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good,  I lean towards the idea that government should not have been involved in this area to begin with.  It is really a relic of the church-state of England, where taxes went to the church.
> 
> Why married couples get a tax break based solely on their being married when single people do not is beyond me.....I had hoped that if the SC ruled as they did on gay marriage they would at least see this unfairness and strike it down...of course they did not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *That “government out of marriage” nonsense is just another undoable pipe dream. Get over it. And this thing about single people is just another logical fallacy, this time a red herring, and yes, another false equivalency. First of all there was no question before court concerning taxes and marital status so  you hoping for a ruling on that just shows once again how little you understand In addition, I have to ask, what are these tax breaks that you refer to? Married people get to file joint returns but that doesn’t  mean that they pay less taxes. Some do and some don’t. Every situation is different. Now will you please get out of here?!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> needlessly stigmatizing and humiliating children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> shear BS, perhaps some children are stigmatized and humiliated by having gay "parents" ...more likely ....but stigmatizing and humiliation cannot be cured by legal status, and should not be a consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> threatened because of your need to insult me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your arrogance in repeating calling opponents to gay marriage bigots is apparent. (see below) to turn around and complain abpout me insulting you is laughable.
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here your profound ignorance and bigotry is front and center
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> More horseshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO what you repeatedly say is horseshit...Sutton points out that rational basis revue requires no studies......These "studies" usually come off of socially liberal college campuses and are suspect regardless.   Sutton does accept "rational basis revue" which is itself I think somewhat irrational and turns normal court proof requirements on their head. I believe some justices have a problem with this also.
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make that 15 with Obegefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you care about numbers?....you reject the democratic process so what do you care?....and I think you overstate the case anyway. I dont think any really established as a right except obergefell
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The time is not far off when the right to same sex marriage will be established by SCOTUS and gay marriage as a legal right will soon follow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHAT THE FUCK is this?.......  a paste from an old post you left in?
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> he only possible answer is “privilege”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no there are many possible answers
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all there was no question before court concerning taxes and marital status so you hoping for a ruling on that just shows once again how little you understand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> marriage is a package of various laws.....which points to another idiocy of these cases and the SCs approach...each state probably has slight differences in marriage laws...........so the court should have examined these all...it is really not their place to redefine a word.
> 
> among those packages of laws..are tax laws...something gay marriage proponents raised as some of their litany of unfairness-es.  So the fairness of tax laws based on marriage should have been considered. ...their avoidance of that issue shows they werent really concerned with consistency and equality in law but were ruling on an emotional based argument alone.
Click to expand...


Just more inane blathering. You are boring and tedious. And yes, you are a bigot. You're deliberately making a simple matter, equal protection under the law into a tangled and incoherent mess-and you do  it deliberately to avoid and mask the fact that you have no rational, logical or viable legal argument against same sex marriage. But don't feel bad-no one does. We are done here.

New Study Suggests Connections Between Homophobia And Mental Disorders   New Study Suggests Connections Between Homophobia And Mental Disorders


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ABikerSailor said:


> It also says that David loved Jonathan more than a man loves a woman in the referenced Bible verses.



What's the problem?  I love my buddies Clarence, Jimmy, Earl and Donny, my Sons, my Dad, my Nephews, Cousins and Jesus... MORE than a man loves a woman.  I mean I love Jennifer Anniston ... but my love for those guys is much stronger than my love for Jen... .   And I expect that Jen understands... .


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What I said was that I will never convince you of the fallacy of your legal argument as you will never prove me wrong.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've been proven wrong by no less an authority than nature itself.
> 
> Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.  This as a result of the human physiological design; wherein Nature designed the human species with two distinct, but complementing genders, each designed SPECIFICALLY... the join with the other, forming one sustainable body, from two.
> 
> What's more, there is not now, nor has there ever been a law in the US which precludes homosexuals from marriage... they need only do as EVERY OTHER CITIZEN IS REQUIRED and that is to apply for such with a person of the distinct gender... .
> 
> In THAT we find that there is not now, nor has there ever been a legal discrimination against homosexuals with regard to marriage.
> 
> Your argument; along with the argument of the other degenerates who join your argument: is specious NONSENSE...
> 
> And that you found a judge who was predisposed to agree with your specious claptrap in NO WAY alters reality, wherein:​*MARRIAGE: Is the joining of One Man and One Woman.
> 
> Thus: homosexuals seeking to "marry" individuals of the same gender, are NOT QUALIFIED CANDIDATE FOR MARRIAGE!
> 
> This being precisely the same for the Blind who we discriminate against by denying the 'right to drive'.
> 
> And the Felons who we deny the 'right to bear arms'.
> 
> Ya see... these people do not possess the qualities suitable for the exercise of the right at issue.
> 
> This is the same reason that responsible people never leave a child alone with a homosexual of either gender (Especially the Lesbians...).*​
Click to expand...

_You are one crazy and hateful fucker!_


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Just more inane blathering. You are boring and tedious. And yes, you are a bigot.



Two Things:

First: The ABSOLUTE COOLEST THING about people who call other's _'bigots', _is that in so doing, they demonstrate the traits essential to 'bigotry'... .

Allow me to demonstrate:

Bigotry: _intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself._

See how that works?

There's you being intolerant of those who hold differing opinions than you hold... LOL!  While LAMENTING people who hold differing opinions then YOU!

HOW COOL IS THAT?  We call these sort of things, a "PARADOX".

But hey... if you weren't an imbecile,_ you'd have known that._




TheProgressivePatriot said:


>



Second: There is literally no such thing as a homophobe.  Such is a feckless contrivance by the Cult of Degeneracy which through the use of such hopes to cow reasonable people from recognizing and subsequently contesting the normalization of sexual abnormality.

LOL!  Such deceit has a long tradition with the Ideological Left... going back the old Robespierre and it's idiotic creation of the word 'Reactionary', which it created in reaction to people who were rejecting Robespierre and it's conflation of human rights, with 'fairness'.  LMAO!  He was a _dumbass_... to be sure, but he is better known for his being the very first Western Born Terrorist... and the very first Communist to be have his own head cleaved clean off, for just being a mass-murdering piece of shit, OKA: A Communist.

Now how cool is it that two and a half centuries later... Communists are STILL DUMBASSES?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> _You are one crazy and hateful fucker!_


_
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## Moonglow




----------



## Skylar

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What I said was that I will never convince you of the fallacy of your legal argument as you will never prove me wrong.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've been proven wrong by no less an authority than nature itself.
> 
> Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.  This as a result of the human physiological design; wherein Nature designed the human species with two distinct, but complementing genders, each designed SPECIFICALLY... the join with the other, forming one sustainable body, from two.
> 
> What's more, there is not now, nor has there ever been a law in the US which precludes homosexuals from marriage... they need only do as EVERY OTHER CITIZEN IS REQUIRED and that is to apply for such with a person of the distinct gender... .
> 
> In THAT we find that there is not now, nor has there ever been a legal discrimination against homosexuals with regard to marriage.
> 
> Your argument; along with the argument of the other degenerates who join your argument: is specious NONSENSE...
> 
> And that you found a judge who was predisposed to agree with your specious claptrap in NO WAY alters reality, wherein:​*MARRIAGE: Is the joining of One Man and One Woman.
> 
> Thus: homosexuals seeking to "marry" individuals of the same gender, are NOT QUALIFIED CANDIDATE FOR MARRIAGE!
> 
> This being precisely the same for the Blind who we discriminate against by denying the 'right to drive'.
> 
> And the Felons who we deny the 'right to bear arms'.
> 
> Ya see... these people do not possess the qualities suitable for the exercise of the right at issue.
> 
> This is the same reason that responsible people never leave a child alone with a homosexual of either gender (Especially the Lesbians...).*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _You are one crazy and hateful fucker!_
Click to expand...


Wait til he starts talking about the 'responsibility to eradicate homosexuals'. Or starts sharing his murder fantasies where he goes in to disturbing detail of exactly how the gays will be killed, what will be done to their bodies, how their head are to be displayed.

Its a rabbit hole of some pretty nasty shit. And even he doesn't know how far it goes down.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just more inane blathering. You are boring and tedious. And yes, you are a bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Things:
> 
> First: The ABSOLUTE COOLEST THING about people who call other's _'bigots', _is that in so doing, they demonstrate the traits essential to 'bigotry'... .
> 
> Allow me to demonstrate:
> 
> Bigotry: _intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself._
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> There's you being intolerant of those who hold differing opinions than you hold... LOL!  While LAMENTING people who hold differing opinions then YOU!
> 
> HOW COOL IS THAT?  We call these sort of things, a "PARADOX".
> 
> But hey... if you weren't an imbecile,_ you'd have known that._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Second: There is literally no such thing as a homophobe.  Such is a feckless contrivance by the Cult of Degeneracy which through the use of such hopes to cow reasonable people from recognizing and subsequently contesting the normalization of sexual abnormality.
Click to expand...


Alas the dictionary disagrees:



> homophobe
> noun
> 1.
> a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.
> 
> the definition of homophobe



But why let yourself get burdened by anything as germane as the dictionary. 



> LOL!  Such deceit has a long tradition with the Ideological Left... going back the old Robespierre and it's idiotic creation of the word 'Reactionary', which it created in reaction to people who were rejecting Robespierre and it's conflation of human rights, with 'fairness'.  LMAO!  He was a _dumbass_... to be sure, but he is better known for his being the very first Western Born Terrorist... and the very first Communist to be have his own head cleaved clean off.



You mean using the actual meaning of words rather than whatever subjective nonsense you make up between beers?

You really haven't thought this through, have you?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> You mean using the actual meaning of words rather than whatever subjective nonsense you make up between beers?



ROFLMNAO!

I do SO adore the sweeter ironies...

A reactionary, is simply one that REACTS... Robespierre was REACTING to the causation of his feckless notion of fairness being recognized as that which was: ABSURD... his attempt to induce some nefarious intent upon those who REACT was offset by his axiomatic REACTION, thus demonstrating that he, like you... was quite literally: an_ imbecile._


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean using the actual meaning of words rather than whatever subjective nonsense you make up between beers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> I do SO adore the sweeter ironies...
> 
> A reactionary, is simply one that REACTS... Robespierre was REACTING to the causation of his feckless notion of fairness being ABSURD... his attempt to induce some nefarious intent upon those who REACT was offset by his axiomatic REACTION, thus demonstrating that he, like you... was quite literally: an_ imbecile._
Click to expand...


And in all your babble about Robespierre, you forgot one small detail: that words already have meanings. And the dictionary again demonstrates that you really don't know what you're talking about. 



> Homophobe:
> noun
> 1.
> a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.
> 
> the definition of homophobe



You can subjectively imagine whatever you'd like.  But the meaning of the word doesn't change. See, that's the difference between subjective and objective. 

And its where your arguments always break.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alas the dictionary disagrees:
> 
> 
> homophobe
> noun
> 1.
> a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh... the flaccid appeal to misleading authority... now,_ isn't that precious._
Click to expand...


And by 'appeal to authority' you mean reading the dictionary rather than whatever hapless nonsense you make up?

Subjective is not objective, Keyes. And your imagination doesn't define any word. 



> Of course, the dictionary is speaking to the colloquial expression; which is to say words used in ordinary or familiar conversation that have no formal or literal meaning.
> 
> We know this because the word 'homophobe' is a compound word; meaning that two words were used to form one word.
> 
> The first formal or _literal_ word is 'homo', meaning "same"; which is to say: that which is identical or _not different._



That's not the compound definition you gave us before. This is:_
_


> _homo= self
> Phobia= irrational fear
> Homophobe: One presenting irrational fear of them self.
> 
> Where_r_my_keys
> Post 7933
> Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings? | Page 794 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum_



So homophobia per you is the 'fear of self'? 

Wait, did you not have the slightest clue what you were talking about then? Or do you not have the slightest clue what you're talking about now? Because either way you demonstrate how useless you citing yourself is. Which is why no one uses you for the definition of anything.

But tell us again how the dictionary is wrong and you must be right. It always makes me giggle.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alas the dictionary disagrees:
> 
> 
> homophobe
> noun
> 1.
> a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh... the flaccid appeal to misleading authority... now,_ isn't that precious._
> 
> Of course, the dictionary is speaking to the colloquial expression; which is to say words used in ordinary or familiar conversation that have no formal or literal meaning.
> 
> We know this because the word 'homophobe' is a compound word; meaning that two words were used to form one word.
> 
> The first formal or _literal_ word is 'homo', meaning "same"; which is to say: that which is identical or _not different.
> _
> The second formal, or _literal_ word is "Phobe", short for _phobia, _where the usage indicates the bearer of the phobia... which is a medical term which means:_ an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.  _The_ something having been identified through the suffix 'Homo', _which we learned earlier literally means:_ that which is identical or not different.  _
> 
> Thus the literal meaning of _'Homophobe' _is _"One with an irrational fear of that which is identical or not different"._
> 
> And since there is no medical diagnosis of _"One with an irrational fear of that which is identical or not different"; _meaning that such does not exist... we can KNOW that the word: Homophobe is a fabrication by the Cult of Degeneracy... that such has found colloquial popularity, thus is printed in the dictionary expressing the popular, non-literal, deceitful meaning...  is wholly IRRELEVANT.
> 
> The simple fact is there is no medical root for any such 'condition'... . And that remains true in BOTH the Literal and Colloquial usage.
> 
> And THAT dear Reader, is how THAT ... _is done._
> 
> (Remember...  The key to defeating Leftists in debate rests upon two fundamental elements:
> 
> 1- Find a Leftist.
> 
> 2- Get them to Speak.)
Click to expand...


Laughing......and I reduced you to spamming in just 3 posts. It doesn't take much to break you, does it? Again....here's Keyes' 'wisdom' on the topic:



> _homo= self
> Phobia= irrational fear
> Homophobe: One presenting irrational fear of them self.
> 
> Where_r_my_keys
> Post 7933
> Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings? | Page 794 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum_



There you have it. Per Keyes homophobia.....is the fear of self. 

But the dictionary is wrong and whatever you make up must be right, huh? Sorry my little Relativist....but you citing doesn't define any word. 

Try again.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And by 'appeal to authority' you mean reading the dictionary rather than whatever hapless nonsense you make up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "appeal to MISLEADING Authority'.   You know... the part where you cite a dictionary reference, failing to note the colloquial nature of the reference; which simply means that the word has no formal or literal meaning, thus such is a contrivance, as I stated and which you hoped to contest through this feckless and wholly fallacious ruse.
Click to expand...


The *dictionary* is misleading? No, you simply don't know what you're talking about. As you demonstrated by your 'compound' babble about how homophobia means 'fear of self'.

In any contest between and the dictionary, the winner is always the same: _not you. _



> _Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._



And look! Your tell......that little white flag you throw up  just before you run.

Is there any claim I can't run you off of?


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And by 'appeal to authority' you mean reading the dictionary rather than whatever hapless nonsense you make up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "appeal to MISLEADING Authority'.   You know... the part where you cite a dictionary reference, failing to note the colloquial nature of the reference; which simply means that the word has no formal or literal meaning, thus such is a contrivance, as I stated and which you hoped to contest through this feckless and wholly fallacious ruse.
> 
> And with that said...
> _
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> (Reader, the above individual was one of the first idiots I sent to perm-ignore when I first began contributing to this august Board.  Occasionally it runs sufficiently afoul of reason that I am forced to temporally take it off ignore in order to bitch-slap it, in the fashion that you witnessed above.
> 
> It's usually a tedious exchange, such as that above... but it is necessary to satisfy my sadistic streak.  I hope it wasn't too much of a bore.
> 
> With the win in hand, it's back in the closet now, so it shouldn't be a problem for the foreseeable future._
Click to expand...

Oh, the layer cake of fail that is your argument.

First off, who says its colloquial? You do, citing yourself. And you're the same fool that gave us the 'homophobe means 'fear of self' nonsense.

You don't know what you're talking about. And your only source is you.

Second, a definition being colloquial means its common, informal  language. Not that it doesn't exist, as you bizarrely insist. You don't even know what colloquial means.



> colloquial:
> 
> characteristic of or appropriate to ordinary or familiar conversation rather than formal speech or writing; informal.
> 
> the definition of colloquial



Laughing.....but as usual, you just keep making shit up. And desperately pleading with us to accept whatever silliness you imagine.

Um, no. You citing you is meaningless. As you're nobody. And in any contest between you and the dictionary, you always lose.

And as an aside, do you ever have an argument that doesn't almost instantly devolve into you pleading with us to accept your subjective opinion as an objective definition? Is there anything else to you?


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alas the dictionary disagrees:
> 
> 
> homophobe
> noun
> 1.
> a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh... the flaccid appeal to misleading authority... now,_ isn't that precious._
> 
> Of course, the dictionary is speaking to the colloquial expression; which is to say words used in ordinary or familiar conversation that have no formal or literal meaning.
Click to expand...


Says who? You citing you. And you're the same fool who insisted that 'homophobe' means 'fear of self'. 

Once again, you citing you means nothing, defines nothing. Its just pleading with us to accept your subjective opinion as objective. And it never works....as subjective isn't objective.

But tell us again how the dictionary is wrong and you must be right. Its always good for a laugh.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And by 'appeal to authority' you mean reading the dictionary rather than whatever hapless nonsense you make up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "appeal to MISLEADING Authority'.   You know... the part where you cite a dictionary reference, failing to note the colloquial nature of the reference; thus MISLEADING the Reader toward the belief that the authority of the dictionary specifically imparts a formal or literal meaning to the words it references... and since "homophobe' has no formal meaning; and that its literal meaning is gibberish, you deceive the reader into the believing that which is false, is true.
> 
> 
> In truth, 'Homophobe' *is* a contrivance, as I stated and to which you hoped to contest, through the above cited and wholly refuted, fallacious ruse.
> 
> And with that said...
> _
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> (Reader, the above individual was one of the first idiots I sent to perm-ignore when I first began contributing to this august Board.  Occasionally it runs sufficiently afoul of reason that I am forced to temporally take it off ignore in order to bitch-slap it, in the fashion that you witnessed above.
> 
> It's usually a tedious exchange, such as that above... but it is necessary to satisfy my sadistic streak.  I hope it wasn't too much of a bore.
> 
> With the win in hand, it's back in the closet now, so it shouldn't be a problem for the foreseeable future._
Click to expand...


Oh, look. Its spamming again. And its still stuck at the same point: subjective is not objective. 
See, Keyes...you've offered us your subjective opinion (homophobe means 'fear of self'...which is obviously useless idiocy), while the dictionary explicitly contradicts you.

And in any contest on the meaning of words, the dictionary always beats you. You can't get around that.

Your argument breaks in the same place every single time. Which is why you're reduced to spamming. You're stuck. Always in the same place.


----------



## Skylar

Laughing.....I broke you in 3 posts. That's got to be a new record. Here's your claim:



> _homo= self
> Phobia= irrational fear
> Homophobe: One presenting irrational fear of them self.
> 
> Where_r_my_keys
> Post 7933
> Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings? | Page 794 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum_



You have no idea what you're talking about. Your personal opinion doesn't trump the dictionary. You can't get around that. Subjective is not objective. You don't even know what colloquial means. And who says that homophobe is colloquial?

Why you do, citing yourself! Its the perfect circle of uselessness. You citing you, citing yourself.

*And the dictionary still wins every time. *


----------



## Skylar

This is what I love about Keyes. He's the most hopeless relativist on the board. His argument always collapses into the same broken, illogical nonsense: Keyes offering his subjective opinion as objective truth.

And it never is. 

This time around I broke him in 3 posts. It doesn't take much to send him into a spamming fit.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Skylar said:


> This is what I love about Keyes. He's the most hopeless relativist on the board. His argument always collapses into the same broken, illogical nonsense: Keyes offering his subjective opinion as objective truth.
> 
> And it never is.
> 
> This time around I broke him in 3 posts. It doesn't take much to send him into a spamming fit.


It also serves as a concession that Davis was in fact jailed because she was in contempt of court, having nothing to do with her faith, where she alone was responsible for being jailed.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It also serves as a concession that Davis was in fact jailed because she was in contempt of court, having nothing to do with her faith, where she alone was responsible for being jailed.



ROFLMNAO!

Being held in contempt by a court which fails to honor their oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution, with no less then three having directly violated the Constitution by having taken the oath with mental reservation and purposed toward evasion, is merely another measure of the injustice they set upon the nation on the whole and Mrs. Davis individually.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It also serves as a concession that Davis was in fact jailed because she was in contempt of court, having nothing to do with her faith, where she alone was responsible for being jailed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Being held in contempt by a court which fails to honor their oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution, with no less then three having directly violated the Constitution by having taken the oath with mental reservation and purposed toward evasion, is merely another measure of the injustice they set upon the nation on the whole and Mrs. Davis individually.
Click to expand...


Fails to honor the 'truth faith and allegiance of the Constitution'....according to who? Wait, let me guess. You citing yourself, claiming to speak for the Constitution. 

With you citing you defining what 'true faith' is. 

C'mon my little Relativist....you know you wanna say it.


----------



## Skylar

And once again why we don't use Keyes to define, well....anything:



> _homo= self
> Phobia= irrational fear
> Homophobe: One presenting irrational fear of them self.
> _
> Where_r_my_keys
> Post 7933
> Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings? | Page 794 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



But tell us again Keyes how the dictionary is wrong....and you must be right. Oh, and who says homophobe is colloquial?

Say it with me: "You citing yourself".


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Alas the dictionary disagrees:
> 
> 
> homophobe
> noun
> 1.
> a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.



Oh... the flaccid appeal to misleading authority... now,_ isn't that precious._

Of course, the dictionary is speaking to the colloquial expression; which is to say words used in ordinary or familiar conversation that have no formal or literal meaning.

We know this because the word 'homophobe' is a compound word; meaning that two words were used to form one word.

The first formal or _literal_ word is 'homo', meaning "same"; which is to say: that which is identical or _not different.
_
The second formal, or _literal_ word is "Phobe", short for _phobia, _where the usage indicates the bearer of the phobia... which is a medical term which means:_ an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.  _The_ something having been identified through the suffix 'Homo', _which we learned earlier literally means:_ that which is identical or not different.  _

Thus the literal meaning of _'Homophobe' _is _"One with an irrational fear of that which is identical or not different"._

And since there is no medical diagnosis of _"One with an irrational fear of that which is identical or not different"; _meaning that such does not exist... we can KNOW that the word: Homophobe is a fabrication by the Cult of Degeneracy... that such has found colloquial popularity, thus is printed in the dictionary expressing the popular, non-literal, deceitful meaning...  is wholly IRRELEVANT.

The simple fact is there is no medical root for any such 'condition'... . And that remains true in BOTH the Literal and Colloquial usage.

And THAT dear Reader, is how THAT ... _is done._

(Remember...  The key to defeating Leftists in debate rests upon two fundamental elements:

1- Find a Leftist.

2- Get them to Speak.)


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> And by 'appeal to authority' you mean reading the dictionary rather than whatever hapless nonsense you make up?



"appeal to MISLEADING Authority'.   You know... the part where you cite a dictionary reference, failing to note the colloquial nature of the reference; thus MISLEADING the Reader toward the belief that the authority of the dictionary specifically imparts a formal or literal meaning to the words it references... and since "homophobe' has no formal meaning; and that its literal meaning is gibberish, you deceive the reader into the believing that which is false, is true.  


In truth, 'Homophobe' *is* a contrivance, as I stated and to which you hoped to contest, through the above cited and wholly refuted, fallacious ruse.

And with that said...
_
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(Reader, the above individual was one of the first idiots I sent to perm-ignore when I first began contributing to this august Board.  Occasionally it runs sufficiently afoul of reason that I am forced to temporally take it off ignore in order to bitch-slap it, in the fashion that you witnessed above.  

It's usually a tedious exchange, such as that above... but it is necessary to satisfy my sadistic streak.  I hope it wasn't too much of a bore.

With the win in hand, it's back in the closet now, so it shouldn't be a problem for the foreseeable future._


----------



## Skylar

So you deny saying this?



> _homo= self
> Phobia= irrational fear
> Homophobe: One presenting irrational fear of them self._
> 
> Where_r_my_keys
> Post 7933
> Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings? | Page 794 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


*
Laughing....even you ignore you.* Surely you can understand you just aren't taken seriously. And why in any contest on the meaning of the words between you and the dictionary.....

.....the dictionary wins. And you lose. _Every time._


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just more inane blathering. You are boring and tedious. And yes, you are a bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Things:
> 
> First: The ABSOLUTE COOLEST THING about people who call other's _'bigots', _is that in so doing, they demonstrate the traits essential to 'bigotry'... .
> 
> Allow me to demonstrate:
> 
> Bigotry: _intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself._
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> There's you being intolerant of those who hold differing opinions than you hold... LOL!  While LAMENTING people who hold differing opinions then YOU!
> 
> HOW COOL IS THAT?  We call these sort of things, a "PARADOX".
> 
> But hey... if you weren't an imbecile,_ you'd have known that._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Second: There is literally no such thing as a homophobe.  Such is a feckless contrivance by the Cult of Degeneracy which through the use of such hopes to cow reasonable people from recognizing and subsequently contesting the normalization of sexual abnormality.
> 
> LOL!  Such deceit has a long tradition with the Ideological Left... going back the old Robespierre and it's idiotic creation of the word 'Reactionary', which it created in reaction to people who were rejecting Robespierre and it's conflation of human rights, with 'fairness'.  LMAO!  He was a _dumbass_... to be sure, but he is better known for his being the very first Western Born Terrorist... and the very first Communist to be have his own head cleaved clean off, for just being a mass-murdering piece of shit, OKA: A Communist.
> 
> Now how cool is it that two and a half centuries later... Communists are STILL DUMBASSES?
Click to expand...



You can call me a bigot for being intolerant of you if you like…but all intolerance is not equal, although you seem to think that you can dumb it down in a way that it seems to be.

It’s interesting how intolerant bigots will so often accuse those who speak against them of being intolerant, bigoted and hatful.  It may be the result of their projecting their own intense hatred onto other, and conscious tactic, or both at different times.

I do in fact have hatred and never denied that. I hate bigotry and yes, I hate bigots. I hate that people are marginalized and discriminated against for no reason other than there are some who “disapprove” of them or see them as “different” But all hatred is not equal. My hatred is in response to other’s hatred and for that reason it is objective and justified. Is it not justifiable for the oppressed to hate their oppressor? Should the abused fell anything but disdain for the abuser? We all deplore violence, but do we condemn those who are attacked for defending themselves with violence?

What is the bigot’s hatred in response to? What excuse other than fear of change and a need to maintain superiority do they have?  The bigots simply have a need to hate, and that hatred is directed at the most convenient targets. They claim to not be racists, but it is the same mentality and dynamics at play. They can’t get away with the racism so easily anymore  so now it is turned on gays and immigrants.

Oh I know, they will claim that they don’t hate and  I realize that they may not recognize it as hate, that they may not feel hate in their heart. But, I have to wonder, what they do feel, if anything, when they advocate the denial of basic rights to people while not even being able to articulate a rational reason for doing so? What do you call that if not hate?

Yes, I will condemn those  who seek to oppress gays just as they condemn gays and their advocates for seeking rights, for seeking and –yes demanding-equality.  The difference is that I rely on the truth, while the opponents of equality rely on lies, scare tactics appeals to ignorance and other  logical fallacies, because that’s all that they have.

See how it works?


----------



## Statistikhengst

So, is Kim Davis working on her 5th hubby now?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You can call me a bigot for being intolerant of you if you like…



I didn't 'call' you a bigot...

I said that the ABSOLUTE COOLEST THING about people who call other's _'bigots', _is that in so doing, they demonstrate the traits essential to 'bigotry'... .

Then I asked you to 'allow me to demonstrate', whereupon I merely noted that:

Bigotry = _intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself._

I then asked if you can 'See how that works?'

I then pointed out that "That was you being_ intolerant of those who hold differing opinions_ from your own...

THEN I Laughed out Loud as a response to your 'LAMENTING people being intolerant of your _feelings even as you are intolerant of theirs... ._

I then simply pointed out that the use of the word 'bigot' is a logical "PARADOX".  At which point I belittled you for your limited intellectual means.

From there I cited your referenced photo...



TheProgressivePatriot said:


>



Noting that "There is literally no such thing as a homophobe.  That such is a feckless contrivance by the Cult of Degeneracy (That's your Cult...) which, through the use of such, the cult hopes to cow reasonable people from recognizing and subsequently contesting the normalization of sexual abnormality, OKA: _degenerative sexual behavior, common to a decaying and a culture in rapid, near free-fall decline_.

Then I Laughed Out Loud again...  in response to the pretense represented in the fabrication of words, being pitifully deceitful and having a long tradition within the Ideological Left (again, that's your cult) pointing out that such goes WAY BACK to the days of old Robespierre and it's idiotic creation of the word _'Reactionary'_, which it created *in reaction* to people who were rejecting Robespierre and it's conflation of human rights, with 'fairness'. 

THEN  I Laughed my ASS OFF... at what a _dumbass it was_...  then pointing out that it is better known for its being the very first Western Born Terrorist... and the very first Communist to be have his own head cleaved clean off, for just being a mass-murdering piece of shit, OKA: A Communist. (Again... that's your cult)

THEN.... I asked "how cool is it that two and a half centuries later... Communists are STILL DUMB-ASSES?"



TheProgressivePatriot said:


> It’s interesting how intolerant bigots will so often accuse those who speak against them of being intolerant, bigoted and hatful. It may be the result of their projecting their own intense hatred onto other, and conscious tactic, or both at different times.



I suppose it's possible, sure... but in the above circumstance, it was me simply pointing out to you, the paradoxical consequences of the use of the word bigot, wherein the use of the word demonstrates the bigotry intrinsic to the user... assuming of course that the word itself has a meaning and the user possesses the intellectual means to objectively consider that meaning and the consequences of its use.

If not then the user is an idiot, the meaning of the word moot, along with the purpose of language... as absent objectivity, language merely provides the means to grunt and pose for a little bit, prior to the inevitable fight.


----------



## Skylar

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just more inane blathering. You are boring and tedious. And yes, you are a bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Things:
> 
> First: The ABSOLUTE COOLEST THING about people who call other's _'bigots', _is that in so doing, they demonstrate the traits essential to 'bigotry'... .
> 
> Allow me to demonstrate:
> 
> Bigotry: _intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself._
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> There's you being intolerant of those who hold differing opinions than you hold... LOL!  While LAMENTING people who hold differing opinions then YOU!
> 
> HOW COOL IS THAT?  We call these sort of things, a "PARADOX".
> 
> But hey... if you weren't an imbecile,_ you'd have known that._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Second: There is literally no such thing as a homophobe.  Such is a feckless contrivance by the Cult of Degeneracy which through the use of such hopes to cow reasonable people from recognizing and subsequently contesting the normalization of sexual abnormality.
> 
> LOL!  Such deceit has a long tradition with the Ideological Left... going back the old Robespierre and it's idiotic creation of the word 'Reactionary', which it created in reaction to people who were rejecting Robespierre and it's conflation of human rights, with 'fairness'.  LMAO!  He was a _dumbass_... to be sure, but he is better known for his being the very first Western Born Terrorist... and the very first Communist to be have his own head cleaved clean off, for just being a mass-murdering piece of shit, OKA: A Communist.
> 
> Now how cool is it that two and a half centuries later... Communists are STILL DUMBASSES?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can call me a bigot for being intolerant of you if you like…but all intolerance is not equal, although you seem to think that you can dumb it down in a way that it seems to be.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't worry about it. Keys likes to make up his own definitions, pulled sidways out of his ass. Here's one of my personal favorites:



> _homo= self
> Phobia= irrational fear
> Homophobe: One presenting irrational fear of them self._
> 
> Where_r_my_keys
> Post 7933
> Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings? | Page 794 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



Says who? Says Keyes, citing himself. Which is pretty much his source on every topic. 

And predictably in response to your thoughtful reply.....you'll get spam.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Skylar said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just more inane blathering. You are boring and tedious. And yes, you are a bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Things:
> 
> First: The ABSOLUTE COOLEST THING about people who call other's _'bigots', _is that in so doing, they demonstrate the traits essential to 'bigotry'... .
> 
> Allow me to demonstrate:
> 
> Bigotry: _intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself._
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> There's you being intolerant of those who hold differing opinions than you hold... LOL!  While LAMENTING people who hold differing opinions then YOU!
> 
> HOW COOL IS THAT?  We call these sort of things, a "PARADOX".
> 
> But hey... if you weren't an imbecile,_ you'd have known that._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Second: There is literally no such thing as a homophobe.  Such is a feckless contrivance by the Cult of Degeneracy which through the use of such hopes to cow reasonable people from recognizing and subsequently contesting the normalization of sexual abnormality.
> 
> LOL!  Such deceit has a long tradition with the Ideological Left... going back the old Robespierre and it's idiotic creation of the word 'Reactionary', which it created in reaction to people who were rejecting Robespierre and it's conflation of human rights, with 'fairness'.  LMAO!  He was a _dumbass_... to be sure, but he is better known for his being the very first Western Born Terrorist... and the very first Communist to be have his own head cleaved clean off, for just being a mass-murdering piece of shit, OKA: A Communist.
> 
> Now how cool is it that two and a half centuries later... Communists are STILL DUMBASSES?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can call me a bigot for being intolerant of you if you like…but all intolerance is not equal, although you seem to think that you can dumb it down in a way that it seems to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't worry about it. Keys likes to make up his own definitions, pulled sidways out of his ass. Here's one of my personal favorites:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _homo= self
> Phobia= irrational fear
> Homophobe: One presenting irrational fear of them self._
> 
> Where_r_my_keys
> Post 7933
> Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings? | Page 794 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Says Keyes, citing himself. Which is pretty much his source on every topic.
> 
> And predictably in response to your thoughtful reply.....you'll get spam.
Click to expand...


Thanks. I got a real kick out of the part about "reasonable people" I'm just ignoring it. Don't feed the zombie troll bots. They don't know that they're dead.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Now, back to Kim Davis, who is so unbelievably sexy....

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Skylar

Statistikhengst said:


> Now, back to Kim Davis, who is so unbelievably sexy....
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk



The issue is pretty much resolved. And could have been without the jail time. As the situation now is the compromise that judge offered Kim before she was sent to jail for 5 days:

_Don't interfere with the deputy clerks that issue marriage licenses._

This was just another Evangelical circle jerk.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Skylar said:


> This was just another Evangelical circle jerk.


Indeed.  They never learn.  And she won't be reelected when her term is up.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Yepp.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just more inane blathering. You are boring and tedious. And yes, you are a bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Things:
> 
> First: The ABSOLUTE COOLEST THING about people who call other's _'bigots', _is that in so doing, they demonstrate the traits essential to 'bigotry'... .
> 
> Allow me to demonstrate:
> 
> Bigotry: _intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself._
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> There's you being intolerant of those who hold differing opinions than you hold... LOL!  While LAMENTING people who hold differing opinions then YOU!
> 
> HOW COOL IS THAT?  We call these sort of things, a "PARADOX".
> 
> But hey... if you weren't an imbecile,_ you'd have known that._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Second: There is literally no such thing as a homophobe.  Such is a feckless contrivance by the Cult of Degeneracy which through the use of such hopes to cow reasonable people from recognizing and subsequently contesting the normalization of sexual abnormality.
> 
> LOL!  Such deceit has a long tradition with the Ideological Left... going back the old Robespierre and it's idiotic creation of the word 'Reactionary', which it created in reaction to people who were rejecting Robespierre and it's conflation of human rights, with 'fairness'.  LMAO!  He was a _dumbass_... to be sure, but he is better known for his being the very first Western Born Terrorist... and the very first Communist to be have his own head cleaved clean off, for just being a mass-murdering piece of shit, OKA: A Communist.
> 
> Now how cool is it that two and a half centuries later... Communists are STILL DUMBASSES?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can call me a bigot for being intolerant of you if you like…but all intolerance is not equal, although you seem to think that you can dumb it down in a way that it seems to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't worry about it. Keys likes to make up his own definitions, pulled sidways out of his ass. Here's one of my personal favorites:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _homo= self
> Phobia= irrational fear
> Homophobe: One presenting irrational fear of them self._
> 
> Where_r_my_keys
> Post 7933
> Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings? | Page 794 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Says Keyes, citing himself. Which is pretty much his source on every topic.
> 
> And predictably in response to your thoughtful reply.....you'll get spam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks. I got a real kick out of the part about "reasonable people" I'm just ignoring it. Don't feed the zombie troll bots. They don't know that they're dead.
Click to expand...

And THAT Reader, besides "A BEATIN'", is what is known as a "Concession".

Which is to say the recognition of the argument and the failure to advance a sustainable defense, thus yielding to the standing argument.

The would-be 'contributor's' concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Again Reader, the key to defeating Leftists in debate, rests upon two fundamental elements:

1- Find a Leftist.
2- Get them to Speak.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just more inane blathering. You are boring and tedious. And yes, you are a bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Things:
> 
> First: The ABSOLUTE COOLEST THING about people who call other's _'bigots', _is that in so doing, they demonstrate the traits essential to 'bigotry'... .
> 
> Allow me to demonstrate:
> 
> Bigotry: _intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself._
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> There's you being intolerant of those who hold differing opinions than you hold... LOL!  While LAMENTING people who hold differing opinions then YOU!
> 
> HOW COOL IS THAT?  We call these sort of things, a "PARADOX".
> 
> But hey... if you weren't an imbecile,_ you'd have known that._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Second: There is literally no such thing as a homophobe.  Such is a feckless contrivance by the Cult of Degeneracy which through the use of such hopes to cow reasonable people from recognizing and subsequently contesting the normalization of sexual abnormality.
> 
> LOL!  Such deceit has a long tradition with the Ideological Left... going back the old Robespierre and it's idiotic creation of the word 'Reactionary', which it created in reaction to people who were rejecting Robespierre and it's conflation of human rights, with 'fairness'.  LMAO!  He was a _dumbass_... to be sure, but he is better known for his being the very first Western Born Terrorist... and the very first Communist to be have his own head cleaved clean off, for just being a mass-murdering piece of shit, OKA: A Communist.
> 
> Now how cool is it that two and a half centuries later... Communists are STILL DUMBASSES?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can call me a bigot for being intolerant of you if you like…but all intolerance is not equal, although you seem to think that you can dumb it down in a way that it seems to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't worry about it. Keys likes to make up his own definitions, pulled sidways out of his ass. Here's one of my personal favorites:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _homo= self
> Phobia= irrational fear
> Homophobe: One presenting irrational fear of them self._
> 
> Where_r_my_keys
> Post 7933
> Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings? | Page 794 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Says Keyes, citing himself. Which is pretty much his source on every topic.
> 
> And predictably in response to your thoughtful reply.....you'll get spam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks. I got a real kick out of the part about "reasonable people" I'm just ignoring it. Don't feed the zombie troll bots. They don't know that they're dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And THAT Reader, besides "A BEATIN'", is what is known as a "Concession".
Click to expand...


That's just your tell. Where you, citing you tell yourself that you've been offered a concession.....by you. 

Its sort of like how you come up with your definitions. Just make up whatever you want:



> _homo= self
> Phobia= irrational fear
> Homophobe: One presenting irrational fear of them self._
> 
> Where_r_my_keys
> Post 7933
> Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings? | Page 794 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



Homophobia equals 'fear of self' per Keyes. Why bother with a dictionary when you can just make up whatever you'd like? Though you never have explained to us why anyone should give a shit what nonsense you tell yourself.

Explain it to us, my little relativist.


----------



## Silhouette

Likewise, homophilia is a form of narcissism.  I've heard it said that homosexuals are narcissists because only their gender (ultimately themselves) could be worthy of intimacy and love.  The opposite gender is just too "not them" and so they became homosexuals.  BECAME.  This explains a lot, especially I've noticed how some gay couples look nearly identical, wearing the same haircuts, the same body build and clothing styles.

That's just one theory of how they get started.  Childhood molestation wounds likely explains the rest.  Either way the behavior is acquired and is a sign of mental illness.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Likewise, homophilia is a form of narcissism.  I've heard it said that homosexuals are narcissists because only their gender (ultimately themselves) could be worthy of intimacy and love.



I've heard it said that you have no idea what you're talking about and are making this shit up as you go along. As narcissism and sexual orientation are beyond irrelevant. They don't involve the same psychological principles.

Given that your entire argument is just you making shit up......do we even need to be here for another one of your self soothing thumb sucking sessions?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Silhouette said:


> Likewise, homophilia is a form of narcissism.  I've heard it said that homosexuals are narcissists because only their gender (ultimately themselves) could be worthy of intimacy and love.  The opposite gender is just too "not them" and so they became homosexuals.  BECAME.  This explains a lot, especially I've noticed how some gay couples look nearly identical, wearing the same haircuts, the same body build and clothing styles.
> 
> That's just one theory of how they get started.  Childhood molestation wounds likely explains the rest.  Either way the behavior is acquired and is a sign of mental illness.



Sociopaths... And this without exception.

And that is why homosexuals have been locked in the closet for 99.9999999...% of human history.  

Once they're 'accepted', the society effectively licenses degeneracy born of sociopathy... And there is simply NO potential upside to THAT!  

Consequently ... The cultural decay and decline that lead to their acceptance rolls over into a nose dive... Until, inevitably.... The culture slams into the rocky bottom and with that, its demise.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Statistikhengst said:


> Now, back to Kim Davis, who is so unbelievably sexy....
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


Well she IS a Democrat... So physical beauty is not likely.

ROFLMNAO!  

When my boys were small, we'd sit and watch the news and I'd quiz them on which of the people on the screen were the ones trying to kill our country... And ... I gotta say by the age of 3 they were able to spot a Democrat with 96.368% accuracy.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Silhouette said:


> Likewise, homophilia is a form of narcissism.  I've heard it said that homosexuals are narcissists because only their gender (ultimately themselves) could be worthy of intimacy and love.  The opposite gender is just too "not them" and so they became homosexuals.  BECAME.  This explains a lot, especially I've noticed how some gay couples look nearly identical, wearing the same haircuts, the same body build and clothing styles.
> 
> That's just one theory of how they get started.  Childhood molestation wounds likely explains the rest.  Either way the behavior is acquired and is a sign of mental illness.



homophilia is a form of narcissism??Now try to learn something please instead of wasting time posting horseshit......




> Since the 1970s, *the consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions globally is that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexual orientation, *while there remain those who maintain that it is a disorder.[2] In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. The American Psychological Association Council of Representatives followed in 1975.[3] Thereafter other major mental health organizations followed and *it was finally declassified by the **World Health Organization** in 1990.* Consequently, while some still believe homosexuality is a mental disorder, the *current research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, *reflecting the official positions of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association.”
> 
> Rather that the classification being changed in 1973 for political purposes, the fact is that homosexuality was initially declared a mental illness for…….political, and religious reasons.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology



And there is this:



> Hooker's (1957) study was innovative in several important respects. First, rather than simply accepting the predominant view of homosexuality as pathology, she posed the question of whether homosexuals and heterosexuals differed in their psychological adjustment. Second, rather than studying psychiatric patients, she recruited a sample of homosexual men who were functioning normally in society. Third, she employed a procedure that asked experts to rate the adjustment of men without prior knowledge of their sexual orientation. This method addressed an important source of bias that had vitiated so many previous studies of homosexuality.
> 
> Hooker concluded from her data that homosexuality is not a clinical entity and that homosexuality is not inherently associated with psychopathology.
> 
> Hooker's findings have since been replicated by many other investigators using a variety of research methods. Freedman (1971), for example, used Hooker's basic design to study lesbian and heterosexual women. Instead of projective tests, he administered objectively-scored personality tests to the women. His conclusions were similar to those of Hooker
> 
> Source http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html
> 
> 
> Homosexuality stopped being a pathology because gay people weren’t exhibiting other “traditional” signs of mental illness. They could function as well as straight people in various test situations. That showed that they could function in society just as normally as straight people. The weight of evidence against homosexuality being a pathology is what led psychiatrists to alter their views of it. This ultimately led to its removal.
> 
> http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/03/27/pat-robertson-upset-gay-people-longer-stoned-death/



     Next : Bigotry and Mental Illness


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Silhouette said:


> Likewise, homophilia is a form of narcissism.  I've heard it said that homosexuals are narcissists because only their gender (ultimately themselves) could be worthy of intimacy and love.  The opposite gender is just too "not them" and so they became homosexuals.  BECAME.  This explains a lot, especially I've noticed how some gay couples look nearly identical, wearing the same haircuts, the same body build and clothing styles.
> 
> That's just one theory of how they get started.  Childhood molestation wounds likely explains the rest.  Either way the behavior is acquired and is a sign of mental illness.



Here is a bizarre rant that I thought that you would relate to and enjoy. Always thinking of you!!




> *Steve Deace Links The Kim Davis Saga And Gay Marriage To 9/11*
> Submitted by Brian Tashman on Wednesday, 9/16/2015 3:10 pm
> 
> Iowa talk radio host Steve Deace, whose show has become a required stop for GOP presidential candidates, took to the Washington Times today to claim that America hasn’t learned the right lessons from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Deace wrote that if the U.S. had responded to 9/11 appropriately, then Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers would be out of business and the Supreme Court would never have been allowed to “usurp our God-given claim on true liberty” in its marriage equality ruling. He also brought up the case of Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, claiming that her detention by U.S. Marshals was proof that the U.S. has abandoned the beliefs of the nation’s founders. “
> 
> Last week on the 14th anniversary of 9/11 the hash tag "never forget" was trending. However, if the current direction of the country is any indication, forgetting is actually quite trendy these days. … Sadly, this is pretty much where we are as we remember the bloody stain Islamo-fascism inflicted on our nation 14 years ago. With each passing year, our 'never forgets' become more and more insulting to the ear as President Obama's Marxist reign takes us deeper into cultural and Constitutional oblivion. … 1) Are we meant to remember that our nation was fashioned by a people who believed they were endowed by their creator with unalienable rights? If so, how does throwing an elected official named Kim Davis in jail square with that? She was representing the will of 75 percent of Kentucky voters by standing for marriage – an institution that precedes the collective wisdom of our Founding Fathers and every form of government created by man -- yet we are to believe that a 5-4 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court supersedes all of that? - See more at: Steve Deace Links Kim Davis And Gay Marriage To 9/11




Enjoy!!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Likewise, homophilia is a form of narcissism.  I've heard it said that homosexuals are narcissists because only their gender (ultimately themselves) could be worthy of intimacy and love.  The opposite gender is just too "not them" and so they became homosexuals.  BECAME.  This explains a lot, especially I've noticed how some gay couples look nearly identical, wearing the same haircuts, the same body build and clothing styles.
> 
> That's just one theory of how they get started.  Childhood molestation wounds likely explains the rest.  Either way the behavior is acquired and is a sign of mental illness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> homophilia is a form of narcissism??Now try to learn something please instead of wasting time posting horseshit......
Click to expand...





> Since the 1970s, *the consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions globally is that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexual orientation...*



ROFLMNAO!

Ahh yes... the infamous VOTE by the APA.

Sadly, for the viability of the Western Culture... that vote was cast in the absence of a SCINTILLA of evidence which supported the outcome of the vote and since that vote, not a scintilla of evidence has come along in support of it.

That vote, like the judicial votes that have followed it, was bent around subjective NEED... and in defiance of all sense of scientific evidential objectivity.

In fact, homosexuality is a presentation of mental disorder and that mental disorder is rooted in one or more manifestations of sociopathy... .

But... as appeals to misleading authority go... THAT is one of my all time faves.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Likewise, homophilia is a form of narcissism.  I've heard it said that homosexuals are narcissists because only their gender (ultimately themselves) could be worthy of intimacy and love.  The opposite gender is just too "not them" and so they became homosexuals.  BECAME.  This explains a lot, especially I've noticed how some gay couples look nearly identical, wearing the same haircuts, the same body build and clothing styles.
> 
> That's just one theory of how they get started.  Childhood molestation wounds likely explains the rest.  Either way the behavior is acquired and is a sign of mental illness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a bizarre rant that I thought that you would relate to and enjoy. Always thinking of you!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Steve Deace Links The Kim Davis Saga And Gay Marriage To 9/11*
> Submitted by Brian Tashman on Wednesday, 9/16/2015 3:10 pm
> 
> Iowa talk radio host Steve Deace, whose show has become a required stop for GOP presidential candidates, took to the Washington Times today to claim that America hasn’t learned the right lessons from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Deace wrote that if the U.S. had responded to 9/11 appropriately, then Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers would be out of business and the Supreme Court would never have been allowed to “usurp our God-given claim on true liberty” in its marriage equality ruling. He also brought up the case of Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, claiming that her detention by U.S. Marshals was proof that the U.S. has abandoned the beliefs of the nation’s founders. “
> 
> Last week on the 14th anniversary of 9/11 the hash tag "never forget" was trending. However, if the current direction of the country is any indication, forgetting is actually quite trendy these days. … Sadly, this is pretty much where we are as we remember the bloody stain Islamo-fascism inflicted on our nation 14 years ago. With each passing year, our 'never forgets' become more and more insulting to the ear as President Obama's Marxist reign takes us deeper into cultural and Constitutional oblivion. … 1) Are we meant to remember that our nation was fashioned by a people who believed they were endowed by their creator with unalienable rights? If so, how does throwing an elected official named Kim Davis in jail square with that? She was representing the will of 75 percent of Kentucky voters by standing for marriage – an institution that precedes the collective wisdom of our Founding Fathers and every form of government created by man -- yet we are to believe that a 5-4 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court supersedes all of that? - See more at: Steve Deace Links Kim Davis And Gay Marriage To 9/11
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Enjoy!!
Click to expand...


Proving once again that YOU CAN *NOT *_hide the *imbeciles...*_


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Next : Bigotry and Mental Illness



The ABSOLUTE COOLEST THING about people who call other's _'bigots', _is that in so doing, they demonstrate the traits essential to 'bigotry'... .

Allow me to demonstrate:

Bigotry: _intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself._

See how that works?

There's you being intolerant of those who hold differing opinions than you hold... LOL! While LAMENTING intolerance of people who hold differing opinions than YOU!

HOW COOL IS THAT? We call these sort of things, a "PARADOX".

But hey... if you weren't an imbecile,_ you'd have known that._


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next : Bigotry and Mental Illness
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ABSOLUTE COOLEST THING about people who call other's _'bigots', _is that in so doing, they demonstrate the traits essential to 'bigotry'... .
> 
> Allow me to demonstrate:
> 
> Bigotry: _intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself._
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> There's you being intolerant of those who hold differing opinions than you hold... LOL! While LAMENTING intolerance of people who hold differing opinions than YOU!
> 
> HOW COOL IS THAT? We call these sort of things, a "PARADOX".
> 
> But hey... if you weren't an imbecile,_ you'd have known that._
Click to expand...


I'll tell YOU what the ABSOLUTE COOLEST THING is.......as promised;




> New Study Suggests Connections Between Homophobia And Mental Disorders  New Study Suggests Connections Between Homophobia And Mental Disorders
> 
> Researchers working with the Italian Society of Andrology and Sexual Medicine evaluated the mental health of 560 Italian University students to see what connections could be found between their psychological traits and their propensity for homophobia. Indeed, *they found that aspects of psychoticism and immature defense mechanisms were significant predictors for homophobic attitudes*.
> 
> “We found that psychoticism represented an important risk factor for homophobia, demonstrating that pathologic personality traits are involved in homophobic attitudes,” the study explains.* Psychoticism embodies various characteristics, but above all, “severe psychopathologic conditions, such as delusion, isolation, and interpersonal alienation, but also hostility and anger.”*





See how it works??


----------



## Silhouette

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> New Study Suggests Connections Between Homophobia And Mental Disorders  New Study Suggests Connections Between Homophobia And Mental Disorders
> 
> Researchers working with the Italian Society of Andrology and Sexual Medicine evaluated the mental health of 560 Italian University students to see what connections could be found between their psychological traits and their propensity for homophobia. Indeed, *they found that aspects of psychoticism and immature defense mechanisms were significant predictors for homophobic attitudes*.
> 
> “We found that psychoticism represented an important risk factor for homophobia, demonstrating that pathologic personality traits are involved in homophobic attitudes,” the study explains.* Psychoticism embodies various characteristics, but above all, “severe psychopathologic conditions, such as delusion, isolation, and interpersonal alienation, but also hostility and anger.”*
Click to expand...

 
What about people who are grounded and see the need for both a father and a mother in a  home for kids?  Did they do a study on that?  It's funny how we only hear about studies that support the LGBT agenda and all the ones supporting traditional homes are just *poof* nonexistent in the media.  Probably not even conducted for fear that the lavendar-staff in charge of most psychological institutions these days would not fund such a study AT ALL.

Ah, now you know the rest of the story...  Read the OP here to find out how your "studies" are arrived at nowadays:  Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren't to Blame: They Rely on "Science".. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Silhouette said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Study Suggests Connections Between Homophobia And Mental Disorders  New Study Suggests Connections Between Homophobia And Mental Disorders
> 
> Researchers working with the Italian Society of Andrology and Sexual Medicine evaluated the mental health of 560 Italian University students to see what connections could be found between their psychological traits and their propensity for homophobia. Indeed, *they found that aspects of psychoticism and immature defense mechanisms were significant predictors for homophobic attitudes*.
> 
> “We found that psychoticism represented an important risk factor for homophobia, demonstrating that pathologic personality traits are involved in homophobic attitudes,” the study explains.* Psychoticism embodies various characteristics, but above all, “severe psychopathologic conditions, such as delusion, isolation, and interpersonal alienation, but also hostility and anger.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about people who are grounded and see the need for both a father and a mother in a  home for kids?  Did they do a study on that?  It's funny how we only hear about studies that support the LGBT agenda and all the ones supporting traditional homes are just *poof* nonexistent in the media.  Probably not even conducted for fear that the lavendar-staff in charge of most psychological institutions these days would not fund such a study AT ALL.
> 
> Ah, now you know the rest of the story...  Read the OP here to find out how your "studies" are arrived at nowadays:  Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren't to Blame: They Rely on "Science".. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...


Oh look, a conspiracy  theory now! You can't find any actual studies that support your claims so they must be hidden away of just not conducted out of fear of  gays! Just more dishonest, ignorant horseshit!!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> New Study Suggests Connections Between Homophobia And Mental Disorders  New Study Suggests Connections Between Homophobia And Mental Disorders
> 
> Researchers working with the Italian Society of Andrology and Sexual Medicine evaluated the mental health of 560 Italian University students to see what connections could be found between their psychological traits and their propensity for homophobia. Indeed, *they found that aspects of psychoticism and immature defense mechanisms were significant predictors for homophobic attitudes*.
> 
> “We found that psychoticism represented an important risk factor for homophobia, demonstrating that pathologic personality traits are involved in homophobic attitudes,” the study explains.* Psychoticism embodies various characteristics, but above all, “severe psychopathologic conditions, such as delusion, isolation, and interpersonal alienation, but also hostility and anger.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See how it works??
Click to expand...

ROFLMNAO....

That's _Adorable_.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Study Suggests Connections Between Homophobia And Mental Disorders  New Study Suggests Connections Between Homophobia And Mental Disorders
> 
> Researchers working with the Italian Society of Andrology and Sexual Medicine evaluated the mental health of 560 Italian University students to see what connections could be found between their psychological traits and their propensity for homophobia. Indeed, *they found that aspects of psychoticism and immature defense mechanisms were significant predictors for homophobic attitudes*.
> 
> “We found that psychoticism represented an important risk factor for homophobia, demonstrating that pathologic personality traits are involved in homophobic attitudes,” the study explains.* Psychoticism embodies various characteristics, but above all, “severe psychopathologic conditions, such as delusion, isolation, and interpersonal alienation, but also hostility and anger.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about people who are grounded and see the need for both a father and a mother in a  home for kids?  Did they do a study on that?  It's funny how we only hear about studies that support the LGBT agenda and all the ones supporting traditional homes are just *poof* nonexistent in the media.  Probably not even conducted for fear that the lavendar-staff in charge of most psychological institutions these days would not fund such a study AT ALL.
> 
> Ah, now you know the rest of the story...  Read the OP here to find out how your "studies" are arrived at nowadays:  Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren't to Blame: They Rely on "Science".. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh look, a conspiracy  theory now! You can't find any actual studies that support your claims so they must be hidden away of just not conducted out of fear of  gays! Just more dishonest, ignorant horseshit!!
Click to expand...


WHAT?  Deviants conspire?  That's not even possible, is it?  I mean if it were possible, there'd be groups dedicated to the advancement of the deviancy...  Such would have catchy acronyms like:

"NORTH AMERICAN MAN/BOY LOVE ASSOCIATION".

LOL... You people are helpless.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Study Suggests Connections Between Homophobia And Mental Disorders  New Study Suggests Connections Between Homophobia And Mental Disorders
> 
> Researchers working with the Italian Society of Andrology and Sexual Medicine evaluated the mental health of 560 Italian University students to see what connections could be found between their psychological traits and their propensity for homophobia. Indeed, *they found that aspects of psychoticism and immature defense mechanisms were significant predictors for homophobic attitudes*.
> 
> “We found that psychoticism represented an important risk factor for homophobia, demonstrating that pathologic personality traits are involved in homophobic attitudes,” the study explains.* Psychoticism embodies various characteristics, but above all, “severe psychopathologic conditions, such as delusion, isolation, and interpersonal alienation, but also hostility and anger.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about people who are grounded and see the need for both a father and a mother in a  home for kids?  Did they do a study on that?  It's funny how we only hear about studies that support the LGBT agenda and all the ones supporting traditional homes are just *poof* nonexistent in the media.  Probably not even conducted for fear that the lavendar-staff in charge of most psychological institutions these days would not fund such a study AT ALL.
> 
> Ah, now you know the rest of the story...  Read the OP here to find out how your "studies" are arrived at nowadays:  Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren't to Blame: They Rely on "Science".. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh look, a conspiracy  theory now! You can't find any actual studies that support your claims so they must be hidden away of just not conducted out of fear of  gays! Just more dishonest, ignorant horseshit!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT?  Deviants conspire?  That's not even possible, is it?  I mean if it were possible, there'd be groups dedicated to the advancement of the deviancy...  Such would have catchy acronyms like:
> 
> "NORTH AMERICAN MAN/BOY LOVE ASSOCIATION".
> 
> LOL... You people are helpless.
Click to expand...


Congratulations,. You finally touched on something that is actually deviant. Unfortunately for you, it has nothing  to do with same sex marriage or gay parenting,  However, I'm sure that you will come up with some bigoted bovine excrement in that regard.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Congratulations,. You finally touched on something that is actually deviant. Unfortunately for you, it has nothing  to do with same sex marriage or gay parenting,  However, I'm sure that you will come up with some bigoted bovine excrement in that regard.



Yes...  I hear you saying that sexual *deviants* who seek to find otherwise unobtainable legitimacy, through the pretense of marriage, and sexual *deviants* who raise children as a means to have access to children to pursue such for sexual gratification, are _one thing_, and sexual _*deviants*_ are _another._

Sadly for your irrational notion, *deviance* is: _ the fact or state of departing from the normal, usual, accepted or *established standards*, especially in social or sexual behavior.
_
The *Human sexual standard is established* by human physiological *normality*, and* human physiological normality is established* in the design of the human species, wherein nature provides two distinct, but complementing genders, with each gender designed specifically:_ to join with the other, OKA:  _*Normal Human Sexuality *AKA: The *Human Sexual Standard*.

Therefore reason dictates that where a person craves sexual gratification through sexual interaction with a person of their own gender, they not only *deviate* from the *human sexual standard*, established by *human physiological normality*... HOMOSEXUALS *DEVIATE* *AS* *FAR FROM* THAT *STANDARD* AS IS _HUMANLY_ *POSSIBLE*.

Meaning, simply... that there is no greater *deviation* from the *human physiological standard*, than *homosexuality.*

Meaning that in terms of *deviancy*, the *homosexual* is the most profound example of* sexual deviancy*: HUMANLY POSSIBLE.

.
.
.

I hope that helps... I went to the trouble of color coding the key elements, to help you see the distinctions, or...
'd e v i a t i o n' between that which is *NORMAL* and that which *DEVIATES* from *normal.*


So... LOL!  This notion ya have that *homosexuality* is not *deviant*, is nonsense... and is a function of what is OKA: *YOUR **IGNORANCE*.

OH!  And one more thing.  NAMBLA is *EXCLUSIVELY* _*HOMOSEXUAL.  *_As are the 65 other Pedophile Advocacy Groups known to exist in the US alone.

Understand that homosexuality comprises only 2% of the human population, but is responsible for more than 30% of sexual assaults on children.  I leave the math to one of our in-house TAs, but suffice it to say that pedophilia and homosexuality are all but synonymous ... .


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations,. You finally touched on something that is actually deviant. Unfortunately for you, it has nothing  to do with same sex marriage or gay parenting,  However, I'm sure that you will come up with some bigoted bovine excrement in that regard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...  I hear you saying that sexual *deviants* who seek to find otherwise unobtainable legitimacy, through the pretense of marriage, and sexual *deviants* who raise children as a means to have access to children to pursue such for sexual gratification, are _one thing_, and sexual _*deviants*_ are _another._
> 
> Sadly for your irrational notion, *deviance* is: _ the fact or state of departing from the normal, usual, accepted or *established standards*, especially in social or sexual behavior.
> _
> The *Human sexual standard is established* by human physiological *normality*, and* human physiological normality is established* in the design of the human species, wherein nature provides two distinct, but complementing genders, with each gender designed specifically:_ to join with the other, OKA:  _*Normal Human Sexuality *AKA: The *Human Sexual Standard*.
> 
> Therefore reason dictates that where a person craves sexual gratification through sexual interaction with a person of their own gender, they not only *deviate* from the *human sexual standard*, established by *human physiological normality*... HOMOSEXUALS *DEVIATE* *AS* *FAR FROM* THAT *STANDARD* AS IS _HUMANLY_ *POSSIBLE*.
> 
> Meaning, simply... that there is no greater *deviation* from the *human physiological standard*, than *homosexuality.*
> 
> Meaning that in terms of *deviancy*, the *homosexual* is the most profound example of* sexual deviancy*: HUMANLY POSSIBLE.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> I hope that helps... I went to the trouble of color coding the key elements, to help you see the distinctions, or...
> 'd e v i a t i o n' between that which is *NORMAL* and that which *DEVIATES* from *normal.*
> 
> 
> So... LOL!  This notion ya have that *homosexuality* is not *deviant*, is nonsense... and is a function of what is OKA: *YOUR **IGNORANCE*.
> 
> OH!  And one more thing.  NAMBLA is *EXCLUSIVELY* _*HOMOSEXUAL.  *_As are the 65 other Pedophile Advocacy Groups known to exist in the US alone.
> 
> Understand that homosexuality comprises only 2% of the human population, but is responsible for more than 30% of sexual assaults on children.  I leave the math to one of our in-house TAs, but suffice it to say that pedophilia and homosexuality are all but synonymous ... .
Click to expand...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations,. You finally touched on something that is actually deviant. Unfortunately for you, it has nothing  to do with same sex marriage or gay parenting,  However, I'm sure that you will come up with some bigoted bovine excrement in that regard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...  I hear you saying that sexual *deviants* who seek to find otherwise unobtainable legitimacy, through the pretense of marriage, and sexual *deviants* who raise children as a means to have access to children to pursue such for sexual gratification, are _one thing_, and sexual _*deviants*_ are _another._
> 
> Sadly for your irrational notion, *deviance* is: _ the fact or state of departing from the normal, usual, accepted or *established standards*, especially in social or sexual behavior.
> _
> The *Human sexual standard is established* by human physiological *normality*, and* human physiological normality is established* in the design of the human species, wherein nature provides two distinct, but complementing genders, with each gender designed specifically:_ to join with the other, OKA:  _*Normal Human Sexuality *AKA: The *Human Sexual Standard*.
> 
> Therefore reason dictates that where a person craves sexual gratification through sexual interaction with a person of their own gender, they not only *deviate* from the *human sexual standard*, established by *human physiological normality*... HOMOSEXUALS *DEVIATE* *AS* *FAR FROM* THAT *STANDARD* AS IS _HUMANLY_ *POSSIBLE*.
> 
> Meaning, simply... that there is no greater *deviation* from the *human physiological standard*, than *homosexuality.*
> 
> Meaning that in terms of *deviancy*, the *homosexual* is the most profound example of* sexual deviancy*: HUMANLY POSSIBLE.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> I hope that helps... I went to the trouble of color coding the key elements, to help you see the distinctions, or...
> 'd e v i a t i o n' between that which is *NORMAL* and that which *DEVIATES* from *normal.*
> 
> 
> So... LOL!  This notion ya have that *homosexuality* is not *deviant*, is nonsense... and is a function of what is OKA: *YOUR **IGNORANCE*.
> 
> OH!  And one more thing.  NAMBLA is *EXCLUSIVELY* _*HOMOSEXUAL.  *_As are the 65 other Pedophile Advocacy Groups known to exist in the US alone.
> 
> Understand that homosexuality comprises only 2% of the human population, but is responsible for more than 30% of sexual assaults on children.  I leave the math to one of our in-house TAs, but suffice it to say that pedophilia and homosexuality are all but synonymous ... .
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


_Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
_


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations,. You finally touched on something that is actually deviant. Unfortunately for you, it has nothing  to do with same sex marriage or gay parenting,  However, I'm sure that you will come up with some bigoted bovine excrement in that regard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...  I hear you saying that sexual *deviants* who seek to find otherwise unobtainable legitimacy, through the pretense of marriage, and sexual *deviants* who raise children as a means to have access to children to pursue such for sexual gratification, are _one thing_, and sexual _*deviants*_ are _another._
> 
> Sadly for your irrational notion, *deviance* is: _ the fact or state of departing from the normal, usual, accepted or *established standards*, especially in social or sexual behavior.
> _
> The *Human sexual standard is established* by human physiological *normality*, and* human physiological normality is established* in the design of the human species, wherein nature provides two distinct, but complementing genders, with each gender designed specifically:_ to join with the other, OKA:  _*Normal Human Sexuality *AKA: The *Human Sexual Standard*.
> 
> Therefore reason dictates that where a person craves sexual gratification through sexual interaction with a person of their own gender, they not only *deviate* from the *human sexual standard*, established by *human physiological normality*... HOMOSEXUALS *DEVIATE* *AS* *FAR FROM* THAT *STANDARD* AS IS _HUMANLY_ *POSSIBLE*.
> 
> Meaning, simply... that there is no greater *deviation* from the *human physiological standard*, than *homosexuality.*
> 
> Meaning that in terms of *deviancy*, the *homosexual* is the most profound example of* sexual deviancy*: HUMANLY POSSIBLE.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> I hope that helps... I went to the trouble of color coding the key elements, to help you see the distinctions, or...
> 'd e v i a t i o n' between that which is *NORMAL* and that which *DEVIATES* from *normal.*
> 
> 
> So... LOL!  This notion ya have that *homosexuality* is not *deviant*, is nonsense... and is a function of what is OKA: *YOUR **IGNORANCE*.
> 
> OH!  And one more thing.  NAMBLA is *EXCLUSIVELY* _*HOMOSEXUAL.  *_As are the 65 other Pedophile Advocacy Groups known to exist in the US alone.
> 
> Understand that homosexuality comprises only 2% of the human population, but is responsible for more than 30% of sexual assaults on children.  I leave the math to one of our in-house TAs, but suffice it to say that pedophilia and homosexuality are all but synonymous ... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
Click to expand...


Cut the belligerent  and moronic crap already.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations,. You finally touched on something that is actually deviant. Unfortunately for you, it has nothing  to do with same sex marriage or gay parenting,  However, I'm sure that you will come up with some bigoted bovine excrement in that regard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...  I hear you saying that sexual *deviants* who seek to find otherwise unobtainable legitimacy, through the pretense of marriage, and sexual *deviants* who raise children as a means to have access to children to pursue such for sexual gratification, are _one thing_, and sexual _*deviants*_ are _another._
> 
> Sadly for your irrational notion, *deviance* is: _ the fact or state of departing from the normal, usual, accepted or *established standards*, especially in social or sexual behavior.
> _
> The *Human sexual standard is established* by human physiological *normality*, and* human physiological normality is established* in the design of the human species, wherein nature provides two distinct, but complementing genders, with each gender designed specifically:_ to join with the other, OKA:  _*Normal Human Sexuality *AKA: The *Human Sexual Standard*.
> 
> Therefore reason dictates that where a person craves sexual gratification through sexual interaction with a person of their own gender, they not only *deviate* from the *human sexual standard*, established by *human physiological normality*... HOMOSEXUALS *DEVIATE* *AS* *FAR FROM* THAT *STANDARD* AS IS _HUMANLY_ *POSSIBLE*.
> 
> Meaning, simply... that there is no greater *deviation* from the *human physiological standard*, than *homosexuality.*
> 
> Meaning that in terms of *deviancy*, the *homosexual* is the most profound example of* sexual deviancy*: HUMANLY POSSIBLE.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> I hope that helps... I went to the trouble of color coding the key elements, to help you see the distinctions, or...
> 'd e v i a t i o n' between that which is *NORMAL* and that which *DEVIATES* from *normal.*
> 
> 
> So... LOL!  This notion ya have that *homosexuality* is not *deviant*, is nonsense... and is a function of what is OKA: *YOUR **IGNORANCE*.
> 
> OH!  And one more thing.  NAMBLA is *EXCLUSIVELY* _*HOMOSEXUAL.  *_As are the 65 other Pedophile Advocacy Groups known to exist in the US alone.
> 
> Understand that homosexuality comprises only 2% of the human population, but is responsible for more than 30% of sexual assaults on children.  I leave the math to one of our in-house TAs, but suffice it to say that pedophilia and homosexuality are all but synonymous ... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cut the belligerent  and moronic crap already.
Click to expand...


OH!  The coveted Re-Concession... 
_
Your Re-Concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(Again Reader,  the Key to defeating Homosexuals in debate of their silly ass demands for 'SUPER-SPECIAL-RIGHTS, rests in two fundamental elements:

1- Find a Homosexual
2- Beat it's ass.)_


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> What about people who are grounded and see the need for both a father and a mother in a  home for kids?  Did they do a study on that?  It's funny how we only hear about studies that support the LGBT agenda and all the ones supporting traditional homes are just *poof* nonexistent in the media.  Probably not even conducted for fear that the lavendar-staff in charge of most psychological institutions these days would not fund such a study AT ALL.
> 
> Ah, now you know the rest of the story...  Read the OP here to find out how your "studies" are arrived at nowadays:  Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren't to Blame: They Rely on "Science".. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


 


TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Oh look, a conspiracy  theory now! You can't find any actual studies that support your claims so they must be hidden away of just not conducted out of fear of  gays! Just more dishonest, ignorant horseshit!!


 
Well the only way people can know if the link I provided leads to a "conspiracy theory" would be to follow it and read say, the first page, but particularly the OP.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

A final word to all of the low life bigots who shamelessly use children in their failed propaganda war on equality

There were an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 gay and lesbian biological parents in 1976. In 1990, an estimated 6 to 14 million children have gay or lesbian parents.

Latest statistics from the U.S. Census 2000, the National Survey of Family Growth (2002), and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (2004) include:


An estimated two million LGLB people are interested in adopting.
An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states.
Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.
Adopted children with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born.
http://adoption.about.com/od/gaylesbian/f/gayparents.htm

In addition, adoption is legal is 49 states. Generally, acceptance of gay and lesbian adoption has been way out in front of same sex marriage. In some states, it has been occurring for decades.

Given these numbers, please answer the following questions:


If children who are in the care of gay people are at risk of abuse or  having developmental/ adjustment issues why have the states been allowing this for so long?


If mistreatment of children by gays was prevalent, why are we not hearing horror stories and seeing headlines about this on a regular basis ?


Why have we not been seeing large numbers of adults who had been  children of gays coming forward to speak out against gay parenting?
And let me tell you jerks something else....


I worked in a state run child welfare agency for 26 years. I had many jobs during that time including child protective services investigator, protective services supervisor, foster care unit supervisor, and foster and adoptive parent trainer.

The state in question, New Jersey, has been placing children with gay foster and adoptive parents for decades, long before same sex marriage was even being discussed. During my career, I was involved in some manner or other with thousands of cases of child abuse, including sexual abuse, physical abuse neglect as well is families that were generally dysfunctional due to substance abuse or mental health issues. I was responsible for removing children from some of those homes when it was determined that the risk was too great not to do so, or if the parents could not be rehabilitated.

In all that time I never came across a gay person who was the perpetrator of child abuse of any kind. Granted, they are few in number compared to heterosexual couples and single parents, but we are talking about a span of more than two and a half decades. In addition, I personally placed children with gay and lesbian couples and individuals after they were damaged by their straight parents. Those gay people provided loving and nurturing homes and gave those kids the best shot in life possible. And no, there were not enough straight people to care for those kids, but if there were I would have still have placed them with the gay folks if the match was right.

Never once did I have a problem with a gay foster of adoptive parent. Never once did any of them reject a child because they were not of the “correct” sexual orientation, but some straight people did in fact reject gay kids. During my time there and beyond I followed those families and  I can tell you that those children have grown and thrived and overcame the bad hand that they were dealt by their straight parents, largely due to the nurturing offered and sacrifices made  by the gay families who took them in.

In addition, when we talk about gay adoption, most often we are referring to situations where the child in question is the biological child of  gay person and that persons partner wishes to adopt as a second parent. The benefits of having two legal parents are clear. There are an estimated 2 million children in the care of gay people. That will not change by banning adoption. It will only put those children at a disadvantage, socially, financially and legally.

In conclusion, opposition to gay adoption is just ignorant and hateful equine excrement. To say that you care about the children while opposing adoption by gays is hypocrisy at it’s very worst.


___________________________________________________________________________-

For starters, I have not seen any polls on the issue of support for adoption by gays in general , or gay men in particular. I do know that many states were allowing gays to adopt long before there was any gay marriage, indication that there has been broad support for it for some time now. Currently 49 states allow adoption by gays, and obviously includes some states that do not have marriage equality yet.

Now let me tell you a little about myself. I worked in a public child welfare agency in New Jersey for 26 years. NJ was the first state to expressly authorize joint adoption by gay couples.” Although other states were also allowing it (source: http://www.aclu.org/getequal/timeline.htm)

In my time there, I investigated child abuse and neglect including sexual abuse. I also recruited, trained and supervised foster and adoptive families, including some gay individuals and couples.

I am here to tell you that when it comes to same sex sexual abuse, gay men are not the problem. The whole idea comes from the fact that when a male molests a male child, he is labeled a homosexual. Sometimes they self-identify as homosexuals because that label does not carry they same stigma as pedophile.  However, they rarely are homosexuals. They are  a child abuser and/or pedophile. Some are heterosexual and have developed a regressed fixation on children of a specific age. Others are chronically fixated on children.

Homosexual refers to the sexual orientation of people who are attracted to age appropriate people of the same sex. I have never found a true homosexual to be a child molester. I won’t say that it never happens but it is certainly not in significant numbers.

The last figure that I saw for the number of adoptions by gay and lesbian people was 65,500. Honestly, I don’t know what percentage of those were by gay men, but I do believe that it’s significant. In addition, there are many more children that came to be in the care of gay men  by various other means. We don’t know for sure how many but I’ve seen estimates of up to 14 million. Those children benefit when the state allows second parent adoption by the biological parents partner.

Given these numbers, I think that we would be hearing a lot more about child sexual abuse at the hands of gays and I doubt that so many states would be allowing adoption. In my experience, banning marriage and adoption by gays only serves deprive children of the security of having two legal parents. I hope that I have answered your question.


Claims that gay parenting is harmful to children are bogus and stupid not to mention irresponsible.


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Likewise, homophilia is a form of narcissism.  I've heard it said that homosexuals are narcissists because only their gender (ultimately themselves) could be worthy of intimacy and love.  The opposite gender is just too "not them" and so they became homosexuals.  BECAME.  This explains a lot, especially I've noticed how some gay couples look nearly identical, wearing the same haircuts, the same body build and clothing styles.
> 
> That's just one theory of how they get started.  Childhood molestation wounds likely explains the rest.  Either way the behavior is acquired and is a sign of mental illness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> homophilia is a form of narcissism??Now try to learn something please instead of wasting time posting horseshit......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the 1970s, *the consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions globally is that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexual orientation...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Ahh yes... the infamous VOTE by the APA.
> 
> Sadly, for the viability of the Western Culture... that vote was cast in the absence of a SCINTILLA of evidence which supported the outcome of the vote and since that vote, not a scintilla of evidence has come along in support of it.
> 
> That vote, like the judicial votes that have followed it, was bent around subjective NEED... and in defiance of all sense of scientific evidential objectivity.
> 
> In fact, homosexuality is a presentation of mental disorder and that mental disorder is rooted in one or more manifestations of sociopathy... .
> 
> But... as appeals to misleading authority go... THAT is one of my all time faves.
Click to expand...


Share with us your expertise in psychology and psychiatry above and beyond that of the APA.


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Study Suggests Connections Between Homophobia And Mental Disorders  New Study Suggests Connections Between Homophobia And Mental Disorders
> 
> Researchers working with the Italian Society of Andrology and Sexual Medicine evaluated the mental health of 560 Italian University students to see what connections could be found between their psychological traits and their propensity for homophobia. Indeed, *they found that aspects of psychoticism and immature defense mechanisms were significant predictors for homophobic attitudes*.
> 
> “We found that psychoticism represented an important risk factor for homophobia, demonstrating that pathologic personality traits are involved in homophobic attitudes,” the study explains.* Psychoticism embodies various characteristics, but above all, “severe psychopathologic conditions, such as delusion, isolation, and interpersonal alienation, but also hostility and anger.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about people who are grounded and see the need for both a father and a mother in a  home for kids?  Did they do a study on that?  It's funny how we only hear about studies that support the LGBT agenda and all the ones supporting traditional homes are just *poof* nonexistent in the media.  Probably not even conducted for fear that the lavendar-staff in charge of most psychological institutions these days would not fund such a study AT ALL.
> 
> Ah, now you know the rest of the story...  Read the OP here to find out how your "studies" are arrived at nowadays:  Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren't to Blame: They Rely on "Science".. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh look, a conspiracy  theory now! You can't find any actual studies that support your claims so they must be hidden away of just not conducted out of fear of  gays! Just more dishonest, ignorant horseshit!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT?  Deviants conspire?  That's not even possible, is it?  I mean if it were possible, there'd be groups dedicated to the advancement of the deviancy...  Such would have catchy acronyms like:
> 
> "NORTH AMERICAN MAN/BOY LOVE ASSOCIATION".
> 
> LOL... You people are helpless.
Click to expand...

What can you tell us about that organization?


----------



## Silhouette

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> A final word to all of the low life bigots who shamelessly use children in their failed propaganda war on equality...There were an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 gay and lesbian biological parents in 1976. In 1990, an estimated 6 to 14 million children have gay or lesbian parents....Latest statistics from the U.S. Census 2000, the National Survey of Family Growth (2002), and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (2004) include:
> 
> 
> An estimated two million LGLB people are interested in adopting.
> An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
> More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states.
> Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.
> Adopted children with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born.


You know, now that you mention it...I have noticed a rise in indigency, drug abuse and alcoholism in the most recently-fledged generations.  And this OP explains exactly why, given what you just said: Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> A final word to all of the low life bigots ...



The absolutely coolest thing about the use of the word "bigot", is that the use of the word is a precise demonstration of bigotry.

I guess I will never tire of watching people demonstrate; in irrefutable terms... That they quite literally are that which they otherwise spoke out against.


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> A final word to all of the low life bigots who shamelessly use children in their failed propaganda war on equality
> 
> There were an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 gay and lesbian biological parents in 1976. In 1990, an estimated 6 to 14 million children have gay or lesbian parents.
> 
> Latest statistics from the U.S. Census 2000, the National Survey of Family Growth (2002), and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (2004) include:
> 
> 
> An estimated two million LGLB people are interested in adopting.
> An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
> More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states.
> Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.
> Adopted children with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born.
> http://adoption.about.com/od/gaylesbian/f/gayparents.htm
> 
> In addition, adoption is legal is 49 states. Generally, acceptance of gay and lesbian adoption has been way out in front of same sex marriage. In some states, it has been occurring for decades.
> 
> Given these numbers, please answer the following questions:
> 
> 
> If children who are in the care of gay people are at risk of abuse or  having developmental/ adjustment issues why have the states been allowing this for so long?
> 
> 
> If mistreatment of children by gays was prevalent, why are we not hearing horror stories and seeing headlines about this on a regular basis ?
> 
> 
> Why have we not been seeing large numbers of adults who had been  children of gays coming forward to speak out against gay parenting?
> And let me tell you jerks something else....
> 
> 
> I worked in a state run child welfare agency for 26 years. I had many jobs during that time including child protective services investigator, protective services supervisor, foster care unit supervisor, and foster and adoptive parent trainer.
> 
> The state in question, New Jersey, has been placing children with gay foster and adoptive parents for decades, long before same sex marriage was even being discussed. During my career, I was involved in some manner or other with thousands of cases of child abuse, including sexual abuse, physical abuse neglect as well is families that were generally dysfunctional due to substance abuse or mental health issues. I was responsible for removing children from some of those homes when it was determined that the risk was too great not to do so, or if the parents could not be rehabilitated.
> 
> In all that time I never came across a gay person who was the perpetrator of child abuse of any kind. Granted, they are few in number compared to heterosexual couples and single parents, but we are talking about a span of more than two and a half decades. In addition, I personally placed children with gay and lesbian couples and individuals after they were damaged by their straight parents. Those gay people provided loving and nurturing homes and gave those kids the best shot in life possible. And no, there were not enough straight people to care for those kids, but if there were I would have still have placed them with the gay folks if the match was right.
> 
> Never once did I have a problem with a gay foster of adoptive parent. Never once did any of them reject a child because they were not of the “correct” sexual orientation, but some straight people did in fact reject gay kids. During my time there and beyond I followed those families and  I can tell you that those children have grown and thrived and overcame the bad hand that they were dealt by their straight parents, largely due to the nurturing offered and sacrifices made  by the gay families who took them in.
> 
> In addition, when we talk about gay adoption, most often we are referring to situations where the child in question is the biological child of  gay person and that persons partner wishes to adopt as a second parent. The benefits of having two legal parents are clear. There are an estimated 2 million children in the care of gay people. That will not change by banning adoption. It will only put those children at a disadvantage, socially, financially and legally.
> 
> In conclusion, opposition to gay adoption is just ignorant and hateful equine excrement. To say that you care about the children while opposing adoption by gays is hypocrisy at it’s very worst.
> 
> 
> ___________________________________________________________________________-
> 
> For starters, I have not seen any polls on the issue of support for adoption by gays in general , or gay men in particular. I do know that many states were allowing gays to adopt long before there was any gay marriage, indication that there has been broad support for it for some time now. Currently 49 states allow adoption by gays, and obviously includes some states that do not have marriage equality yet.
> 
> Now let me tell you a little about myself. I worked in a public child welfare agency in New Jersey for 26 years. NJ was the first state to expressly authorize joint adoption by gay couples.” Although other states were also allowing it (source: http://www.aclu.org/getequal/timeline.htm)
> 
> In my time there, I investigated child abuse and neglect including sexual abuse. I also recruited, trained and supervised foster and adoptive families, including some gay individuals and couples.
> 
> I am here to tell you that when it comes to same sex sexual abuse, gay men are not the problem. The whole idea comes from the fact that when a male molests a male child, he is labeled a homosexual. Sometimes they self-identify as homosexuals because that label does not carry they same stigma as pedophile.  However, they rarely are homosexuals. They are  a child abuser and/or pedophile. Some are heterosexual and have developed a regressed fixation on children of a specific age. Others are chronically fixated on children.
> 
> Homosexual refers to the sexual orientation of people who are attracted to age appropriate people of the same sex. I have never found a true homosexual to be a child molester. I won’t say that it never happens but it is certainly not in significant numbers.
> 
> The last figure that I saw for the number of adoptions by gay and lesbian people was 65,500. Honestly, I don’t know what percentage of those were by gay men, but I do believe that it’s significant. In addition, there are many more children that came to be in the care of gay men  by various other means. We don’t know for sure how many but I’ve seen estimates of up to 14 million. Those children benefit when the state allows second parent adoption by the biological parents partner.
> 
> Given these numbers, I think that we would be hearing a lot more about child sexual abuse at the hands of gays and I doubt that so many states would be allowing adoption. In my experience, banning marriage and adoption by gays only serves deprive children of the security of having two legal parents. I hope that I have answered your question.
> 
> 
> Claims that gay parenting is harmful to children are bogus and stupid not to mention irresponsible.



Let us hope this is indeed your final word

"If children who are in the care of gay people are at risk of abuse or  having developmental/ adjustment issues why have the states been allowing this for so long?"  ----People with their busy lives generally dont pay attention to a lot of government policy.  My suspicion is that if the populations of most of these states had known this  they would have disapproved. 

"If mistreatment of children by gays was prevalent, why are we not hearing horror stories and seeing headlines about this on a regular basis ?"   ---as you pointed out there arent a large amount of couples doing this regardless...and it isnt that we are necessarily thinking of the kind of mistreatment that gets headlines, or mistreatment at all really.

"Why have we not been seeing large numbers of adults who had been children of gays coming forward to speak out against gay parenting?"----there are even less of these folks out there---and there was at least one I remember hearing about during the debate who did oppose gay marriage....even so, not many people come out and attack those that raised them despite what they may think of their deficiencies.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A final word to all of the low life bigots who shamelessly use children in their failed propaganda war on equality
> 
> There were an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 gay and lesbian biological parents in 1976. In 1990, an estimated 6 to 14 million children have gay or lesbian parents.
> 
> Latest statistics from the U.S. Census 2000, the National Survey of Family Growth (2002), and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (2004) include:
> 
> 
> An estimated two million LGLB people are interested in adopting.
> An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
> More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states.
> Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.
> Adopted children with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born.
> http://adoption.about.com/od/gaylesbian/f/gayparents.htm
> 
> In addition, adoption is legal is 49 states. Generally, acceptance of gay and lesbian adoption has been way out in front of same sex marriage. In some states, it has been occurring for decades.
> 
> Given these numbers, please answer the following questions:
> 
> 
> If children who are in the care of gay people are at risk of abuse or  having developmental/ adjustment issues why have the states been allowing this for so long?
> 
> 
> If mistreatment of children by gays was prevalent, why are we not hearing horror stories and seeing headlines about this on a regular basis ?
> 
> 
> Why have we not been seeing large numbers of adults who had been  children of gays coming forward to speak out against gay parenting?
> And let me tell you jerks something else....
> 
> 
> I worked in a state run child welfare agency for 26 years. I had many jobs during that time including child protective services investigator, protective services supervisor, foster care unit supervisor, and foster and adoptive parent trainer.
> 
> The state in question, New Jersey, has been placing children with gay foster and adoptive parents for decades, long before same sex marriage was even being discussed. During my career, I was involved in some manner or other with thousands of cases of child abuse, including sexual abuse, physical abuse neglect as well is families that were generally dysfunctional due to substance abuse or mental health issues. I was responsible for removing children from some of those homes when it was determined that the risk was too great not to do so, or if the parents could not be rehabilitated.
> 
> In all that time I never came across a gay person who was the perpetrator of child abuse of any kind. Granted, they are few in number compared to heterosexual couples and single parents, but we are talking about a span of more than two and a half decades. In addition, I personally placed children with gay and lesbian couples and individuals after they were damaged by their straight parents. Those gay people provided loving and nurturing homes and gave those kids the best shot in life possible. And no, there were not enough straight people to care for those kids, but if there were I would have still have placed them with the gay folks if the match was right.
> 
> Never once did I have a problem with a gay foster of adoptive parent. Never once did any of them reject a child because they were not of the “correct” sexual orientation, but some straight people did in fact reject gay kids. During my time there and beyond I followed those families and  I can tell you that those children have grown and thrived and overcame the bad hand that they were dealt by their straight parents, largely due to the nurturing offered and sacrifices made  by the gay families who took them in.
> 
> In addition, when we talk about gay adoption, most often we are referring to situations where the child in question is the biological child of  gay person and that persons partner wishes to adopt as a second parent. The benefits of having two legal parents are clear. There are an estimated 2 million children in the care of gay people. That will not change by banning adoption. It will only put those children at a disadvantage, socially, financially and legally.
> 
> In conclusion, opposition to gay adoption is just ignorant and hateful equine excrement. To say that you care about the children while opposing adoption by gays is hypocrisy at it’s very worst.
> 
> 
> ___________________________________________________________________________-
> 
> For starters, I have not seen any polls on the issue of support for adoption by gays in general , or gay men in particular. I do know that many states were allowing gays to adopt long before there was any gay marriage, indication that there has been broad support for it for some time now. Currently 49 states allow adoption by gays, and obviously includes some states that do not have marriage equality yet.
> 
> Now let me tell you a little about myself. I worked in a public child welfare agency in New Jersey for 26 years. NJ was the first state to expressly authorize joint adoption by gay couples.” Although other states were also allowing it (source: http://www.aclu.org/getequal/timeline.htm)
> 
> In my time there, I investigated child abuse and neglect including sexual abuse. I also recruited, trained and supervised foster and adoptive families, including some gay individuals and couples.
> 
> I am here to tell you that when it comes to same sex sexual abuse, gay men are not the problem. The whole idea comes from the fact that when a male molests a male child, he is labeled a homosexual. Sometimes they self-identify as homosexuals because that label does not carry they same stigma as pedophile.  However, they rarely are homosexuals. They are  a child abuser and/or pedophile. Some are heterosexual and have developed a regressed fixation on children of a specific age. Others are chronically fixated on children.
> 
> Homosexual refers to the sexual orientation of people who are attracted to age appropriate people of the same sex. I have never found a true homosexual to be a child molester. I won’t say that it never happens but it is certainly not in significant numbers.
> 
> The last figure that I saw for the number of adoptions by gay and lesbian people was 65,500. Honestly, I don’t know what percentage of those were by gay men, but I do believe that it’s significant. In addition, there are many more children that came to be in the care of gay men  by various other means. We don’t know for sure how many but I’ve seen estimates of up to 14 million. Those children benefit when the state allows second parent adoption by the biological parents partner.
> 
> Given these numbers, I think that we would be hearing a lot more about child sexual abuse at the hands of gays and I doubt that so many states would be allowing adoption. In my experience, banning marriage and adoption by gays only serves deprive children of the security of having two legal parents. I hope that I have answered your question.
> 
> 
> Claims that gay parenting is harmful to children are bogus and stupid not to mention irresponsible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let us hope this is indeed your final word
> 
> "If children who are in the care of gay people are at risk of abuse or  having developmental/ adjustment issues why have the states been allowing this for so long?"  ----People with their busy lives generally dont pay attention to a lot of government policy.  My suspicion is that if the populations of most of these states had known this  they would have disapproved.
> 
> "If mistreatment of children by gays was prevalent, why are we not hearing horror stories and seeing headlines about this on a regular basis ?"   ---as you pointed out there arent a large amount of couples doing this regardless...and it isnt that we are necessarily thinking of the kind of mistreatment that gets headlines, or mistreatment at all really.
> 
> "Why have we not been seeing large numbers of adults who had been children of gays coming forward to speak out against gay parenting?"----there are even less of these folks out there---and there was at least one I remember hearing about during the debate who did oppose gay marriage....even so, not many people come out and attack those that raised them despite what they may think of their deficiencies.
Click to expand...


Oh Christ are you back with more rationalizations and assorted horseshit. Hey, you're the one who said that gay people-if they are "really" as in born that way don't actually have parental instincts. That in itself says all that we need to know about your credibility and level  of intellectual functioning. Especially after you went into hiding after I called you on it. Now, do you have anything of substance to contribute?


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A final word to all of the low life bigots who shamelessly use children in their failed propaganda war on equality
> 
> There were an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 gay and lesbian biological parents in 1976. In 1990, an estimated 6 to 14 million children have gay or lesbian parents.
> 
> Latest statistics from the U.S. Census 2000, the National Survey of Family Growth (2002), and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (2004) include:
> 
> 
> An estimated two million LGLB people are interested in adopting.
> An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
> More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states.
> Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.
> Adopted children with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born.
> http://adoption.about.com/od/gaylesbian/f/gayparents.htm
> 
> In addition, adoption is legal is 49 states. Generally, acceptance of gay and lesbian adoption has been way out in front of same sex marriage. In some states, it has been occurring for decades.
> 
> Given these numbers, please answer the following questions:
> 
> 
> If children who are in the care of gay people are at risk of abuse or  having developmental/ adjustment issues why have the states been allowing this for so long?
> 
> 
> If mistreatment of children by gays was prevalent, why are we not hearing horror stories and seeing headlines about this on a regular basis ?
> 
> 
> Why have we not been seeing large numbers of adults who had been  children of gays coming forward to speak out against gay parenting?
> And let me tell you jerks something else....
> 
> 
> I worked in a state run child welfare agency for 26 years. I had many jobs during that time including child protective services investigator, protective services supervisor, foster care unit supervisor, and foster and adoptive parent trainer.
> 
> The state in question, New Jersey, has been placing children with gay foster and adoptive parents for decades, long before same sex marriage was even being discussed. During my career, I was involved in some manner or other with thousands of cases of child abuse, including sexual abuse, physical abuse neglect as well is families that were generally dysfunctional due to substance abuse or mental health issues. I was responsible for removing children from some of those homes when it was determined that the risk was too great not to do so, or if the parents could not be rehabilitated.
> 
> In all that time I never came across a gay person who was the perpetrator of child abuse of any kind. Granted, they are few in number compared to heterosexual couples and single parents, but we are talking about a span of more than two and a half decades. In addition, I personally placed children with gay and lesbian couples and individuals after they were damaged by their straight parents. Those gay people provided loving and nurturing homes and gave those kids the best shot in life possible. And no, there were not enough straight people to care for those kids, but if there were I would have still have placed them with the gay folks if the match was right.
> 
> Never once did I have a problem with a gay foster of adoptive parent. Never once did any of them reject a child because they were not of the “correct” sexual orientation, but some straight people did in fact reject gay kids. During my time there and beyond I followed those families and  I can tell you that those children have grown and thrived and overcame the bad hand that they were dealt by their straight parents, largely due to the nurturing offered and sacrifices made  by the gay families who took them in.
> 
> In addition, when we talk about gay adoption, most often we are referring to situations where the child in question is the biological child of  gay person and that persons partner wishes to adopt as a second parent. The benefits of having two legal parents are clear. There are an estimated 2 million children in the care of gay people. That will not change by banning adoption. It will only put those children at a disadvantage, socially, financially and legally.
> 
> In conclusion, opposition to gay adoption is just ignorant and hateful equine excrement. To say that you care about the children while opposing adoption by gays is hypocrisy at it’s very worst.
> 
> 
> ___________________________________________________________________________-
> 
> For starters, I have not seen any polls on the issue of support for adoption by gays in general , or gay men in particular. I do know that many states were allowing gays to adopt long before there was any gay marriage, indication that there has been broad support for it for some time now. Currently 49 states allow adoption by gays, and obviously includes some states that do not have marriage equality yet.
> 
> Now let me tell you a little about myself. I worked in a public child welfare agency in New Jersey for 26 years. NJ was the first state to expressly authorize joint adoption by gay couples.” Although other states were also allowing it (source: http://www.aclu.org/getequal/timeline.htm)
> 
> In my time there, I investigated child abuse and neglect including sexual abuse. I also recruited, trained and supervised foster and adoptive families, including some gay individuals and couples.
> 
> I am here to tell you that when it comes to same sex sexual abuse, gay men are not the problem. The whole idea comes from the fact that when a male molests a male child, he is labeled a homosexual. Sometimes they self-identify as homosexuals because that label does not carry they same stigma as pedophile.  However, they rarely are homosexuals. They are  a child abuser and/or pedophile. Some are heterosexual and have developed a regressed fixation on children of a specific age. Others are chronically fixated on children.
> 
> Homosexual refers to the sexual orientation of people who are attracted to age appropriate people of the same sex. I have never found a true homosexual to be a child molester. I won’t say that it never happens but it is certainly not in significant numbers.
> 
> The last figure that I saw for the number of adoptions by gay and lesbian people was 65,500. Honestly, I don’t know what percentage of those were by gay men, but I do believe that it’s significant. In addition, there are many more children that came to be in the care of gay men  by various other means. We don’t know for sure how many but I’ve seen estimates of up to 14 million. Those children benefit when the state allows second parent adoption by the biological parents partner.
> 
> Given these numbers, I think that we would be hearing a lot more about child sexual abuse at the hands of gays and I doubt that so many states would be allowing adoption. In my experience, banning marriage and adoption by gays only serves deprive children of the security of having two legal parents. I hope that I have answered your question.
> 
> 
> Claims that gay parenting is harmful to children are bogus and stupid not to mention irresponsible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let us hope this is indeed your final word
> 
> "If children who are in the care of gay people are at risk of abuse or  having developmental/ adjustment issues why have the states been allowing this for so long?"  ----People with their busy lives generally dont pay attention to a lot of government policy.  My suspicion is that if the populations of most of these states had known this  they would have disapproved.
> 
> "If mistreatment of children by gays was prevalent, why are we not hearing horror stories and seeing headlines about this on a regular basis ?"   ---as you pointed out there arent a large amount of couples doing this regardless...and it isnt that we are necessarily thinking of the kind of mistreatment that gets headlines, or mistreatment at all really.
> 
> "Why have we not been seeing large numbers of adults who had been children of gays coming forward to speak out against gay parenting?"----there are even less of these folks out there---and there was at least one I remember hearing about during the debate who did oppose gay marriage....even so, not many people come out and attack those that raised them despite what they may think of their deficiencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Christ are you back with more rationalizations and assorted horseshit. Hey, you're the one who said that gay people-if they are "really" as in born that way don't actually have parental instincts. That in itself says all that we need to know about your credibility and level  of intellectual functioning. Especially after you went into hiding after I called you on it. Now, do you have anything of substance to contribute?
Click to expand...


no I just said the fact that some claim to have parental instincts tends to negate or counter the idea that they are "born that way". 

 I quit responding to you after I answered 2 of your posts point for point and you responded with a cut and paste insult.  (and some of your other posts were obvious cut and pastes from earlier arguments)


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

dcraelin said:


> Let us hope this is indeed your final word



Agreed.



dcraelin said:


> First two hits from a quick google search...
> 
> "If children who are in the care of gay people are at risk of abuse or  having developmental/ adjustment issues why have the states been allowing this for so long?"  ----People with their busy lives generally dont pay attention to a lot of government policy.  My suspicion is that if the populations of most of these states had known this  they would have disapproved.
> 
> "If mistreatment of children by gays was prevalent, why are we not hearing horror stories and seeing headlines about this on a regular basis ?"   ---as you pointed out there arent a large amount of couples doing this regardless...and it isnt that we are necessarily thinking of the kind of mistreatment that gets headlines, or mistreatment at all really.
> 
> "Why have we not been seeing large numbers of adults who had been children of gays coming forward to speak out against gay parenting?"----there are even less of these folks out there---and there was at least one I remember hearing about during the debate who did oppose gay marriage....even so, not many people come out and attack those that raised them despite what they may think of their deficiencies.



*'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial *
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
UPDATED: 16:42 EST, 6 April 2013


A same-sex couple accused of sexually abusing their adopted children are facing trial after withdrawing from a plea agreement as they are facing new allegations of molestation.





Read more: 'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial

.
.
.

35% of Foster-Parent Molestations Homosexual
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., Aug. 10 /Christian Newswire/ -- New evidence poses problems for those who think homosexuals should be allowed to serve as foster-parents. 35% of foster- parents who sexually abused their foster-children in the last three years engaged in homosexuality.
From 2003 through 2005, a third of foster-parent molestations of foster-children were homosexual. That’s the official tally from two states -- Illinois and Minnesota -- that permit homosexual foster-parents. For the approximately 30,000 children/year in foster- care at some point in the two states:

12 foster mothers sexually abused their charges: 9 (75%) assaulted foster-daughters, 3 (25%) raped foster-sons.


28 foster-fathers sexually abused their charges: 23 (82%) assaulted foster-daughters, 5 (18%) raped foster-sons.

Overall, 26 (65%) of foster-parent perpetrators engaged in heterosexuality and 14 (35%) in homosexuality with their charges. Most molestation by foster-mothers was homosexual; most by foster- fathers heterosexual.
Virtually all studies indicate that homosexuals comprise between 2% to 4% of adults. Thus the figures above indicate a disproportionate amount of homosexual molestation.

Homosexual Foster Parents Molest Children Above Average

Now with Homosexuals comprising only 2% of the human population and better than 30% of all sexual assaults on children being perpetrated by homosexuals, it's self-evident that the mental disorder that presents as homosexuality, presents as a high potential indicator of pedophilia as well.

Therefore, allowing children to be left alone with a person showing indications of homosexuality, should be dealt with as a crime against the child.

Just as hiring a person showing indications of homosexuality for any position of authority over children, or which set a sexual deviant in positions of trust with, for or around children, should likewise be treated as a crime against children.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A final word to all of the low life bigots who shamelessly use children in their failed propaganda war on equality
> 
> There were an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 gay and lesbian biological parents in 1976. In 1990, an estimated 6 to 14 million children have gay or lesbian parents.
> 
> Latest statistics from the U.S. Census 2000, the National Survey of Family Growth (2002), and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (2004) include:
> 
> 
> An estimated two million LGLB people are interested in adopting.
> An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
> More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states.
> Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.
> Adopted children with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born.
> http://adoption.about.com/od/gaylesbian/f/gayparents.htm
> 
> In addition, adoption is legal is 49 states. Generally, acceptance of gay and lesbian adoption has been way out in front of same sex marriage. In some states, it has been occurring for decades.
> 
> Given these numbers, please answer the following questions:
> 
> 
> If children who are in the care of gay people are at risk of abuse or  having developmental/ adjustment issues why have the states been allowing this for so long?
> 
> 
> If mistreatment of children by gays was prevalent, why are we not hearing horror stories and seeing headlines about this on a regular basis ?
> 
> 
> Why have we not been seeing large numbers of adults who had been  children of gays coming forward to speak out against gay parenting?
> And let me tell you jerks something else....
> 
> 
> I worked in a state run child welfare agency for 26 years. I had many jobs during that time including child protective services investigator, protective services supervisor, foster care unit supervisor, and foster and adoptive parent trainer.
> 
> The state in question, New Jersey, has been placing children with gay foster and adoptive parents for decades, long before same sex marriage was even being discussed. During my career, I was involved in some manner or other with thousands of cases of child abuse, including sexual abuse, physical abuse neglect as well is families that were generally dysfunctional due to substance abuse or mental health issues. I was responsible for removing children from some of those homes when it was determined that the risk was too great not to do so, or if the parents could not be rehabilitated.
> 
> In all that time I never came across a gay person who was the perpetrator of child abuse of any kind. Granted, they are few in number compared to heterosexual couples and single parents, but we are talking about a span of more than two and a half decades. In addition, I personally placed children with gay and lesbian couples and individuals after they were damaged by their straight parents. Those gay people provided loving and nurturing homes and gave those kids the best shot in life possible. And no, there were not enough straight people to care for those kids, but if there were I would have still have placed them with the gay folks if the match was right.
> 
> Never once did I have a problem with a gay foster of adoptive parent. Never once did any of them reject a child because they were not of the “correct” sexual orientation, but some straight people did in fact reject gay kids. During my time there and beyond I followed those families and  I can tell you that those children have grown and thrived and overcame the bad hand that they were dealt by their straight parents, largely due to the nurturing offered and sacrifices made  by the gay families who took them in.
> 
> In addition, when we talk about gay adoption, most often we are referring to situations where the child in question is the biological child of  gay person and that persons partner wishes to adopt as a second parent. The benefits of having two legal parents are clear. There are an estimated 2 million children in the care of gay people. That will not change by banning adoption. It will only put those children at a disadvantage, socially, financially and legally.
> 
> In conclusion, opposition to gay adoption is just ignorant and hateful equine excrement. To say that you care about the children while opposing adoption by gays is hypocrisy at it’s very worst.
> 
> 
> ___________________________________________________________________________-
> 
> For starters, I have not seen any polls on the issue of support for adoption by gays in general , or gay men in particular. I do know that many states were allowing gays to adopt long before there was any gay marriage, indication that there has been broad support for it for some time now. Currently 49 states allow adoption by gays, and obviously includes some states that do not have marriage equality yet.
> 
> Now let me tell you a little about myself. I worked in a public child welfare agency in New Jersey for 26 years. NJ was the first state to expressly authorize joint adoption by gay couples.” Although other states were also allowing it (source: http://www.aclu.org/getequal/timeline.htm)
> 
> In my time there, I investigated child abuse and neglect including sexual abuse. I also recruited, trained and supervised foster and adoptive families, including some gay individuals and couples.
> 
> I am here to tell you that when it comes to same sex sexual abuse, gay men are not the problem. The whole idea comes from the fact that when a male molests a male child, he is labeled a homosexual. Sometimes they self-identify as homosexuals because that label does not carry they same stigma as pedophile.  However, they rarely are homosexuals. They are  a child abuser and/or pedophile. Some are heterosexual and have developed a regressed fixation on children of a specific age. Others are chronically fixated on children.
> 
> Homosexual refers to the sexual orientation of people who are attracted to age appropriate people of the same sex. I have never found a true homosexual to be a child molester. I won’t say that it never happens but it is certainly not in significant numbers.
> 
> The last figure that I saw for the number of adoptions by gay and lesbian people was 65,500. Honestly, I don’t know what percentage of those were by gay men, but I do believe that it’s significant. In addition, there are many more children that came to be in the care of gay men  by various other means. We don’t know for sure how many but I’ve seen estimates of up to 14 million. Those children benefit when the state allows second parent adoption by the biological parents partner.
> 
> Given these numbers, I think that we would be hearing a lot more about child sexual abuse at the hands of gays and I doubt that so many states would be allowing adoption. In my experience, banning marriage and adoption by gays only serves deprive children of the security of having two legal parents. I hope that I have answered your question.
> 
> 
> Claims that gay parenting is harmful to children are bogus and stupid not to mention irresponsible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let us hope this is indeed your final word
> 
> "If children who are in the care of gay people are at risk of abuse or  having developmental/ adjustment issues why have the states been allowing this for so long?"  ----People with their busy lives generally dont pay attention to a lot of government policy.  My suspicion is that if the populations of most of these states had known this  they would have disapproved.
> 
> "If mistreatment of children by gays was prevalent, why are we not hearing horror stories and seeing headlines about this on a regular basis ?"   ---as you pointed out there arent a large amount of couples doing this regardless...and it isnt that we are necessarily thinking of the kind of mistreatment that gets headlines, or mistreatment at all really.
> 
> "Why have we not been seeing large numbers of adults who had been children of gays coming forward to speak out against gay parenting?"----there are even less of these folks out there---and there was at least one I remember hearing about during the debate who did oppose gay marriage....even so, not many people come out and attack those that raised them despite what they may think of their deficiencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Christ are you back with more rationalizations and assorted horseshit. Hey, you're the one who said that gay people-if they are "really" as in born that way don't actually have parental instincts. That in itself says all that we need to know about your credibility and level  of intellectual functioning. Especially after you went into hiding after I called you on it. Now, do you have anything of substance to contribute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no I just said the fact that some claim to have parental instincts tends to negate or counter the idea that they are "born that way".
> 
> I quit responding to you after I answered 2 of your posts point for point and you responded with a cut and paste insult.  (and some of your other posts were obvious cut and pastes from earlier arguments)
Click to expand...


Holly Shit! You are reduced to just repeating the same moronic claim that you made before without any attempt to explain or defend it! My god that is pathetic!! Gay people are fully functioning HUMAN BEINGS and they have all of the instincts and physical abilities that are necessary to produce and raise a child as anybody else. What the hell is wrong with you?  Is you best argument that I copy and past certain things? So what? If something needs to be said again, I will do so. If there is a source that makes my point I will use it and re-use it.

Oh, and what the fuck does any of that have to do with same sex marriage and this religious freedom horseshit? It seems like all that you can do is to throw as much dung at the wall and hope that something sticks. Nothing is sticking except the egg on your face.

You are a bad joke without a punch line.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Holy Shit! ... a bad joke without a punch line.



Yes... Such appears to be your singular gift.


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A final word to all of the low life bigots who shamelessly use children in their failed propaganda war on equality
> 
> There were an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 gay and lesbian biological parents in 1976. In 1990, an estimated 6 to 14 million children have gay or lesbian parents.
> 
> Latest statistics from the U.S. Census 2000, the National Survey of Family Growth (2002), and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (2004) include:
> 
> 
> An estimated two million LGLB people are interested in adopting.
> An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
> More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states.
> Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.
> Adopted children with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born.
> http://adoption.about.com/od/gaylesbian/f/gayparents.htm
> 
> In addition, adoption is legal is 49 states. Generally, acceptance of gay and lesbian adoption has been way out in front of same sex marriage. In some states, it has been occurring for decades.
> 
> Given these numbers, please answer the following questions:
> 
> 
> If children who are in the care of gay people are at risk of abuse or  having developmental/ adjustment issues why have the states been allowing this for so long?
> 
> 
> If mistreatment of children by gays was prevalent, why are we not hearing horror stories and seeing headlines about this on a regular basis ?
> 
> 
> Why have we not been seeing large numbers of adults who had been  children of gays coming forward to speak out against gay parenting?
> And let me tell you jerks something else....
> 
> 
> I worked in a state run child welfare agency for 26 years. I had many jobs during that time including child protective services investigator, protective services supervisor, foster care unit supervisor, and foster and adoptive parent trainer.
> 
> The state in question, New Jersey, has been placing children with gay foster and adoptive parents for decades, long before same sex marriage was even being discussed. During my career, I was involved in some manner or other with thousands of cases of child abuse, including sexual abuse, physical abuse neglect as well is families that were generally dysfunctional due to substance abuse or mental health issues. I was responsible for removing children from some of those homes when it was determined that the risk was too great not to do so, or if the parents could not be rehabilitated.
> 
> In all that time I never came across a gay person who was the perpetrator of child abuse of any kind. Granted, they are few in number compared to heterosexual couples and single parents, but we are talking about a span of more than two and a half decades. In addition, I personally placed children with gay and lesbian couples and individuals after they were damaged by their straight parents. Those gay people provided loving and nurturing homes and gave those kids the best shot in life possible. And no, there were not enough straight people to care for those kids, but if there were I would have still have placed them with the gay folks if the match was right.
> 
> Never once did I have a problem with a gay foster of adoptive parent. Never once did any of them reject a child because they were not of the “correct” sexual orientation, but some straight people did in fact reject gay kids. During my time there and beyond I followed those families and  I can tell you that those children have grown and thrived and overcame the bad hand that they were dealt by their straight parents, largely due to the nurturing offered and sacrifices made  by the gay families who took them in.
> 
> In addition, when we talk about gay adoption, most often we are referring to situations where the child in question is the biological child of  gay person and that persons partner wishes to adopt as a second parent. The benefits of having two legal parents are clear. There are an estimated 2 million children in the care of gay people. That will not change by banning adoption. It will only put those children at a disadvantage, socially, financially and legally.
> 
> In conclusion, opposition to gay adoption is just ignorant and hateful equine excrement. To say that you care about the children while opposing adoption by gays is hypocrisy at it’s very worst.
> 
> 
> ___________________________________________________________________________-
> 
> For starters, I have not seen any polls on the issue of support for adoption by gays in general , or gay men in particular. I do know that many states were allowing gays to adopt long before there was any gay marriage, indication that there has been broad support for it for some time now. Currently 49 states allow adoption by gays, and obviously includes some states that do not have marriage equality yet.
> 
> Now let me tell you a little about myself. I worked in a public child welfare agency in New Jersey for 26 years. NJ was the first state to expressly authorize joint adoption by gay couples.” Although other states were also allowing it (source: http://www.aclu.org/getequal/timeline.htm)
> 
> In my time there, I investigated child abuse and neglect including sexual abuse. I also recruited, trained and supervised foster and adoptive families, including some gay individuals and couples.
> 
> I am here to tell you that when it comes to same sex sexual abuse, gay men are not the problem. The whole idea comes from the fact that when a male molests a male child, he is labeled a homosexual. Sometimes they self-identify as homosexuals because that label does not carry they same stigma as pedophile.  However, they rarely are homosexuals. They are  a child abuser and/or pedophile. Some are heterosexual and have developed a regressed fixation on children of a specific age. Others are chronically fixated on children.
> 
> Homosexual refers to the sexual orientation of people who are attracted to age appropriate people of the same sex. I have never found a true homosexual to be a child molester. I won’t say that it never happens but it is certainly not in significant numbers.
> 
> The last figure that I saw for the number of adoptions by gay and lesbian people was 65,500. Honestly, I don’t know what percentage of those were by gay men, but I do believe that it’s significant. In addition, there are many more children that came to be in the care of gay men  by various other means. We don’t know for sure how many but I’ve seen estimates of up to 14 million. Those children benefit when the state allows second parent adoption by the biological parents partner.
> 
> Given these numbers, I think that we would be hearing a lot more about child sexual abuse at the hands of gays and I doubt that so many states would be allowing adoption. In my experience, banning marriage and adoption by gays only serves deprive children of the security of having two legal parents. I hope that I have answered your question.
> 
> 
> Claims that gay parenting is harmful to children are bogus and stupid not to mention irresponsible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let us hope this is indeed your final word
> 
> "If children who are in the care of gay people are at risk of abuse or  having developmental/ adjustment issues why have the states been allowing this for so long?"  ----People with their busy lives generally dont pay attention to a lot of government policy.  My suspicion is that if the populations of most of these states had known this  they would have disapproved.
> 
> "If mistreatment of children by gays was prevalent, why are we not hearing horror stories and seeing headlines about this on a regular basis ?"   ---as you pointed out there arent a large amount of couples doing this regardless...and it isnt that we are necessarily thinking of the kind of mistreatment that gets headlines, or mistreatment at all really.
> 
> "Why have we not been seeing large numbers of adults who had been children of gays coming forward to speak out against gay parenting?"----there are even less of these folks out there---and there was at least one I remember hearing about during the debate who did oppose gay marriage....even so, not many people come out and attack those that raised them despite what they may think of their deficiencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Christ are you back with more rationalizations and assorted horseshit. Hey, you're the one who said that gay people-if they are "really" as in born that way don't actually have parental instincts. That in itself says all that we need to know about your credibility and level  of intellectual functioning. Especially after you went into hiding after I called you on it. Now, do you have anything of substance to contribute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no I just said the fact that some claim to have parental instincts tends to negate or counter the idea that they are "born that way".
> 
> I quit responding to you after I answered 2 of your posts point for point and you responded with a cut and paste insult.  (and some of your other posts were obvious cut and pastes from earlier arguments)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holly Shit! You are reduced to just repeating the same moronic claim that you made before without any attempt to explain or defend it! My god that is pathetic!! Gay people are fully functioning HUMAN BEINGS and they have all of the instincts and physical abilities that are necessary to produce and raise a child as anybody else. What the hell is wrong with you?  Is you best argument that I copy and past certain things? So what? If something needs to be said again, I will do so. If there is a source that makes my point I will use it and re-use it.
> 
> Oh, and what the fuck does any of that have to do with same sex marriage and this religious freedom horseshit? It seems like all that you can do is to throw as much dung at the wall and hope that something sticks. Nothing is sticking except the egg on your face.
> 
> You are a bad joke without a punch line.
Click to expand...


and you dont think that conflicts a little bit with the idea that they are born that way?......I think most of gays themselves would say they DONT have the same instincts as heterosexuals.

But it WAS an aside........and isnt essential to my arguments on gay marriage.

you cut and pasted a line that said someday the SC will legalize gay marriage.....showing you dont really put much thought into your answers.


----------



## Silhouette

dcraelin said:


> "Why have we not been seeing large numbers of adults who had been children of gays coming forward to speak out against gay parenting?"----there are even less of these folks out there---and there was at least one I remember hearing about during the debate who did oppose gay marriage....even so, not many people come out and attack those that raised them despite what they may think of their deficiencies.


 
Other reasons why we aren't hearing about it...because things that make the news involving child abuse always come with an APA rider on the story . Since the APA is owned by the lavendar mafia, you'd more likely hear about the Government admitting project Blue Book was actually about aliens landing on Earth.  Pretty sure I don't even have to remind you who owns the media..

ie: you don't hear about it because you're being kept from it.  Just like the alarming statistics on gay domestic abuse.  Seems it isn't all roses in rainbow-paradise..


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A final word to all of the low life bigots who shamelessly use children in their failed propaganda war on equality
> 
> There were an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 gay and lesbian biological parents in 1976. In 1990, an estimated 6 to 14 million children have gay or lesbian parents.
> 
> Latest statistics from the U.S. Census 2000, the National Survey of Family Growth (2002), and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (2004) include:
> 
> 
> An estimated two million LGLB people are interested in adopting.
> An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
> More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states.
> Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.
> Adopted children with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born.
> http://adoption.about.com/od/gaylesbian/f/gayparents.htm
> 
> In addition, adoption is legal is 49 states. Generally, acceptance of gay and lesbian adoption has been way out in front of same sex marriage. In some states, it has been occurring for decades.
> 
> Given these numbers, please answer the following questions:
> 
> 
> If children who are in the care of gay people are at risk of abuse or  having developmental/ adjustment issues why have the states been allowing this for so long?
> 
> 
> If mistreatment of children by gays was prevalent, why are we not hearing horror stories and seeing headlines about this on a regular basis ?
> 
> 
> Why have we not been seeing large numbers of adults who had been  children of gays coming forward to speak out against gay parenting?
> And let me tell you jerks something else....
> 
> 
> I worked in a state run child welfare agency for 26 years. I had many jobs during that time including child protective services investigator, protective services supervisor, foster care unit supervisor, and foster and adoptive parent trainer.
> 
> The state in question, New Jersey, has been placing children with gay foster and adoptive parents for decades, long before same sex marriage was even being discussed. During my career, I was involved in some manner or other with thousands of cases of child abuse, including sexual abuse, physical abuse neglect as well is families that were generally dysfunctional due to substance abuse or mental health issues. I was responsible for removing children from some of those homes when it was determined that the risk was too great not to do so, or if the parents could not be rehabilitated.
> 
> In all that time I never came across a gay person who was the perpetrator of child abuse of any kind. Granted, they are few in number compared to heterosexual couples and single parents, but we are talking about a span of more than two and a half decades. In addition, I personally placed children with gay and lesbian couples and individuals after they were damaged by their straight parents. Those gay people provided loving and nurturing homes and gave those kids the best shot in life possible. And no, there were not enough straight people to care for those kids, but if there were I would have still have placed them with the gay folks if the match was right.
> 
> Never once did I have a problem with a gay foster of adoptive parent. Never once did any of them reject a child because they were not of the “correct” sexual orientation, but some straight people did in fact reject gay kids. During my time there and beyond I followed those families and  I can tell you that those children have grown and thrived and overcame the bad hand that they were dealt by their straight parents, largely due to the nurturing offered and sacrifices made  by the gay families who took them in.
> 
> In addition, when we talk about gay adoption, most often we are referring to situations where the child in question is the biological child of  gay person and that persons partner wishes to adopt as a second parent. The benefits of having two legal parents are clear. There are an estimated 2 million children in the care of gay people. That will not change by banning adoption. It will only put those children at a disadvantage, socially, financially and legally.
> 
> In conclusion, opposition to gay adoption is just ignorant and hateful equine excrement. To say that you care about the children while opposing adoption by gays is hypocrisy at it’s very worst.
> 
> 
> ___________________________________________________________________________-
> 
> For starters, I have not seen any polls on the issue of support for adoption by gays in general , or gay men in particular. I do know that many states were allowing gays to adopt long before there was any gay marriage, indication that there has been broad support for it for some time now. Currently 49 states allow adoption by gays, and obviously includes some states that do not have marriage equality yet.
> 
> Now let me tell you a little about myself. I worked in a public child welfare agency in New Jersey for 26 years. NJ was the first state to expressly authorize joint adoption by gay couples.” Although other states were also allowing it (source: http://www.aclu.org/getequal/timeline.htm)
> 
> In my time there, I investigated child abuse and neglect including sexual abuse. I also recruited, trained and supervised foster and adoptive families, including some gay individuals and couples.
> 
> I am here to tell you that when it comes to same sex sexual abuse, gay men are not the problem. The whole idea comes from the fact that when a male molests a male child, he is labeled a homosexual. Sometimes they self-identify as homosexuals because that label does not carry they same stigma as pedophile.  However, they rarely are homosexuals. They are  a child abuser and/or pedophile. Some are heterosexual and have developed a regressed fixation on children of a specific age. Others are chronically fixated on children.
> 
> Homosexual refers to the sexual orientation of people who are attracted to age appropriate people of the same sex. I have never found a true homosexual to be a child molester. I won’t say that it never happens but it is certainly not in significant numbers.
> 
> The last figure that I saw for the number of adoptions by gay and lesbian people was 65,500. Honestly, I don’t know what percentage of those were by gay men, but I do believe that it’s significant. In addition, there are many more children that came to be in the care of gay men  by various other means. We don’t know for sure how many but I’ve seen estimates of up to 14 million. Those children benefit when the state allows second parent adoption by the biological parents partner.
> 
> Given these numbers, I think that we would be hearing a lot more about child sexual abuse at the hands of gays and I doubt that so many states would be allowing adoption. In my experience, banning marriage and adoption by gays only serves deprive children of the security of having two legal parents. I hope that I have answered your question.
> 
> 
> Claims that gay parenting is harmful to children are bogus and stupid not to mention irresponsible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let us hope this is indeed your final word
> 
> "If children who are in the care of gay people are at risk of abuse or  having developmental/ adjustment issues why have the states been allowing this for so long?"  ----People with their busy lives generally dont pay attention to a lot of government policy.  My suspicion is that if the populations of most of these states had known this  they would have disapproved.
> 
> "If mistreatment of children by gays was prevalent, why are we not hearing horror stories and seeing headlines about this on a regular basis ?"   ---as you pointed out there arent a large amount of couples doing this regardless...and it isnt that we are necessarily thinking of the kind of mistreatment that gets headlines, or mistreatment at all really.
> 
> "Why have we not been seeing large numbers of adults who had been children of gays coming forward to speak out against gay parenting?"----there are even less of these folks out there---and there was at least one I remember hearing about during the debate who did oppose gay marriage....even so, not many people come out and attack those that raised them despite what they may think of their deficiencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Christ are you back with more rationalizations and assorted horseshit. Hey, you're the one who said that gay people-if they are "really" as in born that way don't actually have parental instincts. That in itself says all that we need to know about your credibility and level  of intellectual functioning. Especially after you went into hiding after I called you on it. Now, do you have anything of substance to contribute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no I just said the fact that some claim to have parental instincts tends to negate or counter the idea that they are "born that way".
> 
> I quit responding to you after I answered 2 of your posts point for point and you responded with a cut and paste insult.  (and some of your other posts were obvious cut and pastes from earlier arguments)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holly Shit! You are reduced to just repeating the same moronic claim that you made before without any attempt to explain or defend it! My god that is pathetic!! Gay people are fully functioning HUMAN BEINGS and they have all of the instincts and physical abilities that are necessary to produce and raise a child as anybody else. What the hell is wrong with you?  Is you best argument that I copy and past certain things? So what? If something needs to be said again, I will do so. If there is a source that makes my point I will use it and re-use it.
> 
> Oh, and what the fuck does any of that have to do with same sex marriage and this religious freedom horseshit? It seems like all that you can do is to throw as much dung at the wall and hope that something sticks. Nothing is sticking except the egg on your face.
> 
> You are a bad joke without a punch line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and you dont think that conflicts a little bit with the idea that they are born that way?......I think most of gays themselves would say they DONT have the same instincts as heterosexuals.
> 
> But it WAS an aside........and isnt essential to my arguments on gay marriage.
> 
> you cut and pasted a line that said someday the SC will legalize gay marriage.....showing you dont really put much thought into your answers.
Click to expand...



Not “essential” to your argument on gay marriage? What argument is that now? You have presented no coherent argument what so ever. How the fuck does “parental instincts” conflict with the idea of “being born” that way??!!  The idea that being gay is not a choice?  ?..You also said...”.I think most of gays themselves would say they DONT have the same instincts as heterosexuals” Really?  You think?? If there is any truth at all to that, what does it mean? Are the voices in your head telling you that they would say that and that it has something to do with parental instincts?

As far as this “instinct” goes, it is quite possibly the stupidest and most hateful thing that has been said here ever. You still need to explain yourself or retract it. You say that you meant it as an “aside” ? You can’t make it go away that easily. It goes to the heart of you credibility, or more accurately, to the lack there  of. It speaks clearly to the low level of intellect that we are dealing with here. Furthermore, it is indicative of the desperation that you are experiencing, the need to come up with increasingly ridiculous angles in your pathetically failed war on same sex marriage. I am not going to let it go until I get an answer. It will come back to haunt you with every new post.

As far as my copy and paste goes…yes I , I copied something that I wrote before Obergefell that I did in fact put a lot of thought into, and that still has much relevance. My mistake was that I didn’t fully update it. That is hardly equivalent to your crimes and displays of ignorance. Have  a nice day.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

*Staver: Gay Marriage Is Leading America 'Into The Very Pit Of Hell'*

    Back in July, Liberty Counsel's Mat Staver spoke at the Reclaiming America for Christ conference in Oklahoma where he spent a half-hour absolutely fuming about the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling, calling it a "grave sin" that would lead America "into the very pit of Hell." *Staver, who has recently been leading Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis' unsuccessful legal battle, was beside himself with outrage,* declaring that neither the Supreme Court nor any state could ever legalize gay marriage because doing so contradicts the will of God and therefore Christians have no choice but to resist with all their might. "We need to stop playing charades," Staver thundered, "thinking that five individuals can re-write God's natural, created order of marriage as a union of a man and a woman, and 320 million Americans are simply just going to follow them like the Pied Piper off the cliff into the very pit of Hell. If that's what they think, they have something else coming because as for me and my household, I will not obey those five! I will obey God rather than man and they have shaken their fist in the face of the Creator and we must resist that." The ruling, he warned, "is a grave sin. There will be judgment on those five unless they repent." - See more at: Staver: Gay Marriage Is Leading America 'Into The Very Pit Of Hell'


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Well, in Staver's defense, the Supreme Legislature did set the US up for total cultural collapse.

So, he's got that fact on his side.

Understand scamp... a sustainable culture is not possible where it allows itself to be governed through unsustainable policy.  LOL!  Such is, quite impossible.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Well, in Staver's defense, the Supreme Legislature did set the US up for total cultural collapse.
> 
> So, he's got that fact on his side.



And by 'facts', you mean whatever nonsense you make up. Remember, societies that embrace gays invariably collapse and societies that DON'T embrace gays invariably collapse. When your 'effect' exists regardless of your cause, your cause isn't.

This is basic causation. But it still confounds both you and Staver.



> Understand scamp... a sustainable culture is not possible where it allows itself to be governed through unsustainable policy.  LOL!  Such is, quite impossible.



Remember, sport.....your imagination doesn't define 'sustainable'. Nor can you make a logic or rational argument against same sex marriage in terms of sustainability.

Folks are still having kids. People are still getting married. And if the strength of your marriage is based on your ability to deny marriage to someone else....well, you were fucked long before Obergefell came along.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Well, in Staver's defense, the Supreme Legislature did set the US up for total cultural collapse.
> 
> So, he's got that fact on his side.
> 
> Understand scamp... a sustainable culture is not possible where it allows itself to be governed through unsustainable policy.  LOL!  Such is, quite impossible.


So tell us old sport....seriously now. What will we look like as a country in 10-20-0 years as a result of same sex marriage? What changes can we suspect? What ills will befall us? . Explain using facts and logic how the things that you predict will come about. Please use bullet points. This is a serious question. No horseshit now. I'm interested in exactly what you and others like you think will happen and why.


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us hope this is indeed your final word
> 
> "If children who are in the care of gay people are at risk of abuse or  having developmental/ adjustment issues why have the states been allowing this for so long?"  ----People with their busy lives generally dont pay attention to a lot of government policy.  My suspicion is that if the populations of most of these states had known this  they would have disapproved.
> 
> "If mistreatment of children by gays was prevalent, why are we not hearing horror stories and seeing headlines about this on a regular basis ?"   ---as you pointed out there arent a large amount of couples doing this regardless...and it isnt that we are necessarily thinking of the kind of mistreatment that gets headlines, or mistreatment at all really.
> 
> "Why have we not been seeing large numbers of adults who had been children of gays coming forward to speak out against gay parenting?"----there are even less of these folks out there---and there was at least one I remember hearing about during the debate who did oppose gay marriage....even so, not many people come out and attack those that raised them despite what they may think of their deficiencies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Christ are you back with more rationalizations and assorted horseshit. Hey, you're the one who said that gay people-if they are "really" as in born that way don't actually have parental instincts. That in itself says all that we need to know about your credibility and level  of intellectual functioning. Especially after you went into hiding after I called you on it. Now, do you have anything of substance to contribute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no I just said the fact that some claim to have parental instincts tends to negate or counter the idea that they are "born that way".
> 
> I quit responding to you after I answered 2 of your posts point for point and you responded with a cut and paste insult.  (and some of your other posts were obvious cut and pastes from earlier arguments)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holly Shit! You are reduced to just repeating the same moronic claim that you made before without any attempt to explain or defend it! My god that is pathetic!! Gay people are fully functioning HUMAN BEINGS and they have all of the instincts and physical abilities that are necessary to produce and raise a child as anybody else. What the hell is wrong with you?  Is you best argument that I copy and past certain things? So what? If something needs to be said again, I will do so. If there is a source that makes my point I will use it and re-use it.
> 
> Oh, and what the fuck does any of that have to do with same sex marriage and this religious freedom horseshit? It seems like all that you can do is to throw as much dung at the wall and hope that something sticks. Nothing is sticking except the egg on your face.
> 
> You are a bad joke without a punch line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and you dont think that conflicts a little bit with the idea that they are born that way?......I think most of gays themselves would say they DONT have the same instincts as heterosexuals.
> 
> But it WAS an aside........and isnt essential to my arguments on gay marriage.
> 
> you cut and pasted a line that said someday the SC will legalize gay marriage.....showing you dont really put much thought into your answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not “essential” to your argument on gay marriage? What argument is that now? You have presented no coherent argument what so ever. How the fuck does “parental instincts” conflict with the idea of “being born” that way??!!  The idea that being gay is not a choice?  ?..You also said...”.I think most of gays themselves would say they DONT have the same instincts as heterosexuals” Really?  You think?? If there is any truth at all to that, what does it mean? Are the voices in your head telling you that they would say that and that it has something to do with parental instincts?
> 
> As far as this “instinct” goes, it is quite possibly the stupidest and most hateful thing that has been said here ever. You still need to explain yourself or retract it. You say that you meant it as an “aside” ? You can’t make it go away that easily. It goes to the heart of you credibility, or more accurately, to the lack there  of. It speaks clearly to the low level of intellect that we are dealing with here. Furthermore, it is indicative of the desperation that you are experiencing, the need to come up with increasingly ridiculous angles in your pathetically failed war on same sex marriage. I am not going to let it go until I get an answer. It will come back to haunt you with every new post.
> 
> As far as my copy and paste goes…yes I , I copied something that I wrote before Obergefell that I did in fact put a lot of thought into, and that still has much relevance. My mistake was that I didn’t fully update it. That is hardly equivalent to your crimes and displays of ignorance. Have  a nice day.
Click to expand...


My are you dense.....we argued for many posts on the lack of a legal basis for gay marriage...and now you ask What argument is that now?........I dont think any of my arguments rested on whether gayness is innate or learned...your arguments, basing them as you do on "rights", could be said to depend on that idea however.  I believe you first brought up parental instinct, instinct goes to that same debate. 

why is referring to that hateful?.....whenever you have no argument...you race for the bigot card.


----------



## Camp

Have they sent that nut job religious zealot back to jail yet?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Christ are you back with more rationalizations and assorted horseshit. Hey, you're the one who said that gay people-if they are "really" as in born that way don't actually have parental instincts. That in itself says all that we need to know about your credibility and level  of intellectual functioning. Especially after you went into hiding after I called you on it. Now, do you have anything of substance to contribute?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no I just said the fact that some claim to have parental instincts tends to negate or counter the idea that they are "born that way".
> 
> I quit responding to you after I answered 2 of your posts point for point and you responded with a cut and paste insult.  (and some of your other posts were obvious cut and pastes from earlier arguments)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holly Shit! You are reduced to just repeating the same moronic claim that you made before without any attempt to explain or defend it! My god that is pathetic!! Gay people are fully functioning HUMAN BEINGS and they have all of the instincts and physical abilities that are necessary to produce and raise a child as anybody else. What the hell is wrong with you?  Is you best argument that I copy and past certain things? So what? If something needs to be said again, I will do so. If there is a source that makes my point I will use it and re-use it.
> 
> Oh, and what the fuck does any of that have to do with same sex marriage and this religious freedom horseshit? It seems like all that you can do is to throw as much dung at the wall and hope that something sticks. Nothing is sticking except the egg on your face.
> 
> You are a bad joke without a punch line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and you dont think that conflicts a little bit with the idea that they are born that way?......I think most of gays themselves would say they DONT have the same instincts as heterosexuals.
> 
> But it WAS an aside........and isnt essential to my arguments on gay marriage.
> 
> you cut and pasted a line that said someday the SC will legalize gay marriage.....showing you dont really put much thought into your answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not “essential” to your argument on gay marriage? What argument is that now? You have presented no coherent argument what so ever. How the fuck does “parental instincts” conflict with the idea of “being born” that way??!!  The idea that being gay is not a choice?  ?..You also said...”.I think most of gays themselves would say they DONT have the same instincts as heterosexuals” Really?  You think?? If there is any truth at all to that, what does it mean? Are the voices in your head telling you that they would say that and that it has something to do with parental instincts?
> 
> As far as this “instinct” goes, it is quite possibly the stupidest and most hateful thing that has been said here ever. You still need to explain yourself or retract it. You say that you meant it as an “aside” ? You can’t make it go away that easily. It goes to the heart of you credibility, or more accurately, to the lack there  of. It speaks clearly to the low level of intellect that we are dealing with here. Furthermore, it is indicative of the desperation that you are experiencing, the need to come up with increasingly ridiculous angles in your pathetically failed war on same sex marriage. I am not going to let it go until I get an answer. It will come back to haunt you with every new post.
> 
> As far as my copy and paste goes…yes I , I copied something that I wrote before Obergefell that I did in fact put a lot of thought into, and that still has much relevance. My mistake was that I didn’t fully update it. That is hardly equivalent to your crimes and displays of ignorance. Have  a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My are you dense.....we argued for many posts on the lack of a legal basis for gay marriage...and now you ask What argument is that now?........I dont think any of my arguments rested on whether gayness is innate or learned...your arguments, basing them as you do on "rights", could be said to depend on that idea however.  I believe you first brought up parental instinct, instinct goes to that same debate.
> 
> why is referring to that hateful?.....whenever you have no argument...you race for the bigot card.
Click to expand...

YOU first brought up the issue of procreative urges....see post 1850. You are implying that gays do not wish to procreate.



> *May men and women follow their procreative urges wherever they take them? Who is
> responsible for the children that result? How many mates may an individual have? How does
> one decide which set of mates is responsible for which set of children? *



To which I responded:



> Do gay man and lesbians not have “procreative urges”? Do they not desire to be parents and to have the opportunity to nurture and raise children? Is parental responsibility no also an issue among heterosexual individuals and couples? Judge, are you alluding to the well-worn and bigoted view that only heterosexual couples need to get married because they are the only ones who have children “spontaneously” ? Are heterosexuals the only people who encounter custody and parental rights issues-that –by the way-are often exacerbated by not being married.



After which, you persisted in questioning whether or not people who are "really gay" want children. Now you seem to be suffering from amnesia and running away from you asinine statements. I told you...I'm not letting go. You have to own those statements. And they are indeed hateful and bigoted because it is painting gay people as less than human.

As far as your "arguments go.....I'm talking about something that makes sense. Something that is based on facts and logic, which you have no command of at all.


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> no I just said the fact that some claim to have parental instincts tends to negate or counter the idea that they are "born that way".
> 
> I quit responding to you after I answered 2 of your posts point for point and you responded with a cut and paste insult.  (and some of your other posts were obvious cut and pastes from earlier arguments)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holly Shit! You are reduced to just repeating the same moronic claim that you made before without any attempt to explain or defend it! My god that is pathetic!! Gay people are fully functioning HUMAN BEINGS and they have all of the instincts and physical abilities that are necessary to produce and raise a child as anybody else. What the hell is wrong with you?  Is you best argument that I copy and past certain things? So what? If something needs to be said again, I will do so. If there is a source that makes my point I will use it and re-use it.
> 
> Oh, and what the fuck does any of that have to do with same sex marriage and this religious freedom horseshit? It seems like all that you can do is to throw as much dung at the wall and hope that something sticks. Nothing is sticking except the egg on your face.
> 
> You are a bad joke without a punch line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and you dont think that conflicts a little bit with the idea that they are born that way?......I think most of gays themselves would say they DONT have the same instincts as heterosexuals.
> 
> But it WAS an aside........and isnt essential to my arguments on gay marriage.
> 
> you cut and pasted a line that said someday the SC will legalize gay marriage.....showing you dont really put much thought into your answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not “essential” to your argument on gay marriage? What argument is that now? You have presented no coherent argument what so ever. How the fuck does “parental instincts” conflict with the idea of “being born” that way??!!  The idea that being gay is not a choice?  ?..You also said...”.I think most of gays themselves would say they DONT have the same instincts as heterosexuals” Really?  You think?? If there is any truth at all to that, what does it mean? Are the voices in your head telling you that they would say that and that it has something to do with parental instincts?
> 
> As far as this “instinct” goes, it is quite possibly the stupidest and most hateful thing that has been said here ever. You still need to explain yourself or retract it. You say that you meant it as an “aside” ? You can’t make it go away that easily. It goes to the heart of you credibility, or more accurately, to the lack there  of. It speaks clearly to the low level of intellect that we are dealing with here. Furthermore, it is indicative of the desperation that you are experiencing, the need to come up with increasingly ridiculous angles in your pathetically failed war on same sex marriage. I am not going to let it go until I get an answer. It will come back to haunt you with every new post.
> 
> As far as my copy and paste goes…yes I , I copied something that I wrote before Obergefell that I did in fact put a lot of thought into, and that still has much relevance. My mistake was that I didn’t fully update it. That is hardly equivalent to your crimes and displays of ignorance. Have  a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My are you dense.....we argued for many posts on the lack of a legal basis for gay marriage...and now you ask What argument is that now?........I dont think any of my arguments rested on whether gayness is innate or learned...your arguments, basing them as you do on "rights", could be said to depend on that idea however.  I believe you first brought up parental instinct, instinct goes to that same debate.
> 
> why is referring to that hateful?.....whenever you have no argument...you race for the bigot card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU first brought up the issue of procreative urges....see post 1850. You are implying that gays do not wish to procreate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *May men and women follow their procreative urges wherever they take them? Who is
> responsible for the children that result? How many mates may an individual have? How does
> one decide which set of mates is responsible for which set of children? *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To which I responded:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do gay man and lesbians not have “procreative urges”? Do they not desire to be parents and to have the opportunity to nurture and raise children? Is parental responsibility no also an issue among heterosexual individuals and couples? Judge, are you alluding to the well-worn and bigoted view that only heterosexual couples need to get married because they are the only ones who have children “spontaneously” ? Are heterosexuals the only people who encounter custody and parental rights issues-that –by the way-are often exacerbated by not being married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After which, you persisted in questioning whether or not people who are "really gay" want children. Now you seem to be suffering from amnesia and running away from you asinine statements. I told you...I'm not letting go. You have to own those statements. And they are indeed hateful and bigoted because it is painting gay people as less than human.
> 
> As far as your "arguments go.....I'm talking about something that makes sense. Something that is based on facts and logic, which you have no command of at all.
Click to expand...


you fucking liar......that is NOT my post

not that whoever said it was wrong 

I'm done with you


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

DCRAELIN SAID: 

"we argued for many posts on the lack of a legal basis for gay marriage"

And you lost, as there is in fact a legal basis to invalidate measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, where those measures clearly violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. (See _Obergefell v. Hodges _(2015))


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us hope this is indeed your final word
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> First two hits from a quick google search...
> 
> "If children who are in the care of gay people are at risk of abuse or  having developmental/ adjustment issues why have the states been allowing this for so long?"  ----People with their busy lives generally dont pay attention to a lot of government policy.  My suspicion is that if the populations of most of these states had known this  they would have disapproved.
> 
> "If mistreatment of children by gays was prevalent, why are we not hearing horror stories and seeing headlines about this on a regular basis ?"   ---as you pointed out there arent a large amount of couples doing this regardless...and it isnt that we are necessarily thinking of the kind of mistreatment that gets headlines, or mistreatment at all really.
> 
> "Why have we not been seeing large numbers of adults who had been children of gays coming forward to speak out against gay parenting?"----there are even less of these folks out there---and there was at least one I remember hearing about during the debate who did oppose gay marriage....even so, not many people come out and attack those that raised them despite what they may think of their deficiencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial *
> By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
> UPDATED: 16:42 EST, 6 April 2013
> 
> 
> A same-sex couple accused of sexually abusing their adopted children are facing trial after withdrawing from a plea agreement as they are facing new allegations of molestation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: 'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> 35% of Foster-Parent Molestations Homosexual
> COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., Aug. 10 /Christian Newswire/ -- New evidence poses problems for those who think homosexuals should be allowed to serve as foster-parents. 35% of foster- parents who sexually abused their foster-children in the last three years engaged in homosexuality.
> From 2003 through 2005, a third of foster-parent molestations of foster-children were homosexual. That’s the official tally from two states -- Illinois and Minnesota -- that permit homosexual foster-parents. For the approximately 30,000 children/year in foster- care at some point in the two states:
> 
> 12 foster mothers sexually abused their charges: 9 (75%) assaulted foster-daughters, 3 (25%) raped foster-sons.
> 
> 
> 28 foster-fathers sexually abused their charges: 23 (82%) assaulted foster-daughters, 5 (18%) raped foster-sons.
> 
> Overall, 26 (65%) of foster-parent perpetrators engaged in heterosexuality and 14 (35%) in homosexuality with their charges. Most molestation by foster-mothers was homosexual; most by foster- fathers heterosexual.
> Virtually all studies indicate that homosexuals comprise between 2% to 4% of adults. Thus the figures above indicate a disproportionate amount of homosexual molestation.
> 
> Homosexual Foster Parents Molest Children Above Average
> 
> Now with Homosexuals comprising only 2% of the human population and better than 30% of all sexual assaults on children being perpetrated by homosexuals, it's self-evident that the mental disorder that presents as homosexuality, presents as a high potential indicator of pedophilia as well.
> 
> Therefore, allowing children to be left alone with a person showing indications of homosexuality, should be dealt with as a crime against the child.
> 
> Just as hiring a person showing indications of homosexuality for any position of authority over children, or which set a sexual deviant in positions of trust with, for or around children, should likewise be treated as a crime against children.
Click to expand...

Yes...we have our share of criminals and scum of the earth too.  Shall I go on about hetero murderers and child molesters?


----------



## bodecea

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A final word to all of the low life bigots who shamelessly use children in their failed propaganda war on equality
> 
> There were an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 gay and lesbian biological parents in 1976. In 1990, an estimated 6 to 14 million children have gay or lesbian parents.
> 
> Latest statistics from the U.S. Census 2000, the National Survey of Family Growth (2002), and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (2004) include:
> 
> 
> An estimated two million LGLB people are interested in adopting.
> An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
> More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states.
> Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.
> Adopted children with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born.
> http://adoption.about.com/od/gaylesbian/f/gayparents.htm
> 
> In addition, adoption is legal is 49 states. Generally, acceptance of gay and lesbian adoption has been way out in front of same sex marriage. In some states, it has been occurring for decades.
> 
> Given these numbers, please answer the following questions:
> 
> 
> If children who are in the care of gay people are at risk of abuse or  having developmental/ adjustment issues why have the states been allowing this for so long?
> 
> 
> If mistreatment of children by gays was prevalent, why are we not hearing horror stories and seeing headlines about this on a regular basis ?
> 
> 
> Why have we not been seeing large numbers of adults who had been  children of gays coming forward to speak out against gay parenting?
> And let me tell you jerks something else....
> 
> 
> I worked in a state run child welfare agency for 26 years. I had many jobs during that time including child protective services investigator, protective services supervisor, foster care unit supervisor, and foster and adoptive parent trainer.
> 
> The state in question, New Jersey, has been placing children with gay foster and adoptive parents for decades, long before same sex marriage was even being discussed. During my career, I was involved in some manner or other with thousands of cases of child abuse, including sexual abuse, physical abuse neglect as well is families that were generally dysfunctional due to substance abuse or mental health issues. I was responsible for removing children from some of those homes when it was determined that the risk was too great not to do so, or if the parents could not be rehabilitated.
> 
> In all that time I never came across a gay person who was the perpetrator of child abuse of any kind. Granted, they are few in number compared to heterosexual couples and single parents, but we are talking about a span of more than two and a half decades. In addition, I personally placed children with gay and lesbian couples and individuals after they were damaged by their straight parents. Those gay people provided loving and nurturing homes and gave those kids the best shot in life possible. And no, there were not enough straight people to care for those kids, but if there were I would have still have placed them with the gay folks if the match was right.
> 
> Never once did I have a problem with a gay foster of adoptive parent. Never once did any of them reject a child because they were not of the “correct” sexual orientation, but some straight people did in fact reject gay kids. During my time there and beyond I followed those families and  I can tell you that those children have grown and thrived and overcame the bad hand that they were dealt by their straight parents, largely due to the nurturing offered and sacrifices made  by the gay families who took them in.
> 
> In addition, when we talk about gay adoption, most often we are referring to situations where the child in question is the biological child of  gay person and that persons partner wishes to adopt as a second parent. The benefits of having two legal parents are clear. There are an estimated 2 million children in the care of gay people. That will not change by banning adoption. It will only put those children at a disadvantage, socially, financially and legally.
> 
> In conclusion, opposition to gay adoption is just ignorant and hateful equine excrement. To say that you care about the children while opposing adoption by gays is hypocrisy at it’s very worst.
> 
> 
> ___________________________________________________________________________-
> 
> For starters, I have not seen any polls on the issue of support for adoption by gays in general , or gay men in particular. I do know that many states were allowing gays to adopt long before there was any gay marriage, indication that there has been broad support for it for some time now. Currently 49 states allow adoption by gays, and obviously includes some states that do not have marriage equality yet.
> 
> Now let me tell you a little about myself. I worked in a public child welfare agency in New Jersey for 26 years. NJ was the first state to expressly authorize joint adoption by gay couples.” Although other states were also allowing it (source: http://www.aclu.org/getequal/timeline.htm)
> 
> In my time there, I investigated child abuse and neglect including sexual abuse. I also recruited, trained and supervised foster and adoptive families, including some gay individuals and couples.
> 
> I am here to tell you that when it comes to same sex sexual abuse, gay men are not the problem. The whole idea comes from the fact that when a male molests a male child, he is labeled a homosexual. Sometimes they self-identify as homosexuals because that label does not carry they same stigma as pedophile.  However, they rarely are homosexuals. They are  a child abuser and/or pedophile. Some are heterosexual and have developed a regressed fixation on children of a specific age. Others are chronically fixated on children.
> 
> Homosexual refers to the sexual orientation of people who are attracted to age appropriate people of the same sex. I have never found a true homosexual to be a child molester. I won’t say that it never happens but it is certainly not in significant numbers.
> 
> The last figure that I saw for the number of adoptions by gay and lesbian people was 65,500. Honestly, I don’t know what percentage of those were by gay men, but I do believe that it’s significant. In addition, there are many more children that came to be in the care of gay men  by various other means. We don’t know for sure how many but I’ve seen estimates of up to 14 million. Those children benefit when the state allows second parent adoption by the biological parents partner.
> 
> Given these numbers, I think that we would be hearing a lot more about child sexual abuse at the hands of gays and I doubt that so many states would be allowing adoption. In my experience, banning marriage and adoption by gays only serves deprive children of the security of having two legal parents. I hope that I have answered your question.
> 
> 
> Claims that gay parenting is harmful to children are bogus and stupid not to mention irresponsible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let us hope this is indeed your final word
> 
> "If children who are in the care of gay people are at risk of abuse or  having developmental/ adjustment issues why have the states been allowing this for so long?"  ----People with their busy lives generally dont pay attention to a lot of government policy.  My suspicion is that if the populations of most of these states had known this  they would have disapproved.
> 
> "If mistreatment of children by gays was prevalent, why are we not hearing horror stories and seeing headlines about this on a regular basis ?"   ---as you pointed out there arent a large amount of couples doing this regardless...and it isnt that we are necessarily thinking of the kind of mistreatment that gets headlines, or mistreatment at all really.
> 
> "Why have we not been seeing large numbers of adults who had been children of gays coming forward to speak out against gay parenting?"----there are even less of these folks out there---and there was at least one I remember hearing about during the debate who did oppose gay marriage....even so, not many people come out and attack those that raised them despite what they may think of their deficiencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Christ are you back with more rationalizations and assorted horseshit. Hey, you're the one who said that gay people-if they are "really" as in born that way don't actually have parental instincts. That in itself says all that we need to know about your credibility and level  of intellectual functioning. Especially after you went into hiding after I called you on it. Now, do you have anything of substance to contribute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no I just said the fact that some claim to have parental instincts tends to negate or counter the idea that they are "born that way".
> 
> I quit responding to you after I answered 2 of your posts point for point and you responded with a cut and paste insult.  (and some of your other posts were obvious cut and pastes from earlier arguments)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holly Shit! You are reduced to just repeating the same moronic claim that you made before without any attempt to explain or defend it! My god that is pathetic!! Gay people are fully functioning HUMAN BEINGS and they have all of the instincts and physical abilities that are necessary to produce and raise a child as anybody else. What the hell is wrong with you?  Is you best argument that I copy and past certain things? So what? If something needs to be said again, I will do so. If there is a source that makes my point I will use it and re-use it.
> 
> Oh, and what the fuck does any of that have to do with same sex marriage and this religious freedom horseshit? It seems like all that you can do is to throw as much dung at the wall and hope that something sticks. Nothing is sticking except the egg on your face.
> 
> You are a bad joke without a punch line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and you dont think that conflicts a little bit with the idea that they are born that way?......I think most of gays themselves would say they DONT have the same instincts as heterosexuals.
> 
> But it WAS an aside........and isnt essential to my arguments on gay marriage.
> 
> you cut and pasted a line that said someday the SC will legalize gay marriage.....showing you dont really put much thought into your answers.
Click to expand...

You realize it's pretty creepy for you to link parenting instincts with sexual attraction instincts.


----------



## Skylar

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> DCRAELIN SAID:
> 
> "we argued for many posts on the lack of a legal basis for gay marriage"
> 
> And you lost, as there is in fact a legal basis to invalidate measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, where those measures clearly violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. (See _Obergefell v. Hodges _(2015))



Yeah, but Dcraelin ignores any precedent that he doesn't like. So that doesn't count. 

His argument really has no thing to do with the world we live in.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holly Shit! You are reduced to just repeating the same moronic claim that you made before without any attempt to explain or defend it! My god that is pathetic!! Gay people are fully functioning HUMAN BEINGS and they have all of the instincts and physical abilities that are necessary to produce and raise a child as anybody else. What the hell is wrong with you?  Is you best argument that I copy and past certain things? So what? If something needs to be said again, I will do so. If there is a source that makes my point I will use it and re-use it.
> 
> Oh, and what the fuck does any of that have to do with same sex marriage and this religious freedom horseshit? It seems like all that you can do is to throw as much dung at the wall and hope that something sticks. Nothing is sticking except the egg on your face.
> 
> You are a bad joke without a punch line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you dont think that conflicts a little bit with the idea that they are born that way?......I think most of gays themselves would say they DONT have the same instincts as heterosexuals.
> 
> But it WAS an aside........and isnt essential to my arguments on gay marriage.
> 
> you cut and pasted a line that said someday the SC will legalize gay marriage.....showing you dont really put much thought into your answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not “essential” to your argument on gay marriage? What argument is that now? You have presented no coherent argument what so ever. How the fuck does “parental instincts” conflict with the idea of “being born” that way??!!  The idea that being gay is not a choice?  ?..You also said...”.I think most of gays themselves would say they DONT have the same instincts as heterosexuals” Really?  You think?? If there is any truth at all to that, what does it mean? Are the voices in your head telling you that they would say that and that it has something to do with parental instincts?
> 
> As far as this “instinct” goes, it is quite possibly the stupidest and most hateful thing that has been said here ever. You still need to explain yourself or retract it. You say that you meant it as an “aside” ? You can’t make it go away that easily. It goes to the heart of you credibility, or more accurately, to the lack there  of. It speaks clearly to the low level of intellect that we are dealing with here. Furthermore, it is indicative of the desperation that you are experiencing, the need to come up with increasingly ridiculous angles in your pathetically failed war on same sex marriage. I am not going to let it go until I get an answer. It will come back to haunt you with every new post.
> 
> As far as my copy and paste goes…yes I , I copied something that I wrote before Obergefell that I did in fact put a lot of thought into, and that still has much relevance. My mistake was that I didn’t fully update it. That is hardly equivalent to your crimes and displays of ignorance. Have  a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My are you dense.....we argued for many posts on the lack of a legal basis for gay marriage...and now you ask What argument is that now?........I dont think any of my arguments rested on whether gayness is innate or learned...your arguments, basing them as you do on "rights", could be said to depend on that idea however.  I believe you first brought up parental instinct, instinct goes to that same debate.
> 
> why is referring to that hateful?.....whenever you have no argument...you race for the bigot card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU first brought up the issue of procreative urges....see post 1850. You are implying that gays do not wish to procreate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *May men and women follow their procreative urges wherever they take them? Who is
> responsible for the children that result? How many mates may an individual have? How does
> one decide which set of mates is responsible for which set of children? *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To which I responded:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do gay man and lesbians not have “procreative urges”? Do they not desire to be parents and to have the opportunity to nurture and raise children? Is parental responsibility no also an issue among heterosexual individuals and couples? Judge, are you alluding to the well-worn and bigoted view that only heterosexual couples need to get married because they are the only ones who have children “spontaneously” ? Are heterosexuals the only people who encounter custody and parental rights issues-that –by the way-are often exacerbated by not being married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After which, you persisted in questioning whether or not people who are "really gay" want children. Now you seem to be suffering from amnesia and running away from you asinine statements. I told you...I'm not letting go. You have to own those statements. And they are indeed hateful and bigoted because it is painting gay people as less than human.
> 
> As far as your "arguments go.....I'm talking about something that makes sense. Something that is based on facts and logic, which you have no command of at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you fucking liar......that is NOT my post
> 
> not that whoever said it was wrong
> 
> I'm done with you
Click to expand...


Holy shit! Seriously??! Not your post? I do believe that you have gone off the deep end! You will be forever remembered as the one who moronically stated that gays do not have parental instincts. Good riddance dude. Have a nice day.


----------



## dcraelin

bodecea said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us hope this is indeed your final word
> 
> "If children who are in the care of gay people are at risk of abuse or  having developmental/ adjustment issues why have the states been allowing this for so long?"  ----People with their busy lives generally dont pay attention to a lot of government policy.  My suspicion is that if the populations of most of these states had known this  they would have disapproved.
> 
> "If mistreatment of children by gays was prevalent, why are we not hearing horror stories and seeing headlines about this on a regular basis ?"   ---as you pointed out there arent a large amount of couples doing this regardless...and it isnt that we are necessarily thinking of the kind of mistreatment that gets headlines, or mistreatment at all really.
> 
> "Why have we not been seeing large numbers of adults who had been children of gays coming forward to speak out against gay parenting?"----there are even less of these folks out there---and there was at least one I remember hearing about during the debate who did oppose gay marriage....even so, not many people come out and attack those that raised them despite what they may think of their deficiencies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Christ are you back with more rationalizations and assorted horseshit. Hey, you're the one who said that gay people-if they are "really" as in born that way don't actually have parental instincts. That in itself says all that we need to know about your credibility and level  of intellectual functioning. Especially after you went into hiding after I called you on it. Now, do you have anything of substance to contribute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no I just said the fact that some claim to have parental instincts tends to negate or counter the idea that they are "born that way".
> 
> I quit responding to you after I answered 2 of your posts point for point and you responded with a cut and paste insult.  (and some of your other posts were obvious cut and pastes from earlier arguments)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holly Shit! You are reduced to just repeating the same moronic claim that you made before without any attempt to explain or defend it! My god that is pathetic!! Gay people are fully functioning HUMAN BEINGS and they have all of the instincts and physical abilities that are necessary to produce and raise a child as anybody else. What the hell is wrong with you?  Is you best argument that I copy and past certain things? So what? If something needs to be said again, I will do so. If there is a source that makes my point I will use it and re-use it.
> 
> Oh, and what the fuck does any of that have to do with same sex marriage and this religious freedom horseshit? It seems like all that you can do is to throw as much dung at the wall and hope that something sticks. Nothing is sticking except the egg on your face.
> 
> You are a bad joke without a punch line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and you dont think that conflicts a little bit with the idea that they are born that way?......I think most of gays themselves would say they DONT have the same instincts as heterosexuals.
> 
> But it WAS an aside........and isnt essential to my arguments on gay marriage.
> 
> you cut and pasted a line that said someday the SC will legalize gay marriage.....showing you dont really put much thought into your answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You realize it's pretty creepy for you to link parenting instincts with sexual attraction instincts.
Click to expand...


well thats twisting what I said, but the short answer is no


----------



## dcraelin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> and you dont think that conflicts a little bit with the idea that they are born that way?......I think most of gays themselves would say they DONT have the same instincts as heterosexuals.
> 
> But it WAS an aside........and isnt essential to my arguments on gay marriage.
> 
> you cut and pasted a line that said someday the SC will legalize gay marriage.....showing you dont really put much thought into your answers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not “essential” to your argument on gay marriage? What argument is that now? You have presented no coherent argument what so ever. How the fuck does “parental instincts” conflict with the idea of “being born” that way??!!  The idea that being gay is not a choice?  ?..You also said...”.I think most of gays themselves would say they DONT have the same instincts as heterosexuals” Really?  You think?? If there is any truth at all to that, what does it mean? Are the voices in your head telling you that they would say that and that it has something to do with parental instincts?
> 
> As far as this “instinct” goes, it is quite possibly the stupidest and most hateful thing that has been said here ever. You still need to explain yourself or retract it. You say that you meant it as an “aside” ? You can’t make it go away that easily. It goes to the heart of you credibility, or more accurately, to the lack there  of. It speaks clearly to the low level of intellect that we are dealing with here. Furthermore, it is indicative of the desperation that you are experiencing, the need to come up with increasingly ridiculous angles in your pathetically failed war on same sex marriage. I am not going to let it go until I get an answer. It will come back to haunt you with every new post.
> 
> As far as my copy and paste goes…yes I , I copied something that I wrote before Obergefell that I did in fact put a lot of thought into, and that still has much relevance. My mistake was that I didn’t fully update it. That is hardly equivalent to your crimes and displays of ignorance. Have  a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My are you dense.....we argued for many posts on the lack of a legal basis for gay marriage...and now you ask What argument is that now?........I dont think any of my arguments rested on whether gayness is innate or learned...your arguments, basing them as you do on "rights", could be said to depend on that idea however.  I believe you first brought up parental instinct, instinct goes to that same debate.
> 
> why is referring to that hateful?.....whenever you have no argument...you race for the bigot card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU first brought up the issue of procreative urges....see post 1850. You are implying that gays do not wish to procreate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *May men and women follow their procreative urges wherever they take them? Who is
> responsible for the children that result? How many mates may an individual have? How does
> one decide which set of mates is responsible for which set of children? *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To which I responded:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do gay man and lesbians not have “procreative urges”? Do they not desire to be parents and to have the opportunity to nurture and raise children? Is parental responsibility no also an issue among heterosexual individuals and couples? Judge, are you alluding to the well-worn and bigoted view that only heterosexual couples need to get married because they are the only ones who have children “spontaneously” ? Are heterosexuals the only people who encounter custody and parental rights issues-that –by the way-are often exacerbated by not being married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After which, you persisted in questioning whether or not people who are "really gay" want children. Now you seem to be suffering from amnesia and running away from you asinine statements. I told you...I'm not letting go. You have to own those statements. And they are indeed hateful and bigoted because it is painting gay people as less than human.
> 
> As far as your "arguments go.....I'm talking about something that makes sense. Something that is based on facts and logic, which you have no command of at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you fucking liar......that is NOT my post
> 
> not that whoever said it was wrong
> 
> I'm done with you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy shit! Seriously??! Not your post? I do believe that you have gone off the deep end! You will be forever remembered as the one who moronically stated that gays do not have parental instincts. Good riddance dude. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...


you know its too bad, as a leftist I think you and I could have many similar opinions on other issues......but your belligerent stupidity and deliberate screw up of posts and misquoting has forced me to put you on ignore.....fuck off asshole.


----------



## JakeStarkey

dcraelin said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Christ are you back with more rationalizations and assorted horseshit. Hey, you're the one who said that gay people-if they are "really" as in born that way don't actually have parental instincts. That in itself says all that we need to know about your credibility and level  of intellectual functioning. Especially after you went into hiding after I called you on it. Now, do you have anything of substance to contribute?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no I just said the fact that some claim to have parental instincts tends to negate or counter the idea that they are "born that way".
> 
> I quit responding to you after I answered 2 of your posts point for point and you responded with a cut and paste insult.  (and some of your other posts were obvious cut and pastes from earlier arguments)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holly Shit! You are reduced to just repeating the same moronic claim that you made before without any attempt to explain or defend it! My god that is pathetic!! Gay people are fully functioning HUMAN BEINGS and they have all of the instincts and physical abilities that are necessary to produce and raise a child as anybody else. What the hell is wrong with you?  Is you best argument that I copy and past certain things? So what? If something needs to be said again, I will do so. If there is a source that makes my point I will use it and re-use it.
> 
> Oh, and what the fuck does any of that have to do with same sex marriage and this religious freedom horseshit? It seems like all that you can do is to throw as much dung at the wall and hope that something sticks. Nothing is sticking except the egg on your face.
> 
> You are a bad joke without a punch line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and you dont think that conflicts a little bit with the idea that they are born that way?......I think most of gays themselves would say they DONT have the same instincts as heterosexuals.
> 
> But it WAS an aside........and isnt essential to my arguments on gay marriage.
> 
> you cut and pasted a line that said someday the SC will legalize gay marriage.....showing you dont really put much thought into your answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You realize it's pretty creepy for you to link parenting instincts with sexual attraction instincts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well thats twisting what I said, but the short answer is no
Click to expand...

Yes, it is very creepy.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not “essential” to your argument on gay marriage? What argument is that now? You have presented no coherent argument what so ever. How the fuck does “parental instincts” conflict with the idea of “being born” that way??!!  The idea that being gay is not a choice?  ?..You also said...”.I think most of gays themselves would say they DONT have the same instincts as heterosexuals” Really?  You think?? If there is any truth at all to that, what does it mean? Are the voices in your head telling you that they would say that and that it has something to do with parental instincts?
> 
> As far as this “instinct” goes, it is quite possibly the stupidest and most hateful thing that has been said here ever. You still need to explain yourself or retract it. You say that you meant it as an “aside” ? You can’t make it go away that easily. It goes to the heart of you credibility, or more accurately, to the lack there  of. It speaks clearly to the low level of intellect that we are dealing with here. Furthermore, it is indicative of the desperation that you are experiencing, the need to come up with increasingly ridiculous angles in your pathetically failed war on same sex marriage. I am not going to let it go until I get an answer. It will come back to haunt you with every new post.
> 
> As far as my copy and paste goes…yes I , I copied something that I wrote before Obergefell that I did in fact put a lot of thought into, and that still has much relevance. My mistake was that I didn’t fully update it. That is hardly equivalent to your crimes and displays of ignorance. Have  a nice day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My are you dense.....we argued for many posts on the lack of a legal basis for gay marriage...and now you ask What argument is that now?........I dont think any of my arguments rested on whether gayness is innate or learned...your arguments, basing them as you do on "rights", could be said to depend on that idea however.  I believe you first brought up parental instinct, instinct goes to that same debate.
> 
> why is referring to that hateful?.....whenever you have no argument...you race for the bigot card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU first brought up the issue of procreative urges....see post 1850. You are implying that gays do not wish to procreate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *May men and women follow their procreative urges wherever they take them? Who is
> responsible for the children that result? How many mates may an individual have? How does
> one decide which set of mates is responsible for which set of children? *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To which I responded:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do gay man and lesbians not have “procreative urges”? Do they not desire to be parents and to have the opportunity to nurture and raise children? Is parental responsibility no also an issue among heterosexual individuals and couples? Judge, are you alluding to the well-worn and bigoted view that only heterosexual couples need to get married because they are the only ones who have children “spontaneously” ? Are heterosexuals the only people who encounter custody and parental rights issues-that –by the way-are often exacerbated by not being married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After which, you persisted in questioning whether or not people who are "really gay" want children. Now you seem to be suffering from amnesia and running away from you asinine statements. I told you...I'm not letting go. You have to own those statements. And they are indeed hateful and bigoted because it is painting gay people as less than human.
> 
> As far as your "arguments go.....I'm talking about something that makes sense. Something that is based on facts and logic, which you have no command of at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you fucking liar......that is NOT my post
> 
> not that whoever said it was wrong
> 
> I'm done with you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy shit! Seriously??! Not your post? I do believe that you have gone off the deep end! You will be forever remembered as the one who moronically stated that gays do not have parental instincts. Good riddance dude. Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you know its too bad, as a leftist I think you and I could have many similar opinions on other issues......but your belligerent stupidity and deliberate screw up of posts and misquoting has forced me to put you on ignore.....fuck off asshole.
Click to expand...


Just to remind everyone here for one last time...YOU SAID that gay people-if they are really gay-do not have parental instincts. On top of that you are now trying to deny that! Not only is that statement stupid and bigoted, but "parental instincts " don't have a fucking thing to do with the issues of marriage. You just pulled that out of your ass as a last ditch effort to make a case. Now keep your promise and get the hell out of here.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*Ruh-Roh Its not nice to fool with Federal Judges*

(CNN)A deputy for Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk of court who went to jail because she opposes same-sex marriage, is worried he's been issuing invalid marriage licenses, according to papers filed in federal court. When Davis returned to work last Mon ... (CNN)


----------



## JakeStarkey

Davis does not get it.

Her office will issue marriage certificates.

If her actions have any effect of putting the certificates' validity in question, she has violated the court order.

If the judge finds that she has done so, who wants to bet she gets a six month contempt of court jail sentence, and that the court orders the deputy clerks to issue marriage certificates with Davis' name on it.


----------



## bodecea

dcraelin said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Christ are you back with more rationalizations and assorted horseshit. Hey, you're the one who said that gay people-if they are "really" as in born that way don't actually have parental instincts. That in itself says all that we need to know about your credibility and level  of intellectual functioning. Especially after you went into hiding after I called you on it. Now, do you have anything of substance to contribute?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no I just said the fact that some claim to have parental instincts tends to negate or counter the idea that they are "born that way".
> 
> I quit responding to you after I answered 2 of your posts point for point and you responded with a cut and paste insult.  (and some of your other posts were obvious cut and pastes from earlier arguments)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holly Shit! You are reduced to just repeating the same moronic claim that you made before without any attempt to explain or defend it! My god that is pathetic!! Gay people are fully functioning HUMAN BEINGS and they have all of the instincts and physical abilities that are necessary to produce and raise a child as anybody else. What the hell is wrong with you?  Is you best argument that I copy and past certain things? So what? If something needs to be said again, I will do so. If there is a source that makes my point I will use it and re-use it.
> 
> Oh, and what the fuck does any of that have to do with same sex marriage and this religious freedom horseshit? It seems like all that you can do is to throw as much dung at the wall and hope that something sticks. Nothing is sticking except the egg on your face.
> 
> You are a bad joke without a punch line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and you dont think that conflicts a little bit with the idea that they are born that way?......I think most of gays themselves would say they DONT have the same instincts as heterosexuals.
> 
> But it WAS an aside........and isnt essential to my arguments on gay marriage.
> 
> you cut and pasted a line that said someday the SC will legalize gay marriage.....showing you dont really put much thought into your answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You realize it's pretty creepy for you to link parenting instincts with sexual attraction instincts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well thats twisting what I said, but the short answer is no
Click to expand...

No?  You don't think it's creepy?   Well then...that says a great deal, doesn't it?


----------



## Silhouette

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Ruh-Roh Its not nice to fool with Federal Judges*
> 
> (CNN)A deputy for Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk of court who went to jail because she opposes same-sex marriage, is worried he's been issuing invalid marriage licenses, according to papers filed in federal court. When Davis returned to work last Mon ... (CNN)


So I did what most people don't do "Ruh-Roh"...I followed your link and now I have a quote from it:



> Davis *replaced the old marriage license forms with forms that don't carry her name, the name of the county or any reference to a clerk or deputy clerk*, said Mason's lawyer, Richard Hughes....The new forms also require Mason to list his initials, instead of a signature, with a notarization beside the initials, Hughes said....The same-sex couple that sued Davis for not issuing a marriage license said, in a separate court filing, that *Davis is "requiring her clerk to issue licenses in his capacity as a 'notary public' rather than a deputy clerk*. ..."...Hughes said: "Mr. Mason's concern is he does not want to be the party that is issuing invalid marriage licenses and he is trying to follow the court's mandate as well as his superior ordering him to issue only these changed forms. ..."


 
Yes, that would be consistent with her not wanting her stamp of authority connected with normalizing homosexuality.  She wants NOTHING to do with that and cannot as a Christian have even a remote connection with facilitating it.  She is making sure that her clerks are the sole authority on those licenses, while she rejects them utterly.  This is wholly consistent and unchanged from what she said she was going to do and keep doing.

And if this is defiant to a lower federal judge, so be it.  We all know where this is going to end up...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yup, with Davis in jail for six months and marriage certificates being issued at the country court house.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Silhouette said:


> Yes, that would be consistent with her not wanting her stamp of authority connected with normalizing homosexuality. ..



*Its "The People's" stamp of authority not her Stamp.*..Governmental affairs are run according to the US System of Law and its Constitution not the "Apostolic Church of Christ" *the Stamp of authority belongs to Caesar* and rightfully so since its Caesar  who is paying for the Office and the stamp and the whole nine yards ...the Office is paid for by taxes paid by Gays among others ...*why is Kimbo accepting cash money from Gays ....*


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Yup, with Davis in jail for six months and marriage certificates being issued at the country court house.


That would have to occur simultaneously with Congress repealing the 1st Amendment and the 9th Amendment of the US Constitution.

I wouldn't pin my hopes on that.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Silhouette said:


> I wouldn't pin my hopes on that.




*You instead pin your hopes on the Government being run according to some Apostolic sect in Kentucky...that makes you a "pin head"*


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, with Davis in jail for six months and marriage certificates being issued at the country court house.
> 
> 
> 
> That would have to occur simultaneously with Congress repealing the 1st Amendment and the 9th Amendment of the US Constitution. I wouldn't pin my hopes on that.
Click to expand...

Sil, you clearly have demonstrated you do not know the Constitution or the various amendments.  She has violated the judge's instructions.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Kimbo is not a Free agent she works for the Government ........ if she does not like it leave....


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, with Davis in jail for six months and marriage certificates being issued at the country court house.
> 
> 
> 
> That would have to occur simultaneously with Congress repealing the 1st Amendment and the 9th Amendment of the US Constitution. I wouldn't pin my hopes on that.
Click to expand...




JakeStarkey said:


> Sil, you clearly have demonstrated you do not know the Constitution or the various amendments.  She has violated the judge's instructions.


 


> *Ninth Amendment*
> The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


 
That means your Johnny-come-lately "just some deviant sex behaviors but not others" illegal addition to the 14th (only Congress can amend the Constitution) provisions cannot strip Kim Davis of her right to exercise her faith on a daily basis and at all times.  Faith doesn't have a time clock.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Silhouette said:


> cannot strip Kim Davis of her right to exercise her faith on a daily basis and at all times.  Faith doesn't have a time clock.



No she always has the options of leaving the mammon provided to her by among others "gay Tax payers" ...she can exercise her faith as long as it does not destroy the Constitutional Rights of Gay tax payers..


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

The right hides behind a fictional Bible: Memo to Ted Cruz and Donald Trump — your favorite book is made up

Donald Trump told us recently that the Bible is his favorite book. Ted Cruz announced, rather unoriginally, that God speaks through the Bible. Cruz _père_ has declared that the Bible establishes criteria for political electability. Sarah Palin dreams of enacting Biblical law in the United States, and ponders her own biblical magnitude.

*Faith-fiend Rowan County (Kentucky) clerk Kim Davis purports to be defending “biblical marriage” by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but she would do well to check and see just what **biblical matrimony actually looks like**.* Even Hillary Clinton looks at the Bible and thinks “It’s _alive!”_ and has apparently spent a lot of time studying it.

These politicians are hardly alone in supersizing the Good Book’s stature. The masses throughout history have used their cash and credit cards to assert the Bible’s primacy; they have, in fact, made it the best-selling book of all time, though Guinness World Records commits the unpardonable error of listing it in the non-fiction category. Fantasy would have been a better choice, if fantasy of a particularly absurdist bent.

Yes, absurdist. The Bible is brimming with rank absurdities that insult our intelligence and affront our dignity as twenty-first-century, post-Enlightenment humans residing in one of the most developed countries on Earth.

Such absurdities include, exempli gratia, the following:  The right hides behind a fictional Bible: Memo to Ted Cruz and Donald Trump — your favorite book is made up - Salon.com


----------



## Silhouette

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> cannot strip Kim Davis of her right to exercise her faith on a daily basis and at all times.  Faith doesn't have a time clock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No she always has the options of leaving the mammon provided to her by among others "gay Tax payers" ...she can exercise her faith as long as it does not destroy the Constitutional Rights of Gay tax payers..
Click to expand...

 
People who get legal abortions also pay taxes.  Are catholic hospitals now required to play along, according to your logic?

I can see the federal offices now dealing with marriage licensing: "Help wanted, Christians need not apply".  If we were talking about race it would be one thing, since race is clearly named in the 14th.  "Just some deviant sex behaviors" aren't named in the 14th though. That was added on June 2015..by the wrong branch of government..  and hence the introduction of the conflict between the solid 1st and the legally-incorrect addition to the 14th. 

Behaviors do not equal race.  I warned about that false premise.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The right hides behind a fictional Bible...



ROFLMNAO...

Well, Reader...  _how *PRECIOUS* is THAT?_


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Silhouette said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> cannot strip Kim Davis of her right to exercise her faith on a daily basis and at all times.  Faith doesn't have a time clock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No she always has the options of leaving the mammon provided to her by among others "gay Tax payers" ...she can exercise her faith as long as it does not destroy the Constitutional Rights of Gay tax payers..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who get legal abortions also pay taxes.  Are catholic hospitals now required to play along, according to your logic?
> 
> I can see the federal offices now dealing with marriage licensing: "Help wanted, Christians need not apply".  If we were talking about race it would be one thing, since race is clearly named in the 14th.  "Just some deviant sex behaviors" aren't named in the 14th though. That was added on June 2015..by the wrong branch of government..  and hence the introduction of the conflict between the solid 1st and the legally-incorrect addition to the 14th.
> 
> Behaviors do not equal race.  I warned about that false premise.
Click to expand...


There is not a scintilla of the Left's argument that rests upon objective reasoning.  It is ALL the same, _subjective _*"DO FOR ME!" *nonsense that they've been selling since before Robespierre and the Jacobins started conflating fairness with individual rights.

Sexual deviancy is a BEHAVIOR, which rests upon INDIVIDUAL CHOICE.  To which the only potential right for such behavior, rests within the narrow confines of the "Right to Privacy", the first requirement of which is that the claimant KEEP THE PRIVATE BEHAVIOR: PRIVATE.

The instant that one makes their Private Behavior PUBLIC... they forfeit any right to privacy that they may have formerly enjoyed.  And THERE IS NO RIGHT TO FORCE OTHERS TO SO MUCH AS TOLERATE YOUR DEVIANT BEHAVIOR, let alone accept it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Silhouette said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> cannot strip Kim Davis of her right to exercise her faith on a daily basis and at all times.  Faith doesn't have a time clock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No she always has the options of leaving the mammon provided to her by among others "gay Tax payers" ...she can exercise her faith as long as it does not destroy the Constitutional Rights of Gay tax payers..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who get legal abortions also pay taxes.  Are catholic hospitals now required to play along, according to your logic?
> 
> I can see the federal offices now dealing with marriage licensing: "Help wanted, Christians need not apply".  If we were talking about race it would be one thing, since race is clearly named in the 14th.  "Just some deviant sex behaviors" aren't named in the 14th though. That was added on June 2015..by the wrong branch of government..  and hence the introduction of the conflict between the solid 1st and the legally-incorrect addition to the 14th.
> 
> Behaviors do not equal race.  I warned about that false premise.
Click to expand...

Race is clearly named in the 14th Amendment. Now that is horseshit and you know it! Or do you?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right hides behind a fictional Bible...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO...
> 
> Well, Reader...  _how *PRECIOUS* is THAT?_
Click to expand...

Let it be noted that you have run away from my question to you where I asked to specify what ills you predict will befall the nation as a result of gay marriage.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> cannot strip Kim Davis of her right to exercise her faith on a daily basis and at all times.  Faith doesn't have a time clock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No she always has the options of leaving the mammon provided to her by among others "gay Tax payers" ...she can exercise her faith as long as it does not destroy the Constitutional Rights of Gay tax payers..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who get legal abortions also pay taxes.  Are catholic hospitals now required to play along, according to your logic?
> 
> I can see the federal offices now dealing with marriage licensing: "Help wanted, Christians need not apply".  If we were talking about race it would be one thing, since race is clearly named in the 14th.  "Just some deviant sex behaviors" aren't named in the 14th though. That was added on June 2015..by the wrong branch of government..  and hence the introduction of the conflict between the solid 1st and the legally-incorrect addition to the 14th.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is not a scintilla of the Left's argument that rests upon objective reasoning.  It is ALL the same, _subjective _*"DO FOR ME!" *nonsense that they've been selling since before Robespierre and the Jacobins started conflating fairness with individual rights.
> 
> Sexual deviancy is a BEHAVIOR, which rests upon INDIVIDUAL CHOICE.  To which the only potential right for such behavior, rests within the narrow confines of the "Right to Privacy", the first requirement of which is that the claimant KEEP THE PRIVATE BEHAVIOR: PRIVATE.
> 
> The instant that one makes their Private Behavior PUBLIC... they forfeit any right to privacy that they may have formerly enjoyed.  And THERE IS NO RIGHT TO FORCE OTHERS TO SO MUCH AS TOLERATE YOUR DEVIANT BEHAVIOR, let alone accept it.
Click to expand...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> *>>>  Bigotry and discrimination is a behavior and its a choice as is practicing religion.  <<< *



*I did not say that... so you need to get it out from under my name, dickhead.*


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *>>>  Bigotry and discrimination is a behavior and its a choice as is practicing religion.  <<< *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I did not say that... so you need to get it out from under my name, dickhead.*
Click to expand...

Yes Boss. My mistake. I do admit my mistakes. But it is true and now I'm saying it. Bigotry and discrimination are behaviors ...dickhead


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Silhouette said:


> People who get legal abortions also pay taxes.  Are catholic hospitals now required to play along, according to your logic?


*The county clerk's office is a Government Office...It belongs to all the People and it runs per the Constitution  ...a Catholic hospital is private and runs as it sees fit... ....did you seriously miss that key difference ?*


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

SILHOUETTE SAID: 

"People who get legal abortions also pay taxes. Are catholic hospitals now required to play along, according to your logic?"

You're as ignorant as you are ridiculous.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

No one pays taxes to a Catholic hospital...


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Holly shit, this is rich when you consider that others on the right have compared her to MLK and Rosa Parks. Finally one of them is telling the truth!!




> *Pat Buchanan Compares Kim Davis' Anti-Gay Stand To His Own Efforts To Stop Desegregation* Submitted by Miranda Blue on Wednesday, 9/23/2015 2:28 pm In an interview with Newsmax TV yesterday,
> 
> Pat Buchanan compared Kentucky county Kim Davis’ defiance of court orders to issue same-sex marriage licenses to his own efforts to convince President Nixon to defy a Supreme Court ruling on school desegregation. - See more at: Pat Buchanan Compares Kim Davis' Anti-Gay Stand To His Own Efforts To Stop Desegregation





> Buchanan added that he himself had advocated civil disobedience when he urged President Nixon to defy a 1971 Supreme Court decision that “called for district-wide desegregation and allowed for the use of busing to achieve integration.” - See more at: Pat Buchanan Compares Kim Davis' Anti-Gay Stand To His Own Efforts To Stop Desegregation


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

In the  ABC/Washington Post survey, released Tuesday morning, 74 percent of respondents said that the need to treat everyone equally under the law is more important than an individual's religious beliefs. In *the specific case of Davis, 63 percent said that the clerk, an elected county official, should be required to issue marriage licenses *to homosexual couples, in spite of her religious objections.


----------



## Skylar

TyroneSlothrop said:


> In the  ABC/Washington Post survey, released Tuesday morning, 74 percent of respondents said that the need to treat everyone equally under the law is more important than an individual's religious beliefs. In *the specific case of Davis, 63 percent said that the clerk, an elected county official, should be required to issue marriage licenses *to homosexual couples, in spite of her religious objections.



I think a reasonable accommodation could be made as long as it didn't significantly impact the access of gays and lesbians to marriage licenses.

For example, that another clerk issue them and not Kim Davis.

Likewise, after thinking more on it I would be open to the same accommodation for judges that didn't want to marry gay folks. Let another judge do it. It doesn't seem to be an issue that would significantly impact anyone's marriage. 

Davis' problem came when she refused a reasonable accommodation.


----------



## ABikerSailor

She is still interfering.  She should go to jail until she steps down.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Skylar said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the  ABC/Washington Post survey, released Tuesday morning, 74 percent of respondents said that the need to treat everyone equally under the law is more important than an individual's religious beliefs. In *the specific case of Davis, 63 percent said that the clerk, an elected county official, should be required to issue marriage licenses *to homosexual couples, in spite of her religious objections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think a reasonable accommodation could be made as long as it didn't significantly impact the access of gays and lesbians to marriage licenses.
> 
> For example, that another clerk issue them and not Kim Davis.
> 
> Likewise, after thinking more on it I would be open to the same accommodation for judges that didn't want to marry gay folks. Let another judge do it. It doesn't seem to be an issue that would significantly impact anyone's marriage.
> 
> Davis' problem came when she refused a reasonable accommodation.
Click to expand...


Davis abridged her duty and violated the civil rights of American Citizens.  There is no excuse and no accommodation, unless we want to enforce a version of Sharia law.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

UPDATE: She is STILL trying to prevent people from getting married!

*HRC Calls on Attorney General Lynch to Confirm Validity of Kentucky Marriage License*
September 25, 2015 _by Robin Maril, Senior Legislative Counsel

This week, the Human Rights Campaign sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch urging the Justice Department to issue a conclusive determination confirming the validity of marriage licenses issued in Rowan County Kentucky that are recognized by the state despite County Clerk Kim Davis's months' long anti-LGBT protest. 
The Deputy County Clerks began issuing licenses to all couples earlier this month.  Although these licenses are validly signed by the Deputy Clerks and are recognized by the state of Kentucky, Kim Davis and her attorneys question their validity.   HRC Calls on Attorney General Lynch to Confirm Validity of Kentucky Marriage License

_


----------



## Silhouette

TyroneSlothrop said:


> In the  ABC/Washington Post survey, released Tuesday morning, 74 percent of respondents said that the need to treat everyone equally under the law is more important than an individual's religious beliefs. In *the specific case of Davis, 63 percent said that the clerk, an elected county official, should be required to issue marriage licenses *to homosexual couples, in spite of her religious objections.


 Then you should have no problem getting the right number of legislators together to amend the Constitution.  Aren't you the folks who chanted like a mantra that we are a "republic, not subject to the tyranny of the majority when it comes to civil rights!"?

Well then, you'll be giddy that the 1st Amendment is a person's civil right to exercise of their faith..


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> Well then, you'll be giddy that the 1st Amendment is a person's civil right to exercise of their faith..


Within reason, and not on our dime.


----------



## Silhouette

TyroneSlothrop said:


> In the  ABC/Washington Post survey, released Tuesday morning, 74 percent of respondents said that the need to treat everyone equally under the law is more important than an individual's religious beliefs. In *the specific case of Davis, 63 percent said that the clerk, an elected county official, should be required to issue marriage licenses *to homosexual couples, in spite of her religious objections.





Silhouette said:


> Then you should have no problem getting the right number of legislators together to amend the Constitution.  Aren't you the folks who chanted like a mantra that we are a "republic, not subject to the tyranny of the majority when it comes to civil rights!"?
> 
> Well then, you'll be giddy that the 1st Amendment is a person's civil right to exercise of their faith..


 


PaintMyHouse said:


> Within reason, and not on our dime.


 
The 1st Amendment is as reasonable as it gets, and much much clearer than the SCOTUS creating a new class on its own of "just some deviant sex behaviors but not others" to the 14th.  And it most certainly will be as much on "our dime" as all your bullshit litigation of "civil rights" has been.  Equality.  Live by it all the way or shut the fuck up.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the  ABC/Washington Post survey, released Tuesday morning, 74 percent of respondents said that the need to treat everyone equally under the law is more important than an individual's religious beliefs. In *the specific case of Davis, 63 percent said that the clerk, an elected county official, should be required to issue marriage licenses *to homosexual couples, in spite of her religious objections.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have no problem getting the right number of legislators together to amend the Constitution.  Aren't you the folks who chanted like a mantra that we are a "republic, not subject to the tyranny of the majority when it comes to civil rights!"?
> 
> Well then, you'll be giddy that the 1st Amendment is a person's civil right to exercise of their faith..
Click to expand...


Using the authority of the State to force unwilling people to obey Christian dogma isn't a civil right. Its the Establishment of Religion. Which the 1st amendment explicitly forbids.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the  ABC/Washington Post survey, released Tuesday morning, 74 percent of respondents said that the need to treat everyone equally under the law is more important than an individual's religious beliefs. In *the specific case of Davis, 63 percent said that the clerk, an elected county official, should be required to issue marriage licenses *to homosexual couples, in spite of her religious objections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have no problem getting the right number of legislators together to amend the Constitution.  Aren't you the folks who chanted like a mantra that we are a "republic, not subject to the tyranny of the majority when it comes to civil rights!"?
> 
> Well then, you'll be giddy that the 1st Amendment is a person's civil right to exercise of their faith..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Within reason, and not on our dime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 1st Amendment is as reasonable as it gets, and much much clearer than the SCOTUS creating a new class on its own of "just some deviant sex behaviors but not others" to the 14th.  And it most certainly will be as much on "our dime" as all your bullshit litigation of "civil rights" has been.  Equality.  Live by it all the way or shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...


More accurately the USSC isn't motivated by your irrational and obsessive hatred of homosexuals. Nor recognizes it as valid basis for adjudicating anything.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Silhouette said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the  ABC/Washington Post survey, released Tuesday morning, 74 percent of respondents said that the need to treat everyone equally under the law is more important than an individual's religious beliefs. In *the specific case of Davis, 63 percent said that the clerk, an elected county official, should be required to issue marriage licenses *to homosexual couples, in spite of her religious objections.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have no problem getting the right number of legislators together to amend the Constitution.  Aren't you the folks who chanted like a mantra that we are a "republic, not subject to the tyranny of the majority when it comes to civil rights!"?
> 
> Well then, you'll be giddy that the 1st Amendment is a person's civil right to exercise of their faith..
Click to expand...


That is not what the First Amendment states.  Or do you support a religion that believed and practiced human sacrifice as part of their faith?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Silhouette said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the  ABC/Washington Post survey, released Tuesday morning, 74 percent of respondents said that the need to treat everyone equally under the law is more important than an individual's religious beliefs. In *the specific case of Davis, 63 percent said that the clerk, an elected county official, should be required to issue marriage licenses *to homosexual couples, in spite of her religious objections.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have no problem getting the right number of legislators together to amend the Constitution.  Aren't you the folks who chanted like a mantra that we are a "republic, not subject to the tyranny of the majority when it comes to civil rights!"?
> 
> Well then, you'll be giddy that the 1st Amendment is a person's civil right to exercise of their faith..
Click to expand...

The Constitution does not need amending...the Clerk needs to respect the US Constitution which is what rules in Government Offices ...if she does not like it stop taking the cash the Government gives her ...resign for Jesus


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*By the way God has Authorized me to announce that he is m"chill" with gays getting married....this comes straight from the God head so govern yourselves accordingly....*


----------



## dcraelin

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the  ABC/Washington Post survey, released Tuesday morning, 74 percent of respondents said that the need to treat everyone equally under the law is more important than an individual's religious beliefs. In *the specific case of Davis, 63 percent said that the clerk, an elected county official, should be required to issue marriage licenses *to homosexual couples, in spite of her religious objections.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have no problem getting the right number of legislators together to amend the Constitution.  Aren't you the folks who chanted like a mantra that we are a "republic, not subject to the tyranny of the majority when it comes to civil rights!"?
> 
> Well then, you'll be giddy that the 1st Amendment is a person's civil right to exercise of their faith..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution does not need amending...the Clerk needs to respect the US Constitution which is what rules in Government Offices ...if she does not like it stop taking the cash the Government gives her ...resign for Jesus
Click to expand...


so its ok for Jerry Brown and other Attorney generals not to do their jobs and defend the laws of their states.......with no consequences whatsoever (to them anyway) ....but this woman needs to resign.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

dcraelin said:


> so its ok for Jerry Brown and other Attorney generals not to do their jobs and defend the laws of their states.......with no consequences whatsoever (to them anyway) ....but this woman needs to resign.



There has been no legal  process ruling in the way you wish they would rule in any of those cases.  You just want to change the subject...  

In the case though of Kim Davis there have been rulings that make her position impossible...she wants to "serve God" , her version of God  *BUT *she also at one and the same time wants to continue to be paid by taxes who after all are paid by all gay or straight or whatever...so therefore she needs to *resign for Jesus...Its not complicated ...*


----------



## dcraelin

TyroneSlothrop said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> so its ok for Jerry Brown and other Attorney generals not to do their jobs and defend the laws of their states.......with no consequences whatsoever (to them anyway) ....but this woman needs to resign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There has been no legal  process ruling in the way you wish they would rule in any of those cases.  You just want to change the subject...
> 
> In the case though of Kim Davis there have been rulings that make her position impossible...she wants to "serve God" , her version of God  *BUT *she also at one and the same time wants to continue to be paid by taxes who after all are paid by all gay or straight or whatever...so therefore she needs to *resign for Jesus...Its not complicated ...*
Click to expand...


"legal process ruling"?....that just sounds like legalese for lame excuse.

to be consistent all those saying she should resign should say the same about all the AGs who ignored the law.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

dcraelin said:


> "legal process ruling"?....that just sounds like legalese for lame excuse.
> 
> to be consistent all those saying she should resign should say the same about all the AGs who ignored the law.



*No because the conflation you want to make makes no sense* ...No one has made any legal case pursuant to what you are saying..so that is simply your uninformed opinion..

*No  its not "legalese" actually its the rulings by  the method our Nation has used for two hundred years plus to resolve conflicts ...what is four years old is Numb nuts Kim Davis converting to some Apostolic sect.. Great you converted and now you want to run the  County Office according to your chosen Religion WTF is that ...Nonsense*


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dcraelin said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> so its ok for Jerry Brown and other Attorney generals not to do their jobs and defend the laws of their states.......with no consequences whatsoever (to them anyway) ....but this woman needs to resign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There has been no legal  process ruling in the way you wish they would rule in any of those cases.  You just want to change the subject...
> 
> In the case though of Kim Davis there have been rulings that make her position impossible...she wants to "serve God" , her version of God  *BUT *she also at one and the same time wants to continue to be paid by taxes who after all are paid by all gay or straight or whatever...so therefore she needs to *resign for Jesus...Its not complicated ...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "legal process ruling"?....that just sounds like legalese for lame excuse.
> 
> to be consistent all those saying she should resign should say the same about all the AGs who ignored the law.
Click to expand...

Who failed to "enforce" what law. Do you understand that there is a difference between enforcing a law and simply refusing to defend something-at the taxpayers expense- that is unconstitutional and destined to fail ?

It was the same thing with DOMA. The justice department just did not defend it, but until it was overturned, legally married same sex couples were still being deprived of federal benefits.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

What a joke! These people have zero respect for the constitution and the rule of law!

WASHINGTON --* Kim Davis*, the Kentucky county clerk who went to jail this month for refusing to follow the law and issue a marriage license to a gay couple*, was given an award at Friday night's conservative Values Voter Summit.*

*Tony Perkins, of the Family Research Council,* presented Davis with a "Cost of Discipleship Award" that compared her with Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks and Abraham Lincoln because, like them, she "pursued justice at great personal cost."

"In today's conflict over the meaning of the irreplaceable civil institution of marriage, one elected official, Kimberly Davis of Rowan County, Kentucky, has inspired millions of her fellow Americans," Perkins said, reading aloud from her award. "As her words and actions attest, *she has proceeded with an unshakeable blend of humility and determination*. In doing so, she has reminded us we must remember to kneel before we dare stand."

*Davis got several standing ovations as she stood on stage*. She cried each time, and received a bouquet of flowers as Perkins read the text of the award.  Kim Davis Gets An Award For Breaking The Law To Discriminate Against Gay People


----------



## Wry Catcher

dcraelin said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> so its ok for Jerry Brown and other Attorney generals not to do their jobs and defend the laws of their states.......with no consequences whatsoever (to them anyway) ....but this woman needs to resign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There has been no legal  process ruling in the way you wish they would rule in any of those cases.  You just want to change the subject...
> 
> In the case though of Kim Davis there have been rulings that make her position impossible...she wants to "serve God" , her version of God  *BUT *she also at one and the same time wants to continue to be paid by taxes who after all are paid by all gay or straight or whatever...so therefore she needs to *resign for Jesus...Its not complicated ...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "legal process ruling"?....that just sounds like legalese for lame excuse.
> 
> to be consistent all those saying she should resign should say the same about all the AGs who ignored the law.
Click to expand...


Jerry Brown is a governor, not an AG (as suggested in your post prior the one directly above).

K. Harris is the AG of CA, and to my knowledge I do not know of any law either the Governor or the AG has violated.

If you have evidence post it, if it is your opinion, state why, if you lied or repeated a lie, STFU.


----------



## Wry Catcher

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What a joke! These people have zero respect for the constitution and the rule of law!
> 
> WASHINGTON --* Kim Davis*, the Kentucky county clerk who went to jail this month for refusing to follow the law and issue a marriage license to a gay couple*, was given an award at Friday night's conservative Values Voter Summit.*
> 
> *Tony Perkins, of the Family Research Council,* presented Davis with a "Cost of Discipleship Award" that compared her with Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks and Abraham Lincoln because, like them, she "pursued justice at great personal cost."
> 
> "In today's conflict over the meaning of the irreplaceable civil institution of marriage, one elected official, Kimberly Davis of Rowan County, Kentucky, has inspired millions of her fellow Americans," Perkins said, reading aloud from her award. "As her words and actions attest, *she has proceeded with an unshakeable blend of humility and determination*. In doing so, she has reminded us we must remember to kneel before we dare stand."
> 
> *Davis got several standing ovations as she stood on stage*. She cried each time, and received a bouquet of flowers as Perkins read the text of the award.  Kim Davis Gets An Award For Breaking The Law To Discriminate Against Gay People



Thanks, too bad you'll never convince the Idiot Fringe.  

Rumor has it that Tony Perkins has told his flock that God told him only a human sacrifice would prove his flock's allegiance;  circumstantial evidence in the fact of missing girls across the bible belt suggests Perkins listened.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The justice department just did not defend it, but until it was overturned, legally married same sex couples were still being deprived of federal benefits.



But only because they were entirely unqualified to receive those 'benefits'.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Wry Catcher said:


> ... you'll never convince the Idiot Fringe.



Who is it precisely that is attempting to convince you idiots of something?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Wry Catcher said:


> Jerry Brown is a governor



True... but old Moon-beam, is not much of a governor.  Which follows, given that it's not much of a human being.  

But hey!  In fairness... what Leftist is?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What a joke! These people have zero respect for the constitution and the rule of law!
> 
> WASHINGTON --* Kim Davis*, the Kentucky county clerk who went to jail this month for refusing to follow the law and issue a marriage license to a gay couple*, was given an award at Friday night's conservative Values Voter Summit.*
> 
> *Tony Perkins, of the Family Research Council,* presented Davis with a "Cost of Discipleship Award" that compared her with Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks and Abraham Lincoln because, like them, she "pursued justice at great personal cost."
> 
> "In today's conflict over the meaning of the irreplaceable civil institution of marriage, one elected official, Kimberly Davis of Rowan County, Kentucky, has inspired millions of her fellow Americans," Perkins said, reading aloud from her award. "As her words and actions attest, *she has proceeded with an unshakeable blend of humility and determination*. In doing so, she has reminded us we must remember to kneel before we dare stand."
> 
> *Davis got several standing ovations as she stood on stage*. She cried each time, and received a bouquet of flowers as Perkins read the text of the award.  Kim Davis Gets An Award For Breaking The Law To Discriminate Against Gay People



Yes... that's the same forum wherein she stated that she'd finally left the Democrat Party... after they had illicitly used the Judiciary to OVERTURN THE DEMOCRATICALLY PROCESSED LEGISLATION, wherein bills were long debated and passed by the DULY ELECTED Representatives of THE PEOPLE and signed INTO LAW by their DULY ELECTED CHIEF EXECUTIVES!  

It turns out that illicitly using the judiciary is NOT SOMETHING THAT STANDS IN KEEPING WITH DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLE, EXPOSING THE "DEMOCRAT PARTY" to be a FRAUD, that used DECEIT, to exploit the IGNORANCE of their shrinking constituency... and that their constituency is SHRINKING, is the reason that the obama cult is importing ILLEGALS BY THE TENS OF MILLIONS.

Now how cool is _THAT?_


----------



## Wry Catcher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The justice department just did not defend it, but until it was overturned, legally married same sex couples were still being deprived of federal benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But only because they were entirely unqualified to receive those 'benefits'.
Click to expand...


Apparently not, since the supreme court ruled otherwise, once again 5-4. But don't be too concerned Keys, of the next president to be elected in 2016 and take office in Jan 2017 is from your side of the argument - the idiot fringe brigade, Hypocties r. Us - he or she will find that Liberty and Justice should not be applied to those who violate God's laws.

At that point a majority of members of Congress will be purged for violating Sharia, oops, God's Law.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jerry Brown is a governor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True... but old Moon-beam, is not much of a governor.  Which follows, given that it's not much of a human being.
> 
> But hey!  In fairness... what Leftist is?
Click to expand...


So far he hasn't screwed and impregnated his domestic employee and as for calling him "moon-beam" I bet you have no idea why that moniker was applied to him.

BTW, Brown attended St. Ignatius High School and the University of San Francisco both in the Jesuit Tradition, and the Seminary.  Pope Francis also matriculated in such a tradition.  Of course that means nothing to someone like you, someone who holds to values - if that is appropriate to describe you - a callous conservative educated by Murdoch and Limbaugh.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Wry Catcher said:


> So far he hasn't screwed and impregnated his domestic employee and as for calling him "moon-beam" I bet you have no idea why that moniker was applied to him.



I have no doubt that you'd make such a bet.  That's part and parcel of the idiocy for which your infamous.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Wry Catcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The justice department just did not defend it, but until it was overturned, legally married same sex couples were still being deprived of federal benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But only because they were entirely unqualified to receive those 'benefits'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently not.
Click to expand...


The appearance resting upon what?  The vote of a 9 member panel; wherein 5 of the 9 claimed otherwise?

ROFLMNAO!

NOOooo ... scamp.

I am speaking to the natural law, wherein the human species is designed with two distinct, but complementing genders.  With each being respectively and specifically designed, to JOIN WITH the other...  which is what stands as the standard of human sexuality and which is what defines Marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the subjective NEED of 5 deviant jurists and the degenerate populism they sought to provide assent.

Law, scout... can only serve justice where the law is OBJECTIVE.  Where those tasked with the consideration of the law, fail to rise to the objective threshold essential to serve the best interests of the whole...  they fail the service of justice, which is the singular purpose of law.

And sadly, for you and your intellectually less fortunate comrades... where a people cannot find justice through the system designed to provide for such, they seek it through other means... and this without exception and this observed throughout human history... remaining as consistent as the sun rising and setting.  And this being the exclusive pre-cursor to bloody and horrific war.  There is no other cause for war... war comes solely through this one avenue.

And here you are... publicly advocating for something you scarcely have the means to so much as imagine, let alone comprehend.

Now how cool is _THAT?_


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"WASHINGTON -- Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who went to jail this month for refusing to follow the law and issue a marriage license to a gay couple, was given an award at Friday night's conservative Values Voter Summit."

Obviously respect for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law is not a value acknowledged by most conservatives.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "WASHINGTON -- Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who went to jail this month for refusing to follow the law and issue a marriage license to a gay couple, was given an award at Friday night's conservative Values Voter Summit."
> 
> Obviously ... conservatives.



Obviously.  And this because Americans; which is to say those who seek to conserve the principles upon which the US Constitution is founded... reject foolish case law that is inevitably used to federally license degeneracy, and the Relativism that formed the majority in those votes by 9 member panels, illicitly acting as Supreme Legislators, wholly outside of anything at kinship with: _American principle.

The thing to remember here, Reader, is that Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman._


----------



## dcraelin

TyroneSlothrop said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> "legal process ruling"?....that just sounds like legalese for lame excuse.
> 
> to be consistent all those saying she should resign should say the same about all the AGs who ignored the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No because the conflation you want to make makes no sense* ...No one has made any legal case pursuant to what you are saying..so that is simply your uninformed opinion..
> 
> *No  its not "legalese" actually its the rulings by  the method our Nation has used for two hundred years plus to resolve conflicts ...what is four years old is Numb nuts Kim Davis converting to some Apostolic sect.. Great you converted and now you want to run the  County Office according to your chosen Religion WTF is that ...Nonsense*
Click to expand...


I dont give a rat's ass if someone has made a legal case of it.............I'm talking about the hypocrisy of folks like you who condemn this woman who, for religious convictions, doesn't do one small aspect of her job......but you were most  likely  mum about AG's such as Brown not doing what he is hired by the people to do...what he probably took an OATH to do.

They had a simple work around option...which is now in place.....she was thrown in jail...when Brown faced no consequences, dont lawyers have something like a board of ethics?.....he should have been impeached and his law license taken away.


----------



## dcraelin

Wry Catcher said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> so its ok for Jerry Brown and other Attorney generals not to do their jobs and defend the laws of their states.......with no consequences whatsoever (to them anyway) ....but this woman needs to resign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There has been no legal  process ruling in the way you wish they would rule in any of those cases.  You just want to change the subject...
> 
> In the case though of Kim Davis there have been rulings that make her position impossible...she wants to "serve God" , her version of God  *BUT *she also at one and the same time wants to continue to be paid by taxes who after all are paid by all gay or straight or whatever...so therefore she needs to *resign for Jesus...Its not complicated ...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "legal process ruling"?....that just sounds like legalese for lame excuse.
> 
> to be consistent all those saying she should resign should say the same about all the AGs who ignored the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jerry Brown is a governor, not an AG (as suggested in your post prior the one directly above).
> 
> K. Harris is the AG of CA, and to my knowledge I do not know of any law either the Governor or the AG has violated.
> 
> If you have evidence post it, if it is your opinion, state why, if you lied or repeated a lie, STFU.
Click to expand...



He WAS AG,    Harris may be now and I believe did the same thing on the same case.......they took an oath of office which I believe they violated if not in letter then in spirit............they also should have faced disciplinary action by a board of ethics or something.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

dcraelin said:


> I dont give a rat's ass



Fortunately you are not the Constitution... The Constitution is the Rightful authority to organize and structure Government business not whoever happens to be the Clerk and his or her Religious or metaphysical beliefs new age or whatever...The Constitution rules....


----------



## dcraelin

TyroneSlothrop said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont give a rat's ass
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately you are not the Constitution... The Constitution is the Rightful authority to organize and structure Government business not whoever happens to be the Clerk and his or her Religious or metaphysical beliefs new age or whatever...The Constitution rules....
Click to expand...


I'm not arguing that point with you...I think your wrong on what the constitution says, but thats not the point 

The point I'm trying to make is people like you are being two-faced.....because you did not condemn AG's like Brown when he ALSO did not do his job.


----------

