If Justice Kennedy Had Known A Christian Would Be Jailed Less Than 3 Months Later...

[WorldWatcher]

And so far, no justices have approved it. Every petition to request a writ of certiorari by the court has been denied by the court. She's lost every federal ruling.

Just to point out. No writ of certiorari has been rejected by the SCOTUS in the Davis case.

A stay request was rejected by the District Court Judge, rejected twice by the 6th Circuit Court, and rejected once by the SCOTUS.

We are at the preliminary injunction level, full hearings on the case and issuance of a permanent injunction I believe are still future actions. Once that case is decided in the District Court, then there will be an appeal to the 6th Circuit and then a full appeal to the SCOTUS.

(Now since the SCOTUS has denied a stay in the preliminary, it doesn't look good, just pointing out that a request for a stay is not the same thing as an appeal based on a writ.)

>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

And so far, no justices have approved it. Every petition to request a writ of certiorari by the court has been denied by the court. She's lost every federal ruling.

Just to point out. No writ of certiorari has been rejected by the SCOTUS in the Davis case....A stay request was rejected by the District Court Judge, rejected twice by the 6th Circuit Court, and rejected once by the SCOTUS....We are at the preliminary injunction level, full hearings on the case and issuance of a permanent injunction I believe are still future actions. Once that case is decided in the District Court, then there will be an appeal to the 6th Circuit and then a full appeal to the SCOTUS....(Now since the SCOTUS has denied a stay in the preliminary, it doesn't look good, just pointing out that a request for a stay is not the same thing as an appeal based on a writ.)

Thank you for that breath of fresh air of rare honesty from the LGBT fold.

Though we disagree about the part in bold because of Kennedy's June 2015 Opinion's words:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons." http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kennedy's opinion in June in no way gives a logical mind any hope for the overturning of marriage equality.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Thank you for that breath of fresh air of rare honesty from the LGBT fold.

In all honesty it still doesn't look good for the pro-discrimination fold.

Kennedy did not say that an agent of the government could not only refuse to do their jobs but order their subordinates not to do their jobs either. Ms. Davis has already had a stay appeal before the SCOTUS and that request was denied.

So assuming that the 4 Justices that voted against SSCM (Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts) that means that at the very least the 5 other Justices voted to deny the stay. Kennedy would have been in that group. So your claim that a government agent can use their position to discriminate is wrong.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Thank you for that breath of fresh air of rare honesty from the LGBT fold.

In all honesty it still doesn't look good for the pro-discrimination fold.

One man's "pro-discimination" is another man's "pro-child".. The question is...which side of history do you want to come down on?... Conservative State Challenge: "The Child-Protective/Fiscal-Future Marriage Act" | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[JakeStarkey]

That question has already been decided, Sil.

 

[Silhouette]

That question has already been decided, Sil.

Yes, only without the consideration of children. That's going to change. Do you think the SCOTUS doesn't have power to modify their decision? Ever? Really? Better get working on that 2016 campaign..

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS changes opinions, yes.

Almost no liklihood, despite how the election of 2016 turns out, exists for reversing marriage equality.

 

[Silhouette]

SCOTUS changes opinions, yes.

Almost no liklihood, despite how the election of 2016 turns out, exists for reversing marriage equality.

Well a contract was changed and forced upon the states as forever changed, to the detriment of one of the most important parties to the contract and without a discussion at length at all as to how the physical changes to that contract might affect them, and later the states that would have to pay for them as they become injured as a direct result of that change to the contract they are a party to.

So, don't hold your breath there pal..

Pretty sure there is case law that says a party to a contract with a dominant concern to is details cannot be wholly excluded from deliberations as to how that change of contract, without their permission, might adversely affect their wellbeing. Contract lawyers? Want to start looking up that case law?

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS changes opinions, yes.

Almost no liklihood, despite how the election of 2016 turns out, exists for reversing marriage equality.

Well a contract was changed and forced upon the states as forever changed, to the detriment of one of the most important parties to the contract and without a discussion at length at all as to how the physical changes to that contract might affect them, and later the states that would have to pay for them as they become injured as a direct result of that change to the contract they are a party to.

So, don't hold your breath there pal..

Pretty sure there is case law that says a party to a contract with a dominant concern to is details cannot be wholly excluded from deliberations as to how that change of contract, without their permission, might adversely affect their wellbeing. Contract lawyers? Want to start looking up that case law?

Pal, no contract was changed. Marriage is marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

SCOTUS changes opinions, yes.

Almost no liklihood, despite how the election of 2016 turns out, exists for reversing marriage equality.

Well a contract was changed and forced upon the states as forever changed, to the detriment of one of the most important parties to the contract and without a discussion at length at all as to how the physical changes to that contract might affect them, and later the states that would have to pay for them as they become injured as a direct result of that change to the contract they are a party to.

So, don't hold your breath there pal..

Pretty sure there is case law that says a party to a contract with a dominant concern to is details cannot be wholly excluded from deliberations as to how that change of contract, without their permission, might adversely affect their wellbeing. Contract lawyers? Want to start looking up that case law?

Pal, no contract was changed. Marriage is marriage.

When the SCOTUS made their June 2015 Decision, they unilaterally nullified states' specific terms of the marriage contract ensconced in law which said "marriage is only between a man and a woman".

Therefore, a contract WAS CHANGED to the detriment of an absent and most important party to that contract in deliberation. Was a gaurdian ad litem present at the Hearing last Spring on June's decision? No? That's illegal. The party to the contract didn't even have a guardian or representative speaking on their behalf. Was any discussion on transcripts of how it would affect boys not having fathers or girls not having mothers? No? Then the Decision was in violation of contract law.

They changed the specific terms of a contract to the detriment of one of the parties who was absent in legal presence. Which attorneys were present arguing for the best welfare of children to the proposed change of contract terms?

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS did no such thing. It acknowledged the civil right of marriage.

 

[Faun]

SCOTUS changes opinions, yes.

Almost no liklihood, despite how the election of 2016 turns out, exists for reversing marriage equality.

Well a contract was changed and forced upon the states as forever changed, to the detriment of one of the most important parties to the contract and without a discussion at length at all as to how the physical changes to that contract might affect them, and later the states that would have to pay for them as they become injured as a direct result of that change to the contract they are a party to.

So, don't hold your breath there pal..

Pretty sure there is case law that says a party to a contract with a dominant concern to is details cannot be wholly excluded from deliberations as to how that change of contract, without their permission, might adversely affect their wellbeing. Contract lawyers? Want to start looking up that case law?

Pal, no contract was changed. Marriage is marriage.

When the SCOTUS made their June 2015 Decision, they unilaterally nullified states' specific terms of the marriage contract ensconced in law which said "marriage is only between a man and a woman".

Therefore, a contract WAS CHANGED to the detriment of an absent and most important party to that contract in deliberation. Was a gaurdian ad litem present at the Hearing last Spring on June's decision? No? That's illegal. The party to the contract didn't even have a guardian or representative speaking on their behalf. Was any discussion on transcripts of how it would affect boys not having fathers or girls not having mothers? No? Then the Decision was in violation of contract law.

They changed the specific terms of a contract to the detriment of one of the parties who was absent in legal presence. Which attorneys were present arguing for the best welfare of children to the proposed change of contract terms?

 

[Debra K]

SCOTUS changes opinions, yes.

Almost no liklihood, despite how the election of 2016 turns out, exists for reversing marriage equality.

Well a contract was changed and forced upon the states as forever changed, to the detriment of one of the most important parties to the contract and without a discussion at length at all as to how the physical changes to that contract might affect them, and later the states that would have to pay for them as they become injured as a direct result of that change to the contract they are a party to.

So, don't hold your breath there pal..

Pretty sure there is case law that says a party to a contract with a dominant concern to is details cannot be wholly excluded from deliberations as to how that change of contract, without their permission, might adversely affect their wellbeing. Contract lawyers? Want to start looking up that case law?

Pal, no contract was changed. Marriage is marriage.

When the SCOTUS made their June 2015 Decision, they unilaterally nullified states' specific terms of the marriage contract ensconced in law which said "marriage is only between a man and a woman".

Therefore, a contract WAS CHANGED to the detriment of an absent and most important party to that contract in deliberation. Was a gaurdian ad litem present at the Hearing last Spring on June's decision? No? That's illegal. The party to the contract didn't even have a guardian or representative speaking on their behalf. Was any discussion on transcripts of how it would affect boys not having fathers or girls not having mothers? No? Then the Decision was in violation of contract law.

They changed the specific terms of a contract to the detriment of one of the parties who was absent in legal presence. Which attorneys were present arguing for the best welfare of children to the proposed change of contract terms?

Children are not parties to any marriage contract, silly.

 

[Silhouette]

Children are the reason marriage was created and perpetuated for thousands of years you idiot Debra. They are undeniably a de facto party to the marriage contract. In fact, they are THE party to the marriage contract with the adults playing secondary roles. If you doubt this, go to a family law court and see which party gets the most air time.

SCOTUS did no such thing. It acknowledged the civil right of marriage.

No, it FUNDAMENTALLY changed marriage's key physical structure by mandate on all 50 states to remove either a mother or a father to the other parties to the contract: children....without their being represented in the debate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, you are sounding shriller now.

No child is ever a party to marriage: you sound creepy.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, you are sounding shriller now.

No child is ever a party to marriage: you sound creepy.

Then I guess all that family court stuff sifting out things for the best benefit of the children upon divorce can all be discarded...?

They are a part of the contract. In fact, the contract was started because of them, for them and about them in preponderence. They are the hub of the family. They are de facto parties to the contract, the most important ones.

 

[CowboyTed]

Listen dick for brains...

There is very little in the bible about gay marriage but there is plenty about no to divorce...

Please stop telling us this is a religious thing when it is a bigot thing....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, you are sounding shriller now.

No child is ever a party to marriage: you sound creepy.

Then I guess all that family court stuff sifting out things for the best benefit of the children upon divorce can all be discarded...?

They are a part of the contract. In fact, the contract was started because of them, for them and about them in preponderence. They are the hub of the family. They are de facto parties to the contract, the most important ones.

You are flatly creepy. Your precept for marriage exists only in your mind, not in our law or in our culture. There is no such contract except in your shadowy mind.

 

[Silhouette]

Listen dick for brains...

There is very little in the bible about gay marriage but there is plenty about no to divorce...

Please stop telling us this is a religious thing when it is a bigot thing....

It could be a "bigot thing" if you like. Sure, why not. People are allowed to be bigoted when it comes to behaviors. We have entire rafts of "bigoted laws" on the penal and civil code books. Laws are all about discrimination in behaviors. So sure, call it bigoted. Why not? We aren't talking about race after all.

And because we're not talking about race, Kim Davis had every right to be "bigoted". That is to say she had every right to discriminate against a PA law that requires her to play along with demented behaviors as a cult. In her faith it is warned not as a venial sin but as a mortal sin that promoting homosexuality as normal gets your soul eternity in the pit of fire. She made the correct choice.