Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?
You really want to talk about Thomas and Scalia??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.
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!
they perhaps knew the deck was rigged ,,yes.................and your "point" on Thomas and Scalia on guns was answered I believe
Kagan and Ginsburg were no more biased that Scalia and Thomas Here is Thomas on gay rights with Scalia also dissenting in both
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 themIn 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]
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" and 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!
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.
No, you're talking about a ridiculous lie you've contrived and are trying to propagate.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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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
>>>>
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
>>>>
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.They crucified Jesus, they imprisoned MLK for believing in something that offended and violated laws of the status quo.
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.
Provide the link to the modified court order.
Linking to the shit that comes out of your ass doesn't count.
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.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..
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...........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.
.
I think that you need to see the inside of a mental institutionThey 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.They crucified Jesus, they imprisoned MLK for believing in something that offended and violated laws of the status quo.
