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 two trying to "kill thread by manufactured flame war" again?
Tsk Tsk. I know the numbers in the poll at the top are rattling you. Got to keep those buried if the "most people support gay marriage" myth is to exact the "fake it till you make it" strategy, eh?
Meanwhile:
What would be interesting, legally speaking, would be to deny providing a wedding service to gay couples on religious grounds (Jude 1, New Testament) in a state where the electors decided to make marriage only legal between a man and a woman, like California or any of the other numerous states being told illegally that they don't have a right to have the "unquestioned authority" on gay marriage or not (Windsor 2013).As part of my business, I make cake toppers professionally. And many gay couples are willing to pay top dollar for my work.
Then the gay couple would sue, of course, and the business owner would defend, of course, and then the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court where it would be forced to determine two things.
1. If gay marriage was even legal in the state in question at the time and
2. If gays lifestyles have a right to force any person in the US to abdicate and defy core religious concepts of their faith via "public accomodation" laws.
It is only a myth to you because it doesn't fit your narrative. You have been shown countless polls from credible and scientific sources that state differently then what you claim. You've dismissed every single one. Instead you rely on a USMB poll that doesn't even ask about gay marriage, long lines at Chick-Fil-A, and Duck Dynasty Facebook "likes" as some sort of compelling evidence of your claim. It isn't compelling but you have every right to be willfully obtuse.
This is the intellect we have to work with.
In another thread, one of these retards is acting superior, while telling me that when I used the term "magnaminous" I was mispelling "monogamous" and I should return to school.
She didn't recognize the word magnaminous, or understand it's meaning, even in context.
Because they are straight up idiots.
Sadly they exist on both sides here to. Just dummies
No, primarily they exist on the left. They are uneducated ignorami who honestly believe that what they have picked up off youtube and middle school can be disguised as intelligence, knowledge, and education.
Rightwingers who are lacking in education do not typically try to convince people that they know more than they actually do.
And progressive douches actually think people can't see through their ignorance.
Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
In some instances, armed confrontation is.
The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.
Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.
Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.
Oh, that's the biggie with jury nullification, you are putting your fate in a jury's hands. If they don't decide the law is wrong you are about fucked because you basically admit your guilt when trying to get a jury to nullify. After all an argument of" I didn't do it, but in case you don't believe me nullify the law" isn't going to go very far.
You two trying to "kill thread by manufactured flame war" again?
Tsk Tsk. I know the numbers in the poll at the top are rattling you. Got to keep those buried if the "most people support gay marriage" myth is to exact the "fake it till you make it" strategy, eh?
Meanwhile:
What would be interesting, legally speaking, would be to deny providing a wedding service to gay couples on religious grounds (Jude 1, New Testament) in a state where the electors decided to make marriage only legal between a man and a woman, like California or any of the other numerous states being told illegally that they don't have a right to have the "unquestioned authority" on gay marriage or not (Windsor 2013).As part of my business, I make cake toppers professionally. And many gay couples are willing to pay top dollar for my work.
Then the gay couple would sue, of course, and the business owner would defend, of course, and then the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court where it would be forced to determine two things.
1. If gay marriage was even legal in the state in question at the time and
2. If gays lifestyles have a right to force any person in the US to abdicate and defy core religious concepts of their faith via "public accomodation" laws.
It is only a myth to you because it doesn't fit your narrative. You have been shown countless polls from credible and scientific sources that state differently then what you claim. You've dismissed every single one. Instead you rely on a USMB poll that doesn't even ask about gay marriage, long lines at Chick-Fil-A, and Duck Dynasty Facebook "likes" as some sort of compelling evidence of your claim. It isn't compelling but you have every right to be willfully obtuse.
This is the intellect we have to work with.
In another thread, one of these retards is acting superior, while telling me that when I used the term "magnaminous" I was mispelling "monogamous" and I should return to school.
She didn't recognize the word magnaminous, or understand it's meaning, even in context.
Because they are straight up idiots.
Sadly they exist on both sides here to. Just dummies
No, primarily they exist on the left. They are uneducated ignorami who honestly believe that what they have picked up off youtube and middle school can be disguised as intelligence, knowledge, and education.
Rightwingers who are lacking in education do not typically try to convince people that they know more than they actually do.
And progressive douches actually think people can't see through their ignorance.
You two trying to "kill thread by manufactured flame war" again?
Tsk Tsk. I know the numbers in the poll at the top are rattling you. Got to keep those buried if the "most people support gay marriage" myth is to exact the "fake it till you make it" strategy, eh?
Meanwhile:
What would be interesting, legally speaking, would be to deny providing a wedding service to gay couples on religious grounds (Jude 1, New Testament) in a state where the electors decided to make marriage only legal between a man and a woman, like California or any of the other numerous states being told illegally that they don't have a right to have the "unquestioned authority" on gay marriage or not (Windsor 2013).As part of my business, I make cake toppers professionally. And many gay couples are willing to pay top dollar for my work.
Then the gay couple would sue, of course, and the business owner would defend, of course, and then the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court where it would be forced to determine two things.
1. If gay marriage was even legal in the state in question at the time and
2. If gays lifestyles have a right to force any person in the US to abdicate and defy core religious concepts of their faith via "public accomodation" laws.
It is only a myth to you because it doesn't fit your narrative. You have been shown countless polls from credible and scientific sources that state differently then what you claim. You've dismissed every single one. Instead you rely on a USMB poll that doesn't even ask about gay marriage, long lines at Chick-Fil-A, and Duck Dynasty Facebook "likes" as some sort of compelling evidence of your claim. It isn't compelling but you have every right to be willfully obtuse.
This is the intellect we have to work with.
In another thread, one of these retards is acting superior, while telling me that when I used the term "magnaminous" I was mispelling "monogamous" and I should return to school.
She didn't recognize the word magnaminous, or understand it's meaning, even in context.
Because they are straight up idiots.
Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
In some instances, armed confrontation is.
You two trying to "kill thread by manufactured flame war" again?
Tsk Tsk. I know the numbers in the poll at the top are rattling you. Got to keep those buried if the "most people support gay marriage" myth is to exact the "fake it till you make it" strategy, eh?
Meanwhile:
What would be interesting, legally speaking, would be to deny providing a wedding service to gay couples on religious grounds (Jude 1, New Testament) in a state where the electors decided to make marriage only legal between a man and a woman, like California or any of the other numerous states being told illegally that they don't have a right to have the "unquestioned authority" on gay marriage or not (Windsor 2013).
Then the gay couple would sue, of course, and the business owner would defend, of course, and then the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court where it would be forced to determine two things.
1. If gay marriage was even legal in the state in question at the time and
2. If gays lifestyles have a right to force any person in the US to abdicate and defy core religious concepts of their faith via "public accomodation" laws.
It is only a myth to you because it doesn't fit your narrative. You have been shown countless polls from credible and scientific sources that state differently then what you claim. You've dismissed every single one. Instead you rely on a USMB poll that doesn't even ask about gay marriage, long lines at Chick-Fil-A, and Duck Dynasty Facebook "likes" as some sort of compelling evidence of your claim. It isn't compelling but you have every right to be willfully obtuse.
This is the intellect we have to work with.
In another thread, one of these retards is acting superior, while telling me that when I used the term "magnaminous" I was mispelling "monogamous" and I should return to school.
She didn't recognize the word magnaminous, or understand it's meaning, even in context.
Because they are straight up idiots.
Sadly they exist on both sides here to. Just dummies
No, primarily they exist on the left. They are uneducated ignorami who honestly believe that what they have picked up off youtube and middle school can be disguised as intelligence, knowledge, and education.
Rightwingers who are lacking in education do not typically try to convince people that they know more than they actually do.
And progressive douches actually think people can't see through their ignorance.
Oh, I don't know about that, look at idiots like Keys, at first glance he seems intelligent, but read his threads and its clear he isn't very smart.
On THAT front I think left/right are even on this board
Where the left has a HUGE lead is in the number of douches who lie and just ignore facts which run counter to their opinions.
Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
In some instances, armed confrontation is.
The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.
Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.
Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.
Oh, that's the biggie with jury nullification, you are putting your fate in a jury's hands. If they don't decide the law is wrong you are about fucked because you basically admit your guilt when trying to get a jury to nullify. After all an argument of" I didn't do it, but in case you don't believe me nullify the law" isn't going to go very far.
Yep- I am a big proponent of the right to peaceful civil disobedience- but I don't want to hear any whining from those who get arrested for it. IF you want to try to force change in the law by civil disobedience you need to be prepared for the consequences.
IF you are lucky enough to get jury nullification thats great. But the goal of civil disobedience is to change the law- not escape the consequences.
Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
In some instances, armed confrontation is.
The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.
Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.
Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.
It is only a myth to you because it doesn't fit your narrative. You have been shown countless polls from credible and scientific sources that state differently then what you claim. You've dismissed every single one. Instead you rely on a USMB poll that doesn't even ask about gay marriage, long lines at Chick-Fil-A, and Duck Dynasty Facebook "likes" as some sort of compelling evidence of your claim. It isn't compelling but you have every right to be willfully obtuse.
This is the intellect we have to work with.
In another thread, one of these retards is acting superior, while telling me that when I used the term "magnaminous" I was mispelling "monogamous" and I should return to school.
She didn't recognize the word magnaminous, or understand it's meaning, even in context.
Because they are straight up idiots.
Sadly they exist on both sides here to. Just dummies
No, primarily they exist on the left. They are uneducated ignorami who honestly believe that what they have picked up off youtube and middle school can be disguised as intelligence, knowledge, and education.
Rightwingers who are lacking in education do not typically try to convince people that they know more than they actually do.
And progressive douches actually think people can't see through their ignorance.
Oh, I don't know about that, look at idiots like Keys, at first glance he seems intelligent, but read his threads and its clear he isn't very smart.
On THAT front I think left/right are even on this board
Where the left has a HUGE lead is in the number of douches who lie and just ignore facts which run counter to their opinions.
I wonder how we could measure that- because by my vantage point the right as huge lead in both the number of douches who are just assholes- and who lie and ignore the facts.
Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
In some instances, armed confrontation is.
The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.
Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.
Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.
What makes the laws forbidding same sex marriage wrong? It sounds to me as if you think they are wrong because you disagree.
It's easy to see why those supporting same sex perversion use the courts. They know they can't get it done legislatively but can find one sympathizer to the cause.
You two trying to "kill thread by manufactured flame war" again?
Tsk Tsk. I know the numbers in the poll at the top are rattling you. Got to keep those buried if the "most people support gay marriage" myth is to exact the "fake it till you make it" strategy, eh?
Meanwhile:
What would be interesting, legally speaking, would be to deny providing a wedding service to gay couples on religious grounds (Jude 1, New Testament) in a state where the electors decided to make marriage only legal between a man and a woman, like California or any of the other numerous states being told illegally that they don't have a right to have the "unquestioned authority" on gay marriage or not (Windsor 2013).
Then the gay couple would sue, of course, and the business owner would defend, of course, and then the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court where it would be forced to determine two things.
1. If gay marriage was even legal in the state in question at the time and
2. If gays lifestyles have a right to force any person in the US to abdicate and defy core religious concepts of their faith via "public accomodation" laws.
It is only a myth to you because it doesn't fit your narrative. You have been shown countless polls from credible and scientific sources that state differently then what you claim. You've dismissed every single one. Instead you rely on a USMB poll that doesn't even ask about gay marriage, long lines at Chick-Fil-A, and Duck Dynasty Facebook "likes" as some sort of compelling evidence of your claim. It isn't compelling but you have every right to be willfully obtuse.
This is the intellect we have to work with.
In another thread, one of these retards is acting superior, while telling me that when I used the term "magnaminous" I was mispelling "monogamous" and I should return to school.
She didn't recognize the word magnaminous, or understand it's meaning, even in context.
Because they are straight up idiots.
Sadly they exist on both sides here to. Just dummies
No, primarily they exist on the left. They are uneducated ignorami who honestly believe that what they have picked up off youtube and middle school can be disguised as intelligence, knowledge, and education.
Rightwingers who are lacking in education do not typically try to convince people that they know more than they actually do.
And progressive douches actually think people can't see through their ignorance.
Oh, I don't know about that, look at idiots like Keys, at first glance he seems intelligent, but read his threads and its clear he isn't very smart.
On THAT front I think left/right are even on this board
Where the left has a HUGE lead is in the number of douches who lie and just ignore facts which run counter to their opinions.
This is the intellect we have to work with.
In another thread, one of these retards is acting superior, while telling me that when I used the term "magnaminous" I was mispelling "monogamous" and I should return to school.
She didn't recognize the word magnaminous, or understand it's meaning, even in context.
Because they are straight up idiots.
Sadly they exist on both sides here to. Just dummies
No, primarily they exist on the left. They are uneducated ignorami who honestly believe that what they have picked up off youtube and middle school can be disguised as intelligence, knowledge, and education.
Rightwingers who are lacking in education do not typically try to convince people that they know more than they actually do.
And progressive douches actually think people can't see through their ignorance.
Oh, I don't know about that, look at idiots like Keys, at first glance he seems intelligent, but read his threads and its clear he isn't very smart.
On THAT front I think left/right are even on this board
Where the left has a HUGE lead is in the number of douches who lie and just ignore facts which run counter to their opinions.
I wonder how we could measure that- because by my vantage point the right as huge lead in both the number of douches who are just assholes- and who lie and ignore the facts.
but youre a leftie, whereas I'm a moderate so your viewpoint is skewed and mine isn't.
I daresay you can't think of a single thing where "lefties" as a group on this board are worse than "righties" whereas I certainly can.
It is only a myth to you because it doesn't fit your narrative. You have been shown countless polls from credible and scientific sources that state differently then what you claim. You've dismissed every single one. Instead you rely on a USMB poll that doesn't even ask about gay marriage, long lines at Chick-Fil-A, and Duck Dynasty Facebook "likes" as some sort of compelling evidence of your claim. It isn't compelling but you have every right to be willfully obtuse.
This is the intellect we have to work with.
In another thread, one of these retards is acting superior, while telling me that when I used the term "magnaminous" I was mispelling "monogamous" and I should return to school.
She didn't recognize the word magnaminous, or understand it's meaning, even in context.
Because they are straight up idiots.
Sadly they exist on both sides here to. Just dummies
No, primarily they exist on the left. They are uneducated ignorami who honestly believe that what they have picked up off youtube and middle school can be disguised as intelligence, knowledge, and education.
Rightwingers who are lacking in education do not typically try to convince people that they know more than they actually do.
And progressive douches actually think people can't see through their ignorance.
Oh, I don't know about that, look at idiots like Keys, at first glance he seems intelligent, but read his threads and its clear he isn't very smart.
On THAT front I think left/right are even on this board
Where the left has a HUGE lead is in the number of douches who lie and just ignore facts which run counter to their opinions.
ROFLMNAO!
Calm down scamp. Just because I'm here, doesn't mean that you're somehow reduced.
Their opinions are their lies. Such is the nature of the douche and that's truly all there is to it.
Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
Sadly they exist on both sides here to. Just dummies
No, primarily they exist on the left. They are uneducated ignorami who honestly believe that what they have picked up off youtube and middle school can be disguised as intelligence, knowledge, and education.
Rightwingers who are lacking in education do not typically try to convince people that they know more than they actually do.
And progressive douches actually think people can't see through their ignorance.
Oh, I don't know about that, look at idiots like Keys, at first glance he seems intelligent, but read his threads and its clear he isn't very smart.
On THAT front I think left/right are even on this board
Where the left has a HUGE lead is in the number of douches who lie and just ignore facts which run counter to their opinions.
I wonder how we could measure that- because by my vantage point the right as huge lead in both the number of douches who are just assholes- and who lie and ignore the facts.
but youre a leftie, whereas I'm a moderate so your viewpoint is skewed and mine isn't.
I daresay you can't think of a single thing where "lefties" as a group on this board are worse than "righties" whereas I certainly can.
Oh I certainly can.
But you see- I am a moderate liberal.
And you are not.
Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
In some instances, armed confrontation is.
Who determines whether or not it's a bad law, YOU? Seems you are saying if you don't like it you can disobey it and not be punished. You are more than welcome to use civil disobedience to protest what you call bad laws or overreach. However, that doens't mean you are exempt from being punished for it.
Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
In some instances, armed confrontation is.
The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.
Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.
Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.
What makes the laws forbidding same sex marriage wrong? It sounds to me as if you think they are wrong because you disagree.
.
Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
In some instances, armed confrontation is.
The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.
Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.
Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.
Oh, that's the biggie with jury nullification, you are putting your fate in a jury's hands. If they don't decide the law is wrong you are about fucked because you basically admit your guilt when trying to get a jury to nullify. After all an argument of" I didn't do it, but in case you don't believe me nullify the law" isn't going to go very far.
Yep- I am a big proponent of the right to peaceful civil disobedience- but I don't want to hear any whining from those who get arrested for it. IF you want to try to force change in the law by civil disobedience you need to be prepared for the consequences.
IF you are lucky enough to get jury nullification thats great. But the goal of civil disobedience is to change the law- not escape the consequences.
The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.
Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
In some instances, armed confrontation is.
The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.
Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.
Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.
Oh, that's the biggie with jury nullification, you are putting your fate in a jury's hands. If they don't decide the law is wrong you are about fucked because you basically admit your guilt when trying to get a jury to nullify. After all an argument of" I didn't do it, but in case you don't believe me nullify the law" isn't going to go very far.
Yep- I am a big proponent of the right to peaceful civil disobedience- but I don't want to hear any whining from those who get arrested for it. IF you want to try to force change in the law by civil disobedience you need to be prepared for the consequences.
IF you are lucky enough to get jury nullification thats great. But the goal of civil disobedience is to change the law- not escape the consequences.
The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.
Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
In some instances, armed confrontation is.
The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.
Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.
Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.
Oh, that's the biggie with jury nullification, you are putting your fate in a jury's hands. If they don't decide the law is wrong you are about fucked because you basically admit your guilt when trying to get a jury to nullify. After all an argument of" I didn't do it, but in case you don't believe me nullify the law" isn't going to go very far.
Yep- I am a big proponent of the right to peaceful civil disobedience- but I don't want to hear any whining from those who get arrested for it. IF you want to try to force change in the law by civil disobedience you need to be prepared for the consequences.
IF you are lucky enough to get jury nullification thats great. But the goal of civil disobedience is to change the law- not escape the consequences.
The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.
Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
