calfoxwc Posted September 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 6, 2015 NO. Don't go blathering about the 14th Amendment on this issue. LISTEN to an EXPERT https://sp.yimg.com/...K0xlbw&pid=15.1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 6, 2015 and Justice Alito is on my side, too. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/samuel-alito-supreme-court-gay-marriage-ruling-liberty/399008/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 6, 2015 and Justice Thomas is also on my side: http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2704565-155/lowry-justice-thomas-is-right-about http://teaattrianon.blogspot.com/2015/07/justice-clarence-thomas-and-human.html "What exactly did Justice Thomas, formerly a Reagan-appointed head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, say that was so incendiary? Thomas wrote: The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits. The Framers created our Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty. Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a “liberty” that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along the way, it rejects the idea — captured in our Declaration of Independence — that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government. The Declaration of Independence famously states “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”.Thomas continued: …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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted September 6, 2015 Report Share Posted September 6, 2015 NO. Don't go blathering about the 14th Amendment on this issue. LISTEN to an EXPERT https://sp.yimg.com/...K0xlbw&pid=15.1 Except you are overlooking one tiny detail. Those opinions from those justices you mentioned were dissenting opinions, which are issued along with every Supreme Court ruling. The other FIVE Justices also issued what is called a "Majority opinion" on the ruling. Now, I know those folks on FoxNews would have you believe otherwise, but here in America, the majority opinion is the legally-binding opinion of the Supreme Court. And seeing as how you are a rube who ceaselessly copies and pastes links to any Tea-bag nut-job websites, of which who's opinions you incessantly trumpet as "facts", I decided to simply post this link from Wikipedia, another of your go-to "sources", for you, describing what a majority opinion actually is in the U.S., and hopefully, you'll be able to digest the concept: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_opinion Now, did you happen to see the part where it states that the majority opinion sets forth the decision of the Supreme Court? That is the gem you overlooked before you went on your diatribe. Those judges issued a dissenting opinion, but it is not legally binding. And as the legal entity, the nine Justices of the Supreme Court as a whole found the 14th Amendment DOES indeed pertain to this case. So, good sir, may I suggest that instead of wasting your time and effort endlessly combing through webpage after webpage of vitriolic Tea Party nonsense looking for quotes filled with "action words" that you use to prop up your "house of cards" reasoning, that you instead use the time to read a basic middle school civics book to learn how the government actually works? JB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 6, 2015 Well, thanks for being so verbose - you've been reminding me of woody. The point is, you can't argue the legitimacy of the dissenting opinions. As to "hahahaha the majority ruled".... they ruled about the 2nd Amendment, too, eh? Yet the left couldn't care less. So, jblu, your childish pogo stick blather tells me you most certainly did not listen to any of the links I posted. Too bad, you'd learn something besides emotionalistic wetting of your pants. The Supreme Court is not the end-all of legitimacy. Regarding my point about the 2nd Amendment, that is THERE. There is no amendment for redefining marriage. But eventually, there will be, I think. Or, perhaps you are a racist? Check it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson Or do you think that the Plessy vs Ferguson Supreme Court decision was a good one? It was reversed many years later. So, either you are a racist, or you admit that your childish and ignorant gloating about a subjective, amendment-unsubstantiated decision about marriage isn't the end-all. Listen to the link by Mark Levin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 6, 2015 "Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), was alandmark United States Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of state laws requiringracial segregation in public facilities under the doctrine of "separate but equal".[1] The decision was handed down by a vote of 7 to 1 with the majority opinion written by Justice Henry Billings Brown and the dissent written by Justice John Marshall Harlan. "Separate but equal" remained standard doctrine in U.S. law until its repudiation in the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education.[2]" ***************************** Will the Jblue gentleman from the "grate" state of stupor, please decide.... Is he "KKK" ...or he admits his whole rebuttal is nonsense? (and yes, "grate" instead of "great" was intentional, since your ignorance would grate a lesser man's nerves.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 6, 2015 I guess jblue hates Martin Luther King, Jr. for being black... “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law”― Martin Luther King Jr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 6, 2015 http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/09/04/gay-rights-attorney-on-jailed-kentucky-clerk-we-dont-want-to-make-her-a-martyr/ Alabama Probate Judge Nick Williams said he called Davis the night before she was jailed, telling her he admires her resolve, and that he too would rather go to prison than resign or relent. His resolve has yet to be tested: no same-sex couples have sought a license from his office in rural Washington County, home to about 17,000 people. Still, Williams compared Davis to Daniel, the Old Testament hero who was thrown into a lion’s den for refusing to abandon his faith, but with God’s blessing, emerged unscathed. “I hate the fact that she went to jail, but maybe, just maybe, this will wake America up,” Williams said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted September 6, 2015 Report Share Posted September 6, 2015 Well, thanks for being so verbose - you've been reminding me of woody. The point is, you can't argue the legitimacy of the dissenting opinions. Then what was the point of your babbling about the dissenting opinions from the Supreme Court Justices? After all, you claimed that they were experts and on your side, leading any rationally thinking person to believe that you were using their opinions to legitimize your claim. Argumentum ad verecundiam? As to "hahahaha the majority ruled".... they ruled about the 2nd Amendment, too, eh? Yes. There have been many rulings on the 2nd amendment. Yet I fail to see your logic in mentioning that in a debate about gay marriage and the 14th Amendment? Yet the left couldn't care less. Maybe so, but I'm not strictly a leftist, nor have I proclaimed to be so. I too own guns, but again, back to the task at hand. So, jblu, your childish pogo stick blather tells me you most certainly did not listen to any of the links I posted. No I did not. I am at work, so while I may be able to spare a few moments to respond to your ramblings, I cannot spare the time to go in depth into the Tea Party hive mind. My loss I suppose. Too bad, you'd learn something besides emotionalistic wetting of your pants. The Supreme Court is not the end-all of legitimacy. I never claimed them to be so, nor do I believe they did either. Their ruling can be overturned by another Supreme Court ruling, or a constitutional amendment. Again, very valuable information to be found in a middle school civics book. Regarding my point about the 2nd Amendment, that is THERE. Where is "THERE" supposed to lead me? There is no amendment for redefining marriage. But eventually, there will be, I think. Not as long as there are rationally thinking people who judge their peers on their merits as a person, and not about the gender of the consenting adults they choose to have sex with. Or, perhaps you are a racist? No sir, I'm not. And it is rather cheap and disgusting of you to make the insinuation that I am, and it only further highlights your grasping any straw within arms reach to try to support your feeble argument. Check it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson Or do you think that the Plessy vs Ferguson Supreme Court decision was a good one? No, I do not. It was a disgraceful ruling that continued to legitimize the appalling institution of slavery. An institution, while we're on the subject, supported by men who cherry picked quotes from the bible to lend themselves creditability in their continued support of slavery. It was reversed many years later. Yes it was, and it cost the lives of many brave young men on both sides and the blood and lamentation from many civilian families as well, and you shame yourself by using their suffering to try to make a blatantly false accusation against me with it. So, either you are a racist, or you admit that your childish and ignorant gloating about a subjective, I must do neither, since I'm neither a racist, nor am I gloating, you simpleton. My arguments have been supported by real facts, not opinions. Time for you to go back to your chalkboard, Glen Beck amendment-unsubstantiated decision about marriage isn't the end-all. Listen to the link by Mark Levin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 6, 2015 ya. I just asked the question. I'm glad you agree with me, that the perversion of the institution of real marriage, was just a ...possibly/probably.... temporary culture win for the left per the radical activist wingnuts on the Supreme Court. So, you agreed with me about the Supreme Court ruling - thereby answering the question about being a racist with a "No". I'm glad. Most folks were fine with civil unions. Now, it's an extremely divisive clusterfook. And, thanks for proving me correct. You didn't watch the links. Yet your rebuttle, such as it technically is, was long enough to have listened to a good part of it. But being at work.... I've heard that excuse before. Get back to me AFTER your listen to the links, and you will see exactly what I'm saying. As to your point about my point about the 2nd Amendment... Note that I specifically noted, that the 2nd Amendment supports the Supreme Court's decision. There is NO freaking nothing about redefining real Marriage in the Constitution. not one syllable. There is no amendment outlawing the infringement of what the definition of real marriage is. Any argument made on behalf of perverting the institution of real marriage, also can be made for father-daughter, mulitple wives/husbands, cousins, adult-minor... etc etc. Society with no power to establish moral limits, is subject to being no society at all. There, I just made that up, but it's true. The left is pushing the culture war past the point of tolerance of the rest of America. Now, don't you be a-discussin any subjects with me while at work - I don't want to see that you end up unemployed. Well, maybe you are self-employed, in that case, never mind. I'm retired, I can do this dumb stuff - I worked for hours in the sun, 90 degrees, until I was told in no uncertain terms to get myself back in the house and have a late lunch. Well, I started earlier in the morning - it isn't like I started at noon. And I crashed on the great room floor while we were watching TV after pizza. I was only cutting up a few of the big trees I felled two months ago, out in the farmer's field. So, now, I'm awake.... Have a nice day, and you can just say you're sorry you were wrong after listening to the links I posted; I'm good at accepting apologies.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted September 6, 2015 Report Share Posted September 6, 2015 Jbluh, LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted September 6, 2015 Report Share Posted September 6, 2015 Jbluhm, welcome to annoying hell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 6, 2015 Posted Today, 01:06 PM Jbluhm, welcome to annoying hell + (caused by myself and you.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted September 6, 2015 Report Share Posted September 6, 2015 Posted Today, 01:06 PM Jbluhm, welcome to annoying hell + (caused by myself and you.) 2 little pants pissers, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted September 7, 2015 Report Share Posted September 7, 2015 Then there's this: http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2015/sep/03/judge-declines-divorce-case-citing-gay-marria/323201/ "A local judge contends the U.S. Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage has derailed Tennessee's ability to determine what constitutes divorce — leaving one Signal Mountain couple married against their will. ... "The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces," Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted September 7, 2015 Report Share Posted September 7, 2015 interesting, its kind of a reverse activist judge - like the California courts that overturned the traditional marriage vote PASSED by its citizens. but Atherton didnt explain himself too much - and nor does he have to!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted September 7, 2015 Report Share Posted September 7, 2015 HUH! Madonna's brother Christopher Ciccone http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/madonnas-brother-defends-jailed-clerk-820753 "Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners," he continued. "Is it so difficult to allow this women her religion? Or must we destroy her in order for her to betray her faith. No matter how we judge, it's truth. The rights we have all fought for, mean nothing, if we deny her hers." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted September 7, 2015 Report Share Posted September 7, 2015 HUH! Madonna's brother Christopher Ciccone http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/madonnas-brother-defends-jailed-clerk-820753 "Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners," he continued. "Is it so difficult to allow this women her religion? Or must we destroy her in order for her to betray her faith. No matter how we judge, it's truth. The rights we have all fought for, mean nothing, if we deny her hers." Well we all know that one gay dude who is the brother to a moron attention seeker definitely speaks for the entire gay community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted September 7, 2015 Report Share Posted September 7, 2015 I look at that the same way I do supposed gun rights activist who push for "sensible gun restrictions". You might claim to be part of the team but your opinion is dog shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted September 7, 2015 Report Share Posted September 7, 2015 Im not sure If I understand your sarcasm on Ciccone - and I normally dont give a rats ass on what they think in real life, but I think Rush Limbaugh is right when he says the majority of the gay community do not like the militant media attention that they garnered for themselves. They (gay ) would rather live out a quiet life and have no conflict. And for Ciccone to say what he did is probably what they mostly think and say - except for the attention whorish media and the LGBT agenda? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted September 7, 2015 Report Share Posted September 7, 2015 HUH! Madonna's brother Christopher Ciccone http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/madonnas-brother-defends-jailed-clerk-820753 "Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners," he continued. "Is it so difficult to allow this women her religion? Or must we destroy her in order for her to betray her faith. No matter how we judge, it's truth. The rights we have all fought for, mean nothing, if we deny her hers." That family isn't too smart apparently. I don't think he understands she's an elected official that they can't just fire. If this were private enterprise and she didn't want to do something that was perfectly legal and her employer wanted her do it, but she wouldn't based on her religious affiliations....she would be let go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 7, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 7, 2015 So if a liberal Supreme Court said it was allowed, for adults to marry sheep and little children.... would anybody here go ahead and issue licenses for those? If not, where DO you draw the line ? why should Christians, if they have to leave their gov jobs over this, be subjected to atheist influence in decisions in the same job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted September 7, 2015 Report Share Posted September 7, 2015 So if a liberal Supreme Court said it was allowed, for adults to marry sheep and little children.... would anybody here go ahead and issue licenses for those? If not, where DO you draw the line ? why should Christians, if they have to leave their gov jobs over this, be subjected to atheist influence in decisions in the same job? Given that kids and Lassie can't agree to being in a relationship with an adult, I don't think that would pass muster with the SCOTUS. Giving a basic rights to a group where no one is harmed is a fair bit different than raping kids. Also, if they let Kim Davis get by with this they are opening a Pandora's box of any civil servant of any religion being able to refuse service based on their own personal religious beliefs. Just trying to deal with government under normal circumstances is a shit show. Having to tip toe through a mine field of personal preferences would make it non-functioning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted September 7, 2015 Report Share Posted September 7, 2015 With this clerk of courts going to jail I could understand the argument we are a nation of laws and everyone must obey the law however that is NOT the case anymore. Why aren't city leaders hauled off to jail for not obeying immigration laws and setting up illegal sanctuary cities? Why are illegals coming across the border rewarded instead of facing punishment? We have a president who thinks he can set his own immigration laws and bypass congress. We have a dept of justice that enforces laws they want and ignores those they don't like......but let a county clerk refuse to issue a marriage license to gays and she goes straight to jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted September 7, 2015 Report Share Posted September 7, 2015 With this clerk of courts going to jail I could understand the argument we are a nation of laws and everyone must obey the law however that is NOT the case anymore. Why aren't city leaders hauled off to jail for not obeying immigration laws and setting up illegal sanctuary cities? Why are illegals coming across the border rewarded instead of facing punishment? We have a president who thinks he can set his own immigration laws and bypass congress. We have a dept of justice that enforces laws they want and ignores those they don't like......but let a county clerk refuse to issue a marriage license to gays and she goes straight to jail. All of them should go to jail or resign. Do your job. Whether you are Kim Davis or some bleeding heart who refuses to deport illegals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted September 7, 2015 Report Share Posted September 7, 2015 or she just be civilly disobedient and let the Ky voters decide? meanwhile she sits in jail over her moral objection- her right, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted September 7, 2015 Report Share Posted September 7, 2015 or she just be civilly disobedient and let the Ky voters decide? meanwhile she sits in jail over her moral objection- her right, right? If you leave civil rights up to the voters, Jim Crow would have been the law of the land in the south till today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted September 8, 2015 Report Share Posted September 8, 2015 So if a liberal Supreme Court said it was allowed, for adults to marry sheep and little children.... would anybody here go ahead and issue licenses for those? If not, where DO you draw the line ? why should Christians, if they have to leave their gov jobs over this, be subjected to atheist influence in decisions in the same job? A fair question, 30 or so years ago. What you dont' understand is that the rest of the country has now had experience with these people and they don't equate two gay people wanting to get married with someone wanting to impose their will on another being like an animal or a small child. You really are an offensive individual Cal. Like some toothless old letch out of a medievel movie that the main character encounters under a bridge and it tries to leacherously dissuade our hero from his noble journey or some shit like that. I mean really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted September 8, 2015 Report Share Posted September 8, 2015 Just trying to deal with government under normal circumstances is a shit show. Having to tip toe through a mine field of personal preferences would make it non-functioning. drop the mic, this discussion is over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted September 8, 2015 Report Share Posted September 8, 2015 why should Christians, if they have to leave their gov jobs over this, be subjected to atheist influence in decisions in the same job? Because, as much as it seems to ruffle your jammies, this country's laws are not based on the Christian flavor of sharia law that yourself and many other Christian fundamentalists seem dead-set on trying to push on everybody. It'd be a different story if the government was trying to force churches or mosques or synagogues to marry gay couples against their religious beliefs, but the government was designed to be secular and separate from religious influence. And conversely, why should homosexual couples be subjected to the Christian doctrines on marriage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.