Jim Bunning RIP [Archive] - Debate Policy

Perianne

09-03-2015, 01:28 PM

The son of a former great senator from Kentucky jailed a Kentucky county clerk for refusing to marry sodomites. No doubt Jim Bunning is rolling in his grave.

ASHLAND, Ky. — A Kentucky county clerk was found in contempt of court (http://cjky.it/1UtXv2u)Thursday for her refusal to issue marriage licenses in wake of the Supreme Court decision to allow gays to wed.

U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning placed Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis in the custody of U.S. marshals until she complies, saying fines were not enough to force her to comply with his previous order to provide the paperwork to all couples and allowing her to defy the order would create a "ripple effect."

"Her good-faith belief is simply not a viable defense," Bunning said. "Oaths mean things."

Davis, who was tearful at times, testified that she could not obey the order because God's law trumps the court.

"My conscience will not allow it," she said. "God's moral law convicts me and conflicts with my duties."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/09/03/rowan-county-ky-court-clerk-marriage-licenses-gays/71635794/

Perianne

09-03-2015, 01:31 PM

jimnyc

09-03-2015, 01:34 PM

I dunno, I don't think that's gonna cut it. I'm confident that this is law now. While I feel for her, and her beliefs, she's going to have to make a choice soon, to either comply, or quit her job (or perhaps get fired?).

Black Diamond

09-03-2015, 01:47 PM

This is why voting matters. I am sure Ruth Babykiller Ginsberg will retire during Obama's term and will be replaced by another vile human being, just as Souter and Stevens were.

Noir

09-03-2015, 05:12 PM

That simple question is giving many in Congress a civics lesson that they never got in grade school.

The Supreme Court cannot and did not make a law. They only made a ruling on a law. Congress makes the laws. Because Congress has made no law allowing for same-sex marriage, Kim does not have the Constitutional authority to issue a marriage license to homosexual couples."

So, avail me of an american civics lesson, is a civil right not a civil right if it is not outlined by a congressional law?

I fear the woman involved maybe suffering from some grandiose delusions...

...calling herself a vessel that the Lord has chosen for this time and place...

Perianne

09-03-2015, 06:44 PM

So, avail me of an american civics lesson, is a civil right not a civil right if it is not outlined by a congressional law?

I fear the woman involved maybe suffering from some grandiose delusions...

Marriage in Kentucky is (rightfully) defined as between a man and a woman.

Per the Kentucky Constitution:

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Legresou/Constitu/233A.htm

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a
marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that
of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.

The U.S. Congress has not passed a law that supercedes the Kentucky law.

red state

09-03-2015, 06:47 PM

So, avail me of an american civics lesson, is a civil right not a civil right if it is not outlined by a congressional law? I fear the woman involved maybe suffering from some grandiose delusions...

Noir, unlike the average liberal puke (NO, I'm not labeling you on this one), but on average, most men & women of (B A C K B O N E), character, & ethics, at least have a thin red line that is NEVER CROSSED, never twisted and, most certainly, never broken.

Having said this, where do YOU draw the line? A women & two men licenses? How about a 10 young beautiful women and one ugly wealthy old Mormon man (or women in keeping with PC crap)? Heck.....why not issue a license to 20 men and 20 women who are all "consenting adults". If you agree to all then you are the average, do-it-in-the-road liberal puke (many of which believe that proven intelligent animals can through sign language consent to marry a human). If you agree to only a few scenarios listed above, without endorsing ALL perversions, while zealously protecting ONLY one perversion such as homosexuality........then you are as bigoted as a Conservative is labeled by the liberal pukes. Why deny a Mormon his/her rights to marry MANY "partners"?

If you at least do have a backbone and actually have a line that you are not willing or comfortable in crossing.....I will admire you more for having some sort of standards BUT, that does place you in the same boat as those who do not support the perversion of homosexuality.

Perianne

09-04-2015, 02:56 AM

No doubt Jim Bunning is rolling in his grave.

I had the greatest respect for Jim Bunning.

People tend to support their children. If he were alive, I wonder how he would feel about this?

Gunny

09-04-2015, 02:58 AM

I think it's time Americans stood up to this shit.

Black Diamond

09-04-2015, 03:16 AM

I think it's time Americans stood up to this shit.

How far are we from where the Roman Empire was when it fell from a moral standpoint?

And is it true that empires fall when morals decline?

Gunny

09-04-2015, 03:16 AM

How far are we from where the Roman Empire was when it fell from a moral standpoint?

And is it true that empires fall when morals decline?

Yes and yes

Gunny

09-04-2015, 03:25 AM

Come back with your shield or on it.

Voted4Reagan

09-04-2015, 04:39 AM

Commenter Jim Antista states:

"Kim is asking the perfect question: 'Under what law am I authorized to issue homosexual couples a marriage license?'

That simple question is giving many in Congress a civics lesson that they never got in grade school.

The Supreme Court cannot and did not make a law. They only made a ruling on a law. Congress makes the laws. Because Congress has made no law allowing for same-sex marriage, Kim does not have the Constitutional authority to issue a marriage license to homosexual couples."

Peri... I usually agree with you on most things, but here I can not.

It is not up to the individual charged with a public service to determine which laws they will and will not enforce. That is for the courts to decide. It is not up to Ms.Davis to interpret the law but simply issue a license to anyone seeking to be married as long as they have the proper Identification.

She can not hold up all marriage licenses because she does not want to issue to LGBT Couples. That is also overreaching her elected authority.

SCOTUS decided in OBERGEFELL v HODGES (et al) that same sex couples be allowed to marry even in States where Marriage is defined as being between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.

As much as she does not like the Supreme Courts decision she is bound by the oath of her elected position to issue licenses to ALL COUPLES. Federal Law trumps State Law in cases of civil rights.

She was told multiple times that she was in contempt. She knew the consequences of her actions.

She has to live with them now.

Who are we to determine the boundaries of Love within a relationship? Let em marry. It has no bearing on anyone but the people walking down the aisle.

On the flip side... The SCOTUS Decision can't be used to compel any church to marry Gays. The Catholic Church will not, neither will certain other denominations. To do so would violate the Establishment Cause of the Constitution.

Most likely it just makes it easier for Gay/Lesbian couples to marry in a Civil Union ceremony or at a religious church that permits it.

I don't expect to see LGBT couples walking down the Aisle at St. Patricks any time soon... so it has no bearing on where the ceremonies can be performed. That is up to each individual Faith to decide.

Noir

09-04-2015, 04:59 AM

Marriage in Kentucky is (rightfully) defined as between a man and a woman. Per the Kentucky Constitution:

Does the Supreme Court overrule state constitutions?

Noir

09-04-2015, 05:02 AM

Having said this, where do YOU draw the line?

The government should probably having nothing to do with marriages...but if they do then the only relevant question should be 'are the people involved consenting adults?'

Black Diamond

09-04-2015, 05:25 AM

The government should probably having nothing to do with marriages...but if they do then the only relevant question should be 'are the people involved consenting adults?'

If an adult woman wants to marry her father, are you OK with that?

Noir

09-04-2015, 05:40 AM

If an adult woman wants to marry her father, are you OK with that?

I guess in such a case i would make an exception and say no, though the reasons for doing so are poor.

darin

09-04-2015, 05:56 AM

I guess in such a case i would make an exception and say no, though the reasons for doing so are poor.

Bigot. You something-ophobe. Stop forcing your morality upon others.

See what I'm saying?

Black Diamond

09-04-2015, 05:58 AM

Bigot. You something-ophobe. Stop forcing your morality upon others.

See what I'm saying?

How long before we hear words like "incestobphobia"?

10 years?

How about pedophobe?

Noir

09-04-2015, 06:06 AM

Bigot. You something-ophobe. Stop forcing your morality upon others.

See what I'm saying?

I'd happily argue as devils advocate in such a discussion, possibly in another thread.

darin

09-04-2015, 06:09 AM

Christophobes DOMINATE our media today. Hypocritical and hurfull policies flow from our government. We enable poverty, laziness, and mental illness in the name of compassion and I cannot understand how folks are so blind to it.

:(

If people cant help who they love, and based on that we allow same-gender folks to marry, we should have the right to marry brothers and sisters or dogs or chimps or a 13 year old.

I'd happily argue as devils advocate in such a discussion, possibly in another thread.

But there's no argument you could give that isn't the same argument you've argued AGAINST in allowing those of the same gender to marry. That's the point.

fj1200

09-04-2015, 01:42 PM

The son of a former great senator from Kentucky jailed a Kentucky county clerk for refusing to marry sodomites. No doubt Jim Bunning is rolling in his grave.

Perhaps he would be pleased that his son honors his position well enough to enforce the law of the land.

Commenter Jim Antista states:

"Kim is asking the perfect question: 'Under what law am I authorized to issue homosexual couples a marriage license?'

That simple question is giving many in Congress a civics lesson that they never got in grade school.

The Supreme Court cannot and did not make a law. They only made a ruling on a law. Congress makes the laws. Because Congress has made no law allowing for same-sex marriage, Kim does not have the Constitutional authority to issue a marriage license to homosexual couples."

A civics lesson here for you; Congress isn't involved in this particular matter. State laws are in question and state laws violated equal protection. Nevertheless she's asking the wrong question. She should be asking, "under what law can I deny the marriage license?" No law there either. SCOTUS ruled that particular laws at the State level are unconstitutional and unenforceable.

You should read more knowledgeable commenters. :)

This is why voting matters. I am sure Ruth Babykiller Ginsberg will retire during Obama's term and will be replaced by another vile human being, just as Souter and Stevens were.

May she live a long and happy life and as a Supreme Court Justice for another year and a half.

So, avail me of an american civics lesson, is a civil right not a civil right if it is not outlined by a congressional law?

I fear the woman involved maybe suffering from some grandiose delusions...

She does. She thinks her position is one of more than rubber stamper.

Marriage in Kentucky is (rightfully) defined as between a man and a woman.

Per the Kentucky Constitution:

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Legresou/Constitu/233A.htm

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a
marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that
of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.

The U.S. Congress has not passed a law that supercedes the Kentucky law.

That particular Constitutional clause is now null, void, and unenforceable. Congress doesn't need to pass a law just like they didn't need a law for Alabama's ban on interracial marriage to be unenforceable for 30+ years.

How far are we from where the Roman Empire was when it fell from a moral standpoint?

And is it true that empires fall when morals decline?

Empires decline faster when they abandon the rule of law.

Black Diamond

09-04-2015, 01:55 PM

Perhaps he would be pleased that his son honors his position well enough to enforce the law of the land.

A civics lesson here for you; Congress isn't involved in this particular matter. State laws are in question and state laws violated equal protection. Nevertheless she's asking the wrong question. She should be asking, "under what law can I deny the marriage license?" No law there either. SCOTUS ruled that particular laws at the State level are unconstitutional and unenforceable.

You should read more knowledgeable commenters. :)

May she live a long and happy life and as a Supreme Court Justice for another year and a half.

She does. She thinks her position is one of more than rubber stamper.

That particular Constitutional clause is now null, void, and unenforceable. Congress doesn't need to pass a law just like they didn't need a law for Alabama's ban on interracial marriage to be unenforceable for 30+ years.

Empires decline faster when they abandon the rule of law.

Is abandoning rule of law always the wrong thing to do? What about refusing to return slaves to slave owners?

Rat

09-04-2015, 01:55 PM

Regardless your view the woman is wrong. It her job to issue license. She no have to agree with their lifestyle but she need to do job. Can no decide on own who does and doesn't get marriage license. I do find interesting that she get in trouble for no doing her job but officials in sanctuary cities are no held to same standard. Why is one punished for no doing duty but others aren't and allowed to turn blind eye.

Black Diamond

09-04-2015, 01:58 PM

Regardless your view the woman is wrong. It her job to issue license. She no have to agree with their lifestyle but she needs to do job. Can no decide on own who does and doesn't get marriage license. I do find interesting that she get in trouble for no doing her job but officials in sanctuary cities are no held to same standard. Why is one punished for no doing duty but others aren't and allowed to turn blind eye.

One scenario is politically correct and one is not??

red state

09-04-2015, 03:09 PM

The government should probably having nothing to do with marriages...but if they do then the only relevant question should be 'are the people involved consenting adults?'

When the gov. is absolute.....there is NO consenting to anything other than the government's absolute will to bully all others (usually the FEW dictating to the many). That is especially true the more liberal and socialistic/communistic the region. I live in the most Conservative region of the Nation (in my humble opinion) and we, overwhelmingly, seem to be the happiest and most free. I've traveled all four corners of the States and know this to be true.

fj1200

09-04-2015, 04:29 PM

Is abandoning rule of law always the wrong thing to do? What about refusing to return slaves to slave owners?

If the law is unjust but that is not the case here.

indago

09-04-2015, 07:01 PM

Here is the oath that Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis took:

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

So, with God's help — what God had declared in the Bible concerning faggots — she made her decision. It's part of the oath.

Gunny

09-04-2015, 07:04 PM

If the law is unjust but that is not the case here.

Sure it is. When the law is wrong, people need to stand up. Or was the Tea tax okay?

fj1200

09-04-2015, 07:06 PM

Here is the oath that Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis took:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States...

She violated her oath, 20 words in.

fj1200

09-04-2015, 07:07 PM

Sure it is. When the law is wrong, people need to stand up. Or was the Tea tax okay?

No it isn't. No one is being forced to do anything.

Gunny

09-04-2015, 07:14 PM

No it isn't. No one is being forced to do anything.

You must have.missed our government lately.

indago

09-04-2015, 07:16 PM

She violated her oath, 20 words in.

No she didn't: She sought God's help, and there it was, written in the Bible.

fj1200

09-04-2015, 07:16 PM

You must have.missed our government lately.

The only thing she's being "forced" to do is her job.

fj1200

09-04-2015, 07:17 PM

No she didn't: She sought God's help, and there it was, written in the Bible.

Talk about a strawman. :rolleyes: She is certainly capable of seeking God's help to resign if she doesn't want to uphold the Constitution.

indago

09-04-2015, 07:25 PM

Talk about a strawman. :rolleyes: She is certainly capable of seeking God's help to resign if she doesn't want to uphold the Constitution.

So, where's the "strawman"?

Black Diamond

09-04-2015, 07:30 PM

Talk about a strawman. :rolleyes: She is certainly capable of seeking God's help to resign if she doesn't want to uphold the Constitution.

why do you think she is not upholding the Constitution?

fj1200

09-04-2015, 07:35 PM

So, where's the "strawman"?

Your injection of God to avoid her Constitutional failings.

why do you think she is not upholding the Constitution?

The "Constitution" decided that various states violated equal protection. How do you think she is upholding the Constitution?

sundaydriver

09-04-2015, 07:45 PM

So Judge Bunning set aside personal views and followed the law. Where's the problem with that other than it didn't set well with dissenters personal view?

fj1200

09-04-2015, 07:47 PM

So Judge Bunning set aside personal views and followed the law. Where's the problem with that other than it didn't set well with dissenters personal view?

Presumed personal views of the Judge and his father. ;)

Black Diamond

09-04-2015, 07:51 PM

Your injection of God to avoid her Constitutional failings.

The "Constitution" decided that various states violated equal protection. How do you think she is upholding the Constitution?
Incorrect. Five people decided that. Or do you think the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional?

Black Diamond

09-04-2015, 07:53 PM

So Judge Bunning set aside personal views and followed the law. Where's the problem with that other than it didn't set well with dissenters personal view?
Yes he did exactly that. Doesn't mean it's right.

fj1200

09-04-2015, 07:57 PM

Incorrect. Five people decided that. Or do you think the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional?

I don't know, did the justices rule such? But I'm correct; Those five people comprised the "Constitution" regarding the decision. How do you think she is upholding the Constitution? Or conversely how is the entire rest of the country not upholding the Constitution as they do their jobs?

fj1200

09-04-2015, 07:59 PM

Yes he did exactly that. Doesn't mean it's right.

You've yet to establish how it's not right?

sundaydriver

09-04-2015, 08:00 PM

Yes he did exactly that. Doesn't mean it's right.

In the eyes of the law it is.

Black Diamond

09-04-2015, 08:05 PM

I don't know, did the justices rule such? But I'm correct; Those five people comprised the "Constitution" regarding the decision. How do you think she is upholding the Constitution? Or conversely how is the entire rest of the country not upholding the Constitution as they do their jobs?

So you feel if five people say something is constitutional it is. No matter what.

Black Diamond

09-04-2015, 08:06 PM

In the eyes of the law it is.

Returning slaves to slave owners was the right thing to do in the 1850s?

fj1200

09-04-2015, 08:10 PM

So you feel if five people say something is constitutional it is.

If five particular people on that particular bench say it is then it is. Sometimes unfortunately and sometimes fortunately.

Returning slaves to slave owners was the right thing to do in the 1850s?

These two things are not the same. Sometimes something might be Constitutional and suck at the same time. How is she upholding the Constitution?

Black Diamond

09-04-2015, 08:12 PM

No it isn't. No one is being forced to do anything.

Do this or lose your job isn't really a choice at all.

At some point your brains or your signature on that contract...

sundaydriver

09-04-2015, 08:12 PM

Returning slaves to slave owners was the right thing to do in the 1850s?

Was it the law at the time? The law is not fair but just. Times change, circumstances change, and laws change too.

fj1200

09-04-2015, 08:15 PM

Do this or lose your job isn't really a choice at all.

At some point your brains or your signature on that contract...

She's refusing to do her job. Why should she get to keep it?

fj1200

09-04-2015, 08:17 PM

Was it the law at the time? The law is not fair but just. Times change, circumstances change, and laws change too.

And sometimes we need a Constitutional amendment to fix the Constitution.

Black Diamond

09-04-2015, 08:20 PM

Was it the law at the time? The law is not fair but just. Times change, circumstances change, and laws change too.

Yes it was the law at the time. Even if slave escaped to free state. He or she went back to its owner under the law. I am trying to decide what the Bible would say. I do know under the Bible a slave shall not leave his master..

Black Diamond

09-04-2015, 08:21 PM

She's refusing to do her job. Why should she get to keep it?

They are asking her to do something she thinks is wrong. It's against her religion, yes?

fj1200

09-04-2015, 08:21 PM

Yes it was the law at the time. Even if slave escaped to free state. He or she went back to its owner under the law. I am trying to decide what the Bible would say. I do know under the Bible a slave shall not leave his master..

Are you going to make a biblical argument or a Constitutional argument?

Black Diamond

09-04-2015, 08:23 PM

Are you going to make a biblical argument or a Constitutional argument?

In this thread? There's the Constitutional question and the moral one. The woman in question is a Christian yes?

fj1200

09-04-2015, 08:23 PM

They are asking her to do something she thinks is wrong. It's against her religion, yes?

She may think it's wrong and it's her option to choose another line of work. Rubber stamping a government form is not against her religion. But I understand where you're coming from, you probably agree with Michael Medved on the subject and he acknowledges that she has nothing on which to stand.

fj1200

09-04-2015, 08:26 PM

In this thread? There's the Constitutional question and the moral one. The woman in question is a Christian yes?

We should take one at a time. The Constitutional question you don't seem to be addressing and the biblical question. She says she's a Christian so yes she has an objection based upon that. I'm a Christian and don't have the same objection. Her job as a government official is not one where she gets to proclaim her religion as an excuse. If she were a pastor who was being forced to marry someone against her religion I'd be right there with you but that is not the case here.

Black Diamond

09-04-2015, 08:33 PM

We should take one at a time. The Constitutional question you don't seem to be addressing and the biblical question. She says she's a Christian so yes she has an objection based upon that. I'm a Christian and don't have the same objection. Her job as a government official is not one where she gets to proclaim her religion as an excuse. If she were a pastor who was being forced to marry someone against her religion I'd be right there with you but that is not the case here.

She is breaking the law. She is violating the constitution as interpreted by the current bench.

fj1200

09-04-2015, 08:37 PM

She is breaking the law. She is violating the constitution as interpreted by the current bench.

:confused: So we agree on that point?

Black Diamond

09-04-2015, 08:42 PM

:confused: So we agree on that point?

Yes. But it's interesting. If Obama and Ginsberg resign tomorrow and it's reviewed and reversed, the constitution magically has a different meaning.

fj1200

09-04-2015, 08:45 PM

Yes. But it's interesting. If Obama and Ginsberg resign tomorrow and it's reviewed and reversed, the constitution magically has a different meaning.

Such is the way of our system.

Black Diamond

09-04-2015, 08:48 PM

So when is it OK to break the law and when isn't it?

fj1200

09-04-2015, 08:51 PM

So when is it OK to break the law and when isn't it?

When someone's natural rights are violated? :dunno:

indago

09-04-2015, 10:36 PM

Your injection of God to avoid her Constitutional failings.

I didn't "injection of God" into the oath, it is already there. If you have a problem with that, then contact the Kentucky Secretary of State and find out if "So Help Me God" is mentioned in the oath.

darin

09-05-2015, 08:21 AM

When someone's natural rights are violated? :dunno:

how do you reconcile the Supreme court ruling on a law that didn't exist? They ruled, effectvely, "Congress must make a law" allowing special rights to a select group of citizens.

What if congress changed the consitution? What would the court do then - decide the change was unconsitutional?

ONE body of government - even TWO bodies cannot simply make shit up based on their respective social agendas.

What the high court did was tantamount to treason. They shirked THEIR JOB (much like the woman in the story) based soley on their beliefs and NOT on their Oath.

Frankly, The High Court should be found in contempt of themselves.

indago

09-05-2015, 10:32 AM

how do you reconcile the Supreme court ruling on a law that didn't exist? They ruled, effectvely, "Congress must make a law" allowing special rights to a select group of citizens.

What if congress changed the consitution? What would the court do then - decide the change was unconsitutional?

ONE body of government - even TWO bodies cannot simply make shit up based on their respective social agendas.

What the high court did was tantamount to treason. They shirked THEIR JOB (much like the woman in the story) based soley on their beliefs and NOT on their Oath.

Frankly, The High Court should be found in contempt of themselves.

Yes, they are contemptuous...

fj1200

09-05-2015, 12:56 PM

I didn't "injection of God" into the oath, it is already there. If you have a problem with that, then contact the Kentucky Secretary of State and find out if "So Help Me God" is mentioned in the oath.

Your injection of God is not an excuse for her to deny her oath and responsibilities.

how do you reconcile the Supreme court ruling on a law that didn't exist? They ruled, effectvely, "Congress must make a law" allowing special rights to a select group of citizens.

What if congress changed the consitution? What would the court do then - decide the change was unconsitutional?

ONE body of government - even TWO bodies cannot simply make shit up based on their respective social agendas.

What the high court did was tantamount to treason. They shirked THEIR JOB (much like the woman in the story) based soley on their beliefs and NOT on their Oath.

Frankly, The High Court should be found in contempt of themselves.

Pretty much none of that is true. They ruled that the state law in question violated the 14th. That's all there is to it and nothing of "special rights."

FWIW, when was the last time Congress changed the Constitution? That isn't a Constitutional method of amendments AFAIK.

fj1200

09-05-2015, 12:58 PM

If a duly elected Mennonite refused to issue conceal carry permits because that violates her religious beliefs would she get the same support here?

fj1200

09-05-2015, 01:32 PM

The son of a former great senator from Kentucky jailed a Kentucky county clerk for refusing to marry sodomites. No doubt Jim Bunning is rolling in his grave.

Or possibly they both do and would agree with that great conservative Dick Cheney. :)

jimnyc

09-05-2015, 01:39 PM

If a duly elected Mennonite refused to issue conceal carry permits because that violates her religious beliefs would she get the same support here?

You forgot the word of the day - strawman!

fj1200

09-05-2015, 01:42 PM

You forgot the word of the day - strawman!

Actually the word of the day is - hypothetical. ;)

Black Diamond

09-05-2015, 02:10 PM

Actually the word of the day is - hypothetical. ;)

So hypothetically, if five dipshits on the court rule tomorrow that marriage licenses be handed out to incestuous couples, you will have nothing but disdain for people like the woman in Kentucky who "don't do their job".

jimnyc

09-05-2015, 02:20 PM

I didn't even know how to respond anymore to this thread. But I found a new smiley that cracked me up. But sadly, I think this one is liable to be used against me down the road!!

http://i.imgur.com/M2lTw11.gif

Black Diamond

09-05-2015, 02:23 PM

Conversations spin out of control.

Gunny

09-05-2015, 02:48 PM

Your injection of God is not an excuse for her to deny her oath and responsibilities.

Pretty much none of that is true. They ruled that the state law in question violated the 14th. That's all there is to it and nothing of "special rights."

FWIW, when was the last time Congress changed the Constitution? That isn't a Constitutional method of amendments AFAIK.

Bullshit. They all violated the 1st Amendment and the 14th isn't in the Bill of Rights. It gives special privileges to unspecial people.

indago

09-05-2015, 02:56 PM

Your injection of God is not an excuse for her to deny her oath and responsibilities.

You really do have a reading comprehension problem.

jimnyc

09-05-2015, 02:57 PM

Gunny!

http://i.imgur.com/eanBeLy.gif

http://i.imgur.com/v5FEsb3.gif

Gunny

09-05-2015, 03:30 PM

Gunny!

http://i.imgur.com/eanBeLy.gif

http://i.imgur.com/v5FEsb3.gif

I'm sick of hearing this crap. My grandfather picked cotton all summer long to get $25. I lived in more trailers than most of y'all have ever seen and I've earned every penny I ever made. Dragging a lawn mower around base housing. And I've lived in some of the worst shitholes in the world. Karamursel, Turkey. Iraklion Crete. Goodfellow AFB in San Angelo, TX.

So I don't want to hear no whimpy-doodle ass shit crying from mommy's basement. Every one of us know where we came from. We're the poor mf-ers that go fight your wars. Doesn't matter what color our skin is.

But I hear a bunch of lame-ass motherfuckers who can't do their own dirtywork making excuses. All you do is blame white people because you can't get off your asses and get a job.

So why don't you pansy-ass twinks go fight a war? You know the kind where people stick an AK in your face? Oh, but that would mean you had to have some balls, wouldn't?

And I ain't aiming this at you Jim, btw.. I'm sick of listening to these dumbass dirtbangers who think they're so fucking tough. Take on a company of Marines you littlle faggot ass bitches. See what happens to your gangbanger lifestyle.

And yeah, I'm pissed. Sick of hearing this shit.

fj1200

09-07-2015, 03:27 PM

So hypothetically, if five dipshits on the court rule tomorrow that marriage licenses be handed out to incestuous couples, you will have nothing but disdain for people like the woman in Kentucky who "don't do their job".

Now THAT'S a strawman. :poke: Do you want public servants to do their job and uphold the Constitution?

fj1200

09-07-2015, 03:31 PM

Bullshit. They all violated the 1st Amendment and the 14th isn't in the Bill of Rights. It gives special privileges to unspecial people.

Incorrect. She is not marrying anyone, she is recording a government document. Besides, it gives equal privileges to citizens who are equal to other citizens.

You really do have a reading comprehension problem.

Incorrect. I completely comprehend that you have no logical basis from which to argue.

Black Diamond

09-07-2015, 04:27 PM

Now THAT'S a strawman. :poke: Do you want public servants to do their job and uphold the Constitution?

Your definition of "upholding the Constitution" is different from mine. And why are you allowed to bring up hypotheticals, but I am not?
Using your Mennonite example, the right to bear arms hasn't been redefined the way marriage has been. If the Court rules that the second amendment applies to grenade launchers, I guarantee you would have civil disobedience occuring in a similar fashion. And the individual would be the champion of the left

indago

09-07-2015, 04:35 PM

Incorrect. She is not marrying anyone, she is recording a government document. Besides, it gives equal privileges to citizens who are equal to other citizens.

If they have the right to get married, why are they seeking permission from Kim Davis?

fj1200

09-07-2015, 04:36 PM

Your definition of "upholding the Constitution" is different from mine. And why are you allowed to bring up hypotheticals, but I am not?
Using your Mennonite example, the right to bear arms hasn't been redefined the way marriage has been. If the Court rules that the second amendment applies to grenade launchers, I guarantee you would have civil disobedience occuring in a similar fashion. And the individual would be the champion of the left

I was discussing this with my mother and I asked if were going to discuss the Constitutional question, the moral question, or the societal question? I don't recall anyone sticking with one of those; she meandered the discussion to abortion of all things. This particular question always seems to run to what about marrying your hair dryer or incestuous marriage or... But I digress, you already agreed, IIRC, that she was wrong Constitutionally speaking so should the Mennonite be able to deny based on her beliefs?

I also dispute your redefinition posit. SCOTUS didn't redefine marriage, various states (34? before the decision) did and so the SC merely stated that equal protection applied.

fj1200

09-07-2015, 04:38 PM

If they have the right to get married, why are they seeking permission from Kim Davis?

They aren't seeking permission, they are expecting her to do her job.

Black Diamond

09-07-2015, 04:45 PM

I was discussing this with my mother and I asked if were going to discuss the Constitutional question, the moral question, or the societal question? I don't recall anyone sticking with one of those; she meandered the discussion to abortion of all things. This particular question always seems to run to what about marrying your hair dryer or incestuous marriage or... But I digress, you already agreed, IIRC, that she was wrong Constitutionally speaking so should the Mennonite be able to deny based on her beliefs?

I also dispute your redefinition posit. SCOTUS didn't redefine marriage, various states (34? before the decision) did and so the SC merely stated that equal protection applied.

I see where you're coming from re it turns into marrying your hairdryer. But the moral fabric of this country is sliding so quickly, that in my lifetime I believe we will see things you would not believe possible.
I indicated earlier that she refused to uphold the Constitution per your definition of upholding the Constitution.
Kentucky Constitution said marriage is defined as one man one woman. Supreme Court nullified that definition

gabosaurus

09-07-2015, 10:45 PM

The son of a former great senator from Kentucky jailed a Kentucky county clerk for refusing to marry sodomites. No doubt Jim Bunning is rolling in his grave.

Doesn't Jim Bunning have to be dead to be rolling in his grave? Last time I checked, he was still alive. :eek:

Abbey Marie

09-07-2015, 11:41 PM

Incorrect. She is not marrying anyone, she is recording a government document. Besides, it gives equal privileges to citizens who are equal to other citizens.

Incorrect. I completely comprehend that you have no logical basis from which to argue.

Kinda like the guy at Auschwitz giving the Jews their number tattoos? He wasn't actually going to exterminate anyone; just rubber-stamping them before the next part of the process ensued. It's an extreme example, and yeah, I know it doesn't lineup perfectly, but the point remains: at what point do we stand up for our convictions, or just go along to get along, citing a technicality in order to justify it?

I actually agree with you in one major respect- I doubt anyone here wants to see a Muslim worker refuse to do their job based on religious grounds, and we need to be consistent. However, when Ms. Davis took the job, the law was different, and she did not need to agree to give out marriage licenses to gay couples. Accommodation could have been made for her, since she was not the one who changed the rules midstream. But I totally believe that had her boss just given the task to another clerk, the couple in question would have alerted the media and probably brought charges anyway.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

09-08-2015, 12:48 AM

Kinda like the guy at Auschwitz giving the Jews their number tattoos? He wasn't actually going to exterminate anyone; just rubber-stamping them before the next part of the process ensued. It's an extreme example, but the point remains: at what point do we stand up for our convictions, or just go along to get along, citing a technicality in order to justify it?

I actually agree with you in one major respect- I doubt anyone here wants to see a Muslim worker refuse to do their job based on religious grounds, and we need to be consistent. However, when Ms. Davis took the job, the law was different, and she did not need to agree to give out marriage licenses to gay couples. Accommodation could have been made for her, since she was not the one who changed the rules midstream. But I totally believe that had her boss just given the task to another clerk, the couple in question would have alerted the media and probably brought charges anyway.

The gays, the blacks, the muslims, the illegal immigrants--its all a political agenda now. The Obama has had top representatives from each of those groups in his office and setting up this divisive agenda ...
Now all four groups are screaming, acting out and obama uses that to justify much of his unconstitutional actions!!!!!
Typical divide and conquer tactics along with typical lib/dem/leftist/socialist propaganda being widely distributed by the Feds.--Tyr

indago

09-08-2015, 04:33 AM

Incorrect. I completely comprehend that you have no logical basis from which to argue.

That's where your comprehension is failing you:

"logical basis" 1 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?51502-Jim-Bunning-RIP&p=761759#post761759)

"logical basis" 2 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?51537-Kim-Davis-lawyers-will-fight-the-contempt-order&p=762049#post762049)

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

09-08-2015, 07:38 AM

That's where your comprehension is failing you:

"logical basis" 1 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?51502-Jim-Bunning-RIP&p=761759#post761759)

"logical basis" 2 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?51537-Kim-Davis-lawyers-will-fight-the-contempt-order&p=762049#post762049)

Dead on accurate and presented well in both posts. However, none of that means a damn thing to a liberal. They haven't the decency or honor to ever place high value on truth and accuracy.
All that matters to a lib is winning by any means , regardless of how silly,insane, false or dishonorable that means may be.
In lib world, fantasy and wishful thinking reign supreme. Tis why in reality they fail 100% of the time!
Reality does not adhere to or appease their stupidity and deceit.--Tyr

indago

09-08-2015, 08:06 AM

They aren't seeking permission, they are expecting her to do her job.

She did her job, and upheld her oath.

Gunny

09-08-2015, 08:19 AM

She did her job, and upheld her oath.

Are you defending Billary? She violated USC Codes 17 and 18 at a minimum. So, you're telling me that the Secretary of State can flat lie her ass off from the get-go, but if I so much as told you one paragraph of what I know I go to Leavenworth?

Excuse: It wasn't marked classified. Bullshit. Classified material is classified by nature, not because some comm center clerk marks it.

Next excuse: It was later classified. THAT doesn't happen. EVER. Again, nature of the material. It's either classified or not. I may get declassified later, but never does it go from unclas to top secret.

And do you have any idea what you have to go through to get the clearance? They talk to your first grade teacher you thought was dead. They talk to your neighbors whose car windows you threw rocks through (not that *I* ever did that).

She did NOT uphold her oath to support and defend because disclosing classified material -- especially Top Secret of above -- represents a clear and present danger to the US. What she did was the usual Clinton bullshit thinking she's above the law, and the left is letting her get away with it. Her explanation reminds me of nothing more than watching Bill define what sex is on the tube back in 98.

It's flat-ass bullshit wordsmithing.

fj1200

09-08-2015, 08:42 AM

I see where you're coming from re it turns into marrying your hairdryer. But the moral fabric of this country is sliding so quickly, that in my lifetime I believe we will see things you would not believe possible.
I indicated earlier that she refused to uphold the Constitution per your definition of upholding the Constitution.
Kentucky Constitution said marriage is defined as one man one woman. Supreme Court nullified that definition

I might agree that the moral fabric is sliding but this is not an example of why. We might have members here who may speak of their prowess prior to marriage but are ready to cast to hell anyone who might be in a long-term gay relationship. Tell me how that isn't hypocritical.

And I'm not sure why we're restating facts in evidence. She's refusing to uphold the current view of equal protection; she doesn't get to choose. And yes, SCOTUS nullified the KY Constitution just like they nullified many state constitutions when they ruled on Loving. Would a white county clerk in AL have been in the right if she had denied marriage licenses to interracial couples in that state?

sundaydriver

09-08-2015, 08:47 AM

She did her job, and upheld her oath.

NO, she wasn't doing her job and that is the point. She was also preventing her Deputies from doing theirs in issuing marriage licenses. Her job is to provide access to the county taxpayers to the services of the county and the state as required by law. She chose to cherry pick what she would do or not do according to her beliefs and ethics therefore denying the people she was to serve the services of her office that they were legally entitled to.

I know in my career that I've taken stands against superiors or company policy's knowing the consequences of my actions could be severe to myself and was accepting of that fact. This woman doesn't want any consequences for her inaction's of her duties and wants others to bend to her wishes. If her beliefs were so strong that she couldn't do what was required of her she should have resigned and fought the law in other ways. But no, she wants that pay check while picking and choosing what she will or not do. Try that in the private sector and see how it works for ya.

fj1200

09-08-2015, 08:48 AM

Kinda like the guy at Auschwitz giving the Jews their number tattoos? He wasn't actually going to exterminate anyone; just rubber-stamping them before the next part of the process ensued. It's an extreme example, and yeah, I know it doesn't lineup perfectly, but the point remains: at what point do we stand up for our convictions, or just go along to get along, citing a technicality in order to justify it?

I actually agree with you in one major respect- I doubt anyone here wants to see a Muslim worker refuse to do their job based on religious grounds, and we need to be consistent. However, when Ms. Davis took the job, the law was different, and she did not need to agree to give out marriage licenses to gay couples. Accommodation could have been made for her, since she was not the one who changed the rules midstream. But I totally believe that had her boss just given the task to another clerk, the couple in question would have alerted the media and probably brought charges anyway.

You've got to be kidding. This is NOTHING like the Jews in Auschwitz. That's utterly ridiculous. If she wants to stand up for her convictions then she is more than welcome to resign.

Yes, all should be seen equally and all should do their job equally. Laws change all the time and we don't give county clerks the power to pick and choose what they get to do on a day-to-day basis. And I can't really speak to your conjecture; how would they have "brought charges" if they had received their license?

fj1200

09-08-2015, 08:52 AM

That's where your comprehension is failing you:

"logical basis" 1 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?51502-Jim-Bunning-RIP&p=761759#post761759)

"logical basis" 2 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?51537-Kim-Davis-lawyers-will-fight-the-contempt-order&p=762049#post762049)

Yup, that's where I showed you that she failed her oath 20 words in.

She did her job, and upheld her oath.

Her oath doesn't involve her interpreting the Constitution.

Dead

:facepalm99: Ignoring something doesn't mean you're correct. It typically means the opposite.

indago

09-08-2015, 09:01 AM

Yup, that's where I showed you that she failed her oath 20 words in.

Nope! That's where you cherry picked and your comprehension failed you in not including the whole oath.

indago

09-08-2015, 09:03 AM

Are you defending Billary? She violated USC Codes 17 and 18 at a minimum. So, you're telling me that the Secretary of State can flat lie her ass off from the get-go, but if I so much as told you one paragraph of what I know I go to Leavenworth?

Excuse: It wasn't marked classified. Bullshit. Classified material is classified by nature, not because some comm center clerk marks it.

Next excuse: It was later classified. THAT doesn't happen. EVER. Again, nature of the material. It's either classified or not. I may get declassified later, but never does it go from unclas to top secret.

And do you have any idea what you have to go through to get the clearance? They talk to your first grade teacher you thought was dead. They talk to your neighbors whose car windows you threw rocks through (not that *I* ever did that).

She did NOT uphold her oath to support and defend because disclosing classified material -- especially Top Secret of above -- represents a clear and present danger to the US. What she did was the usual Clinton bullshit thinking she's above the law, and the left is letting her get away with it. Her explanation reminds me of nothing more than watching Bill define what sex is on the tube back in 98.

It's flat-ass bullshit wordsmithing.
^^^^^StrawMan^^^^^

Gunny

09-08-2015, 09:09 AM

^^^^^StrawMan^^^^^

No strawman. I didn't know who the hell he's talking about and I ain't got time to read the whole damned thread. I don't even know what a Jim Bunning is. I thought y'all were dogging out Jim, the owner of the board. And if Jim, the owner of the board Jim, wants to move that post, he won't hear any complaints out of me.

But right about now I got a diaper to change and a girl to go get her back window replaced because a certain sperm donor decided to cost me and a couple of neighbors some cash.

So you'll just have to excuse me not bothering to read y'all's walls of words.

Noir

09-08-2015, 09:09 AM

Nope! That's where you cherry picked and your comprehension failed you in not including the whole oath.

Can you take the oath if
a) you do not believe in a god?
b) you do not intend to uphold the law?

Gunny

09-08-2015, 09:12 AM

Can you take the oath if
a) you do not believe in a god?
b) do not intend to uphold the law?

a. Yes you can. You solemnly sear or affirm to defend the Constitution of the United States.

b. If it was all about upholding the law, Hillary'd be in prison along with O-blah-blah, and Bill would have been kicked out of office. The law applies only to those that can't afford to buy it.

Noir

09-08-2015, 09:16 AM

a. Yes you can. You solemnly sear or affirm to defend the Constitution of the United States.

Ergo 'in god we trust' is not a requirement for the oath, and subsequently not a requirement of the job and duties of the job.

Gunny

09-08-2015, 09:21 AM

Ergo 'in god we trust' is not a requirement for the oath, and subsequently not a requirement of the job and duties of the job.

No one said it was.

She still has the First Amendment Right to be just as religious as she wants. You want to argue crap, so let's go. I'll be back in a few.

What Right does the government have to intrude on marriage, a religious pact? I can answer that for you ... because they want to tax your ass for it. They get over on taxes, AND having to spend the money for the ceremony because they conveniently let the preacher do it. Win/win for the taxation people.

sundaydriver

09-08-2015, 09:22 AM

But right about now I got a diaper to change So you'll just have to excuse me not bothering to read y'all's walls of words.

It's good to be a little girls at Gunny's!

http://i386.photobucket.com/albums/oo302/rover27/o1SfRUr_zpsogfdhlxn.jpg (http://s386.photobucket.com/user/rover27/media/o1SfRUr_zpsogfdhlxn.jpg.html)

Noir

09-08-2015, 09:34 AM

No one said it was.

If you read through the posts by indago, its clear they're pretty hung up on the 'in god we trust' sentence on the oath.

fj1200

09-08-2015, 09:38 AM

Nope! That's where you cherry picked and your comprehension failed you in not including the whole oath.

I read the whole oath but chose to point out the first point where she violated it. She also stated "so help me God" to perform her function not to perform her function based on her interpretation of God's opinion.

Reading is FUNdamental.

Noir

09-08-2015, 09:47 AM

The son of a former great senator from Kentucky jailed a Kentucky county clerk for refusing to marry sodomites. No doubt Jim Bunning is rolling in his grave.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/09/03/rowan-county-ky-court-clerk-marriage-licenses-gays/71635794/

Doesn't Jim Bunning have to be dead to be rolling in his grave? Last time I checked, he was still alive. :eek:

Top quality.
9/10.
xD

indago

09-08-2015, 09:54 AM

If you read through the posts by indago, its clear they're pretty hung up on the 'in god we trust' sentence on the oath.

More reading comprehensions failures...

It's not "in god we trust", it's "So help me God".

Comprehension 1 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?51502-Jim-Bunning-RIP&p=761759#post761759)

Comprehension 2 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?51537-Kim-Davis-lawyers-will-fight-the-contempt-order&p=762049#post762049)

Truth Detector

09-08-2015, 09:55 AM

Equal Protection; the dumbest claim to infer Constitutional rights to gay marriage ever made by a Scotus since Dred Scott.

But leftist zealots are quick to point to this decision as if it settles law while ignoring an equally stupid decision like Dred Scott or Roe vs. Wade.

Any time the Supreme Court has ventured into public policy and outside of their jurisdiction interpreting the Constitution, you get this massive stupidity on a national scale that further drives a wedge between we the Sheeple.

Marraige is is not a civil right and as such, cannot be found in the Constitution. However, religious liberty IS contained within this great document and now, as goose stepping leftist Fascist zealots march Christians to jail, we see the most cherished liberties we have being stomped down in an effort to kowtow to a teeny tiny minority of vocal partisan gay agenda in the interests of redefining that which has been clearly defined for centuries so that perverts can feel some normalcy in their distorted perversion.

Yes, it is a perversion of nature and religious law for same sex copulation which does nothing to ensure the continuance of the species and purely sexual in nature. This isn't about "love"; it's about an agenda.

It it would have been easy to serve the 14th amendment and the 1st without Fascist Goose stepping liberals running people out of office or destroying their livelihoods. We could have separated the religious aspect of MARRAIGE by implementing the LEGAL contract of CIVIL UNIONS. But that was not sufficient for the goose stepping leftist Fascists and their Marx loving gay agenda. They demanded, and got, a redefinition of the term by Government stooges which will serve to drive an even deeper wedge than equally stupid decisions like Dred Scott or Rie v Wade.

Yes people, elections do have consequences.

indago

09-08-2015, 09:56 AM

Noir

09-08-2015, 09:59 AM

More reading comprehensions failures...

It's not "in god we trust", it's "So help me God".

Comprehension 1 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?51502-Jim-Bunning-RIP&p=761759#post761759)

Comprehension 2 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?51537-Kim-Davis-lawyers-will-fight-the-contempt-order&p=762049#post762049)

Whoops, mistaken phrase carried over from the police car thread, my post should have read as follows

--------------

No one said it was.

If you read through the posts by indago, its clear they're pretty hung up on the 'so help me god' sentence on the oath.

indago

09-08-2015, 10:05 AM

Any time the Supreme Court has ventured into public policy and outside of their jurisdiction interpreting the Constitution, you get this massive stupidity on a national scale that further drives a wedge between we the Sheeple.

Thomas Jefferson, in his autobiography, wrote of the federal judiciary: "We have seen too that, contrary to all correct example, they are in the habit of going out of the question before them, to throw an anchor ahead and grapple further hold for future advances of power. They are then in fact the corps of sappers & miners, steadily working to undermine the independant rights of the States, & to consolidate all power in the hands of that government in which they have so important a freehold estate."

How prophetic...

Truth Detector

09-08-2015, 10:07 AM

The only thing she's being "forced" to do is her job.

Im always amused when atheists think religious belief is meaningless and can be coopted by Government storm troopers at will when one refuses to simply with the rabid and lunatic gay agenda.

Yet Liberal politicians like Obama ignored laws at will like DOMA or prop 8 in California and none went to jail.

In Liberal hypocrite land, selectively enforcing laws based on their ideology = okay. But for everyone else doing so = not okay.

Seig Hiel!!!!

indago

09-08-2015, 10:08 AM

Whoops, mistaken phrase carried over from the police car thread, my post should have read as follows
--------------
If you read through the posts by indago, its clear they're pretty hung up on the 'so help me god' sentence on the oath.

It's not a hang up, it's taking into consideration the whole oath.

In my humble opinion, if that phrase was not in there, she wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

.

Truth Detector

09-08-2015, 10:10 AM

Thomas Jefferson, in his autobiography, wrote of the federal judiciary: "We have seen too that, contrary to all correct example, they are in the habit of going out of the question before them, to throw an anchor ahead and grapple further hold for future advances of power. They are then in fact the corps of sappers & miners, steadily working to undermine the independant rights of the States, & to consolidate all power in the hands of that government in which they have so important a freehold estate."

How prophetic...

And yet, looking at these decisions, I don't even think they are that smart. :cool:

The Liberal justices do things that FEEL good and right. The Conservative justices try to not look too Conservative so they can garner this misconceived MSM respect.

Gunny

09-08-2015, 10:14 AM

Whoops, mistaken phrase carried over from the police car thread, my post should have read as follows

--------------

[/I][/COLOR]If you read through the posts by indago, its clear they're pretty hung up on the 'so help me god' sentence on the oath.

Your answer is so lame, even for you, I don't know why I'm responding. But then, I'm not, am I? I'm just responding to your lameness because the car's dropped off and the diaper ain't dirty. Otherwise, I'd have something more important to do than read your crap.

Noir

09-08-2015, 10:27 AM

It's not a hang up, it's taking into consideration the whole oath.

In my humble opinion, if that phrase was not in there, she wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

And is the phrase a requirement for the office?

fj1200

09-08-2015, 12:47 PM

Equal Protection; the dumbest claim to infer Constitutional rights to gay marriage ever made by a Scotus since Dred Scott.

But leftist zealots are quick to point to this decision as if it settles law while ignoring an equally stupid decision like Dred Scott or Roe vs. Wade.

Any time the Supreme Court has ventured into public policy and outside of their jurisdiction interpreting the Constitution, you get this massive stupidity on a national scale that further drives a wedge between we the Sheeple.

Marraige is is not a civil right and as such, cannot be found in the Constitution. ...

I'm not sure anyone is stating that the right to marriage is in the Constitution because it isn't. The 14th guarantees equal protection of the laws and the laws in this country bestow privilege when two people get married. Those privileges must be granted equally; that's the important part of the 14th in this case.

It's actually pretty clear cut IMO.

It wasn't "God's opinion", it was a Declaration.

I know, a declaration that does not absolve her of her duty.

Im always amused when atheists think religious belief is meaningless and can be coopted by Government storm troopers at will when one refuses to simply with the rabid and lunatic gay agenda.

Which atheists are those?

And is the phrase a requirement for the office?

No.

Perianne

09-09-2015, 09:03 AM

Doesn't Jim Bunning have to be dead to be rolling in his grave? Last time I checked, he was still alive. :eek:

You make a good point!!! lol

Truth Detector

09-09-2015, 09:27 AM

Was it the law at the time? The law is not fair but just. Times change, circumstances change, and laws change too.

No laws changed in this instance; they were rendered moot by a Scotus divining a Constitutional right to marraige that doesn't exist.

Truth Detector

09-09-2015, 09:30 AM

You've got to be kidding. This is NOTHING like the Jews in Auschwitz. That's utterly ridiculous. If she wants to stand up for her convictions then she is more than welcome to resign.

Yes, all should be seen equally and all should do their job equally. Laws change all the time and we don't give county clerks the power to pick and choose what they get to do on a day-to-day basis. And I can't really speak to your conjecture; how would they have "brought charges" if they had received their license?

No laws changed; they were rendered moot by a Scotus who divined a Constitutional right that doesn't exist.

Truth Detector

09-09-2015, 09:36 AM

Can you take the oath if
a) you do not believe in a god?
b) you do not intend to uphold the law?

Kentucky laws were clear; marraige is between a man and a woman. It met the definition of marraige through all the ages of man right up and until Scotus divined a Constitutional right that doesn't exist.

Now, in the new goose stepping Fascist States of AmeriKa led by the man child Obama, if you do not bend to the gay agenda, you vill be marched off to der gulag Komrade.

If you do not bake zee cake, you vill be marched to court, fined, possibly jailed and have your livelihood destroyed.

If you make a donation to a proposition that favors the traditional meaning and intent of marriage, you vill be savaged by social media and forced to resign.

Sieg Heil.....Sieg Heil.....Sieg Heil!!!!

Truth Detector

09-09-2015, 09:38 AM

Ergo 'in god we trust' is not a requirement for the oath, and subsequently not a requirement of the job and duties of the job.

Why do we swear oaths on the New Testament? When Obama was sworn in, was it on the Koran?

Truth Detector

09-09-2015, 09:40 AM

If you read through the posts by indago, its clear they're pretty hung up on the 'in god we trust' sentence on the oath.

Just think, someday, after Socialist Fascist reprobates have succeeded in destroying Christianity in AmeriKa, you can swear an oath to Obama, or Hillary!!!

Sieg Heil.....Sieg Heil....Sieg Heil!!!

Truth Detector

09-09-2015, 09:44 AM

I read the whole oath but chose to point out the first point where she violated it. She also stated "so help me God" to perform her function not to perform her function based on her interpretation of God's opinion.

Reading is FUNdamental.

God hating Socialist Fascist reprobates don't read; they invent their own versions of what they read. It's similar to their warped and retarded views of the Constitution and the equally stupid concept of it being a "living" document.

Its almost as as absurd as the dullard view that we want Congress to actually work so that it can redistribute even more wealth to low information dullards who think they are entitled to other people's money contrary to the intent of the Constitution and our founders.

Truth Detector

09-09-2015, 09:49 AM

I'm not sure anyone is stating that the right to marriage is in the Constitution because it isn't. The 14th guarantees equal protection of the laws and the laws in this country bestow privilege when two people get married. Those privileges must be granted equally; that's the important part of the 14th in this case.

Another incredibly dumb claim; that the Constitution somehow bestows privileges. Where do you goose stepping Socialist Fascists come up with this unadulterated crap?

Its almost as moronic as claiming that the ONLY solution to this gay agenda was to redefine for EVERYONE else what the true intent and definition of marriage is to satiate a small rabidly vocal teeny tiny minority of gay Fascists with an agenda.

fj1200

09-09-2015, 10:39 AM

No laws changed; they were rendered moot by a Scotus who divined a Constitutional right that doesn't exist.

Umm, unconstitutional laws were struck down because they violated equal protection. Was Loving also decided incorrectly?

It met the definition of marraige through all the ages of man right up and until Scotus divined a Constitutional right that doesn't exist.

Including those where women were mere chattel to men? Including arranged marriages where futures were decided by others? Including marriages of political convenience of monarchs? Including marriages where men could have many wives and concubines?

God hating Socialist Fascist reprobates don't read; they invent their own versions of what they read. It's similar to their warped and retarded views of the Constitution and the equally stupid concept of it being a "living" document.

Its almost as as absurd as the dullard view that we want Congress to actually work so that it can redistribute even more wealth to low information dullards who think they are entitled to other people's money contrary to the intent of the Constitution and our founders.

WTF are you even talking about? It would be helpful for you to respond to what I say rather than just jumping into another rant.

Another incredibly dumb claim; that the Constitution somehow bestows privileges. Where do you goose stepping Socialist Fascists come up with this unadulterated crap?

:rolleyes: You must be a "God hating Socialist Fascist reprobate" because that's not what I said. I didn't say the Constitution bestows privileges, I said the laws (passed by Congress, etc. etc.) bestow privilege and then the 14th guarantees equal protection.