Homosexual Couple Not Satisfied with Marriage License From Kim Davis’s Office; Wants

[Jeff]

Here lies the problem with these so called Gay marriages, these people don't give a dam about being legally married they just want to push the envelope. If they where truly just wanting equal rights then a legal union would be good enough. no they want to push just to stir the shit pile. Now 2 Homo's that received their license to play house, want to go back and force Kim Davis to sign their license, I say tell them to go to hell, this just proves what most knew all along, these fags just want to stir shit, they had there legal unions but needed to stir it harder.



There was nothing illegitimate (in the eyes of the state) about the marriage license that a homosexual couple received from Kim Davis’s office while she spent five days in prison. This was the same couple who precipitated the whole melee about the federal government being able to force country clerks to disobey their respective state laws.
When the couple received their license, they seemed satisfied. But now they’re back, saying that they want Kim Davis






http://lastresistance.com/13899/homosexual-couple-not-satisfied-with-marriage-license-from-kim-daviss-office-wants-kim-davis-to-sign-off-on-it/

[Gunny]

Here lies the problem with these so called Gay marriages, these people don't give a dam about being legally married they just want to push the envelope. If they where truly just wanting equal rights then a legal union would be good enough. no they want to push just to stir the shit pile. Now 2 Homo's that received their license to play house, want to go back and force Kim Davis to sign their license, I say tell them to go to hell, this just proves what most knew all along, these fags just want to stir shit, they had there legal unions but needed to stir it harder.





http://lastresistance.com/13899/homosexual-couple-not-satisfied-with-marriage-license-from-kim-daviss-office-wants-kim-davis-to-sign-off-on-it/

But there's no slippery slope. Ask any leftwingnut. :rolleyes:

[tailfins]

Here lies the problem with these so called Gay marriages, these people don't give a dam about being legally married they just want to push the envelope. If they where truly just wanting equal rights then a legal union would be good enough. no they want to push just to stir the shit pile. Now 2 Homo's that received their license to play house, want to go back and force Kim Davis to sign their license, I say tell them to go to hell, this just proves what most knew all along, these fags just want to stir shit, they had there legal unions but needed to stir it harder.





http://lastresistance.com/13899/homosexual-couple-not-satisfied-with-marriage-license-from-kim-daviss-office-wants-kim-davis-to-sign-off-on-it/


You don't have to tell them to go to hell, God says that's where they are going:

1 Corinthians 6:

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

[Gunny]

You don't have to tell them to go to hell, God says that's where they are going:

1 Corinthians 6:

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,



You got a thread in your honor waiting in the Steel Cage. I suggest you strap on a pair, man the fuck up and hop to it.

[tailfins]

You got a thread in your honor waiting in the Steel Cage. I suggest you strap on a pair, man the fuck up and hop to it.

Why bother?

[Gunny]

Why bother?

I don't know. Why bother haunting girls' PM boxes because they don't think like you? Why run off members who have valuable opinions if you listen to what they have to say just because they don't think like you. "Why bother" means means your ass in the Cage, in the thread dedicated solely to you, and don't turn this into a running gun battle across the board. There's a time and place for everything. You like to run your mouth, so do it where everyone can see it in the proper forum. This is someone else's thread and I'm sure they don't appreciate it being derailed.

Get your ass where you got called out and man up. I told you not to piss me off motherfucker. Now get your ass down in the Cage and pay for your shit.

[fj1200]

... these people don't give a dam about being legally married ...

I'm pretty sure that they do.


You don't have to tell them to go to hell, God says that's where they are going:

What do you think about the original Greek?

[Gunny]

I'm pretty sure that they do.



What do you think about the original Greek?

More semantics? You KNOW this is about pushing an agenda.

[fj1200]

More semantics? You KNOW this is about pushing an agenda.

Equal protection is a b!+c4.

[Kathianne]

I don't know. Why bother haunting girls' PM boxes because they don't think like you? Why run off members who have valuable opinions if you listen to what they have to say just because they don't think like you. "Why bother" means means your ass in the Cage, in the thread dedicated solely to you, and don't turn this into a running gun battle across the board. There's a time and place for everything. You like to run your mouth, so do it where everyone can see it in the proper forum. This is someone else's thread and I'm sure they don't appreciate it being derailed.

Get your ass where you got called out and man up. I told you not to piss me off motherfucker. Now get your ass down in the Cage and pay for your shit.

Just for the record, TF has never bothered me in pm's. Only on the board, not personally per se, just religion.

[Motown]

Here lies the problem with these so called Gay marriages, these people don't give a dam about being legally married they just want to push the envelope. If they where truly just wanting equal rights then a legal union would be good enough. no they want to push just to stir the shit pile. Now 2 Homo's that received their license to play house, want to go back and force Kim Davis to sign their license, I say tell them to go to hell, this just proves what most knew all along, these fags just want to stir shit, they had there legal unions but needed to stir it harder.

You're right, this has nothing to do with their "marriage", they already have the license. This is about continuing to harass Kim Davis because she dared to not be down with gay marriage, as they do with everyone else who thinks they're full of it.

[Kathianne]

Bump:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?51537-Kim-Davis-lawyers-will-fight-the-contempt-order&p=762055&highlight=volokh#post762055

[tailfins]

Just for the record, TF has never bothered me in pm's. Only on the board, not personally per se, just religion.

Precisely! I respect your social skills, in spite of not respecting your religion. I believe I have only PMed you asking for your assistance.

[indago]

What do you think about the original Greek?

So, just who was "the original Greek"?

[indago]

Equal protection is a b!+c4.

"Equal protection" from what?

[fj1200]

So, just who was "the original Greek"?

Zorba. :dunno:

Heaven forbid you address the issue.

[fj1200]

"Equal protection" from what?

:rolleyes: Asked and answered. Look up your answer in the other thread.

[indago]

Zorba. :dunno:

Heaven forbid you address the issue.

The "issue" is "Kim Davis" and Marriage License", and you are inquiring about "the original Greek"...

[tailfins]

So, just who was "the original Greek"?

It's a canard that users of apostate versions (non-KJV) talk about. They use pseudo-intellectualism to justify their corrupt version of the Bible.

[indago]

:rolleyes: Asked and answered. Look up your answer in the other thread.

Bob'nWeave...

[jimnyc]

I would tell them to bring it back, I'll sign it for them. I would have a clerk receive it and bring it to me in the back room. I would sign and send back, but only after :pee:on it.

[fj1200]

The "issue" is "Kim Davis" and Marriage License", and you are inquiring about "the original Greek"...

It was a question to a specific person regarding a specific issue. But you prefer to obfuscate because you have no argument.


It's a canard that users of apostate versions (non-KJV) talk about. They use pseudo-intellectualism to justify their corrupt version of the Bible.

Paul didn't write in KJV english.

[fj1200]

Bob'nWeave...

You are a nuisance to reasoned discussion.

[indago]

It was a question to a specific person regarding a specific issue. But you prefer to obfuscate because you have no argument.

Talk about "no argument", here you are, babbling bullshit...

[fj1200]

Talk about "no argument", here you are, babbling bullshit...

Have a nice day.

[indago]

You are a nuisance to reasoned discussion.

At your service...



.

[indago]

Have a nice day.

Thank you, you too...

[DLT]

Equal protection is a b!+c4.

Equal protection for deviants like Barack Hussein Obama? You know....like for when he was hanging out with Rahm in Man's Country (Chicago gay bath house).

Like that?

[fj1200]

You know....

No. I don't. It's crazy what you spend time on.

[aboutime]

I would tell them to bring it back, I'll sign it for them. I would have a clerk receive it and bring it to me in the back room. I would sign and send back, but only after :pee:on it.


Gotta tell them in the only language they really understand...http://icansayit.com/images/screwem1.jpg

[Black Diamond]

Equal protection is a b!+c4.

And it will be a bigger bitch down the road when a father and daughter obtain a marriage license. Consenting adults and stuff.

[fj1200]

And it will be a bigger bitch down the road when a father and daughter obtain a marriage license. Consenting adults and stuff.

Yeah, cuz that's how it works.

[Black Diamond]

Yeah, cuz that's how it works.

Consenting adults is the paradigm liberals use but you already knew that. Even noir reluctantly agreed that incestuous marriage should be legal if the "couple" is over 18. It's a matter of time.

[fj1200]

It's a matter of time.

Unlikely.

[Black Diamond]

Unlikely.

What makes you say unlikely?

[fj1200]

What makes you say unlikely?

Is it a growing trend? Is it occurring elsewhere? Are there not other reasons to keep related individuals from marrying? Are people in incestuous marriages "playing house" already?

[Black Diamond]

Is it a growing trend? Is it occurring elsewhere? Are there not other reasons to keep related individuals from marrying? Are people in incestuous marriages "playing house" already?

Those reasons can be addressed by abortion. Yes incestuous couples are playing house already. And the trend will grow eventually. I don't mean next year. I mean as the moral fabric of the nation continues to unravel.

[Motown]

Is it a growing trend? Is it occurring elsewhere? Are there not other reasons to keep related individuals from marrying? Are people in incestuous marriages "playing house" already?

Are you making the argument that cultural norms play a part in determining whether or not certain types of marriage should be allowed?

[fj1200]

Those reasons can be addressed by abortion. Yes incestuous couples are playing house already. And the trend will grow eventually. I don't mean next year. I mean as the moral fabric of the nation continues to unravel.

I'm dubious. Besides, I don't see this as a moral fabric issue. I know that the slippery slope argument hangs on it but I don't see it that way.

[fj1200]

Are you making the argument that cultural norms play a part in determining whether or not certain types of marriage should be allowed?

I've made many arguments. It could be argued biblically. It could be argued Constitutionally. It could be argued as to the state's interest. I think I've argued here in each case that gay marriage is acceptable. But yes, cultural norms do play a part. Constitutionally speaking gay marriage has become acceptable in much of society and once legalized in some states it becomes an equal protection issue for the country as was decided recently.

[Black Diamond]

I'm dubious. Besides, I don't see this as a moral fabric issue. I know that the slippery slope argument hangs on it but I don't see it that way.

This ruling would not have gone this way 10 years ago. Even John Kerry who was seen as the most liberal Senator thought it shoukd be left up to the states. Oregon and Michigan voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage. I think the Supreme Court would have reflected that.

[Motown]

I've made many arguments. It could be argued biblically. It could be argued Constitutionally. It could be argued as to the state's interest. I think I've argued here in each case that gay marriage is acceptable. But yes, cultural norms do play a part. Constitutionally speaking gay marriage has become acceptable in much of society and once legalized in some states it becomes an equal protection issue for the country as was decided recently.

I'm not convinced it can be argued biblically but I'm not really religious so I don't care about that anyway. I haven't read everything you've had to say on this so I can't comment on those things you've said before. I also don't care if two guys want to pretend they're married, that doesn't harm me at all so more power to them. What does bother me about this is the equal protection argument. Not you personally making it, just that argument in general. If this had anything to do with equal protection then the USSC would have told states to start marrying not only gays but also polygamists and first cousins but they didn't do that, they limited this to gays and in the process the USSC seized power that was never intended for the federal government to exercise.

[Trigg]

And it will be a bigger bitch down the road when a father and daughter obtain a marriage license. Consenting adults and stuff.

The next one will be legalizing polygamous marriage.

[Black Diamond]

The next one will be legalizing polygamous marriage.

Eventually. yes.

[fj1200]

This ruling would not have gone this way 10 years ago. Even John Kerry who was seen as the most liberal Senator thought it shoukd be left up to the states. Oregon and Michigan voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage. I think the Supreme Court would have reflected that.

I don't disagree that the outcome would have been the different in the past. I'd be surprised if JK held that view today but that's beside the point; Dick Cheney thinks gay marriage is acceptable and Ted Olson argued the gay marriage side in re: Prop 8 in California. But the point is that SCOTUS doesn't reflect votes by the populace when handing down decisions; marriage is no longer a religious term in this country Federally speaking and it hasn't been since the government started granting benefits based on a definition of interpersonal relationships decades ago. Once a few states started to grant gay marriage it was only a matter of time before this decision was going to happen. Take away the Federal definition and granting of benefits and I might agree with you on whether the states should have been able to decide.

[fj1200]

I'm not convinced it can be argued biblically but I'm not really religious so I don't care about that anyway. I haven't read everything you've had to say on this so I can't comment on those things you've said before. I also don't care if two guys want to pretend they're married, that doesn't harm me at all so more power to them. What does bother me about this is the equal protection argument. Not you personally making it, just that argument in general. If this had anything to do with equal protection then the USSC would have told states to start marrying not only gays but also polygamists and first cousins but they didn't do that, they limited this to gays and in the process the USSC seized power that was never intended for the federal government to exercise.

Incorrect. There are no states granting polygamist marriage or incestuous marriage. And SCOTUS did not seize power, the Federal government "seized" marriage decades ago. SCOTUS only stated that benefits needed to be granted equally.

Oh, and I'm convinced because I read the bible.

[fj1200]

The next one will be legalizing polygamous marriage.


Eventually. yes.

It's in the Bible. Do you believe a state could vote to legalize it?

[Black Diamond]

Incorrect. There are no states granting polygamist marriage or incestuous marriage. And SCOTUS did not seize power, the Federal government "seized" marriage decades ago. SCOTUS only stated that benefits needed to be granted equally.

Not yet. And no state would have granted same sex marriage licenses 20 years ago. Or to be more conservative 50 years ago.

[Motown]

Incorrect. There are no states granting polygamist marriage or incestuous marriage. And SCOTUS did not seize power, the Federal government "seized" marriage decades ago. SCOTUS only stated that benefits needed to be granted equally.

Oh, and I'm convinced because I read the bible.

If you don't allow polygamy then that doesn't sound like equal protection to me especially considering they have a much stronger historical argument to fall back on than gays do. First cousins are allowed to marry in several states but not in others. Where's their equal protection?

[Black Diamond]

It's in the Bible. Do you believe a state could vote to legalize it?

I don't see why not. I don't know when polygamy was made wrong in the Bible if at all. But even that would be one man multiple women, not homosexual marriage, which is an oxymoron.

[Trigg]

It's in the Bible. Do you believe a state could vote to legalize it?

Most definitely, if there aren't already lawsuits there will be soon.

[fj1200]

Not yet. And no state would have granted same sex marriage licenses 20 years ago. Or to be more conservative 50 years ago.

There's that slippery-slope argument again.


If you don't allow polygamy then that doesn't sound like equal protection to me especially considering they have a much stronger historical argument to fall back on than gays do. First cousins are allowed to marry in several states but not in others. Where's their equal protection?

That's not how SCOTUS works. Besides, states still have regulatory power over marriage as long as they do so equally.

[Black Diamond]

There's that slippery-slope argument again.



That's not how SCOTUS works. Besides, states still have regulatory power over marriage as long as they do so equally.

Sin is a slippery slope. You reap what you sow, more than you sow, and later than you sow.

[Black Diamond]

Sin is a slippery slope. You reap what you sow, more than you sow, and later than you sow.

And this applies to nations, too

[fj1200]

I don't see why not. I don't know when polygamy was made wrong in the Bible if at all. But even that would be one man multiple women, not homosexual marriage, which is an oxymoron.

The state has a compelling interest in limiting marriage to two people. The problem with polygamy is the unequal relationship of some of the wives who are coerced into the relationship. I read the research on it awhile back. And by research I mean a blurb. :eek:


Most definitely, if there aren't already lawsuits there will be soon.

It's quite a tangled mess when the government sticks its nose where it shouldn't be. That's not where government should be especially at the Federal level.

[fj1200]

Sin is a slippery slope. You reap what you sow, more than you sow, and later than you sow.

I don't accept the sin argument.

[Black Diamond]

I don't accept the sin argument.

You don't think homosexual marriage is a sin?

[fj1200]

You don't think homosexual marriage is a sin?

No.

[Motown]

That's not how SCOTUS works. Besides, states still have regulatory power over marriage as long as they do so equally.

Is that how you think this works? Equal protection means that states can discriminate against everyone except gays?


I'm assuming by now you've verified my statement about first cousins marrying in America. No comment?

[Black Diamond]

No.

Well therein lies our differences.

[Gunny]

Incorrect. There are no states granting polygamist marriage or incestuous marriage. And SCOTUS did not seize power, the Federal government "seized" marriage decades ago. SCOTUS only stated that benefits needed to be granted equally.

Oh, and I'm convinced because I read the bible.

YOU are incorrect. SCOTUS most certainly seized power outside the Constitution.

[fj1200]

Is that how you think this works? Equal protection means that states can discriminate against everyone except gays?

No, that's not how it works. The state shouldn't discriminate against anyone.


I'm assuming by now you've verified my statement about first cousins marrying in America. No comment?

No, I assume it's true. The first step would be for a first cousin in one of the other states to express their desire to marry just like in another state. They could quite possibly get a different outcome from SCOTUS with a different legal rationale just like age of consent laws are different in different states. Just because they are different doesn't mean that they are unequal.

[fj1200]

YOU are incorrect. SCOTUS most certainly seized power outside the Constitution.

No. Congress, abetted by the POTUS, seized that power outside of the Constitution decades ago. Did they seize power in Loving?

[Gunny]

No. Congress, abetted by the POTUS, seized that power outside of the Constitution decades ago. Did they seize power in Loving?

The Supremes usurped the 10th Amendment. It's THAT simple. There is NO Constitutional condition nor amendment concerning marriage. That means it falls to the states. The states voted the way they wanted and the Supremes stuck their nose in and unconstitutionally ruled against the states' 10th Amendment Rights.

[fj1200]

The Supremes usurped the 10th Amendment. It's THAT simple. There is NO Constitutional condition nor amendment concerning marriage. That means it falls to the states. The states voted the way they wanted and the Supremes stuck their nose in and unconstitutionally ruled against the states' 10th Amendment Rights.

I disagree. We can agree on the 10th another day but for the world in which we live where Congress has gone way beyond original intent the decision was the correct one. It should be a state issue... but it's not.

[Gunny]

I disagree. We can agree on the 10th another day but for the world in which we live where Congress has gone way beyond original intent the decision was the correct one. It should be a state issue... but it's not.

When has Congress done anything lately?

[Motown]

No, that's not how it works. The state shouldn't discriminate against anyone.

I agree that they shouldn't but the USSC just did and forced the states to go along with it.



No, I assume it's true. The first step would be for a first cousin in one of the other states to express their desire to marry just like in another state. They could quite possibly get a different outcome from SCOTUS with a different legal rationale just like age of consent laws are different in different states. Just because they are different doesn't mean that they are unequal.

They are unequal. The USSC didn't have to limit their ruling to just gays. The plaintiffs were gay but the issue was marriage equality and equal protection was invoked and that meas everyone is treated equally not just gays.

[gabosaurus]

Here lies the problem with these so called Gay marriages, these people don't give a dam about being legally married they just want to push the envelope. If they where truly just wanting equal rights then a legal union would be good enough. no they want to push just to stir the shit pile. Now 2 Homo's that received their license to play house, want to go back and force Kim Davis to sign their license, I say tell them to go to hell, this just proves what most knew all along, these fags just want to stir shit, they had there legal unions but needed to stir it harder.


To continue with answers that tailfins (and others of similar mentality) can answer:

http://i.imgur.com/mRwFY.jpg

[fj1200]

When has Congress done anything lately?

They've done enough damage over the recent decades. They should take a break.


I agree that they shouldn't but the USSC just did and forced the states to go along with it.

Umm, no. The question before the court was gay marriage and mandated that the states honor equal protection.


They are unequal. The USSC didn't have to limit their ruling to just gays. The plaintiffs were gay but the issue was marriage equality and equal protection was invoked and that meas everyone is treated equally not just gays.

The issue was gay marriage and equal protection of the law. They (usually) don't just make stuff up especially when the question was not before the court and the question you keep asking isn't even on anyone's radar.

[Gunny]

To continue with answers that tailfins (and others of similar mentality) can answer:

http://i.imgur.com/mRwFY.jpg

I must have missed the square that says because it's biologically screwed and TRUE homosexuals cannot procreate which terminates their use and/or value as part of the species.

[Motown]

Umm, no. The question before the court was gay marriage and mandated that the states honor equal protection.



The issue was gay marriage and equal protection of the law. They (usually) don't just make stuff up especially when the question was not before the court and the question you keep asking isn't even on anyone's radar.

You're right, the issue I'm raising isn't on a lot of people's radar but it should be because it is the core issue which is a term you should be familiar with if you've read about these cases, especially Deboer v. Snyder.



Since you want to be technical about things then by all means let's get technical. These cases weren't about "gay marriage" as you put it. Obergefell v. Hodges wasn't about marriage at all because Obergefell was already married, the question there was if states have to recognize marriages from other states if they don't allow that type of marriage to be performed in their own state. The court found that states do have to recognize those other marriages.


Another case that was rolled up with Obergefell was Deboer v. Snyder. This case was originally about gays adopting. It later became about the gay marriage ban in Michigan because a federal judge stuck his nose where it didn't belong and cajoled the plaintiffs into making it about the ban so he could tailor make a case for higher courts, knowing full well the case would be appealed and knowing full well how he would rule on the case before he even heard the case. The ban was found to be un-Constitutional of course.


There were other cases rolled into this but they were variations on these two themes. In Obergefell's case I have no problem with the USSC ruling that states must recognize marriages legally performed in other states but I have a huge problem with the USSC ordering all states to perform these marriages because it doesn't logically follow. Recognition alone solves the problem in that case so the court went above and beyond and didn't go with the least restrictive option, this was a power grab.


In Deboer's case the voter approved gay marriage ban in Michigan was overturned. Once again, ordering all states to now marry gays doesn't logically follow. I have no problem with the ban being overturned but all that should mean is that the ban is no longer in place but gays couldn't get married in Michigan before the ban was voted in by Michigan voters.


Ordering all states to marry gays, and only gays, is discriminatory and the USSC knows it. The court ordered all states to change the way they do things in order to accomodate a percentage of the population so small as to be statistically insignificant and only them...that's the definition of discrimination not equal protection under the law.



I think I should clarify something I've been saying. You're right, the USSC did make this about gay marriage. I've been saying it isn't about gay marriage, what I should have said from the beginning was that the USSC was wrong to make this solely about gay marriage. They didn't have to do things the way they did leading up to their "gay day" but by doing them the way they did I think they did the nation a disservice.


In 2013, in Windsor v US, the USSC overturned DOMA, or at least the part that mattered. They said that Congress didn't have the power to define marriage, in fact they don't have the Constitutional authority to do anything with marriage. Then two years later the USSC goes ahead and in effect redefines marriage and does so narrowly on top of it. How nice for them, they already ruled that the only people who could have rewritten a law in order to contest the actions of the court are prohibited from doing so. That powergrab should be of concern to everyone but hey, as long as some gays are getting married there's nothing to see here, right?

[indago]

You're right, the issue I'm raising isn't on a lot of people's radar but it should be because it is the core issue which is a term you should be familiar with if you've read about these cases, especially Deboer v. Snyder.

Since you want to be technical about things then by all means let's get technical. These cases weren't about "gay marriage" as you put it. Obergefell v. Hodges wasn't about marriage at all because Obergefell was already married, the question there was if states have to recognize marriages from other states if they don't allow that type of marriage to be performed in their own state. The court found that states do have to recognize those other marriages.

Another case that was rolled up with Obergefell was Deboer v. Snyder. This case was originally about gays adopting. It later became about the gay marriage ban in Michigan because a federal judge stuck his nose where it didn't belong and cajoled the plaintiffs into making it about the ban so he could tailor make a case for higher courts, knowing full well the case would be appealed and knowing full well how he would rule on the case before he even heard the case. The ban was found to be un-Constitutional of course.

There were other cases rolled into this but they were variations on these two themes. In Obergefell's case I have no problem with the USSC ruling that states must recognize marriages legally performed in other states but I have a huge problem with the USSC ordering all states to perform these marriages because it doesn't logically follow. Recognition alone solves the problem in that case so the court went above and beyond and didn't go with the least restrictive option, this was a power grab.

In Deboer's case the voter approved gay marriage ban in Michigan was overturned. Once again, ordering all states to now marry gays doesn't logically follow. I have no problem with the ban being overturned but all that should mean is that the ban is no longer in place but gays couldn't get married in Michigan before the ban was voted in by Michigan voters.

Ordering all states to marry gays, and only gays, is discriminatory and the USSC knows it. The court ordered all states to change the way they do things in order to accomodate a percentage of the population so small as to be statistically insignificant and only them...that's the definition of discrimination not equal protection under the law.

I think I should clarify something I've been saying. You're right, the USSC did make this about gay marriage. I've been saying it isn't about gay marriage, what I should have said from the beginning was that the USSC was wrong to make this solely about gay marriage. They didn't have to do things the way they did leading up to their "gay day" but by doing them the way they did I think they did the nation a disservice.

In 2013, in Windsor v US, the USSC overturned DOMA, or at least the part that mattered. They said that Congress didn't have the power to define marriage, in fact they don't have the Constitutional authority to do anything with marriage. Then two years later the USSC goes ahead and in effect redefines marriage and does so narrowly on top of it. How nice for them, they already ruled that the only people who could have rewritten a law in order to contest the actions of the court are prohibited from doing so. That powergrab should be of concern to everyone but hey, as long as some gays are getting married there's nothing to see here, right?


That powergrab should be of concern to everyone

But then, weren't we warned about this over two hundred years ago...

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."

Quite prophetic, indeed!

[tailfins]

I must have missed the square that says because it's biologically screwed and TRUE homosexuals cannot procreate which terminates their use and/or value as part of the species.

Excellent point. However, it's not a square, it's a process symbol. There's several other problems: Decisions are not represented by diamond-shaped symbols and you don't use dotted line connections on the circle shaped on-page connectors. The premises on the page are as idiotic as the flowchart design.

[Gunny]

Excellent point. However, it's not a square, it's a process symbol. There's several other problems: Decisions are not represented by diamond-shaped symbols and you don't use dotted line connections on the circle shaped on-page connectors. The premises on the page are as idiotic as the flowchart design.

Do I impress you as the flow-chart type? I countered the whole thing with simple biology. I don't care about all the variables. I got a few simple ones:

1. Biologically aberrant.

2. The tyranny of the minority is out of hand in this country and needs to be stopped.

3. The Supreme Court needs to keep its nose out of the 10th Amendment. There is no Right to marriage in the Constitution; therefore, it falls to the states to decide under the 10th.

[Black Diamond]

Do I impress you as the flow-chart type? I countered the whole thing with simple biology. I don't care about all the variables. I got a few simple ones:

1. Biologically aberrant.

2. The tyranny of the minority is out of hand in this country and needs to be stopped.

3. The Supreme Court needs to keep its nose out of the 10th Amendment. There is no Right to marriage in the Constitution; therefore, it falls to the states to decide under the 10th.

He doesn't think homosexual activity is a sin. He doesn't consider gay marriage an abomination or an oxymoron. You and I do. That may be the real difference.

[Gunny]

He doesn't think homosexual activity is a sin. He doesn't consider gay marriage an abomination or an oxymoron. You and I do. That may be the real difference.

I kind of see the "sin" thing as irrelevant. If they want to go out back and screw their damned goats, long as I don't have to see it, that's on THEM, not me.

When you start making laws that force your aberrant behavior on the rest of us, I take issue. We've got more BS laws protecting minority and/or special interest groups in this country than we do that protect the Rights of the majority. In this case, the Supreme Court ruling is leading to a direct violation of the 1st Amendment and complete and total hypocrisy on the part of the left. I can't have a statue of the 10 Commandments or a Rebel flag, but you can force your faggoty asses into MY religion?

Keep your faggot-ass pole-smoking shit in your closet where it belongs.

[fj1200]

I must have missed the square that says because it's biologically screwed and TRUE homosexuals cannot procreate which terminates their use and/or value as part of the species.

I think you've just identified the Logan's Run scenario. When do we terminate the infertile? :)

[fj1200]

But then, weren't we warned about this over two hundred years ago...

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."

Quite prophetic, indeed!

Yeah, that ship sailed a long time ago. Straight marriage already "grabbed" the power, it just needs to be shared equally.


Do I impress you as the flow-chart type? I countered the whole thing with simple biology. I don't care about all the variables. I got a few simple ones:

1. Biologically aberrant.

2. The tyranny of the minority is out of hand in this country and needs to be stopped.

3. The Supreme Court needs to keep its nose out of the 10th Amendment. There is no Right to marriage in the Constitution; therefore, it falls to the states to decide under the 10th.

1. Meh, many things are. The right to liberty and non-governmental interference in our every day lives makes your point irrelevant.
2. There is no tyranny of the minority. Many agree with the decision and a majority will at some point if not already.
3. So straights can have their "right" but gays can't because it's not in the Constitution? That is poor reasoning. Marriage is not in the Constitution so Congress should not have used the definition to create law over 1000 times.

4. Flow charts are awesome.


He doesn't think homosexual activity is a sin. He doesn't consider gay marriage an abomination or an oxymoron. You and I do. That may be the real difference.

Even if I shared your opinion I would still come to the same conclusion. Small government is small government and equal protection of the law is in the Constitution.

[fj1200]

I kind of see the "sin" thing as irrelevant. If they want to go out back and screw their damned goats, long as I don't have to see it, that's on THEM, not me.

When you start making laws that force your aberrant behavior on the rest of us, I take issue. We've got more BS laws protecting minority and/or special interest groups in this country than we do that protect the Rights of the majority. In this case, the Supreme Court ruling is leading to a direct violation of the 1st Amendment and complete and total hypocrisy on the part of the left. I can't have a statue of the 10 Commandments or a Rebel flag, but you can force your faggoty asses into MY religion?

Keep your faggot-ass pole-smoking shit in your closet where it belongs.

The left does suck but the right should have been in front of this a long time ago. You may not like them but you should support small government.

[Nonnie]

Gays are not interested in the rights of others but just themselves. They expect heterosexuals to respect their rights but deny us of any rights. For example, the bakery that didn't wish to make a cake with a Gay Wedding message as it was against their beliefs. What about the choice and rights of the bakery owners? I'm sure the gays could have found another bakery that are into pushing brown putty up hill.

Homosexuality shouldn't have been removed from the list of mental illnesses in the 70's. Obviously all these chemicals and pollution in our food and air are screwing peoples brains. You can chop a dick off a bloke or strap a dick to a woman, but at the end of the day, changing the bodyshell of a tractor with that of a Nascar, won't make the tractor a Nascar.

There's a reason why God designed man and woman. People say, "It's not a choice to be gay", yeah, but you have a choice not to act on it.

The only part about this whole gay business, is the maltreatment of babies and children by allowing gays to adopt them, or, to be inseminated by a sperm donor. The fundamental reason when a man is with a woman is for offspring. Two holes together doesn't work and two bell ends up a back passage doesn't do the trick either.

[fj1200]

You're right, the issue I'm raising isn't on a lot of people's radar but it should be because it is the core issue which is a term you should be familiar with if you've read about these cases, especially Deboer v. Snyder.



Since you want to be technical about things then by all means let's get technical. These cases weren't about "gay marriage" as you put it. Obergefell v. Hodges wasn't about marriage at all because Obergefell was already married, the question there was if states have to recognize marriages from other states if they don't allow that type of marriage to be performed in their own state. The court found that states do have to recognize those other marriages.


Another case that was rolled up with Obergefell was Deboer v. Snyder. This case was originally about gays adopting. It later became about the gay marriage ban in Michigan because a federal judge stuck his nose where it didn't belong and cajoled the plaintiffs into making it about the ban so he could tailor make a case for higher courts, knowing full well the case would be appealed and knowing full well how he would rule on the case before he even heard the case. The ban was found to be un-Constitutional of course.


There were other cases rolled into this but they were variations on these two themes. In Obergefell's case I have no problem with the USSC ruling that states must recognize marriages legally performed in other states but I have a huge problem with the USSC ordering all states to perform these marriages because it doesn't logically follow. Recognition alone solves the problem in that case so the court went above and beyond and didn't go with the least restrictive option, this was a power grab.


In Deboer's case the voter approved gay marriage ban in Michigan was overturned. Once again, ordering all states to now marry gays doesn't logically follow. I have no problem with the ban being overturned but all that should mean is that the ban is no longer in place but gays couldn't get married in Michigan before the ban was voted in by Michigan voters.


Ordering all states to marry gays, and only gays, is discriminatory and the USSC knows it. The court ordered all states to change the way they do things in order to accomodate a percentage of the population so small as to be statistically insignificant and only them...that's the definition of discrimination not equal protection under the law.



I think I should clarify something I've been saying. You're right, the USSC did make this about gay marriage. I've been saying it isn't about gay marriage, what I should have said from the beginning was that the USSC was wrong to make this solely about gay marriage. They didn't have to do things the way they did leading up to their "gay day" but by doing them the way they did I think they did the nation a disservice.


In 2013, in Windsor v US, the USSC overturned DOMA, or at least the part that mattered. They said that Congress didn't have the power to define marriage, in fact they don't have the Constitutional authority to do anything with marriage. Then two years later the USSC goes ahead and in effect redefines marriage and does so narrowly on top of it. How nice for them, they already ruled that the only people who could have rewritten a law in order to contest the actions of the court are prohibited from doing so. That powergrab should be of concern to everyone but hey, as long as some gays are getting married there's nothing to see here, right?

No. DOMA tried to get around the full faith and credit clause which IMO doomed it to fail. You can't pass a law to get around the Constitution. And no. That isn't an example of discrimination. Expanding government access is not discrimination.

Is this "power grab" that you're so concerned about? That power grab has already happened. Should the Federal government have legislation tied to interpersonal relationships? No. But they are and those laws need to be applied equally.

[fj1200]

Gays are not interested in the rights of others but just themselves.

Gays are generally liberal and so are for stupid laws like that but conservatives have done a pretty good job of making them run to the left. It shouldn't be that way.