Kentucky Gubernatorial win is big win for Kim Davis

[Skylar]

The fed is marriage now. States no longer have a say. If they can't determine at minimum requirements a mother and father, then they're out of the game completely.

Says who?

You may want to read the Windsor v. US decision. Subject to constitutional guarantees, the State defines marriage.

 

[Skylar]

No surprise the butt fuck brigade doesn't or can't comprehend why this is a good win for Kim and religious rights in Kentucky. Oh well sit back and watch girls.

So....what laws couldn't you ignore under 'religious rights'?

Just out of curiosity.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The fed is marriage now. States no longer have a say. If they can't determine at minimum requirements a mother and father, then they're out of the game completely.

Says who?

You may want to read the Windsor v. US decision. Subject to constitutional guarantees, the State defines marriage.

First off, the case would be United States v. Windsor. Secondly, SCOTUS found DOMA unconstitutional and violative of the Equal Protection Clause of Amendment V. Following US v. Windsor, SCOTUS found bans on same sex marriage unconstitutional in all States violative of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of Amendment XIV. {EDIT} That would be in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Your claim is in error.

 

[Preacher]

No surprise the butt fuck brigade doesn't or can't comprehend why this is a good win for Kim and religious rights in Kentucky. Oh well sit back and watch girls.

So....what laws couldn't you ignore under 'religious rights'?

Just out of curiosity.

Being forced to marry homosexuals for one. Being forced to walk on my religious beliefs to make a cake for a homosexual "wedding". I can go on. NC fixed it where clerk of courts don't have to give licenses or perform marriages for faggots if they don't want to. They bring in someone that will.

 

[bodecea]

No surprise the butt fuck brigade doesn't or can't comprehend why this is a good win for Kim and religious rights in Kentucky. Oh well sit back and watch girls.

So....what laws couldn't you ignore under 'religious rights'?

Just out of curiosity.

Being forced to marry homosexuals for one. Being forced to walk on my religious beliefs to make a cake for a homosexual "wedding". I can go on. NC fixed it where clerk of courts don't have to give licenses or perform marriages for faggots if they don't want to. They bring in someone that will.

Who was forced to marry homosexuals? And as for cakes...that is STATE law....not federal law.

 

[Skylar]

The fed is marriage now. States no longer have a say. If they can't determine at minimum requirements a mother and father, then they're out of the game completely.

Says who?

You may want to read the Windsor v. US decision. Subject to constitutional guarantees, the State defines marriage.

First off, the case would be United States v. Windsor. Secondly, SCOTUS found DOMA unconstitutional and violative of the Equal Protection Clause of Amendment V.

Your citation is irrelevant to what is being discussed. We're talking about who defines marriage, the State or the Federal government. The Windsor ruling was ridiculously clear that it was the States:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see , e.g., Loving v. Virginia , 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa , 419 U. S. 393, 404.

Windsor v. US

With the courts making it just as clear that what the meant by 'regulation of domestic relations', was marriage.

The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379, 383–384.

Windsor v. US

Demonstrating that your comments are gloriously irrelevant to what we're discussing. And of course, that I was obviously correct.

Following US v. Windsor, SCOTUS found bans on same sex marriage unconstitutional in all States violative of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of Amendment XIV.

Your claim is in error.

You're confused. We're not speaking of the basis of the Windsor ruling. We're speaking of the Windsor ruling's recognition that the States regulate marriage. Not the Federal government.

None of which your comments have the slightest relevance to. Your mistake would be akin to replying that I'm wrong that the Toyota Camry comes in white because it has a 4 cylinder engine.

The two really have nothing to do with each other. Nor does one disprove the other. Much like your babble about the equal protection clause has nothing to do with whether it is the state or the federal government that defines and regulates marriage.

 

[Likkmee]

Kentucky Republican Gubernatorial Win is Big Win for Kim Davis - Liberty

Yes indeed it is!

Yay Mrs Frump-Frump !!!

 

[Skylar]

No surprise the butt fuck brigade doesn't or can't comprehend why this is a good win for Kim and religious rights in Kentucky. Oh well sit back and watch girls.

So....what laws couldn't you ignore under 'religious rights'?

Just out of curiosity.

Being forced to marry homosexuals for one. Being forced to walk on my religious beliefs to make a cake for a homosexual "wedding". I can go on. NC fixed it where clerk of courts don't have to give licenses or perform marriages for faggots if they don't want to. They bring in someone that will.

So if my religion deemed that paying taxes was a violation....does my religion trump civil law here too?

Where does religious rights NOT override civil law and make the religious exempt from them?

 

[Preacher]

No surprise the butt fuck brigade doesn't or can't comprehend why this is a good win for Kim and religious rights in Kentucky. Oh well sit back and watch girls.

So....what laws couldn't you ignore under 'religious rights'?

Just out of curiosity.

Being forced to marry homosexuals for one. Being forced to walk on my religious beliefs to make a cake for a homosexual "wedding". I can go on. NC fixed it where clerk of courts don't have to give licenses or perform marriages for faggots if they don't want to. They bring in someone that will.

So if my religion deemed that paying taxes was a violation....does my religion trump civil law here too?

Where does religious rights NOT override civil law and make the religious exempt from them?

Homosexuality always has been against christian beliefs. So....go ahead try that taxes one...let me know how it works lol

 

[Skylar]

No surprise the butt fuck brigade doesn't or can't comprehend why this is a good win for Kim and religious rights in Kentucky. Oh well sit back and watch girls.

So....what laws couldn't you ignore under 'religious rights'?

Just out of curiosity.

Being forced to marry homosexuals for one. Being forced to walk on my religious beliefs to make a cake for a homosexual "wedding". I can go on. NC fixed it where clerk of courts don't have to give licenses or perform marriages for faggots if they don't want to. They bring in someone that will.

So if my religion deemed that paying taxes was a violation....does my religion trump civil law here too?

Where does religious rights NOT override civil law and make the religious exempt from them?

Homosexuality always has been against christian beliefs. So....go ahead try that taxes one...let me know how it works lol

Yeah, but issuing marriage licenses from the State is never mentioned anywhere as sinful or righteous. So the interpretation is subjective and personal. And per you, exempts someone from the civil law.

For the third time......what laws do religious rights NOT exempt one from? If a Muslim for example believed that Sharia law trumps civil law.....does civil law not apply to them?

if not, why not?

 

[Preacher]

No surprise the butt fuck brigade doesn't or can't comprehend why this is a good win for Kim and religious rights in Kentucky. Oh well sit back and watch girls.

So....what laws couldn't you ignore under 'religious rights'?

Just out of curiosity.

Being forced to marry homosexuals for one. Being forced to walk on my religious beliefs to make a cake for a homosexual "wedding". I can go on. NC fixed it where clerk of courts don't have to give licenses or perform marriages for faggots if they don't want to. They bring in someone that will.

So if my religion deemed that paying taxes was a violation....does my religion trump civil law here too?

Where does religious rights NOT override civil law and make the religious exempt from them?

Homosexuality always has been against christian beliefs. So....go ahead try that taxes one...let me know how it works lol

Yeah, but issuing marriage licenses from the State is never mentioned anywhere as sinful or righteous. So the interpretation is subjective and personal. And per you, exempts someone from the civil law.

For the third time......what laws do religious rights NOT exempt one from? If a Muslim for example believed that Sharia law trumps civil law.....does civil law not apply to them?

if not, why not?

If my religious rights are being trampled on I have a right to NOT abide by ANY ruling that tramples on them. In MOST cases its participating in a homosexual "wedding" in ANY form. Same goes for ALL religions. Oh and since the US is based on the constitution and NOT Sharia law the Muslims can claim their religion prohibits it but not a new kind of law.

 

[WorldWatcher]

NC fixed it where clerk of courts don't have to give licenses or perform marriages for faggots if they don't want to. They bring in someone that will.

Not quite what North Carolina passed. Their law says that Magistrates can recuse themselves from performing marriages and Registars can recuse themselves from issuing licenses.

What you failed to point out was that:

1. If they exercise that option, the are barred from performing or issuing a licenses for ANY civil marriage for 6-months from their date of notification.

2. If no magistrate in a jurisdiction is performing marriages then the law requires one be made available within that jurisdiction.​

The NC Law attempts to address individual religious exemptions, but they also mandated that an individual cannot shutdown that function of government.

http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015/Bills/Senate/PDF/S2v3.pdf


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

So....what laws couldn't you ignore under 'religious rights'?

Just out of curiosity.

Being forced to marry homosexuals for one. Being forced to walk on my religious beliefs to make a cake for a homosexual "wedding". I can go on. NC fixed it where clerk of courts don't have to give licenses or perform marriages for faggots if they don't want to. They bring in someone that will.

So if my religion deemed that paying taxes was a violation....does my religion trump civil law here too?

Where does religious rights NOT override civil law and make the religious exempt from them?

Homosexuality always has been against christian beliefs. So....go ahead try that taxes one...let me know how it works lol

Yeah, but issuing marriage licenses from the State is never mentioned anywhere as sinful or righteous. So the interpretation is subjective and personal. And per you, exempts someone from the civil law.

For the third time......what laws do religious rights NOT exempt one from? If a Muslim for example believed that Sharia law trumps civil law.....does civil law not apply to them?

if not, why not?

If my religious rights are being trampled on I have a right to NOT abide by ANY ruling that tramples on them. In MOST cases its participating in a homosexual "wedding" in ANY form. Same goes for ALL religions. Oh and since the US is based on the constitution and NOT Sharia law the Muslims can claim their religion prohibits it but not a new kind of law.

Then any law where you feel your 'religious rights have been trampled' is invalid? With you deciding when it has happened?

What civil laws *wouldn't* a religious person be exempt from under 'religious rights' if they believed said laws 'trampled on their religious rights'?

Would taxes still apply? Public accommodation laws?

 

[Skylar]

NC fixed it where clerk of courts don't have to give licenses or perform marriages for faggots if they don't want to. They bring in someone that will.

Not quite what North Carolina passed. Their law says that Magistrates can recuse themselves from performing marriages and Registars can recuse themselves from issuing licenses.

What you failed to point out was that:

1. If they exercise that option, the are barred from performing or issuing a licenses for ANY civil marriage for 6-months from their date of notification.

2. If no magistrate in a jurisdiction is performing marriages then the law requires will require one be made available within that jurisdiction.​

The NC Law attempts to address individual religious exemptions, but they also mandated that an individual cannot shutdown that function of government.

http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015/Bills/Senate/PDF/S2v3.pdf


>>>>

Exactly. In Kim Davis' case she was offered exactly this exemption. With other clerks in her office willing to issue the certificates so she didn't have to.

She refused, insisting that she would prevent ANY clerk in her office from issuing the certificates. Forcing both the public and your coworkers to abide your religion isn't 'religious rights'.

 

[whitehall]

It's not only "big win for Kim Davis" it's a big win for the Tea Party. When you consider that northeast liberals contributed millions to get a state senate majority in Virginia and millions and defeat Bevin you gotta ask yourself what happened. It's no secret that NY liberals like Blumenthal contributed literally millions to defeat a couple of republican state senators to help democrat McAuliffe's liberal resume and to ensure an easy victory for a democrat in Kentucky. Just when the smarmy elitist liberals claimed the Tea Party was dead it seems that the Tea Party is very much alive. The liberal media was wrong and the push polls didn't work. You gotta wonder how worried the shrill wife of a pervert former president is about the failure of the liberal media to elect their candidate.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Sorry to say, But I think the democrats are over playing their hand with this LBTG crap. They're going to hand this entire fucking election to people like trump and cruz if they don't stop...They need to refocus on minimum wage, protecting ssi, pot legalization and coming up with real ideas that people can support.

 

[nat4900]

Yes, the CONSTITUTION has guarantees for 1st Amendment civil rights. Didn't you take poly sci? Might want to read up on the 9th Amendment too when you're predicting how potent the 1st Amendment will be when pitted against PA laws and June's Decision. 5 People in the Judicial do not have proper authority to rewrite either the 1st or the 9th Amendments. That is up to Congress and Congress alone...though I think the People can also do a referendum too.

You should know (probably not) that the Ninth Amendment actually REFUTES what you're attempting to bash with your post.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, the CONSTITUTION has guarantees for 1st Amendment civil rights. Didn't you take poly sci? Might want to read up on the 9th Amendment too when you're predicting how potent the 1st Amendment will be when pitted against PA laws and June's Decision. 5 People in the Judicial do not have proper authority to rewrite either the 1st or the 9th Amendments. That is up to Congress and Congress alone...though I think the People can also do a referendum too.

Um....wait. You're offering us MORE pseudo-legal predictions? C'mon...every prediction you gave us about future rulings was utterly wrong. Your reasoning was nonsense. The courts refuted you point for point.

But *this* time the courts are going to magically align themselves with whatever you imagine must be so?

Has that ever worked for you?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The fed is marriage now. States no longer have a say. If they can't determine at minimum requirements a mother and father, then they're out of the game completely.

Says who?

You may want to read the Windsor v. US decision. Subject to constitutional guarantees, the State defines marriage.

First off, the case would be United States v. Windsor. Secondly, SCOTUS found DOMA unconstitutional and violative of the Equal Protection Clause of Amendment V.

Your citation is irrelevant to what is being discussed. We're talking about who defines marriage, the State or the Federal government. The Windsor ruling was ridiculously clear that it was the States:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see , e.g., Loving v. Virginia , 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa , 419 U. S. 393, 404.

Windsor v. US

With the courts making it just as clear that what the meant by 'regulation of domestic relations', was marriage.

The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379, 383–384.

Windsor v. US

Demonstrating that your comments are gloriously irrelevant to what we're discussing. And of course, that I was obviously correct.

Following US v. Windsor, SCOTUS found bans on same sex marriage unconstitutional in all States violative of the
Says who?

You may want to read the Windsor v. US decision. Subject to constitutional guarantees, the State defines marriage.

Your claim is in error.

You're confused. We're not speaking of the basis of the Windsor ruling. We're speaking of the Windsor ruling's recognition that the States regulate marriage. Not the Federal government.

None of which your comments have the slightest relevance to. Your mistake would be akin to replying that I'm wrong that the Toyota Camry comes in white because it has a 4 cylinder engine.

The two really have nothing to do with each other. Nor does one disprove the other. Much like your babble about the equal protection clause has nothing to do with whether it is the state or the federal government that defines and regulates marriage.

Your post #41 to which I responded:
"Says who?

You may want to read the Windsor v. US decision. Subject to constitutional guarantees, the State defines marriage."

What you wrote revolved around your declarative implication that US v. Windsor returned full power to define marriage to the States by striking down DOMA. I fully understood that, but noted your error in that your declaration had been UNDERMINED by Obergefell v. Hodges decided just last June!

I laid out the legal path from Windsor leading to Obergefell to show that SCOTUS had banned the several States from any obstruction of same sex marriage because it was violative of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of Amendment XIV.

Is it not obvious to you that if a state statute is in violation of a person's due process and equal protection rights under Amendment XIV that statute is UNCONSTITUTIONAL? SCOTUS decided was the case in Obergefell which means that your assertion that "... the State defines marriage." has not been the case since last June.

Now I did go back 9 minutes after I posted and made an edit to clarify the last sentence by including the case reference to identify the source that I had inadvertently omitted. Perhaps you were already running with your response and didn't connect the contents with Obergefell and just did a piss poor job of due diligence and R&U. Or perhaps you simply wanted to rant to cover your error. Who knows or cares. But either way you were wrong, wrong, wrong! Same sex marriage is permitted everywhere in the US per SCOTUS, rendering portions of US v. Windsor moot!

It wasn't me who was confused, and don't try to baffle with bullshit!

 

[Skylar]

The fed is marriage now. States no longer have a say. If they can't determine at minimum requirements a mother and father, then they're out of the game completely.

Says who?

You may want to read the Windsor v. US decision. Subject to constitutional guarantees, the State defines marriage.

First off, the case would be United States v. Windsor. Secondly, SCOTUS found DOMA unconstitutional and violative of the Equal Protection Clause of Amendment V.

Your citation is irrelevant to what is being discussed. We're talking about who defines marriage, the State or the Federal government. The Windsor ruling was ridiculously clear that it was the States:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see , e.g., Loving v. Virginia , 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa , 419 U. S. 393, 404.

Windsor v. US

With the courts making it just as clear that what the meant by 'regulation of domestic relations', was marriage.

The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379, 383–384.

Windsor v. US

Demonstrating that your comments are gloriously irrelevant to what we're discussing. And of course, that I was obviously correct.

Following US v. Windsor, SCOTUS found bans on same sex marriage unconstitutional in all States violative of the
Says who?

You may want to read the Windsor v. US decision. Subject to constitutional guarantees, the State defines marriage.

Your claim is in error.

You're confused. We're not speaking of the basis of the Windsor ruling. We're speaking of the Windsor ruling's recognition that the States regulate marriage. Not the Federal government.

None of which your comments have the slightest relevance to. Your mistake would be akin to replying that I'm wrong that the Toyota Camry comes in white because it has a 4 cylinder engine.

The two really have nothing to do with each other. Nor does one disprove the other. Much like your babble about the equal protection clause has nothing to do with whether it is the state or the federal government that defines and regulates marriage.

Your post #41 to which I responded:
"Says who?

You may want to read the Windsor v. US decision. Subject to constitutional guarantees, the State defines marriage."

What you wrote revolved around your declarative implication that US v. Windsor returned full power to define marriage to the States by striking down DOMA. I fully understood that, but noted your error in that your declaration had been UNDERMINED by Obergefell v. Hodges decided just last June!

You clearly didn't 'fully understand'. As your entire argument collapses upon an even causal reading of my 3 sentence post. I'll bold where your argument shatters:

"Says who?

You may want to read the Windsor v. US decision. Subject to constitutional guarantees, the State defines marriage."

You completely ignored that section, pretending it didn't exist. Despite it being the axis around which Obergefell turned.

The Obergefell ruling NEVER found that the regulation of marriage was the arena of the federal government. Or overturned any of their findings in Windsor. Instead, the Obegefell Court found that the laws prohibiting marriage for same sex couples violated the due process and equal protection clauses.

You've mistaken a violation of constitutional guarantees with the Courts finding that marriage is defined by the Federal government. They aren't the same thing.

Your inability to discern the difference is why you were wrong. And I'm still right. As subject to constitutional guarantees, the State do define marriage.

Says who?

Says the Windsor Court itself:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see , e.g., Loving v. Virginia , 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa , 419 U. S. 393, 404.

Windsor v. US

With the courts making it just as clear that what the meant by 'regulation of domestic relations', was marriage.

The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379, 383–384.

Windsor v. US

You simply didn't know what you were talking about. And I did. Remember that. Its likely to be a pattern in our discussions.

I laid out the legal path from Windsor leading to Obergefell to show that SCOTUS had banned the several States from any obstruction of same sex marriage because it was violative of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of Amendment XIV.

You laid out a legal path that's gloriously irrelevant to what we're discussing: who defines marriage, the State or the Federal Government.

Subject to constitutional guarantees, the States define marriage. Exactly as the Windsor ruling said clearly and unquestioningly. And the Obergefell ruling never overturns. Your continuing confusion on this point is obvious.