Ted Cruz backs county clerks denying marriage licenses to gay couples

[emilynghiem]

There is a Constitutional Amendment that secures the right to guns. There is no Constitutional right to marry.

Even so, a sales person with an objection to guns would be permitted not to ring up a gun sale.

There is no Constitutional right to marry. ?? Yes there is. The Supreme court has rules on numerous occasions that marriage is a right, and now, since Obergefell v. Hodges, same sex marriage is a right. It is a binding precedent -part of constitutional law as valid as any enumerated right.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot

Many people would disagree and say it takes legislative action, not judicial, to create laws and rights.
If you are going to amend the Constitution, where is the Constitutional Amendment and ratification?

Same with radically altering the federal govt authority to mandate insurance, which many argue
would require a Constitutional Amendment granting federal govt such new reaches of authority.

The judiciary ruled that the ACA was Constitutional as a tax, but Congress did not vote on this as a tax.
And if you look at the Congressional vote, that was split by party, this shows that the bill was biased
by political beliefs; and by the First Amendment, govt is not supposed to establish beliefs, nor regulate on the basis of religion or penalize people whose creed prevents them from complying with the mandates against their beliefs.

These laws do not pass Constitutional standards universally for all the citizens of America who deserve equal representation.

I believe the challenges to these laws will eventually prevail, similar to how Bush's mandates that were overreaching and exceeded Constitutional limits on govt were also challenged and compelled him to retract his arguments for going to war that were never proven but remain faith based.

The arguments about right to marriage and right to health care are also faith based.
So if people are going to pass faith-based mandates through govt, this has to be by consensus
of the people affected or else you are violating the First and Fourteenth Amendment.

If you do not even consider the beliefs of other people to have standing, that's why oppression happens.
By dehumanizing and subjugating other people as not counting,
depriving them of equal rights and liberties by declaring them void.
================
personal note: So interesting, TheProgressivePatriot
if people were worried that you were going to be some neo-neocon,
well, if I am more hardcore Constitutionalist than you are as a fellow progressive,
then maybe I am the "socialist nationalistic-nazi" people are really afraid of,
and you are a "liberal light" compared with me. Maybe next to me,
you won't look so scary after all, but will come across as relatively harmless!

If so, perhaps we can play good cop, bad cop. People like liberals they can entrap and corner into contradictions.
They can't always deal with me saying I'm a progressive Democrat because I'll actually agree on Constitutional
principles, hold them to the same, and turn the tables and corner them into contradictions.

Liberals aren't supposed to be able to defend and win Constitutional arguments.
If you do what liberals normally do, and just depend on Govt instead of Constitutional laws to defend equal rights, then you should fit with the stereotypes of liberals where people can easily pick apart your arguments.

If rights depend on govt to establish and defend, then people will never be equal that way; because that means people in govt positions or with party influence have more power than people who aren't represented by either.

Whereas for the opposite, where govt follows and reflects where people agree to contract with each other,
then all people can be educated and empowered to enforce and exercise authority of law themselves first,
and then they can be represented equally in govt whether directly or indirectly.

I don't know where I stand on the scale from left to right compared with you.
But on a scale of "scary to think about," I probably come across as a more frightening threat.

Dear Emily,

When you first showed up here, I saw you as a person who might have some fresh new ideas that could bring a divided country together. However, it has become apparent to me that you are living in a fantasy world where everyone, regardless of their views or actions is right and should and can be accommodated. In order to achieve that goal in your mind, you stretch the bounds of reality and employ bizarre theories about how our legal system works. Case in point. You said:

Many people would disagree and say it takes legislative action, not judicial, to create laws and rights. If you are going to amend the Constitution, where is the Constitutional Amendment and ratification?

This shows an abysmal understanding of constitutional law on your part. It matters little what” many people” would say. Many people would say that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that the sun revolves around it. The fact is that the court interprets laws passed by congress and the legislatures and thus shapes their meaning and application. That is called case law, and yes, sometimes court made law. That is the reality of how things work.

The court also determines the constitutionality of laws. Regarding marriage equality, the court did not amend the constitution. The constitution does not specifically address marriage and no amendment is necessary to extend the right to marry to same sex couples. They simply and appropriately invalidated state laws that banned same sex marriage. Yes it is that simple, yet to persist in trying to make it more complicated than it is.

As for religious freedom. To those who believe that the very act of same sex couples getting married is a violation of their religious freedom because they must breath the same air and walk the same earth with them, I say tough shit. Get over it. That is your psychosis and your problem. This is a secular society and a secular government. Yes Emily, there is such a thing as right and wrong and everyone cannot and should not be accommodated and respected.

I had previously asked you how it would be possible to do so, what it would look like in reality and all I’ve gotten back is more gibberish about “faith based mandates “ and “dehumanizing and subjugating other people as not counting", and "depriving them of equal rights and liberties by declaring them void” Emily, these people who you speak of are the ones seeking to dehumanize and subjugating other people as not counting, and do not deserve the time of day, leave alone the right to be heard and accommodated. They are bullies and theocrats who do not respect the rights of those who do not believe as they do. There cannot be and need not be a consensus. You consider yourself a Constitutionalist, but in order to actually be a Constitutionalist, you need to get a much better understanding of the Constitution.
.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot When it comes to religious beliefs, neither side will budge. I recognize this and I am NOT in denial.
I am talking about Political Reality.

You in fact prove the very point I am making
about political beliefs and how neither you nor opponents can see it any other way. This is EXACTLY what I mean by requiring separation of beliefs by party.

The DIfFERENCE mt friend is

You have to change the Constitution then.

Yes JakeStarkey the one thing you TheProgressivePatriot and Seawytch have convinced me of
is that it is not possible for some people to make the leap that religious freedom and not discriminating by creed automatically includes political beliefs. So a separate clarification is required for people who need a literal law stating that about political beliefs. Since this itself involves beliefs, the statements and agreements may need to be established per party. It would take a national agreement to make a Constitutional amendment out of political beliefs and "consent of the governed" or else it contradicts its own premise. By its very nature, how can a law respecting "consent of the governed" be passed with anything less than consent if that is what the law is referring to? It would be self-contradictory. So perhaps by presenting the reason we need such an agreement, consent of the governed would be established by resolving conflicts "in the process." And by then, maybe we will already reach such an agreement, and the law would no longer be necessary if we all agree how to interpret the laws. But you are saying it still has to be in writing. So that's fine, if that's what people need before they will respect consent of the governed is to make sure BOTH sides abide by that, and EVERYONE is in agreement to stop the "political partisan bullying" on BOTH sides, then the fighting can stop.

Thanks you have convinced me that the beliefs run so deep neither side can see
where or how they are getting what out of the Constitution or where they aren't getting
something that "is established law." if the differences are THAT deep, then by all means,
yes we need to acknowledge the political differences are causing people to call different
things legal or illegal and that absolutely must be corrected, or we will have people breaking
the laws on both sides thinking they are enforcing it. This is legally necessary, then, to
write out how we might agree to handle "political beliefs" so this pattern of abuse does not continue.

It is not even people's fault if their beliefs are such, that they cannot see it any other way.
That's how deep these beliefs go, it affects our perception of reality. Very serious. Thank you
and I agree we need to get something in writing if it is this serious that people cannot
change their beliefs or perceptions by free will, but need a law or agreement through govt
before they can accept and work with another approach to resolving political conflicts and beliefs.

Wow, I guess it is legally necessary. Very deep!

 

[emilynghiem]

Including all beliefs in the democratic process does not mean they will all prevail in the laws that result.

There aren't 'two' sides on any issue. But hundreds. Perhaps thousands. As any one can hold any 'belief' they wish. That icecream makes computers work better. That babies are conceived by eating chicken eggs. That the world is only 6000 years old. Whatever they wish.

We don't take into account every possible belief for several reasons. First, that's not democracy. Democracy is the application of the will of the majority, directly or indirectly. Not the application of the beliefs of anyone.

Second, not all beliefs are equally valid. In our system of laws if you had a belief that no one should be allowed to own a gun, this conflicts with our system of laws. And would be unconstitutional if enacted as a law at any level of government. That you hold a belief doesn't mean that its compatible with our law, a good idea, or well thought through.

Third, because people disagree. Your concept of 'consensus' where we find a compromise position that everyone can agree to isn't possible in all instances. Or most of them. Sometimes people disagree. And there is no compromise.

Your conception of democracy is not democracy. Nor should be. As belief alone shouldn't be the basis of law. And isn't.

What I'm saying is many of the beliefs on both sides will "cancel each other out"
ie the beliefs EXCLUDING each others' may be equal to each other in not being universal.
while the beliefs that INCLUDE the others may end up prevailing since those accommodate the other beliefs.

Democracy isn't nor was ever meant to be 'universal'. It was meant to be the will of the majority. We limit that with individual rights. But within the constraints of these constitutional guarantees, the will of the majority has some pretty broad powers.

Again, democracy isn't what you think it is. Democracy isn't a universal agreement representing everyone's beliefs. Its a universal application of law based on the majority's beliefs.

And NO, when it comes to religious beliefs,
the LAW clearly states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
and the Fourteenth Amendment expanded equal protections of the law to states,
while the Civil Rights Act extended these to public institutions, including the concept of
not discriminating on the basis of CREED.

And so it is. But a clerk acting is the capacity of a representative of the State isn't practicing her religion. She's exercising State authority. If she is permitted to use State power to force unwilling people to follow her religion, that's the State establishing religion. Which as you noted above is a clear violation of the 1st amendment.

If her religion prevents her from doing her job, she should leave immediately. Allowing her to force her religion onto unwilling people and compel them to abide her religion in violation of the law is not 'freedom', nor democracy. Its the abuse of power. And should not happen.

Dear Skylar I agree there are many views.
(1) But the ones that really matter are the ones that will drive the democratic process to reach a resolution.
Once you include the REALLY important points, the rest people will drop or work out if they aren't the critical key issues. People will give a lot on these other details if they get the MAIN concerns they wanted addressed.

If you look at the mediation process, it is generally done this way, to identify the points people ABSOLUTELY cannot compromise and deal with those, and then encourage the people to work out the other points and give and take equally where they see the other side is STRETCHING just as much outside what THEY want, so it is EQUAL. it is NOT one side dominating the whole conversation and dictating the process, but AVOIDING that.

So a lot of the side issues take care of themselves and streamline the process to the most urgent critical
points.

(2) also I am NOT saying the beliefs should decide the law but the opposite, as you state,
that these should NOT be mixed with govt.

Unfortunately with political beliefs, NEITHER side is fully separating their beliefs from govt
where this becomes impossible. If your belief that marriage is a right DEPENDS on govt,
then how can that belief about govt be separated from govt.

What you and others seem to be missing is that your stance equally comes across
as a BELIEF to others who don't come from that same position or background.

So it will appear you are violating the very premise you are asserting
that beliefs should not dictate govt decisions. Some of the prolife people
have to grapple with this same dynamic: if they BELIEVE that scientifically it is PROVEN
that life begins at conception, they can't imagine any other approach or choice is even valid.
So they think abortion is murder, period. Even Guiliani had to answer to prolife constituents
on including "other beliefs" because of Constitutional laws on religious freedom that goes BOTH WAYS.

So if the right can understand to separate their beliefs from govt,
the task remains can the left come to the same understanding and do the same.

If not, if the beliefs are so inherent that govt is REQUIRED to establish equal rights,
and there is "no other way" that is like people who believe JESUS is the "only way"
and can only use THAT language or else to them the truth is not established.

So if that is how people believe, that must be accommodated in the equation.
Thanks Skylar, you have convinced me there are people who absolutely
depend on govt and cannot establish decisions, laws or rights any other way
unless the GOVT declares it, then it becomes real and exists.

If that is the BELIEF of people, who do not feel equally protected any other way
except through govt, then that has to be allowed and cannot be barred.

I don't think that is healthy or equal to depend on govt where other people don't,
but if that is the only way for people to FEEL and BELIEVE they are equal,
then that becomes legally necessary. I will take this point back to the right
and explain it the best I can, maybe similar to how people use JESUS as the
only way to establish universal truth and law; liberals like you use GOVT
and that is the screening or central facilitating authority to make sure the
process is truly lawful and has consent and represents all the people who use that.

Fine.

 

[JakeStarkey]

emilynghiem, you can believe anything you want religiously. No one is going to stop you, but a political belief like "ACA bad" does not translate into a religious protection for that belief under our Constitution.

Mature Americans like many of us use the CONSTITUTION to make these decisions.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

There is a Constitutional Amendment that secures the right to guns. There is no Constitutional right to marry.

Even so, a sales person with an objection to guns would be permitted not to ring up a gun sale.

There is no Constitutional right to marry. ?? Yes there is. The Supreme court has rules on numerous occasions that marriage is a right, and now, since Obergefell v. Hodges, same sex marriage is a right. It is a binding precedent -part of constitutional law as valid as any enumerated right.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot

Many people would disagree and say it takes legislative action, not judicial, to create laws and rights.
If you are going to amend the Constitution, where is the Constitutional Amendment and ratification?

Same with radically altering the federal govt authority to mandate insurance, which many argue
would require a Constitutional Amendment granting federal govt such new reaches of authority.

The judiciary ruled that the ACA was Constitutional as a tax, but Congress did not vote on this as a tax.
And if you look at the Congressional vote, that was split by party, this shows that the bill was biased
by political beliefs; and by the First Amendment, govt is not supposed to establish beliefs, nor regulate on the basis of religion or penalize people whose creed prevents them from complying with the mandates against their beliefs.

These laws do not pass Constitutional standards universally for all the citizens of America who deserve equal representation.

I believe the challenges to these laws will eventually prevail, similar to how Bush's mandates that were overreaching and exceeded Constitutional limits on govt were also challenged and compelled him to retract his arguments for going to war that were never proven but remain faith based.

The arguments about right to marriage and right to health care are also faith based.
So if people are going to pass faith-based mandates through govt, this has to be by consensus
of the people affected or else you are violating the First and Fourteenth Amendment.

If you do not even consider the beliefs of other people to have standing, that's why oppression happens.
By dehumanizing and subjugating other people as not counting,
depriving them of equal rights and liberties by declaring them void.
================
personal note: So interesting, TheProgressivePatriot
if people were worried that you were going to be some neo-neocon,
well, if I am more hardcore Constitutionalist than you are as a fellow progressive,
then maybe I am the "socialist nationalistic-nazi" people are really afraid of,
and you are a "liberal light" compared with me. Maybe next to me,
you won't look so scary after all, but will come across as relatively harmless!

If so, perhaps we can play good cop, bad cop. People like liberals they can entrap and corner into contradictions.
They can't always deal with me saying I'm a progressive Democrat because I'll actually agree on Constitutional
principles, hold them to the same, and turn the tables and corner them into contradictions.

Liberals aren't supposed to be able to defend and win Constitutional arguments.
If you do what liberals normally do, and just depend on Govt instead of Constitutional laws to defend equal rights, then you should fit with the stereotypes of liberals where people can easily pick apart your arguments.

If rights depend on govt to establish and defend, then people will never be equal that way; because that means people in govt positions or with party influence have more power than people who aren't represented by either.

Whereas for the opposite, where govt follows and reflects where people agree to contract with each other,
then all people can be educated and empowered to enforce and exercise authority of law themselves first,
and then they can be represented equally in govt whether directly or indirectly.

I don't know where I stand on the scale from left to right compared with you.
But on a scale of "scary to think about," I probably come across as a more frightening threat.

Dear Emily,

When you first showed up here, I saw you as a person who might have some fresh new ideas that could bring a divided country together. However, it has become apparent to me that you are living in a fantasy world where everyone, regardless of their views or actions is right and should and can be accommodated. In order to achieve that goal in your mind, you stretch the bounds of reality and employ bizarre theories about how our legal system works. Case in point. You said:

Many people would disagree and say it takes legislative action, not judicial, to create laws and rights. If you are going to amend the Constitution, where is the Constitutional Amendment and ratification?

This shows an abysmal understanding of constitutional law on your part. It matters little what” many people” would say. Many people would say that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that the sun revolves around it. The fact is that the court interprets laws passed by congress and the legislatures and thus shapes their meaning and application. That is called case law, and yes, sometimes court made law. That is the reality of how things work.

The court also determines the constitutionality of laws. Regarding marriage equality, the court did not amend the constitution. The constitution does not specifically address marriage and no amendment is necessary to extend the right to marry to same sex couples. They simply and appropriately invalidated state laws that banned same sex marriage. Yes it is that simple, yet to persist in trying to make it more complicated than it is.

As for religious freedom. To those who believe that the very act of same sex couples getting married is a violation of their religious freedom because they must breath the same air and walk the same earth with them, I say tough shit. Get over it. That is your psychosis and your problem. This is a secular society and a secular government. Yes Emily, there is such a thing as right and wrong and everyone cannot and should not be accommodated and respected.

I had previously asked you how it would be possible to do so, what it would look like in reality and all I’ve gotten back is more gibberish about “faith based mandates “ and “dehumanizing and subjugating other people as not counting", and "depriving them of equal rights and liberties by declaring them void” Emily, these people who you speak of are the ones seeking to dehumanize and subjugating other people as not counting, and do not deserve the time of day, leave alone the right to be heard and accommodated. They are bullies and theocrats who do not respect the rights of those who do not believe as they do. There cannot be and need not be a consensus. You consider yourself a Constitutionalist, but in order to actually be a Constitutionalist, you need to get a much better understanding of the Constitution.
.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot When it comes to religious beliefs, neither side will budge. I recognize this and I am NOT in denial.
I am talking about Political Reality.

You in fact prove the very point I am making
about political beliefs and how neither you nor opponents can see it any other way. This is EXACTLY what I mean by requiring separation of beliefs by party.

The DIFFERENCE my friend is that true Constitutionalists can be held to putting the Constitutional laws first, before their own beliefs, such as the Prolife Christians have to do all the time, even though they religious disagree. I find this harder for the left to do who don't have the same convictions to put the Constitution and beliefs of others equal to their own. I suspect it is the fear of bullying by the right that prevents giving equal religious freedom to all people, since the right is more organized by church affiliation and this is generally feared as being abused.

By my experience, I have found prolife opponents on the right to submit to checks against abuses by citing Constitutional and Christian laws. So I am not afraid to enforce these standards to prevent abuses that otherwise discriminate and exclude views and people from the left.

I'm sorry if you do not have the same experience and confidence in how well the laws work to establish agreement and collaboration between people of different views.

Whatever level of consensus you believe is not possible has already been done before. It happens all the time where I work with people of opposing views. Mediation allows all people to be heard and participate equally, without fear of being bullied coerced or excluded by the other side, where the decision depends on where they agree so that becomes the driving force, not bullying to silence intimidate and oppress each other. It is empowering and liberating, and the consensus process still allows other means to be used, such as majority rule, super majority, arbitration by a judge or third party; but not vice versa, limiting participants to arbitration or majority rule does not always allow all conflicts to be addressed where the other systems get abused to bully to dominate the process.

If you haven't tried this, I encourage you to do so.

I learned the hard way that by NOT listening to the consent of all people in a conflict, bullying and abuses go unchecked. I live in the only historic district left in America of Freed Slave churches, with TWO national historic designations for Civil Rights landmarks, DESTROYED by abuses of govt to censor and deny the equal protection of rights, interests and representation by the people defending national history.

It was a very expensive lesson to learn that we need to enforce the laws on a higher standard of ethics than just majority rule or lawsuits, because the people with MORE legal resources and political backing will override people with less.

The Good News is that the solutions that came out of this district can help reform govt,
and end the problems of political disparity that otherwise encourage and reward bullying.

So I hope those will answer the problems we are facing today, and make up for the millions in taxes misspent destroying irreplaceable national history because we didn't enforce equal justice and equal protections of the law as our Constitution claims.

I found that mediation and consensus would have protected our national history and interests, and still allow for the freedom of others to pursue and defend their beliefs as well.

Consensus does not prevent or preclude other people and other means beliefs and approaches. But the lack of consensus that leads to bullying DOES exclude and censor people from the process. So I go for the more inclusive approach that doesn't bar all other approaches from being pursued and defended as well WITHOUT conflict.

Thanks TheProgressivePatriot and I hope these solutions prove to be more sustainable, ethical and empowering for all people who otherwise fear political bullying as the only driving force in govt. I believe consent of the governed is the driving force and will win out in the end as it is the ONLY thing I know that has settled conflicts and established peace and respect.

Dear Emily,

I have no idea whatsoever what this “separation of beliefs by party” as a way to quell conflict would look like in the real world. We already have a separation of beliefs with the Republicans being the party of the theocrats and oligarchists. That only exacerbates the divisiveness. Are you now suggesting that we have a separate set of laws for conservatives vs. progressives, Democrats vs. Republicans and allow individuals to follow whatever set of rules that they best relate too? If so, would we be divided geographically or some other way? I would to actually see you spell this out- in a concrete, and practical way.

As far as political reality is concerned, that is what I’m talking about also, and the reality is that everyone cannot have that reality be to their liking. It is also a reality that there are those want to shape the political environment-the laws that govern us – based on their religious beliefs. Yes, neither side want to budge-that much we agree on. However, I do not agree that both sides are equally worthy of having it their way and I will tell you why.

Those on the right-the ones being driven primarily by religious fervor but also by simple conservative/ traditional principles seek to impose their views on everyone regardless of their beliefs. We see that with same sex marriage, birth control, abortion, education, health care and even climate science. You speak of mediation which should lead to compromise, but how to you compromise on the issue of who you have the right to marry, dominion over your own body, the need for you kids to be taught real science, and the desire to preserve the planet for their future? In short, they want to shape the political and the moral landscape for all of us regardless of our beliefs.

On the liberal-progressive side, we are quite willing to allow the religious and other conservatives to live in their bubble where they can still be opposed to gay marriage-for themselves- not use birth control or have an abortion, teach their children that Moses had dinosaurs with him on the Arc and whatever other equine excrement they want, as long as it is not taught as science in the public schools. However, they should be allowed to pollute and destroy the earth because the voices in their heads told them that mankind has dominion of the earth and all of its creatures.

To sum it up, when progressives prevail, conservatives are still free to go on with their lives and live according to their beliefs. When conservatives prevail, the resulting laws and policies impact us all. And another thing. It is clearly the conservatives who are the ones who have the trouble in putting the constitution ahead of their own beliefs, not us on the left. In addition, it is the conservatives who have the problem with being inclusive. For us everyone gets a seat at the table, as long as they behave themselves and don’t try to bully others into being like them. No Emily, both sides are not equally at fault and both are not equally deserving of accommodation.

A side note: Abortion does present a particularly sticky issue which you seem to be concerned about. However, it may be the best area in which compromise is actually possible. Most people who are prochoice are not callously pro abortion. Regardless of ones beliefs about when life begins, we recognize that abortion is not a pleasant or desirable thing. I for one have no problem with overall policies that are aimed at making abortion rare-but still available. How do we do that? By supporting meaningful sex education and the availability of contraception for starters. Then, by ensuring that women and families are confident that they will have the help and support that they need if they choose to carry the child to term. That would include nutritional and financial assistance, early child hood education, and health care coverage for starters. How about we throw in tax policies that strengthen the middle class and promote jib growth. The problem is that to many pro life conservatives age against all or most of these things and there for they are really just pro birth. If they could come around to actually being pro women and children, THAT would be real compromise. However, conservatives won't do that and instead, cling to absurd positions of just wanting abortion stopped, even in cases or rape, incest or a danger to the mothers life. Now tell me again, how exactly are we all equally responsible for this mess?


I think that we have about covered it here. Please spare me another manifesto. I am not impressed

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Cruz in the News again!! You think that this country is divided now? If this ass hat gets in, you ain't seen nothing yet!

Ted Cruz to Jan Mickelson: 'Atheist Taliban' Attacking Religious Liberty
Submitted by Miranda Blue on Friday, 8/21/2015 10:53 am
This morning, just two days after Iowa talk radio host Jan Mickelson caused a national controversy when he suggested that states enslave undocumented immigrants who refuse to leave, asking, “What’s wrong with slavery?,” Sen. Ted Cruz joined Mickelson’s program to discuss his upcoming rally in Iowa which will bring together various supposed victims of anti-Christian persecution.

Mickelson asked Cruz to discuss his fight against the “brazenness of the atheist Taliban” and the fact that “anytime they furrow their brow at anyone [people] fold up and go home and give them what they want.”

Cruz, who has previously railed against what he called a gay “jihad" against Christians, apparently liked Mickelson’s phrase, and took it up while describing his work fighting against church-state separation efforts.

- See more at: Ted Cruz to Jan Mickelson: 'Atheist Taliban' Attacking Religious Liberty

 

[Skylar]

Dear Skylar I agree there are many views.
(1) But the ones that really matter are the ones that will drive the democratic process to reach a resolution.
Once you include the REALLY important points, the rest people will drop or work out if they aren't the critical key issues. People will give a lot on these other details if they get the MAIN concerns they wanted addressed.

If you look at the mediation process, it is generally done this way, to identify the points people ABSOLUTELY cannot compromise and deal with those, and then encourage the people to work out the other points and give and take equally where they see the other side is STRETCHING just as much outside what THEY want, so it is EQUAL. it is NOT one side dominating the whole conversation and dictating the process, but AVOIDING that.

Democracy isn't a mediation or a compromise of all views. Its the application of the will of the majority. Again, your entire conception of democracy is wrong. And you're basing elaborate false assumptions on your erroneous foundation.

Democracy doesn't represent the views of all equally. It represents the views of the majority. Democracy isn't universal. It represents the will of the majority. Democracy isn't about consensus. Democracy is about the will of the majority.

Your argument breaks on your singular misunderstanding of what democracy is and was meant to be.

What you and others seem to be missing is that your stance equally comes across
as a BELIEF to others who don't come from that same position or background.

So it will appear you are violating the very premise you are asserting
that beliefs should not dictate govt decisions. Some of the prolife people
have to grapple with this same dynamic: if they BELIEVE that scientifically it is PROVEN
that life begins at conception, they can't imagine any other approach or choice is even valid.
So they think abortion is murder, period. Even Guiliani had to answer to prolife constituents
on including "other beliefs" because of Constitutional laws on religious freedom that goes BOTH WAYS.

I said beliefs ALONE shouldn't dictate law. Beliefs are mitigated by all sorts of things. Individual rights, constitutional guarantees, practical consequence, compatibility with existing law, utility, persuasiveness, and many other factors.

Merely believing something doesn't make your perspective valid or worthy of representation in law. Or meet any of the additional criteria that all beliefs must meet in order to be enacted into law. Your second grand fallacy is that all beliefs are equally valid. Where any belief has as much value as any other belief. And thus should carry the same weight in law.

Nope. Not all beliefs are equal. And not all beliefs are represented in government. Nor should be.

And religious freedom does not permit you to ignore any law. If such were the case then law becomes an entirely notional concept. As any law you don' like you merely declare violates your religious beliefs and thus doesn't apply to you. Its a religiously based sovereign citizen argument. Where law applies to you to the extent that you agree it does.

That's not our system of law, ever was, nor was ever intended to be. That's a modern revisionist fantasy.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Update!! Her goose is cooked!!

Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis Makes A Last Stand Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis Makes A Last Stand

Federal District Court Judge David Bunning has already ordered Ms. Davis to begin issuing licenses to everyone who is legally qualified, writing that clerks are tasked with verifying that information on the license is correct, not approving the marriages on religious grounds.

While he refused to stay his own order, he has allowed Ms. Davis considerable leeway to continue to defy his order without consequences, while she seeks a stay from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. But the judge has put a time limit on her insubordination - August 31. Come September 1, Ms. Davis will have to face the music.

The sands are running swiftly through the hourglass for Ms. Davis, who is beginning to seem more like a sacrificial lamb being fattened for the slaughter, than a role model for Christian girls everywhere

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Holy crap.. another one!

Kentucky Clerk: It's My Job To Tell Gays They're Going To Hell Submitted by Brian Tashman on Wednesday, 8/26/2015 1:20 pm

As we reported, local Kentucky official Casey Davis said in a radio interview earlier this week that he will defy a court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples even “if it takes my life.” The Casey County clerk also told West Virginia radio host Tom Roten on Monday that he believes that, as a Christian, he should be exempt from performing such job duties because his religion requires him to not only oppose same-sex marriage but also to tell gay people that they are going to Hell unless they repent and get washed in “the blood of Jesus Christ.” - See more at: Kentucky Clerk: It's My Job To Tell Gays They're Going To Hell

There is more!

Kentucky Clerk Says He May Die Fighting Gay Marriage Submitted by Brian Tashman on Wednesday, 8/26/2015 1:00 pm

A small group of county clerks in Kentucky have said that they will defy the Supreme Court’s decision on marriage equality and refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. One of them, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, recently lost her case in federal court and is likely to lose on appeal. On Monday, Casey County Clerk Casey Davis (no relation) appeared on Huntington, West Virginia’s “The Tom Roten Morning Show” to discuss how he similarly plans to defy the courts if ordered to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples … even to the point of death. - See more at: Kentucky Clerk Says He May Die Fighting Gay Marriage

 

[Seawytch]

Does the last name Davis make people insane?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

UPDATE!!

Anti-Gay Kentucky Clerk Defies Court For Third Time, Appeals To SCOTUS Submitted by Brian Tashman on Thursday, 8/27/2015 11:00 am

A Kentucky county clerk who has refused to issue any marriage licenses since the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in June lost an appeal of her case in the Sixth Circuit yesterday. The federal appeals court held that the clerk, Kim Davis, cannot cite her personal religious views as a reason to stop a government office from performing its duties. - \

Davis will appeal one more rung up the ladder, to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, who can intervene in 6th Circuit cases, Staver said. While Staver claims that the clerk’s “constitutional rights” are being violated when she is required to perform her job duties, the appeals court points out that this is not a case of individual free speech: “[W]here a public employee’s speech is made pursuant to his duties, ‘the relevant speaker [is] the government entity, not the individual.’” - See more at: Anti-Gay Kentucky Clerk Defies Court For Third Time, Appeals To SCOTUS

Keep in mind that it was the 6th circuit that UPHELD Michigan's ban on same sex marriage so this is not a "liberal court"

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This is just insane!! The entire SCOTUS turned down her appeal without comment!

Kentucky Clerk Refuses To Issue Marriage License To Gay Couples In Heated Exchange

WASHINGTON -- A Kentucky county clerk on Tuesday refused to issue marriage licenses for two same-sex couples despite a Supreme Court ruling ordering the clerk to do so.


A video posted to Facebook by WKYT shows the gay couples repeatedly demanding that the clerk, Kim Davis, issue them marriage licenses.


"We are not issuing marriage licenses today," Davis says in the video.


"Under whose authority are you not issuing licenses?" asks one of the men.


"Under God's authority," Davis responds. Kentucky Clerk Refuses To Issue Marriage License To Gay Couples In Heated Exchange

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Kim Davis Has Been A Practicing Christian For Only Four Years Kim Davis Has Been A Practicing Christian For Only Four Years

Kim Davis has been married four times, divorced three times, committed adultery, and gave birth to the children of a man not her husband, while married to another man.

Yes, it's rather confusing.

The Kentucky county clerk facing potentially stiff penalties for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses has been married four times, raising questions of hypocrisy and selective application of the Bible to her life," the conservative U.S. News & World Report revealed last night.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Kim Davis Has Been A Practicing Christian For Only Four Years Kim Davis Has Been A Practicing Christian For Only Four Years

Kim Davis has been married four times, divorced three times, committed adultery, and gave birth to the children of a man not her husband, while married to another man.

Yes, it's rather confusing.

The Kentucky county clerk facing potentially stiff penalties for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses has been married four times, raising questions of hypocrisy and selective application of the Bible to her life," the conservative U.S. News & World Report revealed last night.

And if a number of years ago a County Clerk refused to issue her a Civil Marriage license after having an affair with a man that got her pregnant and after she divorced her 2nd husband to marry the man to become her 3rd husband (whom she later divorced) based on that County Clerks religious beliefs - that clerk would have been wrong also.


>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

No wonder she is so firm in her beliefs. She was a sinner, then accepted Christ and promised to sin no more . It isn't confusing at all. Once she vowed to commit no further sins she was not free to facilitate sin nor participate.

There is no hypocrisy.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No wonder she is so firm in her beliefs. She was a sinner, then accepted Christ and promised to sin no more . It isn't confusing at all. Once she vowed to commit no further sins she was not free to facilitate sin nor participate.

There is no hypocrisy.

I'm willing to bet that she is suffering from late onset schizophrenia brought about by a profound sence of guilt and despair over the realization that she is a pathetic looser and that she screwed up the lives of so many others.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Even The Heritage Foundation Thinks That Anti-Gay Kentucky Clerk Is Nuts

According to Ryan Anderson, Heritage’s most visible anti-gay voice, Davis is indeed wrong to refuse to issue marriage licenses altogether in order to spite same-sex couples who wish to marry. “The citizens of Rowan County have a right to receive in a timely and efficient manner the various government provisions—including licenses—to which they are entitled,” Anderson writes for one of Heritage’s websites.

Even The Heritage Foundation Thinks That Anti-Gay Kentucky Clerk Is Nuts

 

[RodISHI]

Even The Heritage Foundation Thinks That Anti-Gay Kentucky Clerk Is Nuts

According to Ryan Anderson, Heritage’s most visible anti-gay voice, Davis is indeed wrong to refuse to issue marriage licenses altogether in order to spite same-sex couples who wish to marry. “The citizens of Rowan County have a right to receive in a timely and efficient manner the various government provisions—including licenses—to which they are entitled,” Anderson writes for one of Heritage’s websites.

Even The Heritage Foundation Thinks That Anti-Gay Kentucky Clerk Is Nuts

They are a bunch bought and paid for lacky's so no biggy.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Heads are exploding!! These people would like there to be riots. They predicted riots and demonstration with the passage of same sex marriage too. Not happening. No one but a dwindling number of bigots are getting all in a tither of this.

'There Will Be Blood': Bryan Fischer And Caller Agree The Kim Davis Controversy Is 'A Pivotal Point In American History' Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Thursday, 9/3/2015 3:43 pm

American Family Radio host Bryan Fischer spent the first hour of his radio broadcast today voicing his outrage at the news that Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis had been held in contempt of court and taken into custody for her on-going violation of court rulings ordering the county clerk's office to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. They are however right in saying that it has become an issue among the Republican presidential contenders.

Fischer was not alone it his outrage, as he took a call from a listener who declared that conservatives are tired of "being pushed back to a cliff" and called for "a massive national demonstration of solidarity" with Davis, warning that if ten million people do not come together and "flood Washington, D.C.," then all will be lost. "The media belongs to the Antichrist," the caller said. "We're at the point now where there must be a massive national upheaval. If we cannot have it, I will predict, I will prophesy to you, there will be blood and it will be massive." Fischer agreed, declaring that "this is a pivotal point in American history" and asserting that Davis will "wind up being the person on which American history turns."

Asserting that this is proof that "every advance of the homosexual agenda comes at the expense of religious liberty," Fischer proclaimed that every GOP presidential candidate must now be "pushed to the wall, backed into a corner" and forced to state a position on the controversy because this issue is now "the dividing line in the GOP nomination campaign." -

See more at: 'There Will Be Blood': Bryan Fischer And Caller Agree The Kim Davis Controversy Is 'A Pivotal Point In American History'

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Paul Brandeis Raushenbush

Executive Editor Of Global Spirituality and Religion, The Huffington Post


No, Kim Davis Is Not Martin Luther King, Jr.

America's history is filled with religious people, with the deep conviction that they are acting under the authority of God, promoting ideas that in retrospect seem impossibly oppressive. Kim Davis has already become a symbol for what is euphemistically called "Freedom of Religion," which unfortunately in recent times has just become code for anti-LGBT bigotry. Instead of striving for a more inclusive world, she is going to jail in her desire to exclude. Instead of seeking justice for all, she was the obstacle to justice for gay couples. Her actions, although she claims they are guided by God and love, have bruised and hurt the very people she was elected to serve. If your love feels like hate then it is not love. If you are using God to denigrate and humiliate then it is not God.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No wonder she is so firm in her beliefs. She was a sinner, then accepted Christ and promised to sin no more . It isn't confusing at all. Once she vowed to commit no further sins she was not free to facilitate sin nor participate.

There is no hypocrisy.

No Hypocrisy?? How about this then? Read this and then tell us again how it's about religious freedom and not about bigotry towards gays.

Bobby Jindal's Amazing Hypocrisy On The Kentucky Clerk Case Submitted by Brian Tashman on Thursday, 9/3/2015 12:45 pm - See more at: Bobby Jindal's Amazing Hypocrisy On The Kentucky Clerk Case

While Jindal has made a point of rallying against the (non-existent) imposition of Islamic religious law in Western Europe, the Republican leader hailed clerk Kim Davis for citing her personal beliefs on biblical law and God’s judgment as a reason to flout U.S. law on marriage, .........

However, Jindal was positively outraged when a Louisiana justice of the peace “refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple” in clear defiance of the law because he had a personal objection to such unions, telling reporters that he does not “believe in mixing the races that way.” The case, which occurred in 2009, made national news, and Jindal came out with a strong statement demanding that the official either follow the law or lose his job, dismissing his personal objection: - See more at: Bobby Jindal's Amazing Hypocrisy On The Kentucky Clerk Case

Now, lets see if you, or anyone else here is defending Davis can be honest. Did the person who refused to marry an interracial couple have the same religious rights as Davis? . Yes or no and if no, why not?