Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

[Barb]

His "father" beat him brutally, that's why he ran away, and that's why it was necessary for Milk to pose as a guardian to help him in a legal matter. The truth means nothing to Sil, less than nothing.

So, one of Milk's teen victims, this one a minor, ran from a man who beat him to the streets and as such Seawytch sees him as a "hustler" on drugs who nobody but Harvey Milk should or would or did give a shit about. And so, because Milk took him in to sodomize as a minor, given his sexual orientation towards "young waifs with substance abuse problems", Milk is the hero and did not add to McKinley's young troubled life?

What I'm seeing between the lines here is justification of sexual predation on troubled youth. Sorry, it's just hard to see it any other way.

Noted are the apologies for his behavior by the faithful who have elevated him to iconic status. I think what he did to teen runaways with mental and substance abuse issues [by his preference], one after the other and the elevation of his "sexual preference" by LGBTers as iconic of their movement is going to at least create a tiny ripple when discussing of people who apologize for his behavior in the present day should have access to adoptable orphans...

I owe you another neg, but it'll take a couple of days.

"should" is an outright fabrication on your part, as is "one after the other," and the plural in most of your ponderings, making it hard to keep up with the red you're due.

Can SOMEONE help me out here?

 

[Seawytch]

Again, I don't understand why this thread has become a "try and defend Harvey Milk" thread. It's about holding a gay day at Disney.

It's an attempt to paint homosexuals with the broad-brush of pedophilia and raping minors.



Isn't that obvious?





>>>>

Works in this thread too

 

[Silhouette]

No, this thread isn't about Gay Days at Disney per se. But they are a point of interest when considering the big picture and exposing children to an inappropriate sexual cult.

Here's what we are discussing. Gays vs Utah, remember?

A FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS IT EH ? What would people do without the feds becoming their mouth piece, and the feds doing this out of total fear of political/party retrobution these days ?

Actually, the church of LGBT is going to run into a very difficult run with that one. In DOMA/Windsor, the Court spelled out quite clearly that the decision about gay marriages was to be the "unquestioned authority" of each state via the broadest weigh-in possible, via "consensus" as they said. And they said so retroactive to the founding of the country, and I quote, "in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended". That is Court-speak for laymen that says "do not question this finding, for it is constitutional and now the law of the land".

The rogue officials in California, who are both fully versed in legal interpretations of judgments, knew full well this was the case and went ahead and defied that spirit of the law by ordering court clerks to defy their oaths of office and issue illegal "marriage licenses" to people who like to pretend to reproduce with other people of the same gender.

The only way a state does not have this constitutional right to a wide consensus on gay marriage is if the 14th applies to the church of LGBT, but not say, polygamists, who would surely come on their heels in a nanosecond before the ink is even dry on a Decision granting an override via the 14th..

Yet in Windsor, the Court brought up Loving v Virginia, the mainstay of the church's hopes of forcing what they do as "marriage" upon the governed. And even after bringing up Loving, found anyway that so-called "gay marriage" is within the exclusive boundaries of each state via wide consensus and NOT judicial activism/tyranny. In essence, therefore, the Court has already subjected gay marriage to the 14th and found it lacking. It instead compared gay marriage to oddball marriages such as close blood relations or 13 year olds marrying in New Hampshire.

ie: the prognosis for rogue officials claiming they weren't in flagrant contempt of the US Supreme Court because they thought the 14th applied to guarantee gay marriage in their state in spite of the duly-enacted and so recently constitutionally-protected right to consensus on gay marriage, is very poor indeed. Instead it is as it appears: sedition of the People's right to govern themselves. And as they say, heads will roll...

Most recent and flagrant of all the contempts of Court and sedition is AG Eric Holder flipping the middle finger to Windsor and declaring essentially martial law on approving gay marriage across the 50 states in spite of what those states do or do not want. I find it very interesting that gays declared "victory!" when it was found the fed could not lay claim to defining gay marriage as legal or not in DOMA/Windsor. And then they nearly instantly turn around through their puppet Eric Holder and claim that now all of a sudden, the fed has 'unquestioned authority' to define gay marriage as legal, at its whim...

You see a lot of this hypocrisy going on in a fascist movement. Study your history books for it is happening directly in front of your eyes today: http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...the-supreme-court-s-effective-castration.html

 

[beagle9]

No, this thread isn't about Gay Days at Disney per se. But they are a point of interest when considering the big picture and exposing children to an inappropriate sexual cult.

Here's what we are discussing. Gays vs Utah, remember?

A FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS IT EH ? What would people do without the feds becoming their mouth piece, and the feds doing this out of total fear of political/party retrobution these days ?

Actually, the church of LGBT is going to run into a very difficult run with that one. In DOMA/Windsor, the Court spelled out quite clearly that the decision about gay marriages was to be the "unquestioned authority" of each state via the broadest weigh-in possible, via "consensus" as they said. And they said so retroactive to the founding of the country, and I quote, "in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended". That is Court-speak for laymen that says "do not question this finding, for it is constitutional and now the law of the land".

The rogue officials in California, who are both fully versed in legal interpretations of judgments, knew full well this was the case and went ahead and defied that spirit of the law by ordering court clerks to defy their oaths of office and issue illegal "marriage licenses" to people who like to pretend to reproduce with other people of the same gender.

The only way a state does not have this constitutional right to a wide consensus on gay marriage is if the 14th applies to the church of LGBT, but not say, polygamists, who would surely come on their heels in a nanosecond before the ink is even dry on a Decision granting an override via the 14th..

Yet in Windsor, the Court brought up Loving v Virginia, the mainstay of the church's hopes of forcing what they do as "marriage" upon the governed. And even after bringing up Loving, found anyway that so-called "gay marriage" is within the exclusive boundaries of each state via wide consensus and NOT judicial activism/tyranny. In essence, therefore, the Court has already subjected gay marriage to the 14th and found it lacking. It instead compared gay marriage to oddball marriages such as close blood relations or 13 year olds marrying in New Hampshire.

ie: the prognosis for rogue officials claiming they weren't in flagrant contempt of the US Supreme Court because they thought the 14th applied to guarantee gay marriage in their state in spite of the duly-enacted and so recently constitutionally-protected right to consensus on gay marriage, is very poor indeed. Instead it is as it appears: sedition of the People's right to govern themselves. And as they say, heads will roll...

Most recent and flagrant of all the contempts of Court and sedition is AG Eric Holder flipping the middle finger to Windsor and declaring essentially martial law on approving gay marriage across the 50 states in spite of what those states do or do not want. I find it very interesting that gays declared "victory!" when it was found the fed could not lay claim to defining gay marriage as legal or not in DOMA/Windsor. And then they nearly instantly turn around through their puppet Eric Holder and claim that now all of a sudden, the fed has 'unquestioned authority' to define gay marriage as legal, at its whim...

You see a lot of this hypocrisy going on in a fascist movement. Study your history books for it is happening directly in front of your eyes today: http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...the-supreme-court-s-effective-castration.html

It's a tough issue for those who may feel trapped in something they can't so easily get out of or may not want to get out of (the celebrating of someone that they should not be celebrating or had been allowed to represent them), so instead of reviewing this material themselves as educational or something in which they may want to know about, umm they feel they need to defend against it because it's all they can do now from their situations, unions or clubs in which they find themselves in, and this to be celebrating or to be represented by such a person as this Milk character who is bad. Not Good.

Not saying that people are guilty of anything bad themselves (breaking the laws and such) or being bad people as individuals, but rather one would figure that they would want to separate from any of those people or any celebrations for those who are guilty of bad things in their lives wouldn't you think ?

To embrace bad things or bad people is surely a bad thing, and it could represent easily the spirit of the person's doing it also, or it could represent even a group or a club that does these sorts of things as a unit, and this rather than to separate from the bad as they should be doing in accordance with most common sense thinkers upon all matters that are being dealt with like these issues or matters that are then dealt with normally.

All people's need to understand that bad is not ever your friend or ally, but rather it is instead the ultimate enemy in ones life. The proof of that is passed down through the generations, and also in time yet again and again, but each time people seem to forget about it, and then they have to be schooled yet again and again before they finally wake back up to it. Separate from bad people and bad things, I mean that's everyone's only hope in life, but also recognize a change for good when one see's it because people can learn something new, and possibly they can get away from bad people or bad things in life, and if so then people should always open the door up to that change when it occurs for the better, but still yet always lean on the side of caution I'd say. Trust is another important thing, and it should always be earned, and it should not be something that is just a given anymore because someone ask for it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your compassion for the plight of homeless/orphaned runaway teens is noted for the record Seawytch... You're a lesbian, right? A proud member of LGBT nation, yes? And a parent of some two or three kids. Didn't you give away a son or two to a pair of gay men? I think that's what you said before. Something about a deal you had with some gay men where they kept one of the boy twins you had and you kept the other?

Jack Mckinley, the "homeless hustler" that nobody should "give a shit about" was 16, not 17, the key difference [as you know already] between his being a legal minor in the state of New York where Milk began sodomizing him.

So, once again, you are making excuses for the inexcusable. Why do you keep lying about how old Jack McKinley was when Milk began sodomizing him? Milk was 33 and McKinley was 16. The place: New York NY. The age of consent: 17. Is that why you keep lying about it? So it doesn't look like statutory rape?

And Jack McKinley's life was complicated. Like many teen boys with troubled home lives that run away, he turned to whatever he could to make money, and was addicted to drugs and quite hopeless. He struggled with suicidal thoughts all the time. Do you think Milk was taken advantage of by McKinley or the other way around? Note the age difference, and Milk's professed sexual appetite for "young waifs with substance abuse problems.."

What McKinley needed was a father figure who didn't bend him over at the waist for his jollies. McKinley needed a good home without abuse. But instead he found Harvey Milk and this final straw on his back caused him to jump to his death on Milk's birthday in NYNY where Milk began sodomizing him as a minor. McKinley and the dozens of other teen boys on drugs that Milk found his jollies with was nothing more than a wad of kleenex to Milk. Once the boy [then grown into a man/unacceptable sex partner beyond its shelf life] called Milk after Milk dumped him for fresher meat. McKinley was suicidal, missing his father/sodomizer. Milk told the person who answered the phone and was relaying the message, "tell him not to make a mess" [when he committed suicide] and then hung up on the Jack McKinley.

Since McKinley jumped to his death from a tall structure, I imagine he made quite a mess. You know how boys can be so rebellious towards their fathers...

How sad for the boy. But you have not made a case for not allowing marriage equality. We all know of cases of grown heterosexual men and women who preyed on girls and boys as well. The point is that Milk was a predator who should have delivered to the law.

And yet the cases of men and women who preyed on girls and boys sexually did not include those criminals being elevated to icon status [see the postage stamp of Harvey Milk with rainbow "USA" at the top and the California law avowing him as the "embodiment of the LGBT movement across the nation and the world" requiring elementary school children to celebrate his sexual-political "achievements" each May 22nd]. Whereas society shuns and marginalizes those criminals in all other cases, over 60 LGBT organizations in US, Mexico and Canada, knowing his biography and the sex crimes against teens therein, lobbied to have his stamp commemorated with a rainbow 'USA' at the top.

You are trying to separate the church of LGBT from its messiah while they simultaneously and conspicuously embrace him as their icon. Are you saying the elephant in the living room "just isn't there"? Or are you going to try to argue that the rainbow USA at the top of the Harvey Milk stamp was just some random assignment of colors; not indicative of association with the LGBT cult?

BTW, what do you think, Jake, of Seawytch's assessment of the boy Harvey Milk raped as a minor as a boy that nobody should give a shit about to bother prosecuting Milk for? Your thoughts? Comments?

You have no idea if the associations knew Milk's predatory ways, do you?

And that is not what Seawytch said. Your propensity for fabrication is why you are not taken seriously.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why am I not surprised that you missed the point. Nobody but Milk seemed to give a shit about the young man. He wasn't some innocent that Milk took advantage of, he was a street hustler. Do you even care why he was homeless and a hustler to begin with? No, because it doesn't fit your stupid narrative.

I think I went into great detail about how and why I care about young Jack McKinley, suicidal, homeless and turning tricks to stay alive at 16,..taken in by Harvey Milk acting as his "father" while simultaneously sodomizing him...adding to the mountain of mental issues Jack had instead of helping alleviate them as a father figure should.

You are also going into how much you 'care' about the plight of young homeless teens Seawytch. Thanks for sharing again.

No, you don't care about young Jack at all, as you fail in trying to make him and Harvey the face of a campaign that is going nowhere.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now this...this has to do with Marriage Equality. Kentucky just became a state I am legally married in. ******* awesome! Kentucky is really going to town with the Affordable Care Act too. I never thought I'd be adding Kentucky to my list of potential retirement spots, but it's a purdy state and they can't discriminate against me anymore. ******* awesome!!!

Federal Judge: Kentucky Must Recognize Same-Sex Marriages From Other States

Other than those discussed above, the Court cannot conceive of any reasons for enacting the laws challenged here. Even if one were to conclude that Kentucky’s laws do not show animus, they cannot withstand traditional rational basis review.

A FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS IT EH ? What would people do without the feds becoming their mouth piece, and the feds doing this out of total fear of political/party retrobution these days ?

The electorate cannot remove civil rights, beagle9.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I commend Seawytch and Barb for the continuing mission in unraveling the filibabble offered up by Sil and beagle.

 

[Flopper]

Yes, he should have been prosecuted for statutory rape. Of course, someone would have had to give a big enough shit about a 17 year old homeless hustler living on the streets, to press charges.

Your compassion for the plight of homeless/orphaned runaway teens is noted for the record Seawytch... You're a lesbian, right? A proud member of LGBT nation, yes? And a parent of some two or three kids. Didn't you give away a son or two to a pair of gay men? I think that's what you said before. Something about a deal you had with some gay men where they kept one of the boy twins you had and you kept the other?

Jack Mckinley, the "homeless hustler" that nobody should "give a shit about" was 16, not 17, the key difference [as you know already] between his being a legal minor in the state of New York where Milk began sodomizing him.

So, once again, you are making excuses for the inexcusable. Why do you keep lying about how old Jack McKinley was when Milk began sodomizing him? Milk was 33 and McKinley was 16. The place: New York NY. The age of consent: 17. Is that why you keep lying about it? So it doesn't look like statutory rape?

And Jack McKinley's life was complicated. Like many teen boys with troubled home lives that run away, he turned to whatever he could to make money, and was addicted to drugs and quite hopeless. He struggled with suicidal thoughts all the time. Do you think Milk was taken advantage of by McKinley or the other way around? Note the age difference, and Milk's professed sexual appetite for "young waifs with substance abuse problems.."

What McKinley needed was a father figure who didn't bend him over at the waist for his jollies. McKinley needed a good home without abuse. But instead he found Harvey Milk and this final straw on his back caused him to jump to his death on Milk's birthday in NYNY where Milk began sodomizing him as a minor. McKinley and the dozens of other teen boys on drugs that Milk found his jollies with was nothing more than a wad of kleenex to Milk. Once the boy [then grown into a man/unacceptable sex partner beyond its shelf life] called Milk after Milk dumped him for fresher meat. McKinley was suicidal, missing his father/sodomizer. Milk told the person who answered the phone and was relaying the message, "tell him not to make a mess" [when he committed suicide] and then hung up on the Jack McKinley.

Since McKinley jumped to his death from a tall structure, I imagine he made quite a mess. You know how boys can be so rebellious towards their fathers...

How sad for the boy. But you have not made a case for not allowing marriage equality. We all know of cases of grown heterosexual men and women who preyed on girls and boys as well. The point is that Milk was a predator who should have delivered to the law.

Milk is respected by Gays because he was the first openly gay person to be elected to office and became a catalysts for the lesbian and gay movement which of course is why he is hated by the homophobes. Like many political leaders, he is respected not because of his shortcoming but because of what he accomplished.

 

[Silhouette]

No, you don't care about young Jack at all, as you fail in trying to make him and Harvey the face of a campaign that is going nowhere.

I take issue with that pal. I knew a "Jack McKinley". I knew a boy who was abused [sexually in his case] as an adolescent by a man. He grew up so confused, falling in love with women but only able to express himself sexually as he was imprinted: gay. He had no access to help. Even in those days the APA was well overtaken by the gay cabal that runs it now. So he became more and more compulsive trying to anesthetize the pain with promiscuous sexual encounters with other men.

Naturally he got HIV. His unresolved anger compelled him to go out and not tell a soul while he infected as many other partners in his unresolved mental illness and suicidal/murderous lifestyle. He died after suffering horribly with AIDS in the mid 1990s but not before he surely sentenced 100's or maybe 1000s to die the same way as he did.

The roots of gayness need to be understood and NOT brushed aside as "born that way" with a Mt. Everest of evidence to the contrary. This is a fad, an insidious lifestyle passed on as the older survivors of child assault induct new members without thought to what they're doing, where they came from or where it is all going.

DON'T YOU EVER tell me I don't care about tortured adolescents like Jack McKinley. My Jack McKinley was a tragic and horrible tale of childhood sexual abuse, just like Harvey Milk suffered and then expressed as he grew old to a new group of victims.

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

Mayo Clinic 2007

One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.
This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”
or “abused-abusers phenomena.”
5,23,24,46...

...
why the “abused abusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,
in which the abused child is trying to gain a new
identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual
arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse
leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review

James G. Pfaus,1 Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf

 

[beagle9]

Now this...this has to do with Marriage Equality. Kentucky just became a state I am legally married in. ******* awesome! Kentucky is really going to town with the Affordable Care Act too. I never thought I'd be adding Kentucky to my list of potential retirement spots, but it's a purdy state and they can't discriminate against me anymore. ******* awesome!!!

Federal Judge: Kentucky Must Recognize Same-Sex Marriages From Other States

Other than those discussed above, the Court cannot conceive of any reasons for enacting the laws challenged here. Even if one were to conclude that Kentucky’s laws do not show animus, they cannot withstand traditional rational basis review.

A FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS IT EH ? What would people do without the feds becoming their mouth piece, and the feds doing this out of total fear of political/party retrobution these days ?

The electorate cannot remove civil rights, beagle9.

But it's not a civil rights issue is it, otherwise as with the core of what the civil rights issue had represented back in the 60's right ? Some may think so or want to think so, but how many think that way I wonder, and how many don't think that way I wonder ? Movements can attach themselves to just about anything I'm thinking, but does it stick is the question still out there looming for many ? How does everyone get satisfaction without abusing one another in such things, especially if the people opposed are not to be considered in the deal ? How is it that the feds tend to want to rule as a dictator in these things, instead of being a fair and just representative of the people anymore ? What are the feds up against in these things anymore, and why are they up against such things anymore, where as they feel they have to force people instead of getting some kind of better plan for all to somehow live with in such things ?

The feds ruling as dictator is a bad thing, and it seems the people are teaching them exactly how to do this these days.

 

[beagle9]

Your compassion for the plight of homeless/orphaned runaway teens is noted for the record Seawytch... You're a lesbian, right? A proud member of LGBT nation, yes? And a parent of some two or three kids. Didn't you give away a son or two to a pair of gay men? I think that's what you said before. Something about a deal you had with some gay men where they kept one of the boy twins you had and you kept the other?

Jack Mckinley, the "homeless hustler" that nobody should "give a shit about" was 16, not 17, the key difference [as you know already] between his being a legal minor in the state of New York where Milk began sodomizing him.

So, once again, you are making excuses for the inexcusable. Why do you keep lying about how old Jack McKinley was when Milk began sodomizing him? Milk was 33 and McKinley was 16. The place: New York NY. The age of consent: 17. Is that why you keep lying about it? So it doesn't look like statutory rape?

And Jack McKinley's life was complicated. Like many teen boys with troubled home lives that run away, he turned to whatever he could to make money, and was addicted to drugs and quite hopeless. He struggled with suicidal thoughts all the time. Do you think Milk was taken advantage of by McKinley or the other way around? Note the age difference, and Milk's professed sexual appetite for "young waifs with substance abuse problems.."

What McKinley needed was a father figure who didn't bend him over at the waist for his jollies. McKinley needed a good home without abuse. But instead he found Harvey Milk and this final straw on his back caused him to jump to his death on Milk's birthday in NYNY where Milk began sodomizing him as a minor. McKinley and the dozens of other teen boys on drugs that Milk found his jollies with was nothing more than a wad of kleenex to Milk. Once the boy [then grown into a man/unacceptable sex partner beyond its shelf life] called Milk after Milk dumped him for fresher meat. McKinley was suicidal, missing his father/sodomizer. Milk told the person who answered the phone and was relaying the message, "tell him not to make a mess" [when he committed suicide] and then hung up on the Jack McKinley.

Since McKinley jumped to his death from a tall structure, I imagine he made quite a mess. You know how boys can be so rebellious towards their fathers...

How sad for the boy. But you have not made a case for not allowing marriage equality. We all know of cases of grown heterosexual men and women who preyed on girls and boys as well. The point is that Milk was a predator who should have delivered to the law.

Milk is respected by Gays because he was the first openly gay person to be elected to office and became a catalysts for the lesbian and gay movement which of course is why he is hated by the homophobes. Like many political leaders, he is respected not because of his shortcoming but because of what he accomplished.

Tell that to Penn State.. Did they do the right thing or not Flopper ?

 

[Flopper]

How sad for the boy. But you have not made a case for not allowing marriage equality. We all know of cases of grown heterosexual men and women who preyed on girls and boys as well. The point is that Milk was a predator who should have delivered to the law.

Milk is respected by Gays because he was the first openly gay person to be elected to office and became a catalysts for the lesbian and gay movement which of course is why he is hated by the homophobes. Like many political leaders, he is respected not because of his shortcoming but because of what he accomplished.

Tell that to Penn State.. Did they do the right thing or not Flopper ?

Penn State??

 

[beagle9]

Milk is respected by Gays because he was the first openly gay person to be elected to office and became a catalysts for the lesbian and gay movement which of course is why he is hated by the homophobes. Like many political leaders, he is respected not because of his shortcoming but because of what he accomplished.

Tell that to Penn State.. Did they do the right thing or not Flopper ?

Penn State??

You known the deal, or wait maybe you need to catch up by reading back just a little bit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Now this...this has to do with Marriage Equality. Kentucky just became a state I am legally married in. ******* awesome! Kentucky is really going to town with the Affordable Care Act too. I never thought I'd be adding Kentucky to my list of potential retirement spots, but it's a purdy state and they can't discriminate against me anymore. ******* awesome!!!

Federal Judge: Kentucky Must Recognize Same-Sex Marriages From Other States

Other than those discussed above, the Court cannot conceive of any reasons for enacting the laws challenged here. Even if one were to conclude that Kentucky’s laws do not show animus, they cannot withstand traditional rational basis review.

A FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS IT EH ? What would people do without the feds becoming their mouth piece, and the feds doing this out of total fear of political/party retrobution these days ?

No, Federal judges are following the Constitution and its case law.

And Federal judges wouldn’t need to get involved if the states themselves would only start following the Constitution and its case law.

When the states seek to deny citizens their civil liberties, however, as in this case with gay Americans, citizens have the First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances in the Federal courts; and when judges in those courts review the laws and find them to be offensive to the Founding Document, they invalidate them accordingly.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS IT EH ? What would people do without the feds becoming their mouth piece, and the feds doing this out of total fear of political/party retrobution these days ?

The electorate cannot remove civil rights, beagle9.

But it's not a civil rights issue is it, otherwise as with the core of what the civil rights issue had represented back in the 60's right ? Some may think so or want to think so, but how many think that way I wonder, and how many don't think that way I wonder ? Movements can attach themselves to just about anything I'm thinking, but does it stick is the question still out there looming for many ? How does everyone get satisfaction without abusing one another in such things, especially if the people opposed are not to be considered in the deal ? How is it that the feds tend to want to rule as a dictator in these things, instead of being a fair and just representative of the people anymore ? What are the feds up against in these things anymore, and why are they up against such things anymore, where as they feel they have to force people instead of getting some kind of better plan for all to somehow live with in such things ?

The feds ruling as dictator is a bad thing, and it seems the people are teaching them exactly how to do this these days.

It is in fact a civil rights issue, gay Americans were fighting for their civil liberties during the 60s and before.

And the struggle for civil rights continues to this day, the struggle has not been ‘ended’ nor ‘resolved.’ African-Americans are being forced again to defend their right to vote, women continue to be subject to attacks on their right to privacy by conservative lawmakers, and gay Americans continue to seek their comprehensive civil rights.

This ruling concerning Kentucky is another positive step in the right direction.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Tell that to Penn State.. Did they do the right thing or not Flopper ?

Penn State??

You known the deal, or wait maybe you need to catch up by reading back just a little bit.

The Penn State child abuse scandal has nothing to do with this issue, Jerry Sandusky wasn’t gay – in fact, most pedophiles are heterosexual.

 

[beagle9]

Now this...this has to do with Marriage Equality. Kentucky just became a state I am legally married in. ******* awesome! Kentucky is really going to town with the Affordable Care Act too. I never thought I'd be adding Kentucky to my list of potential retirement spots, but it's a purdy state and they can't discriminate against me anymore. ******* awesome!!!

Federal Judge: Kentucky Must Recognize Same-Sex Marriages From Other States

Other than those discussed above, the Court cannot conceive of any reasons for enacting the laws challenged here. Even if one were to conclude that Kentucky’s laws do not show animus, they cannot withstand traditional rational basis review.

A FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS IT EH ? What would people do without the feds becoming their mouth piece, and the feds doing this out of total fear of political/party retrobution these days ?

No, Federal judges are following the Constitution and its case law.

And Federal judges wouldn’t need to get involved if the states themselves would only start following the Constitution and its case law.

When the states seek to deny citizens their civil liberties, however, as in this case with gay Americans, citizens have the First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances in the Federal courts; and when judges in those courts review the laws and find them to be offensive to the Founding Document, they invalidate them accordingly.

It all still falls under the interpretations of the documents, the law and the cases at hand, and all cases are not the same, even though some try and tie them into the others for strengthening their positions in these ways. However, they still have to get a judge to buy into it, and these days there seems to be no end to activist judges who rule with emotion instead of by proper interpretation of the law or the laws in which they were written, and also as they were written in the spirit for which they were written in at different times in which we all know of. Now some things were just plain wrong back in the day, but there were many a thing that was just plain right as well. Now it seems that everything is on the table, even if it isn't right for them to be laid upon the table as equal to the others that are also there, but that is how it is being done now isn't it ?

A smart lawyer or attorney could stand just about anything on it's head these days, and these weak activist federal judges will just about believe or buy into anything these days.

 

[beagle9]

Penn State??

You known the deal, or wait maybe you need to catch up by reading back just a little bit.

The Penn State child abuse scandal has nothing to do with this issue, Jerry Sandusky wasn’t gay – in fact, most pedophiles are heterosexual.

Again read back or don't speak on something out of it's context please. Thanks !

 

[Silhouette]

The Penn State child abuse scandal has nothing to do with this issue, Jerry Sandusky wasn’t gay – in fact, most pedophiles are heterosexual.

All of Sandusky's victims were male children. Therefore, he was what the Mayo Clinic categorizes as a homosexual pedophile:

Mayo Clinic Special Article 2007

Pedophiles are usually attracted to a particular age range
and/or sex of child. Research categorizes male pedophiles
by whether they are attracted to only male children (homosexual
pedophilia), female children (heterosexual pedophilia),
or children from both sexes (bisexual pedophilia).
3,6,10,29
The percentage of homosexual pedophiles
ranges from 9% to 40%, which is approximately 4 to 20
times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other
adult men http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf